1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 5, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 21

[ Page 8185 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Today I'd like the House to welcome Sharon and Tiana Malone from the Cariboo; and also David, Kristie, Avery, Brock and Kent Richardson from the Rose Lake area in the Cariboo. They're from Cariboo North, but I'm more closely related to them than the member for Cariboo North.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like the House to welcome my very best friend and -- I'm sure everyone will agree -- probably the most patient and understanding woman in the world. Would you please welcome Carmen Farrell-Collins.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted today to introduce Tom Sigurdson and his wife, Cynthia, who are in the gallery. Tom is from Alberta and is retired and visiting here on vacation. I'd ask all members to make him welcome.

D. Jarvis: I'd like everyone to welcome two visitors from northern California: Thurza and Neil Andrew. Would you please make them welcome.

R. Chisholm: It would give me great pleasure if the House would make most welcome Gessie Bloudin from Popkum, which is just before Hope.

J. Beattie: In the chamber today is my wife, Janet Murphy, accompanied by my daughter Carmen Beattie as well as my niece Alison Murphy, my daughter's cousin from London, Ontario. I'd like the House to make them welcome today.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH COUNCIL ACT

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Council Act.

Hon. E. Cull: This bill establishes the Provincial Health Council, which is a key feature of our New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia strategy and a major recommendation from the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. The intent in proposing the creation of the council is to encourage a new understanding of health and the determinants of health in our province and to bring various sectors of society into a process of examining and improving our health status.

The council's job will be to increase public awareness and knowledge of the basic factors that promote or impair health, to set health goals for the province and to monitor our progress toward those goals. The council will make reports to the public on health issues or on the need for changes in practice, policy or legislation respecting health in British Columbia, and it will issue an annual report on the status of health in the province.

Bill 68 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: After reviewing the Hansard Blues from Wednesday's sitting of the Legislature, I would like to reserve my right to move a question of privilege with respect to remarks made by the hon. member for Okanagan West.

The Speaker: So noted.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DEBT

J. Dalton: My question is for the Premier. The Premier and other Premiers of this country -- but not all of them -- were entertained at dinner last evening by the new Prime Minister. At times the script for that dinner sounded like a buildup to Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, but we know that at least our Premier was there.

My specific question for the Premier is: what, if any, definite commitment did you get from the Prime Minister with regard to the federal-provincial debt?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Prime Minister was told by all of the Premiers that the off-loading of the federal deficit onto provincial taxpayers could not be continued, and that the provinces and our taxpayers had reached a point beyond which we could not take further cuts which would harm medicare, the education of our children and the social service network. The Prime Minister was aware of this serious erosion of services and the impact it was having.

In response, the Prime Minister said that during the leadership campaign she made it very clear that she was opposed to further off-loading onto the provinces to deal with the national debt, and she restated that opposition. There is only one taxpayer, and further off-loading doesn't help deal with the real problem, which is to cap and reduce the deficit in a sensible way.

J. Dalton: I'm not sure that I detected a specific response to my specific question. In fact, I might suggest that only two Premiers -- particularly Bob Rae, who chose not to attend the dinner -- looked at this thing realistically. What specific commitment, if any, did the Premier receive from the Prime Minister with regard to this important off-loading issue? With respect, hon. Premier, your statements and platitudes really have not addressed that question.

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Prime Minister restated the position she had taken during the leadership campaign that she didn't think dumping more of the federal deficit on the provincial taxpayers was the way to go. I take the Prime Minister at her word. We'll see what her actions are.

[ Page 8186 ]

J. Dalton: Given the other issues on the table -- other than the cinnamon salmon and strawberries -- I can appreciate that in a three-hour meal the Premier perhaps did not get a satisfactory response. Can the Premier assure this House that the very serious issue of off-loading was addressed last evening and that there will be follow-up?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It depends on whether you take the Prime Minister's words at face value. I happen to do that, and I think the Prime Minister's repeating the position she took very publicly during the leadership campaign is sufficient. We'll see if she lives up to those words. On the other part of the member's question as to whether I can vouch for the Prime Minister, I take the Prime Minister at her word. We'll see what she does now.

CLAYOQUOT SOUND

J. Weisgerber: My question is also for the Premier. The protest by preservationists opposed to the government's plans for logging in the Clayoquot flies in the face of the NDP's promise to end this type of confrontation. Can the Premier explain what happened to the environment and jobs accord that was promised during the last election?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the new approach that has been taken is already bearing excellent results in the Chilcotin. The citizens in the Chilcotin have gotten together and reached a consensus on what should be done in that area.

J. Weisgerber: The Premier promised that he would have his environment and jobs accord in place "within six months to a year after an election." So far we haven't seen anything. Can the Premier tell us if he is relying on Svend Robinson to advise him on plans for the Clayoquot?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Third Party is probably aware -- I hope that his memory goes back this far and that he hasn't blanked out the performance of his government -- that his government established a task force of citizens representing the communities in the Clayoquot area. Some recommendations were put forward by those citizens, and by and large the balance that was taken is represented in the government's very balanced and fair decision in the Clayoquot. The member is probably aware that within approximately two months of forming the government, we established the Commission on Resources and Environment, with Stephen Owen in place -- which is the environment and jobs accord.

J. Weisgerber: People who are relying on jobs in the Clayoquot and other parts of British Columbia are getting sick and tired of the inaction of this government. What specific plans has the Premier taken to end the conflict in the Clayoquot?

Hon. M. Harcourt: In the Clayoquot, we have brought in some of the toughest forestry and logging practices anywhere in the world. On the second major principle of the environment and jobs accord, we have increased the size of Strathcona Park by 40 percent, coming right down to the Pacific Ocean. It's a magnificent new preservation. On the third major principle of the environment and jobs accord, we have now signed an agreement on cost-sharing with the federal government on aboriginal issues. We have established a claims commission and a third-party committee to finally resolve this whole question and put it behind us. All of the elements of the environment and jobs accord are now underway after decades of neglect by the previous government.

CONSTITUENCY OFFICE RECORDS OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Last week, when questioned as to whether the Minister of Finance was in breach of the Employment Standards Act by allowing employee records to be destroyed, the minister said that the act speaks for itself. It sure does. Can the Minister of Labour explain why the Minister of Finance was free to destroy employee records when employers in the private sector under the Employment Standards Acts cannot?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to advise members of the House that no act was broken and all records are available. That member should know. I discussed it with Ted Hughes at 1:15 p.m. today. The Liberal caucus has the Deloitte and Touche report, which shows that only bank records with respect to one line item of the budget are not available. I made that offer to Mr. Hughes and to the accounting firm. The accounting firm said that in their professional judgment, it was not required. I ask that member to withdraw any inference that this member broke any law with respect to this. That member has the report and should know better.

A. Warnke: It's very interesting, because the constituency allowance review made it very clear that there is no paper at all. Surely everyone knows by now....

My next question is for the Attorney General. The Income Tax Act stipulates that records filed in a computer must be backed up by paper records, and the constituency allowance review declared that there was no paper at all. Incidentally, in other cases there were even incomplete notebooks.

The Speaker: Order, please. Thus far, the Chair is having difficulty seeing how this relates to a ministerial responsibility.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I will permit the hon. member to ask his question. But I would caution members, as I did last week, to address 

[ Page 8187 ]

ministerial responsibility in these questions. I ask the member now to continue with his question.

A. Warnke: My questions actually pertain to the very integrity of a Crown minister's job, and that's the reason I'm exploring it here.

To the attorney general: why is the Attorney General not concerned that standards and penalties which normally apply to taxpayers are not applied in this particular case to the Minister of Finance?

Hon. G. Clark: I understand that members opposite may not have read the Deloitte and Touche report on Wednesday, but they should have by today -- assuming, of course, that they can read. The Deloitte and Touche report says that the cancelled cheques are unavailable only with respect to telephone and hydro bills. They are available at the credit union; that offer was made to the accounting firm. The accounting firm said that in their professional opinion it was not required to retrieve those documents; they are still available at the bank. All documents are available with respect to this matter. Mr. Hughes and the accountants have clearly exonerated all members with respect to their honesty and integrity in handling government payroll and constituency allowances. That record speaks for itself. It is scurrilous in the extreme for members opposite to be drawing inferences with respect to that report that aren't substantiated.

A. Warnke: I find it interesting: questions went to the Minister of Labour and to the Attorney General, neither of which fall under the purview of the Minister of Finance. Suddenly the Minister of Finance finds it in his purview to describe everything.

I'll try a final supplementary to the Premier now. To maintain the integrity of record-keeping within the Finance ministry, and the very integrity of the Crown minister, will the Premier take whatever initiative he can in this particular case and conduct an investigation to at least clear this Minister of Finance?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Hughes has done that. The attacks by the member opposite on a fellow member are reprehensible.

G. Farrell-Collins: Once again, we see a complete abdication of responsibility by the Premier. If the Minister of Labour won't conduct an investigation into contravention of the Employment Standards Act -- because those records are not kept in the place of business -- will the Premier direct the Minister of Labour to conduct that investigation? The Minister of Finance has clearly contravened the Employment Standards Act.

Despite his indignation, the Minister of Finance made no comment about the print records on file in his constituency office, as the act requires under sections 10 and 40. Will the Minister of Labour conduct a review as it relates to the Employment Standards Act, something neither Mr. Hughes nor Deloitte and Touche had anything to do with? If he won't do it, will the Premier order him to do it?

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe the question was directed to me.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should familiarize himself with the provisions of the Employment Standards Act before he stands up in this House and embarrasses himself once again.

G. Farrell-Collins: Every single business person in this province is wondering why they have to keep records under sections 10 and 40 of the Employment Standards Act, but the Minister of Finance doesn't. Why is there one standard for this government and another standard for the rest of the people in British Columbia? Will the Minister of Labour conduct an investigation to determine if the apparent violation of the Employment Standards Act in fact exists?

Hon. M. Sihota: Earlier the hon. member suggested there was a violation. Because he wants to cover himself when he goes outside seeking his headlines, he is now calling it "apparent." In any event, instead of trying to figure out how to frame a question to get a headline, if the hon. member took the time to read the act, study its interpretation and analyze its application, he would fully understand why he is embarrassing himself by asking these kinds of questions in this chamber and demonstrating a clear lack of understanding with regard to the legislation in question.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. Day after day there seem to be objections or interjections from the Chair when we're asking a minister a question on a specific issue. Perhaps the Speaker could give some guidance to the opposition on what the problem is with asking a minister a question that clearly falls within the legislation they're supposed to enforce.

The Speaker: Thank you for that point of order, hon. member. The Chair is glad to clarify that all questions should always fall within the ministerial responsibility of the minister.

Is this a new point of order, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes. As you've told us numerous times during this session, points of orders are to be raised after question period. Quite clearly there was an interjection when the member for Richmond-Steveston was asking the Attorney General a question and again when the Minister of Labour was asked one; both times those interjections came from the Chair. Can the Speaker explain why those interjections were necessary?

The Speaker: The Chair has already answered the first point of order. It appears that the second point of order is really entering into debate with the Chair. As 

[ Page 8188 ]

members know, if there are further discussions that members wish to have with the Chair, the Chair is always available to do that. Otherwise the Chair has ruled in this case.

[2:30]

Hon. A. Hagen: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Hagen: Visiting us today are John and Dawn Powell, and their daughters Daphne and Scott Powell, from Kelowna. Since they don't get here very often and they're good friends to many people in the chamber, I want to take this opportunity on behalf of all of us to welcome them today.

PURCHASE OF VEHICLES FOR GOVERNMENT USE

Hon. L. Boone: I'd like to respond to a question taken on notice on my behalf by the Premier last Monday, June 28, with regard to the purchase of economical, primary four-cylinder vehicles by the government. My response to the member is that this government is committed to saving money wherever possible, including using the most fuel-efficient and economical vehicles to meet our operational requirements. This year approximately 80 percent of our purchases were light to medium trucks for use in situations where four-cylinder-powered vehicles were not available or well suited to the application. We purchased 190 cars, of which 90 were equipped with four-cylinder engines.

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I rise to answer a question taken on notice by the Premier on June 10 from the member for Peace River South. I would point out that the question was lost in the files and not the member.

The question was:

"My question is to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Minister of Transportation and Highways has indicated that he doesn't believe the privatization of highways maintenance has been cost-effective. How does the Premier expect British Columbians to believe that the review that has been ordered will be impartial and fair, given the prejudice that the minister has already shown toward the review?"

With respect to this, I have always stated that it was not clear to me whether privatization had or had not been financially beneficial to the province. I am approaching this inquiry with an open mind, which I might say is more than how the previous administration approached the whole question.

Hon. A. Charbonneau tabled the 1992-93 annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Committee on Bill 35, hon. Speaker.

LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 35; R. Kasper in the chair.

On section 10, section 59 (continued).

L. Fox: I just have a point of clarification. I thought the next order of business was the handout.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Let's finish section 59, then we'll go back to that.

Interjection.

L. Fox: No, the amendment was voted on.

The Chair: Did the member for Prince George-Omineca have an amendment to this section on the order paper?

L. Fox: Yes, that's correct, but the earlier amendment on the order paper was the preferred one. Given the discussion during the debate of that section -- the minister was going to look at the time frames over the course of the next section -- I would suggest that the next amendment that stands in my name on the order paper not be called at this point.

Section 10, section 59 approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would beg the indulgence of the House and move that Bill 35 be recommitted with respect to section 10 as it proposes to enact new sections 51 and 52 of the Municipal Act.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: With leave, we'll move back to sections 51(1) and 52(1). There have been recommendations in the last few days that we have to make some changes. I suggest to my hon. colleagues that the reason we're doing it is that there has been a question raised. If you're 18 on election day, there is currently some ambiguity about you being able to vote on election day. We're just deleting the word "next," and that takes care of it. So if you turn 18 on election day, November 20 of this year, you can vote.

The Chair: Is leave granted?

C. Tanner: Could the Chairman advise the committee as to the process that the minister is adopting here? He's opening up a part of the act that we've already passed in committee. Am I correct?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

[ Page 8189 ]

C. Tanner: And he's asking leave to do that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.

C. Tanner: Could the Chairman advise whether this has been done in previous bills? It certainly hasn't been done in the two years I've been in the House. Has it been done in committee before?

The Chair: Hon. members, we're dealing with section 10. We're dealing with the subsections seriatim for the convenience of the committee and the members. Section 10 has not been completed yet. So I asked earlier if leave shall be granted to go back to sections 51(1) and 52(1). Shall leave be granted?

C. Tanner: Could the Chairman advise the committee what action he will take if leave is not granted?

The Chair: Hon. member, that's hypothetical. I've called the question: shall leave be granted?

The member rises on what point?

C. Tanner: On the same point, Mr. Chairman. When you're asking us for leave, I think I am in order in asking what will happen if I don't grant it. I want to know what will happen. I don't think that's a hypothetical question; it's a very practical question.

The Chair: The member for Prince George-Omineca on a point of order.

L. Fox: I recognize the need for the changes. I'm more concerned about precedent. Section 10 is of considerable length. If we go over to another day, and if another member of the House should want to refer back to a similar section for similar reasons while section 10 is still under discussion, I would only hope that the House and the Chair would give similar consideration. If we grant leave at this point, my only concern is that the process opens it up for a similar request later on in the section.

C. Tanner: When the question is put again, I'm going to vote aye. But I want to make the point that in the past when we've tried to look back at something we've already considered, we haven't been allowed to. I'm saying that if this is good enough for the government, it should be good enough for the opposition in future. I don't think that the point I am making is unreasonable.

Leave granted.

On section 10, sections 51 and 52.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment to section 10, standing in my name in the hands of the Clerk of the House, that "next" be deleted in the proposed section 51(1)(a) in the Municipal Act; and also that "next" be deleted in the proposed section 52(1)(b).

On the amendments.

[2:45]

D. Symons: I understand the intent of dropping the word, but I'm curious as to why the government included the word "next" to begin with when they wrote the bill. There must have been a reason for putting that word in. Now that you realize it causes some confusion, you're taking it out. What was the initial reason for including the word "next"?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This bill is huge. It has lots of pages. The staff have gone over it many times; all sorts of other people have. There will be oversights. I make no bones about it: this was an oversight, hon. member.

L. Fox: I wonder why it is necessary to leave the word "general" in there. Why don't we just say: "...will be on the next voting day..."?

Hon. R. Blencoe: "General voting day" is a defined term: the third Saturday in November. Any other voting days and referendums, or whatever, could be subject to a different day being picked.

L. Fox: The reason I asked the question is that this would suggest that if I were to turn 18 -- if I could turn the clock back some years -- on the general voting day, I would not be allowed to vote in the advance poll. This suggests that it limits me to the general voting day.

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, if you are 18 by the general voting day, which is the third Saturday in the month, that means you are eligible to vote in the advance poll. Because of the change, we of course had to clarify it. If your birthday falls on November 20, we have to make sure you're eligible.

Amendments approved.

Section 10, sections 51 and 52 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 60 to 62 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 63.

D. Mitchell: On section 63, "List of registered electors," earlier on in section 56, under "Application for registration," we talked about the new application process and the fact that the social insurance numbers, addresses or birth dates of resident electors may not be necessary; they are optional. Is there any guarantee with the new list of registered electors that that social insurance data or birth-date data is excluded from this list?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Section 63(2) actually says: "The list of registered electors must give the names and addresses of all persons included on the register of the electors at the time the list is prepared and must indicate whether a person is a resident elector or a property elector." All we stipulate are names and addresses. My understanding is that there are strict 

[ Page 8190 ]

penalties -- later on in another section that we will get to -- if other information is used incorrectly.

D. Mitchell: Is the minister then saying that the list of registered electors will contain only the names and addresses of those electors and no other information?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Correct.

L. Fox: Section 63(3) starts with: "From the 46th day before general voting...." I have an amendment proposed later on for section 69 which deals with the 46th day. Can the minister tell me whether there's any rationale between these two sections? Does section 63(3) relate to the rationale for the 46 days in section 69(1)?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes. It falls on the same day as the beginning of the nomination period.

L. Fox: If it were possible to change section 69(1) to reflect what's in my amendment, would this section have to be changed as well? Perhaps with the cooperation of the minister, we could stand this section down until we've dealt with section 69.

Interjection.

The Chair: Since it is agreed that section 63 will be stood down, it is so ordered.

Section 10, sections 64 and 65 approved.

On section 10, section 66.

D. Mitchell: For the benefit of members of the committee, I wonder if the minister could comment on section 66, "Who may hold elected office in a local government." It would make sense that the rules that apply to those who can vote in local elections be the same rules that apply to those who can hold office. Could the minister address one apparent discrepancy that's not clear to this member of the committee? It is with respect to residency. It would appear that those seeking office in local government as a member of a regional district board are not required to live within the regional district, whereas those seeking office within a municipality are required to live within that municipality. Is that a discrepancy?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's a good question; it's a philosophical discussion. I may have my personal viewpoint about residency, but -- with all the various consultations, input, letters and discussions with local people -- the final determination came down to allowing the electorate to determine the outcome. If the electorate wishes to elect someone who doesn't live within the community they represent, so be it. There is not a residency requirement currently in this legislation.

D. Mitchell: I have no qualms regarding the minister's point of view on that. My only concern is one of consistency. Is there a difference under Bill 35, which we're reviewing today, between those who might hold office in a regional district and those in a municipality?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, as far as I can tell, the member is drawing on something I'm not aware of. There is no difference. The same rules apply.

D. Mitchell: I only sought some clarification there, because I wasn't clear in reviewing the legislation whether or not there was consistency.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: No, maybe not. But we're dealing with section 66, "Who may hold elected office in a local government."

I'd like to ask one other question, Mr. Chair. Again with respect to those who can vote and the rights of prisoners in penitentiaries, or felons, it would appear that while someone is on probation or on leave, they will have the right to vote. Does that also extend to the point where someone who is on probation or on leave could run for office?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, if they meet the qualifications. Obviously that would be an issue before the electorate, and if they decided to elect that person, that's their decision. But those on probation are permitted to vote and, of course, are eligible to run. It's my understanding that that's the situation currently.

D. Mitchell: My understanding is that this is a change from the current procedure. I'd like to get some clarification from the minister on this. But when it comes to a prisoner who might be out on a day pass, it would appear that someone who might fall into that category could not only vote but actually run in a municipal election. That didn't seem to be the case under the existing legislation. This seems to be a change. I'm wondering why this specific change is being proposed. Is it part of the rehabilitation process? What is going on here with this amendment?

I would just refer the minister to the current provision, which states that a person is disqualified if he or she "has been convicted, on indictment, of an offence in Canada, unless he has been pardoned for it or five years have passed from completion of the punishment." I believe that's what the current provision states. This seems to amend that and take it away, and I'm wondering why.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one of the areas that is subject to Charter challenges. We have been briefed and have concerns about possibilities of Charter challenges. However, you should know that with indictable offences, of course, there's no change. But there are some concerns about restricting rights under the Charter.

[ Page 8191 ]

D. Mitchell: I would ask the minister a question on that. Are there a number of sections of the act that are subject to potential Charter challenges, and is it possible for the minister to make a list of those sections of the act that he has been advised on or has legal opinions on to that effect?

[3:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, if you wish to have that kind of information, we could provide it to you. We have lots of advice on these kinds of issues. If the member advises us, we could sort it out and provide it to him.

D. Mitchell: I would appreciate that information. I understand that legislation this complex would obviously be subject to a number of legal opinions. But this is one particular area, with respect to the rights of felons, we discussed with respect to the rights of voters and who could vote in municipal elections; we canvassed it earlier. Now I'm asking the specific question about who may hold office in elected government. Would the minister say that the same rights applying to those who may vote would apply, generally speaking, to those who could seek to hold office through a local election?

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is a difficult issue to resolve. We have tried to ensure that the electorate is protected in terms of certain types of indictable offences, but there are obviously variations -- people on probation, for example. Somewhere along the line the electors have to make a decision. They get to choose who they want to represent them. Yes, there are some of the same qualifications, but we can cover only so much in terms of prohibitions. There are certain qualifications or circumstances -- again, those on probation, for instance -- and the electorate will have to make the determination as to whether they want that person to represent them.

K. Jones: Could the minister clarify whether the previous questioning also relates to a prisoner in electronic custody?

Hon. R. Blencoe: That's good question, hon. member. No, they would not be able to vote or to run, because technically they are still in custody.

K. Jones: So you're satisfied that this is covered by the description under section 50(a), which we've already canvassed, thereby disqualifying them as a potential candidate for election?

Hon. R. Blencoe: You should be aware that much of this bill was subjected to the scrutiny of other ministries. In this particular case the Attorney General's ministry and his qualified staff gave us the assurance that this will cover it.

Section 10, section 66 approved.

On section 10, section 67.

L. Fox: In this section I have a great concern, particularly about subsections (4) through (9), which allow a municipal official to take a leave of absence for the length of the election process but have the opportunity to go back to his job, should he lose his bid for an elected position. I'm concerned that this may be misused. With my municipal experience, I can see how it would be possible, at very little expense, for somebody to make real havoc of an election process. They could take a leave of absence and use their holiday pay or whatever to enter a race merely for the purposes of vindictive actions or to try to embarrass local elected individuals, or perhaps to try to influence the electorate to elect one of his friends. He or she may have no real intention of being elected, only of trying to change the outcome of the election.

I want to propose the amendment in my name on the order paper, which in essence does not deny that individual from running.

[SECTION 10, is hereby amended by the deletion from new section 67 of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, of subsections (4) through (9) inclusive, and the substitution therefor of the following subsection:

(4) Before being nominated for an office to which subsection (2) or (3) applies, the employee must resign from the person's position with the employer.]

Hon. Chair, before I go on, I'll ask that the amendment be considered.

On the amendment.

L. Fox: The purpose of this is that any individual who has been an employee can still run, but it takes a commitment from that individual to run a fair campaign to be elected. So the amendment suggests that a person must resign their position prior to entering into the election process. But before I get any further into the debate, I would ask that the minister.... As this is such a friendly amendment, I may not need to debate it. I would look for the minister's response.

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, I appreciate the friendliness of the amendment. I also want to say that I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues across the way for the opportunity to go back on sections 51 and 52.

To answer your question, hon. member, this was canvassed extensively by my ministry, my staff, UBCM and its executive, letters and surveys. I think a lot of people could go one way or the other, quite frankly. The proposal was endorsed by UBCM at the convention. Nearly 80 percent were in favour of this route: rather than make someone resign off the top, we should try a leave of absence first and then go to resignation if they win. That seemed a reasonable course of action to take. It seemed quite dramatic to expect a public servant working for a local government to actually resign their job right off the bat. It seemed to be expecting a little too much of that individual.

I'm the first to say, hon. member, that we're going to see how this works. Your concern is that it might be used frivolously or that someone might take the 

[ Page 8192 ]

opportunity to run for various reasons. That may happen. If it becomes a problem, we'll go back, take a look at it and revise it. But from the consultation thus far, with lots of debate back and forth, this is basically the compromise as of today. I prefer to see it stand as the bill says now: you take a leave of absence; and if successful, you resign your job.

L. Fox: I'm not surprised at the minister's statement, although I can't recall, when writing all the municipalities and regional districts in the province, that anybody came back with a request that their employees be allowed to run for office. So I don't know where the initiative came from. None of them mentioned it in their letters back to me, and I had some 180 letters on this particular bill. Perhaps the minister might want to tell us what necessitated the change. This is a departure from what the act used to be. Why was it all of a sudden necessary to have municipal employees eligible to run in elections?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is another modernization. This is the current approach in a number of other acts and in other jurisdictions. It's allowed for provincial employees, and it's my understanding that it's permitted in the School Act. Most, if not all, other jurisdictions have changed the rules on this, and I think this is a compromise. Quite frankly, as you pointed out, there is some concern about employees running in their own jurisdiction. Well, they should take leave of absence first and resign later.

You should also know that this proposal was extensively debated at an UBCM workshop last year. I wasn't able to attend that session, but it was a healthy debate. Initially, many took the position that the hon. member is taking, but after a while, nearly 80 percent believed that this was a reasonable compromise at this point. I'll be the first to say that if there's a problem, we will monitor it. Then we'll be back here, and you may indeed be right in the end, hon. member. But for now, this is what we are suggesting.

L. Fox: The minister suggests that this is allowed in school elections, when in fact it isn't. An employee of a school district cannot run within that district. They can run in another district, but not within their own district. Previously, any contractor who had done $1,200 worth of business in the preceding year was excluded from running as well. The pendulum has swung all the way over so that now we can have employees within the same municipality running in an election within the community that they are employed in. So it's a dramatic change. For you to say that it's presently allowed in school districts is totally incorrect; it's not.

I fail to understand what has necessitated this kind of action. In all my years in the UBCM, I never once heard any municipality or saw any correspondence from any municipality requesting the right for their employees to run in local elections. So what's the agenda? I just don't understand it. Why?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Basically, there is no agenda. Even if the member is concerned that there may be some other agenda, I'm not going to address that issue.

The issue is to allow people the opportunity to seek office. You have to be careful not to deny them this opportunity because they happen to be an employee of a particular jurisdiction. I have discussed this with people at the UBCM, and elected officials think this a reasonable approach at this point. There was overwhelming support at the UBCM workshop for this approach -- that is, leave of absence if the employees wishes to run. If the employee wishes to do what you are suggesting, hon. member -- to be frivolous or vexatious, or to create a problem for their employer -- then it's on the employee's own shoulders if they are not successful and have to go back. But if they are successful, hon. member, they resign their position. Are you suggesting they should not have the opportunity to seek office? I haven't had anything subsequent to this coming forward from UBCM. Most people I've talked to think this is a reasonable compromise in terms of dealing with this issue.

[3:15]

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, I first want to make a comment. If the minister had ever been an employer, he would know that if there ever was an action by an employee against the employer, particularly in this type of situation, he'd be the toughest employee ever to get rid of, not the easiest one. I would suggest that he might ensure a job for himself forever by entering into a frivolous situation. He could hold up this legislation, which your own government has brought forward, and say he is being persecuted by management and come out very well. I would suggest that that is not a legitimate argument.

In reading the discussion paper, either I missed something or it was there in a very limited way and I didn't see it. If it was there, then I take some comfort that the municipalities themselves didn't comment on it. They certainly didn't comment to me on it, either in the positive or the negative. I will rest my case.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to belabour this point, but the discussion document was well received. It openly and forthrightly covered all the issues. It was put forward for discussion, and we certainly got that. It tested the waters in some key areas. As you know, we compromised on some of the areas and balanced the interests, and so far the response from the hundreds of various stakeholders has been very supportive. I don't have the discussion document in front of me, but I insisted that we not hide it in the back page of the discussion document somewhere and that we make it quite clear that that's the suggestion we have. That was subject to a fairly intensive workshop at UBCM for which, after considerable debate -- and we continue to take responses on it -- there has been overwhelming support for the position as it is now.

I'm the first to admit -- in a friendly, cooperative way -- that when you're changing something like this in such a dramatic way, in terms of sheer size, we are going to monitor it very carefully. As I responded to 

[ Page 8193 ]

some of my hon. colleagues across the way about the three-year elections, this minister has said that we want to do three more years, and then we're going to assess it. I've told that to UBCM.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to get into that, hon. member. I'm trying to deal with today. You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and we will then do a fair analysis.

H. De Jong: In my opinion, hon. Chair, this amendment would be a good one and could avoid a lot of problems. In the latter part of May we had a situation where the schools had been on strike for three or four weeks, and the Premier needed the okay from the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Hughes, to make sure that he wasn't in a conflict position in dealing with that. Surely to goodness, if we allow people who are employed by a municipality to run for office within that same municipality, isn't that a conflict of interest? By not proceeding with this amendment, I think the minister is opening the door for lots of business for Mr. Hughes.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: Order, please. Would the members who are leaving the chambers please do so in order that the committee may proceed.

L. Fox: I have itemized a couple points of concern on this section. One is from the district of Invermere. They want to know and understand the rationale at the beginning of this section in (1)(a), where it says "an employee or salaried officer of a municipality or regional district." They're looking for the reason it was necessary to have the word "salaried" in front of "officer." In their explanation, whether a person receives a salary or a wage is immaterial if he or she is an appointed officer.

Interjection.

L. Fox: In other words, why is it necessary to have a salaried officer? Why not just an officer? That would be more encompassing.

[3:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one of those examples where we are trying to make sure we cover subsequent interpretations of what an employee is. We were advised by legal counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General that we should refer not only to an employee but also to a salaried officer of a municipality.

L. Fox: I'm trying to run through my mind what an officer would be if he wasn't salaried. Perhaps you could have a situation, as a member of the Liberal Party just suggested, where an officer in a planning commission wasn't salaried. Would that exclude him from this provision? Would he just be a citizen?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Sorry. Were you asking if there was a salaried position on the advisory planning commission?

L. Fox: I'm suggesting that a non-salaried officer of the municipality would then be just an ordinary citizen. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Blencoe: In that situation -- if they are just volunteers -- they are not an employee or a salaried officer; they are sitting as a volunteer on the advisory planning commission. Obviously, they're eligible.

C. Tanner: Could the minister give us an example of an officer who isn't salaried?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I get a sense that there's a concern here that we're trying to cover one or the other. This was given to us for clarity. The Attorney General's ministry felt that we had to make sure it said employee or salaried officer of a municipality. Maybe you could express your concern to me, and then I can try to deal with it.

C. Tanner: If you use the term "salaried officer," and the exception is the chairman of an advisory planning committee -- who is an appointee of council and an officer, I assume -- it almost sounds like you're not making the same exception for him. In other words, I guess my question to the minister is: is the chairman of an APC an officer of council?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I failed to mention to my colleagues across the way that this wording is currently in the statute and has served us well. I just have to say 

[ Page 8194 ]

that I have to rely on the Attorney General and the legal counsel, who gave us some good reasons for why they need to have it this way. It has been this way for a very long time.

L. Fox: I want to relate one other concern in this section, which was brought to my attention by the Cariboo Regional District. In their view, section 67(5) creates some difficulty from a personnel management perspective, as the employer must grant a leave of absence during the election process. However, the employer cannot effectively staff that position until after an application for the person's election has been declared invalid, as the employee's resignation is conditional on this. The time frame there could be of some concern, and the regional district wants to make the minister aware of that. Some of these things take considerable time, and in a smaller community it might be difficult to hire somebody on a temporary basis to fill the gap.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I was trying to find a way to answer you in terms of how to avoid that kind of inconvenience, hon. member, but I can't. There's no question that there will be some inconvenience. I don't deny that.

Section 10, section 67 approved.

On section 10, section 68.

D. Mitchell: On section 68, "Only one elected office at a time in the same local government," I know that through the consultation process the minister received a lot of representation on this issue. Is this section really saying that only one elected office can be held at one time by the same person? Does this section imply only within one local government area? For instance, could someone hold an elected office in one municipality and at the same time hold an elected office in another municipality? Has that been contemplated?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I won't give you my personal opinion, but that is correct; it could happen. The electors would make that decision. I don't know whether they've resigned or not, but I believe that some members of this House continue to hold various elected positions. Electors make those choices.

A. Cowie: I wonder if the minister could give us an example other than that of a school board member or a council member. Those would be two positions. I know we're going to have hospital commissions, and they will be elected. That could most likely be added to the list, I suppose. Are there any other positions?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think you've already mentioned the school trustee situation. You could conceivably be elected as a municipal councillor and hold a regional director's position as an electoral director. Again, the electors make that choice. It's very rare, if ever, but the opportunity is there. It comes down to whether you want to have strong regulations that deny someone from holding more than one office. They may feel capable of doing that. I certainly have my personal views about it, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that it comes down to the electors making that decision -- as in your case, I believe, hon. member.

A. Cowie: Perhaps I could be making a comment then. I think that if somebody is elected and the next term is in between, that person should at least be able to see the term out. That's what I'm doing -- I'm simply seeing my term out. I have no intention of running again for the parks board, although that's not prohibited in here.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: Yes, I think that should this happen -- and I take it that it's there should it ever happen -- the person at least should be able to see the term out, because he or she was elected for it, and then not run again.

K. Jones: Could the minister explain to us the rationale for 68(1)? By his own statement and example, it would prohibit a person from continuing to hold office in another position they were already elected to.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I went through this legislation exhaustively with staff. I thought we had everything covered in terms of anticipating questions. Hon. member, this section basically deals with one person on a municipal council having two votes by being elected as mayor but also being elected as councillor. Obviously we don't want to have that situation, hon. member.

K. Jones: I'm sensitive to the intent of the minister in trying to cover it, but the wording being used picks up in the process quite a wide-sweeping area under the terms "local government" and "elected office." These terms are quite wide in the way they are understood. Therefore they wouldn't be restricting only to members of municipal councils, but would reach out to other elected positions at any local level, including the school board.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think it's fairly straight-forward, referring to the first page of Bill 35, the definition section. "...'local government' means, (a) in relation to a municipality, the council, and (b) in relation to a regional district, the board...." It's clearly covered, hon. member.

Section 10, section 68 approved.

On section 10, section 69.

L. Fox: This section was kind of amusing when I read it. I had to read it several times to be sure I was right. It appears to -- and I believe does -- extend the election writ period, if you will, between the end of the nomination period and the actual election day, to 36 days. The other date, the forty-sixth day, is probably not as important as the thirty-sixth day. What we have now 

[ Page 8195 ]

is essentially eight days more for municipal and school board elections than we have for provincial elections. We're looking at the federal government decreasing its election term from what used to be 60 days to, I think, 45 days. So I had a real problem understanding the rationale, not finding anything in the research that indicated a need for it.

I have put forth an amendment, standing in my name on the order paper, which changes those days from 46 and 36 to 36 and 28 respectively. I will allow the minister to give me his thoughts on that friendly amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, the member may or may not be aware that local governments have been requesting for some time -- which we are actually meeting now -- that we push back the nomination period, allowing them greater time for preparing the ballots and all the other work that has to go on prior to an election.

You should also know, hon. member, that this really does not effectively change the campaign period, because local government elections are fixed in terms of the time frame. You may take exception to 36 days, but I can assure you that some members are already out there.... For instance, in the city of Victoria some people of your political persuasion are already running for certain positions on Victoria City Council. So the election is already on, hon. member. I know what you are trying to get at with your amendment, but I don't see any particular problem with extending the period or backing up the nomination period.

L. Fox: The minister doesn't grasp what I'm trying to say here. In the greater Vancouver and Victoria areas, where you have party politics, you've always had far longer election processes than what the act prescribed. You'll never prevent that from happening, nor should you.

[3:45]

But what we have now is a government that on the one hand talks about limiting expenditures in terms of the election process and on the other hand talks about extending the mandatory period from what historically was 21 to 24 days to 36 days. The three weeks and some that were offered in the past were more than sufficient. In many of those communities you're going to increase the advertising costs for candidates. You're going to lengthen the election process, because many of those small communities don't start their campaigns until the final nomination number is known. Now this minister is lengthening that process by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14 days on average. Historically, nominations closed at noon on the last Monday of the month, and the election was on the third Saturday of November. That's what the previous act called for. That gave a 22- to 24-day election period, depending on the calendar year. Now we've got a 36-day election period, which is going to drive up the cost of elections.

The minister looks at me in a big-cityish way, because down here they don't pay for their own campaigns. They all belong to parties that go out and seek dollars to run their candidates. In the smaller communities there is no structure such as that, and the candidates pay the costs of running their own election campaigns. They don't accept donations, because most parties other than the NDP can't get a tax receipt for it.

I don't understand the rationale at all, unless it's being requested by the NDP's affiliate parties that are running in the municipal elections. That's the only rationale I can see for this particular time frame. I hope the minister sees that there is something more to municipal politics than Vancouver and Victoria, and that he starts looking at what might be in the best interests of all the communities of British Columbia, rather than of the urban centres.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I am somewhat surprised that the member feels so strongly about this issue. I don't think I have received one letter or concern about extending....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Oh indeed, hon. member. My understanding from staff who did the consultation is that they were requesting an expansion of this period. One of the reasons we have had to expand, hon. member, is because of all the new, democratic institutions we've introduced within that election period. As you know, we now have challenge provisions, which have to come into play; we have the mail ballot, which takes some time to get through; and we also have two advance voting days. So there are some extra ingredients now in the election period. I'm surprised, hon. member, at your hostility towards expanding and allowing citizens a greater say and a greater time period for campaigning. That will be welcomed by citizens. And in terms of expanding the costs, how does it expand costs? You don't want to spend it, you don't spend it. That's up to the candidates.

My understanding, too, is that one of the issues raised by rural communities is another issue to add to the list that I have already given. Rural communities need a longer time period to get their ballots printed. I don't know why you would object to or see some dark plot in expanding the election period. Citizens like the opportunity to have an election period. We have pushed back the nomination period because that was a request from local government. It's a moot point anyway, because as you know, hon. member, local government elections are at fixed times; you can campaign any time you want to campaign -- they're going on right now. Campaigns are alive and well across this province, and it's only July 5.

L. Fox: I don't know whether the minister isn't listening or if he doesn't comprehend it, but many communities other than the urban communities have weekly papers, versus daily papers. You will find many of the election campaigns are run in the papers, so a 14-day extension to the process will mean additional advertising and campaign costs in many small communities.

[ Page 8196 ]

The minister suggests that the municipal elections have to be eight days longer than the provincial process. We have a 28-day writ period in the province, and he is suggesting that we need a 36-day period in municipal elections. It's unbelievable. He is suggesting that perhaps the rural communities have difficulty getting their ballots printed. In this age of technology, I can fax a letter to Vancouver from Vanderhoof as fast as I can fax it to Vancouver from Victoria. We're no longer in the Dark Ages in the rural parts of the province. We now have technological change. Just because this government may be in the Dark Ages doesn't mean that the rest of B.C. is. It's only a small percentage of B.C. that relates to this government, anyway.

But I cannot understand.... The minister has failed to give me any rationale that makes any sense or has any logic to it to suggest that we should have a two-week-longer election process for municipal elections and an eight-day-longer process than we have for provincial elections. There is no rationale whatsoever. I don't know where he picked the 46 or the 36 days from. Perhaps the minister can tell me: how did he choose the forty-sixth and the thirty-sixth day? Were they plucked out of a hat? What was the rationale behind it?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This was done in consultation with the stakeholders. We have not received any complaints about this.

L. Fox: Who?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The UBCM and the Municipal Officers' Association, those who have to conduct elections.

Hon. member, I've got the calendar of events here, which might give you some comfort. The nomination period will end on October 15, 1993, at 4 p.m. The period of objections ends, per section 64(2), and candidates are declared. October 25, when you have the declaration of election by voting or acclamation, per section 76(1), is actually when the election kicks off. In that period, the following things have to transpire on my calendar this year: on October 18 at 4 p.m., extended deadline for nominations due to insufficient candidates; on the 19th at 4 p.m., deadline for challenging a person's nomination; on the 20th, last day a person can move or buy property and still be able to qualify as a resident or property elector; on the 21st, first day for giving notice of general voting date; on the 22nd, deadline for a decision on challenge of nomination under section 75(8), for receiving original of fax nomination, for withdrawal of candidate under section 80(1) and for withdrawal of endorsement under section 79. Then, after the weekend is over, on October 25 at 4 p.m., we will have the declaration of election by voting or acclamation. Actually, the election period will then officially be only 25 days.

K. Jones: The minister has described a fair number of steps that have to go on in this, and that the primary basis of the argument for this extended process is to placate the Municipal Officers' Association's interest in having a longer election period. I would like to suggest that challenging the nomination of a candidate takes absolutely no time when there's no candidate being challenged. This is the case in almost all situations; very seldom is a candidate actually challenged at the municipal level. Therefore I'd like the minister to tell us: what is the requirement for all this extra administrative time? He certainly hasn't given justification by example for the extra time.

As the previous member has stated, I feel this is just going to increase the cost of an election. The longer process you have, the longer the opportunity for those with money to mount a more expensive campaign. Therefore money talks and decides who gets elected. I'm sure the minister has no intention of supporting the concept that those who have the most money will have the best opportunity to get elected. Is that the intention of the minister in bringing this forward -- that if you have a large party behind you with lots of money, or if you have financial backers such as the trade unions to foot a large, expensive campaign, you should be able to have more time and opportunity to influence the public than a hard-working person in the community -- Joe Blow logger -- who decides to run but doesn't have the backing of the NDP? He doesn't have the funding the NDP candidate has and really does not have a chance to get elected. It's really an organization-campaign situation. Is that really what the thinking is behind extending this? How is it more complex at the municipal level than at the provincial level? The election process at the provincial level is tremendously complex. Certainly in my experience in city councils, I have never run across a situation where the operation of a municipal election has been anywhere near as complex as in a provincial election.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't know if you've been elected at the local level, but at the local level, especially in small communities, the employees take over everything; they have to run everything. It takes time to do that. Provincially, we have a system -- Elections B.C. -- to do it for us on behalf of the citizens. Many local governments don't have that ability. I just read out some of the things that we are now, quite frankly, requiring of them in terms of challenges. There are a number of other new requirements -- mail ballots and other new opportunities -- in that time period. I mentioned the fact that this year the official declaration of election won't actually be until October 25.

With respect to my colleagues across the way, a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. I think the fact that we're giving them the opportunity to have an election period that may be perceived to be longer.... I would point out to my colleagues that we laid out the nomination period in detail in the discussion document. All the dates were there, as well as how it would work. We have not had one complaint, hon. member.

The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I'd like to canvass the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca. Just for clarification, did 

[ Page 8197 ]

the hon. member move the amendment standing on the order paper when he last spoke?

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, that was the intent -- whether or not I did it.

The Chair: The Chair does not recall hearing it. But if the hon. member is confirming that he did in fact move the amendment, fair enough.

K. Jones: I'm speaking in support of the amendment. I think it's a very valid one.

[4:00]

I would like to clarify for the minister's interest that I was elected at the age of 29 to the city council of Port Hardy, a community of about 2,500 people. I'm fully aware of the fact that the municipal clerk did all the municipal administration. In fact, I even helped out in that process throughout that time. Also, I was elected in the city of White Rock for two terms, at a very minimal expenditure. There wasn't a lot of money for getting elected, but I got elected. I would like the minister to know that I have a great deal of experience at the municipal level.

L. Fox: I have one last plea. It seems to me that without the amendment, this particular legislation is a step backward. It's promoting party politics. If we look at the structure, more and more the electorate is asking for less party politics and more independent votes. They want individuals to stand up independently and speak on behalf of their constituents. But if you extend the election process, as this bill is doing without the amendment, you will promote party politics in areas of the province where in fact there isn't any, because the costs of the election process will increase. Make no mistake about it, this act will increase the costs of municipal elections to the individuals running. If an individual is not fortunate enough to have the moneys within his own bank account, then he will have to seek a structure, like a party structure, in order to finance his campaign. I really believe that we will see a promotion of party politics coming out of this section 69 if the minister does not accept the amendment. Given the lack of success that the NDP has had in many communities getting local NDP members elected to council, maybe that's one of the reasons for it. They need the party machine, the structure and the money that the party machine can generate in order to defeat the independent candidates, the local individuals who in fact may not have the same kinds of resources.

As for the mail-in ballot, the minister lists a whole time frame for what has to happen. I have actually been through four municipal elections, and in the small community I represented we had no problem at all living within the time frames in existence then. In fact, the ballots were always available the tenth day before the official election day, for the pre-election voting -- I've forgotten the word. So there never was a problem. Now we have a minister putting together a process that's going to take away from municipal elections and from the type of politics that I believe the electorate wants. I just can't believe that the minister would stand steadfast and not consider reasonable time frames that would keep the costs down, and continue to promote the independent structure of municipal elections.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

D. Mitchell: I'm surprised that the amendment was not accepted by the government. I believe that the fundamental issue here is one of equity between municipalities and regional districts in diverse parts of our province. If you look at the difference in the length of time between nomination and election date and at what is being proposed by section 69, it really places an unnecessary burden on regional districts, especially those in remote parts of the province, which might have five, six or seven different municipalities within them. A municipality can prepare voters lists and newspaper ads, order ballot papers, prepare ballot boxes, etc. -- all of the things that are necessary for the mechanics of running a local election -- but a regional district could have up to seven elections and 25 to 30 different polling stations. I think this section of the bill dealing with the nomination period really caters to large municipalities that are able to organize elections within a coherent, discrete geographic area, whereas it penalizes those areas of the province that are predominantly rural and have far-flung populations, where the mechanics of running an election are much more complicated. I know that the amendment has been defeated, but can the minister provide any justification for what is being proposed here? Why not shorten that process?

[4:15]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think we canvassed this during the amendment, and I really wish to move on. The member brings up regional districts, and again I say that much of this change was generated by local government. Regional directors and regional 

[ Page 8198 ]

governments have known about it for months, and there have been no complaints or concerns. Indeed, there has been considerable support for this change, and I can only rest on that, hon. member. I have had no letters. If you have had any you should give them to me, but I haven't had any.

D. Mitchell: I'm surprised that the minister is trying to pretend that there is unanimity on this issue. I know that he has received representations on both sides of this issue, but I'll just list one example. The Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako has specifically stated in a paper, which I believe is in the office of the minister, that the nomination process dealing with the time limits between nomination day and election day, as proposed in the bill here, is punitive towards regional districts such as theirs. This is just one. I'm aware of others.

So the minister, in pretending that there is unanimity on this issue and that all is happiness and light.... I would be very pleased to share a copy of this with the minister, Mr. Chairman. I'm surprised at the cavalier approach he's taking to this issue.

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding from staff's review of that particular paper is that they actually want more time between the nomination period and the election.

Section 10, section 69 approved.

The Chair: I believe that by agreement we are to go back to section 10, section 63.

Section 10, section 63 approved.

Section 10, sections 70 to 74 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 75.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment, standing in my name on the order paper, to section 75(4)(d) of the Municipal Act by adding at the end of that paragraph: "....or is disqualified under section 92 from endorsing a candidate."

Amendment approved.

On section 10, section 75 as amended.

L. Fox: Given that this is quite a lengthy clause, and given my experience, once again, in municipal politics, I wonder if the minister would give me some of his personal views as to why this lengthy process is necessary and how many challenges to nominations he has seen since he has been minister. Try to give us some idea as to the rationale behind the need for this particular process.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't have any evidence of challenges, because it's new; so obviously I don't have any information. But in all the work we have done and in the discussion and consultation with local government and others, if there is to be a challenge about someone's credentials, qualifications or whatever, it would be easier and better to get that over with prior to the election, if possible.

L. Fox: I found it rather interesting. The minister said there have never been any challenges, because this is new. In fact, there have always been challenges. This clause is new, but I would be rather surprised if there had never been any challenges, because people will find it necessary from time to time to do that. But I guess the obvious question is: if there weren't any challenges or any need for this, why the change in legislation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that currently it really isn't a challenge provision. A refusal to accept nominations is done by the returning officers running the election. What we're doing here, which is new, is allowing citizens to challenge a nomination and candidacy, if they have information.

L. Fox: That begs another question. What autonomy does the individual that accepts the nomination have -- and I know we've renamed him somewhere back here in this section -- given that we have this new challenge of nominations in place? Has his or her autonomy been eroded? Do we now rely on the citizens to police who should not be eligible for nomination, or does the returning officer still have that opportunity to make those kinds of decisions, based on qualifications under the act?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one area where it is felt that to put the onus on the returning officer to do the challenging is not particularly appropriate. Now it's up to the candidates to make sure they are properly qualified, or other candidates to challenge, or for citizens to challenge. The returning officers are there to accept, not to challenge.

L. Fox: Previously the system was that if the returning officer ruled you out, you went before a judge, made a statement, and based on the evidence given, you were endorsed or not endorsed. So it wasn't really a judgment made by the returning officer; it was usually a failure of an individual to qualify, based on the fact that he wasn't on a voter list, or something similar to that. It was a very simple process. Now, all of a sudden, we have increased expectations that people could be running for office who are not qualified, and now the public will have this great opportunity to filter out those candidates prior to an election process, rather than the very simple system that was in place before.

Once again, I fail to understand why we have to paint a picture which is not reflective of what's going on out there and try to put it into legislative form. Maybe it's so the minister can add another button to his jacket -- I'm not sure. I really don't see why we had to go to such a cumbersome process when there was such a simple one there before. It was only used on very rare occasions, and now we have to open up a whole...almost paint a picture that we could have individuals in municipalities who shouldn't be there, because this challenge process wasn't there before. In 

[ Page 8199 ]

my experience, the electorate looked after those people who shouldn't be there, and did it very effectively. If they missed them one time around, like they did this government two years ago, they'd catch them the next time around -- you can be assured of that. The minister hasn't provided me with any background as to why this particular clause had to be in there, and why we had to change it from a previous process which was not cumbersome; it was very simple.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I know it seems to you that it may have been a simple system, but it really put clerks or returning officers -- all of them employees of the local government -- in a very precarious and difficult situation, with no rules governing why they turned down a particular nomination.

Quite frankly, what we've done is taken some of the politics, if you will, out of that process. We've gone to a different challenging system that maintains the neutrality of the public servant monitoring and running the election. You and I know that most of the challenges will probably come from the nominees themselves. The clerk or the returning officer -- in many cases in small communities the clerk becomes the returning officer, as you know -- doesn't have to be put in that untenable position of having to make a ruling, often based on no substantial evidence. They are put in a very difficult political position. Again, I have to say, this has been welcomed. We have had no complaints about putting this system into place that I'm aware of.

V. Anderson: I just want to ask the minister about the 72 hours that is here for the courts. In our present court structure, how realistic will it be to get this through within the three-day period? I'm just wondering how the minister thinks all this is going to happen within a three-day period, particularly when weekends and holidays are taken into account.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I asked the same question during many hours of discussions with staff. We checked with Provincial Court staff, who felt that meeting that 72-hour notice was quite realistic.

D. Mitchell: Section 75(9) deals with the court becoming involved in the nomination process with respect to a challenge of a nomination. It states that: "The court may order that the costs of a challenge...be paid in accordance with the order of the court." I wonder if the minister could comment on this. When we take into account what might be called the deep-pocket syndrome of recent experience with the judiciary awarding settlements, I wonder about the ability of small municipalities to cover the costs of challenges. Might it not be more equitable to say that if there is a successful challenge, it will be covered by a court order; but in the event of an unsuccessful challenge, in order to discourage frivolous challenges, perhaps the challenger should pay? There should be some responsibility on the part of the challenger. Is leaving it wide open to the courts the way to go?

[4:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, it's often very difficult to determine, in an objective way, what a frivolous challenge is. This is a new provision regarding the costs of a challenge. The costs are to be awarded by the discretion of the court in accordance with the rules of court. The rules of court detail the acceptable items to be considered in determining allowable costs and set the scale for each item. The court will be able to determine if it's frivolous, and may be able to make a ruling based on its view of the situation.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that answer. My concern would be that the courts might think the municipalities, which are the taxpayers, have resources that in fact do not. For instance, some small municipalities don't have deep pockets and can't always bear the costs awarded in court settlements, especially in the case of a challenge of a nomination of a candidate in a municipal election. Is there not a better way to go on this, especially taking into account the special concerns of smaller municipalities?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I hear what the member is saying, and this was subject to extensive consultation. We heard little or no concern, especially from those smaller communities. We also had extensive consultation with the Provincial Court on some of the issues that you are concerned about, and they will be able to take that kind of situation into account. We hope we have covered it. If it becomes a problem, we will have to go back and deal with it.

L. Fox: I had a question about section 75(4)(d). In reading this, I found some of the reasons why this process was there, because this goes far beyond.... In an earlier section we talked about promoting party politics at the municipal level. When we start to legislate in this way, to a large degree this clause supports what I was trying to suggest earlier: through this legislation, this government is not respecting municipal politics as we know them today. In fact, it's promoting party politics.

Section 75(4)(d) seems to suggest that if I were a member of a party, went through the nomination process and won, and I failed to agree with some election promise of a particular party -- the minister should relate to this, because I'm sure his caucus has had similar discussions -- and decided to run as an independent, it would nullify that nomination, which could be challenged under this clause. You would not only have party discipline; you would have a Municipal Act which is forcing party discipline. I think that's totally wrong. The minister shakes his head, but I think it's very clear that that's the case.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I know the member is trying to make the case that we are bringing partisan politics to the local level. With respect, hon. member, I suggest that it already exists. It's in different forms, and I suspect that you probably organized it in many ways and called it something else. I think you are trying to stretch things, and I totally disagree with you. People will vote for whoever they want to vote for. If they are running 

[ Page 8200 ]

for an electoral organization that the people don't like, they won't vote for them.

L. Fox: The minister doesn't even know his own legislation. This process goes into effect after the nomination period is over. The challenge made by a political party, if it were successful, would prevent an individual from running as an independent, because the nomination period would be over. So tell me if this does not support party discipline.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would refer to section 75(8)(c): "declaring that the organization named in the nomination documents is or is not entitled to have its endorsement included on the ballot." That's the issue.

L. Fox: If an individual holds the nomination of a municipal party and is challenged under section 75(4)(d) because he is not falling in line with party policy, and the court suggests that the challenge is legitimate, he does not come under subsequent clauses, because he has already lost his nomination.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have been trying to say that they can only challenge on the grounds that the elector organization is not entitled to be an organization or to be on the ballot. Hon. member, in a later section -- when we get to get it -- we actually clarify what a legitimate elector organization is: that is, it has been in existence for 60 days and has 50 members at the time of the election. We're not talking about the candidates here; we're talking about the organization.

D. Mitchell: I think the minister is right: when we get to section 79, we can canvass this issue more thoroughly. But while we're on this, and just for clarification, section 75(4)(d), which the member for Prince George-Omineca was referring to, seems to suggest that a nomination can be challenged if the elector organization -- a political party, in other words.... Political parties are not represented in the great majority of municipal elections, and never have been.

All of a sudden we're now going to have challenges of nominations based upon whether or not the elector organization -- the political party -- disagrees as to whether an individual who is nominated can be their standard-bearer during an election. I think that is shameful, because now we're opening up nominations to challenges based on frivolous or vexatious internal party politics. Surely that couldn't be the minister's intention with this section of Bill 35. Surely the minister wouldn't want to open up the nomination process for municipal elections to the internal party warfare that has too often characterized party politics in our country. Is that what he's trying to do with this?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, hon. member.

V. Anderson: I have to follow up on section 75(4)(d). There are two parts to that section: whether the person is endorsed by the elector organization or whether the elector organization exists within the meaning of section 79. He replied to the second half of that, but my concern is with the first half. If a person has put in a nomination believing that they are supported by an elector organization, and that is challenged, is it possible at that point for the person to run as an independent? Or has that person been excluded from running in that election because of this section?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I suspect that this discussion would be better under section 79. The candidate can withdraw from that endorsement, if they wish to. There's nothing to preclude the candidate from doing that.

V. Anderson: Can the minister clarify where it says that after the nomination is filed, and within the period of time for the area, a person can withdraw from the nomination and still be eligible as an independent candidate?

Hon. R. Blencoe: With the indulgence of the committee, I will refer to section 79(6)(a), given that it might help us later on:

"An elector organization endorsement must not appear on a ballot if (a) the elector organization withdraws its endorsement before 4 p.m. on the 29th day before general voting day by delivering to the chief election officer by that time a written withdrawal signed by a director or other official of the elector organization, or (b) before 4 p.m. on the 29th day before general voting day, the candidate withdraws the request to have the elector organization endorsement appear on the ballot by delivering a signed withdrawal to the chief election officer by that time."

L. Fox: Somewhere along the line I'm not making my point to the minister, because he obviously doesn't understand it. Once again, the withdrawal that he talks about is after nominations close, so if an individual has to withdraw, they can't run as an independent.

Let me put my concern in the form of a question. If I go on the ballot as a nominee representing NPA -- I don't know the civic elector groups, but I do know NPA; I think that's a fairly familiar name -- and after the closing of nomination day but within the challenging period I do not comply with the policies of that elector group, will they have the opportunity under clause (d) to challenge me as one of their candidates because I don't represent their party? If they don't, then perhaps that's the end of the argument.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, you cannot challenge under that section. After nominations, the elector organization and the candidate can withdraw the endorsement if they so desire. That's what I read out from section 79(6), which is coming up.

G. Wilson: Perhaps I could try to clarify the question, because I think we're going around the substance of what is being asked. Notwithstanding sections 79(6)(a) or (b), which we will get to in due course, the question with respect to section 75(4)(d) is: what happens in the event that a person is nominated by a civic electors' group and the group withdraws 

[ Page 8201 ]

support for that individual or contests the nomination? Can the person essentially switch affiliation and run as an independent if the endorsement is gone? Can the affiliation be switched after the nomination process? That's the question.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, they can get rid of the affiliate endorsement and run as an ordinary, independent candidate if they so desire.

L. Fox: I don't want to muddy the waters, but if the application has gone before the Provincial Court under section 75(4)(d) and the courts have ruled, can the individual at that point in time still switch to an independent role or to another civic electors' group?

[4:45]

Hon. R. Blencoe: The legislation doesn't allow for a new organization to be added, but it certainly does allow for the candidates to remove themselves from the endorsement of that elector organization. I don't think we could be adding organizations after nominations. There has got to be some period where that's laid out. We've got to check credentials, membership, the Society Act and all that stuff.

L. Fox: One final question. When the court has endorsed the electoral organization's request by removing that individual, does the court then have the power only to remove the party name from that particular nominee, and not the nominee?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, hon. member.

V. Anderson: I must ask one question. In subsection 75(1) it refers to the Provincial Court. In subsection 75(9) it refers to the Supreme Court's setting the amount of the costs. Is that done deliberately or by chance, by the Provincial Court on the one hand and the Supreme Court on the other hand? Are we saying that the Provincial Court is bound by the Supreme Court rules, between subsections (1) and (9)?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, we do refer to the rules of court for the Supreme Court, but the Provincial Court has agreed to those rules. Good question.

Section 10, section 75 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 76 to 78 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 79.

G. Wilson: With respect to organization, it talks about incorporated or unincorporated. If the minister could just give us the distinction between and definition of incorporated and unincorporated, it would be helpful.

Hon. R. Blencoe: They could be incorporated under the Society Act, as a distinction.

G. Wilson: I don't raise this to try to entrap the minister at all, but I notice that there is a distinction made in the later sections of this bill that talks about a person or unincorporated organization with respect to disclosure and finances. I wonder if the minister could be a little more specific. In terms of an incorporated or unincorporated organization, would an affiliate of a trade union be considered to be incorporated or unincorporated for the purposes of this act?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I'm trying to get your drift here. A trade union could be incorporated or unincorporated. If they deemed that they were going to become an elector organization -- as a chamber of commerce may be incorporated or unincorporated -- they could do so. Could you give me a little more of what you're trying to get at here?

G. Wilson: I recognize that there may be affiliates of a registered civic electors' group. The reason I want to get this information from the minister is that it is only here that the question of an incorporated entity or organization is referred to. In subsequent sections we only talk about a person or an unincorporated organization. I want to draw the minister's attention to "incorporated or unincorporated" in section 79, because we will be discussing the distinction between being unincorporated and a person in some detail under sections 84, 85, 87 and so on. Would a single trade union, a group of trade unions or a group that may affiliate to put up a candidate be considered unincorporated or incorporated, or would it have to be on the basis of the registry of the organization itself?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's my understanding that under common law a person can actually be incorporated, and it includes corporations.

G. Wilson: The question I'm coming to is specifically with respect to trade unions. Would you look at the actual charter of a particular trade union or at the incorporation or unincorporation of that trade union on an individual basis? Or are they generally considered to be incorporated or unincorporated agencies?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't think we would need to check it. We tried to cover it by saying incorporated or unincorporated. It's not our intention to go into policing work here, hon. member.

G. Wilson: I see that under 79(1)(a) and (b) and also 79(2), with respect to endorsement of a candidate based on the organization, with a set of rules.... The reason I raise it here is that "incorporated or unincorporated" is introduced in section 79 but is noticeable by its absence in section 83 under Division (8), which refers specifically to a person or unincorporated organization with respect to financial contributions. What I'm trying to nail down is whether this was intended to include or exclude unions.

[ Page 8202 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that it's specifically persons. Section 83 says that "candidate" means a person, so we're talking about individuals. In this section we're talking about organizations, which are obviously not individuals. Also, in section 87(1)(a) we actually say: "A person or unincorporated organization must not do any of the following...."

A. Cowie: I have a number of concerns on section 79. I have talked with the UBCM, and one of the reasons I haven't been speaking to many of these sections is because they have in fact worked many hours, as the minister has said, putting this through. It's only natural that we haven't had a chance in the Legislature, so these questions are going to come up. I've had some concerns from mayors of smaller municipalities on this issue. It has already been mentioned that this tends to favour larger organizations, even though when it gets right down to it, there's only one provincial organization capable of running in many municipalities, and that's the NDP. Essentially, organizations like the NPA come together once every three years -- they are really not organizations in a permanent sense. So there's naturally some concerns, and when we get to section 83, I have a number of amendments which will clarify some of them. However, speaking to this, is it the intent that ratepayers' organizations could in fact be organizations as defined under section 79?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The answer is yes, if they so desire. Let's put the clarification or philosophical statement into the record. Electoral organizations exist; they will continue to exist. We know they exist in formal ways or informal ways, behind the scenes or up front. What we're doing here is saying that electoral organizations exist and that we should recognize them. They should be there for candidates who wish to be part of them, but they can withdraw from them later on.

What we're doing is being open and honest about the system. The electorate, in the end, doesn't have to vote for somebody who is part of these kinds of organizations, whether it's a residents' or ratepayers' organization, or whether the chamber of commerce wishes to run a candidate officially -- they do anyway, but they do it unofficially. We're just putting it up front, hon. member, and it's here in the legislation.

A. Cowie: In fact, it's hidden parties within parties, but I happen not to favour provincial or federal politics at the municipal level. I'm making that absolutely clear. But as we get more sophisticated, there will be parties at the local level. It's bound to happen, and it is happening. I think there's nothing wrong with that -- with putting in a bit of structure. At the same time, we don't want to disadvantage the little guy who wants to run as well. That's why I'm somewhat concerned on some of these issues.

It's not clear to me whether one can have joint endorsements. For instance, in some cases mayors run with joint endorsements by two parties. Is that allowed in here?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The answer is no, hon. member, under subsection (5).

A. Cowie: I wonder if the minister has consulted thoroughly on this particular issue with the UBCM, because there is a practice in some municipalities where you get a really good mayor and they want to chuck the council out: the mayor runs with one party, but could be endorsed by another. I'm not so sure this particular section has had a thorough debate at the UBCM. Could the minister assure me that it has?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one of those areas where we didn't reach consensus or an overwhelming majority at the UBCM. There was a split on this issue. I guess you can say I took one side or the other in terms of this issue, and it's in section 79(5).

A. Cowie: I thank the minister for being open about this. In fact, it was a split decision. I think that someday we'll have to come back and look at it.

V. Anderson: I rise to ask the minister what the philosophy behind this is. I know it's been argued from the point of view of those who say it is a political bias. But assuming it doesn't have a particular political bias, it does have a bias in favour of organized groups over an independent. In another section of this bill, it says that no designation is to go behind candidates' names to indicate their profession, their experience or anything else. Why is it appropriate to have this designation regarding the endorsement of a particular party when there are other designations which could be more helpful to voters, such as the qualifications of the person they're voting for? It seems to me that in setting out qualifications that might be helpful, on the one hand the minister has taken away endorsements, and on the other hand he has put this one in as being special. Why has he done one and not the other?

[5:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Because political organizations -- whatever community they are in -- do exist. They're definitely part of the political process. What we've tried to say is that they exist. In recognizing this reality, we thought a candidate should have the opportunity to put those organizations on there as part of the political process. It's permissive; they don't have to do it. Candidates can run independently. If you feel strongly about it, I assume you would encourage them to run independently. I may have a view on that myself; I'm not about to give it today.

You were referring to occupations or anything else on the ballot. It was felt that it should be as clear as possible, in terms of being neutral. But electoral organizations, hon. member, are part of the political process. We recognize that, and we're putting that up front.

L. Fox: I have a question with respect to this section. Given that a candidate may run who has no affiliation with any civic electors' group and no party name to put behind his name, why could he not have the choice of 

[ Page 8203 ]

putting behind his name whether he's a businessman, a preacher or whatever might be the case?

Interjection.

L. Fox: He or she -- right. Why couldn't those people, because they are not part of elector groups, have the opportunity to put something on the ballot other than just their names?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, I guess it's a philosophical view. We could argue about it all day. In our view, political parties, ratepayers' organizations -- or whatever organizations come together collectively -- are a definite component of the electoral process. It's a way of saying they want it collectively and the candidate....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, hon. member, they don't have to. They can if they wish to. It's there. You and I know that there have been official and unofficial organizations at the local level. We are bringing it out front -- if people want it to be on the ballot. It doesn't have to be.

In terms of giving a person's business or occupation, I do not see how that adds to the electoral process or being able to choose who should seek office. For an electorate to see who is part of an organization -- and what they stand for as part of that organization.... If they so desire, that should be indicated on the ballot. The electors will make the decision of who they want. They may totally oppose that kind of process and vote against those candidates.

G. Wilson: With respect to section 79(1)(b), is it intended that the membership of this organization must be within the electoral jurisdiction of the area that is electing?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.

G. Wilson: Why doesn't it say that in the act?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Back to page 1: "...'elector' means a resident elector or a property elector of a municipality or regional district electoral area."

G. Wilson: I'm not talking about an elector; I'm talking about a member. It says that you have to have at least 50 electors, in terms of the membership of the organization, in order to be registered. If there is going to be a group of municipally chartered civic elector groups, is it possible for their memberships to be made up from various jurisdictions? In this province, every municipality goes to the poll at the same time, so it's not a question of one jurisdiction having an election and no other jurisdictions having an election, because everybody is going to the poll at the same time. That organization presumably can be chartered to provide.... What I'm leading up to is a provincially chartered organization such as the provincial New Democrats using that membership and that affiliate membership to provide organization and, one could argue, financing for municipal elections.

An Hon. Member: That's what they do now.

G. Wilson: I know, but this....

Hon. R. Blencoe: We feel it is covered by determining electors.... There are 50 electors and we have determined that they have to be resident electors. But if the member is concerned, he may wish to suggest some clarification. I think it is covered adequately.

G. Wilson: My concern is not so much in the organization. I happen to agree with the minister that if groups want to organize to set up affiliations at the municipal level, they are likely to do that, no matter what. My concern is with respect to contributions and disclosure, which is under a later section of the act, and perhaps I'll pick up my concerns in those sections.

D. Mitchell: Before we leave section 79, I would like to canvass with the minister the issue of electoral affiliation versus the occupation of the candidate. I am not really sure I understand what the minister is saying here. He seems to be implying that it's much more important to list the party affiliation of a candidate for municipal office than it is to list the occupation of that candidate, and he suggests that this is a philosophical bias of his that is enshrined in this legislation. The whole idea of listing the occupation is a process that all of us are familiar with in this chamber. The minister himself has had his occupation listed on a ballot when he has run for provincial office. It has been a long-standing practice at all electoral levels in British Columbia for many years. He is proposing to get rid of that and now enshrine the notion that party politics should be intruding at the municipal level. There seems to be a bias on the minister's part that party politics should prevail and that individual elected representatives at the municipal level should be representing parties, not their electorate. They should be representing the party affiliations that are attached to their name, not the people they seek to represent. I don't think that bias will sit well with many British Columbians. It flies in the face of the urge towards direct democracy in the province today. I am wondering why the minister is going against that trend. Why is his bias to seek to have candidates for elected office represent parties, almost in a corporate sense? He wants them to represent parties rather than be individual British Columbians who might list their occupations, which is the traditional way of listing candidate affiliation. Why is the minister imposing his bias on the process in British Columbia today?

Hon. R. Blencoe: For the member to suggest I'm imposing my bias.... I am reflecting the reality. Organizations exist. When two or more people get together around a partisan issue, even if it's at the municipal level, organizations form. All we're saying is that if those organizations wish to be reflected on the 

[ Page 8204 ]

ballot, it's the reality. It's totally permissive. The partisanship or whatever is out there; partisan politics exist at all sorts of levels. We're just being open and upfront with it. It does not have to be on the ballot.

In the end, my hon. colleague, the electors make the decision on who they want to represent them. If they don't want to vote for someone who is part of that organization, so be it. It would be the quickest message that could be given to organizations that wish to use this particular category.

D. Mitchell: I understand what the minister is saying, but I think what he's saying is very disturbing. He's saying that when an individual British Columbian goes into the ballot box to mark his or her ballot, they're going to be presented with a list of candidates. The information that is going to accompany that name is only going to be one piece of information, and that is their party affiliation. That's it. That's the only opportunity to list any information attached to their name -- their party affiliation.

This bill is then enshrining party politics at the municipal level in British Columbia. It's institutionalizing and legislating party politics at the municipal level. It's something that most British Columbians have no experience with. I don't believe that there's much desire to infect municipal politics with the poison that has infected politics at the provincial and federal levels for far too long.

Can the minister inform the committee today what representation he has received in the consultation process to impose party politics at the municipal level in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, there is no imposition from this government at all. It is permissive, and it is there to be used. I suspect that at one time you were a member of a political party, and I suspect you're looking for a new home. You might find one in time.

D. Mitchell: He won't answer that question; he seeks to propose questions to me. Mr. Chair, maybe in a few years' time....

Another issue relating to section 79 is the flip side of this. The occupation of the candidate is being deleted. I heard the minister's response earlier to that, but I wonder if he could elaborate. Why take away the occupation of the candidate -- the only defining feature on the ballot -- so that when the voter goes into the ballot box to mark his or her X beside a candidate's name.... There used to be an accompanying identification of the occupation of the candidate. Why remove that identifier? What is the bias that's prevailing here on the minister's part?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I know the member is trying to find something in here. When people put forward their occupations it was totally subjective. They could virtually put forward whatever they wished. They had all sorts of licence to give themselves all sorts of nuances on their occupation. Quite frankly, it did affect the ballot. All we're doing here is taking that off and putting on a reality, which is that political organizations do exist at the local level. I hate to say that to you, hon. member. If they wish to be on the ballot, it's totally voluntary and permissive, and it's part of the political process. I can say to you that when people were choosing their occupations, great licence was used.

D. Mitchell: Following through on the logic he is arguing, did the minister consider the option of not listing anything other than the candidate's name on the municipal ballot?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There's an option already there in that if an organization that exists is part of the political process and part of the government structure at the local level, that organization -- if deemed fit and its candidate wishes -- can be listed in order for the citizens to see that they're being upfront. If the citizens don't like that, they can vote against it -- and maybe they will.

D. Mitchell: Does the minister believe that this will encourage the practice of identifying candidates by electoral affiliation? Does he believe that this practice, enshrined in section 79, will actually encourage party politics at the municipal level?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have no idea.

A. Cowie: I guess what we're getting down to is that some people have more difficulty in committing themselves to groups or parties than others.

[5:15]

We also have a number of concerns about the little guy having a more difficult time under this new structure. I personally have been elected a number of times, and it's certainly an advantage on the ballot to run for the Vancouver Parks Board as a landscape architect. They think you can grow trees and plant some things. But I also saw in the last election that people fibbed a little bit about what they did. They called themselves environmental lawyers and environmental technicians, because they were trying to get the public to be on their side by means of the latest concern, which is the environment. So I want to go on record as favouring getting rid of those professions on the ballot. In the long run, it will be better for everybody to get their qualifications across in other ways.

I also recognize that it does make it difficult if you run as an independent versus running for some kind of party -- whatever you want to call it. We'll be dealing with this later on. I think there is a bias in favour of provincial organizations getting involved at the local level, and that is in fact happening. I ask the minister if he got any consensus on this particular issue as well at the UBCM, because I doubt that he really got a large consensus on it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: There was no consensus. What you have before you is provincial leadership from a government that is not scared of showing leadership on thorny issues.

[ Page 8205 ]

A. Cowie: If the minister is going to show leadership, perhaps he could comment on something that's not even in here. It's much better if you happen to be on the first part of the ballot -- if you're an A, B, C, D, E or F. I've heard that all the time at the municipal level. Was the minister not concerned about that? I have heard that if you happen to be X, Y or Z, your chances of getting elected are 6 percent less than if you're A, B or C.

Hon. R. Blencoe: That's a later section. We have no empirical evidence to back up your case, but I think you'll be happy with a later section that tries to deal with that perception.

L. Fox: It's an interesting discussion. It shows that Vancouver- and Victoria-type politicians don't understand the province as a whole, or perhaps the interior communities. When an individual's job or profession was allowed to be on the ballot in the past, it many times helped to clarify just who that Mr. Johnson was or who that Mrs. So-and-So was. If there were two names of similar type and one was a teacher, everybody would say: "Oh yes, that's Mrs. Jones." They were able to recognize immediately who that individual was. But without any party affiliation or any opportunity to put her professional title or anything along those lines on the ballot, Mrs. Jones could be many people in a community. That part will be lost by this particular section. It's rather unfortunate, because in most parts of British Columbia there are presently no party affiliations. In fact, the people don't want them. They tell Vancouver and its urban areas: "Keep your partisan politics; we don't want it within our municipalities." Now we're going to have two Mrs. Joneses running for office in Prince George, and nobody will know who's who.

An Hon. Member: Three John Turners.

L. Fox: Like three John Turners -- exactly. That was the reason why those particular....

Interjections.

L. Fox: Obviously everybody woke up. Maybe I made a point that somebody seemed to understand, because we are used to name familiarity. We do have three Gordons, and if they didn't have last names, we would have a problem. We have two Campbells.

The reason for the professional classification on the ballot was to allow some identification of those individuals within the community, so that there was some quick understanding as to which Mrs. Jones they were voting for. Without that, the identification is going to be lost, and you are going to add to the confusion in the balloting process.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is really stretching it and belabouring debate. If the member had checked the act and looked at section 106, it clarifies and deals with the issue he is worried about. If two or more candidates have the same surnames or given names or names so similar that in the opinion of the chief election officer they are likely to cause confusion, new information is to be added to the ballot, such as their address or middle names, to have some differentiation. Hon. member, I think you are trying to make sure that certain individuals and certain occupations can do what they want on the ballot. That's fine, hon. member. We didn't want to do that. If in your area you feel strongly about electoral organizations not being on the ballot, those citizens won't support it; it won't happen.

L. Fox: I find it encouraging that every time the minister runs into something which is logical in an argument, he throws back the political rhetoric because he can't defend his position. With respect to the clause that he referred to, it doesn't matter if it's Joe Alan Jones or Mary John Jones. To many individuals, it's Ms. Jones or Mr. Jones -- or whoever. You can put the third name in there and it won't mean a darned thing to them. In the past, it was very simply identified and it happened.

If the minister had done any research, he could have found out how many times similar names are on the ballots. He will find that this fairly often happens. Now there is no opportunity -- even with the clause that the minister quoted -- for individuals to have a quick reference; they don't sit in the polling booth for that long. I think that quite often -- if I might speculate a bit -- if there are two Ms. Joneses and they don't know which one they are voting for, they'll vote for someone else because they don't want to vote for the wrong one. That might be an advantage for anybody with a party affiliation.

Obviously the minister is concerned that if somebody lists businessman -- or the lady lists businesswoman -- as an occupation.... He said earlier, in response to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, that those particular classifications affected the outcome of the vote. He said that very clearly. Given the fact that most people when they elect their municipal councils want people who are credible and have the ability to spend their money, he's obviously concerned that a businessman or a businesswoman has an advantage over a labourer. That's the concern of the minister.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

L. Fox: It was the minister who made that statement, not me. It was he who said that those classifications affected the outcome of the election, not me. That's available in the Blues, and you can read it if you weren't listening, hon. member for Prince George North. Now we know the reasons behind this. He's not really concerned about the process. He's concerned about the fact that it may affect the outcome of the election.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. In the opinion of the Chair, the matter we are debating is getting dangerously close to tedious and repetitious debate. All 

[ Page 8206 ]

hon. members are aware of the rules with regard to debate. I would ask the members to please keep them in mind.

K. Jones: I'm going to bring us back to the actual issue that's before us in this section, and that's the question of political party identification. I'd like to point out that this really amounts to creating political slates. I would like to ask the minister if he is trying to create at the municipal level an adversarial form of government. This type of government works at the provincial level, because people are elected as individuals, and they represent areas. They have a government side and they have an opposition side. It also works at the federal level. But up until now at the local level there has generally been an attempt to operate without an adversarial relationship, and there is no structure for an adversarial process to operate at the local level. Could the minister tell us how he has changed the structure of local government to make provision for an adversarial process? How is it going to function if you're going to create an adversarial process at the local level? It's very serious.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, the changes in the legislation are before you. I would suggest that whether it's at the municipal, federal or provincial level, when you have people contesting elections, you might have people disagreeing with each other as part of the political process. The changes are before you, hon. member. I don't think I can give you any more information.

K. Jones: The minister states that the changes are before us. But the minister is bringing forward changes that encourage the establishment of bloc voting: voting for a bloc of candidates, a party or a slate. This is not normally done in most of British Columbia. It is occurring in a small number of very large municipal populations and has not really been working very well. In my community in Surrey we have the adversarial situation, which has done nothing but really block the process of local government. It has been more of a hindrance to the workings of government. And you're suggesting that we should be promoting this on a provincewide basis, encouraging people to vote for a slate of candidates so they would have all their candidates on the council.

We really believe that when there's a full representation of the whole community -- people choosing from the whole community -- we would end up with very representative local government. When we go for a political slate, we end up with only one philosophical viewpoint representing all of the people, and the philosophical viewpoint that ends up with the largest bloc is going to determine the direction at the local level. That's not productive for the workings of good local government, unless you're going to put in the proper vehicle for an adversarial process.

I don't think the minister has thought this out well enough to consider the ramifications of what he's putting forward. Could the minister tell us what other factors will allow for the adversarial type of government he proposes to bring forward to change the municipal process?

Hon. R. Blencoe: None, because no more are necessary. What is here is what you have. These are the suggestions. I think we have canvassed this extensively, and unless I hear anything new my intention is to allow the discussion....

[5:30]

V. Anderson: Section 79(1)(b) mentions a membership of 50 electors. Does electors there refer to both resident electors and property electors? By this, does the minister mean that 50 property electors can form an organization and be recognized as such, without any resident electors? Is that what's being referred to here -- it could be either/or, or both?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It could be a combination of both, or it could be one or the other. Again, the electorate would know that and would determine whether they want to support that kind of candidate.

V. Anderson: Following up on that, if the municipality were to go to a ward or constituency-based system -- as referred to later on in here -- would that mean that in each of those constituencies or wardsss there would need to be 50 electors, and the people who are nominating and sponsoring them would have to be part of each of those wards? Or can they be across whatever divisions they want to be? Do they have to be a resident in those wards in order to vote in them?

Hon. R. Blencoe: For the elector organization, it could be right across the municipality; but for the neighbourhood constituency or ward, you have to be a resident or part of that neighbourhood constituency to nominate.

V. Anderson: I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that to sponsor someone in Vancouver, for instance, the 50 electors could come from Burnaby, Vancouver or North Vancouver, as long as they are electors in British Columbia? Or are you saying that within, say, the city of Vancouver or Burnaby, none of those 50 electors has to live within the ward in order to nominate somebody from that ward; they could be from outside the ward to nominate within that area?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Just to help clarify, the 50 electors in, say, Vancouver would have to be from within the boundaries of Vancouver.

V. Anderson: Do you mean the same 50 electors could nominate all ten of the people in the different areas within Vancouver -- all ten people in Vancouver, rather than in each ward itself?

Interjection.

V. Anderson: We're talking about electoral organizations of 50 people, and they can nominate in every ward within the city of Vancouver -- even 

[ Page 8207 ]

though they only live in one ward, they can nominate in all ten wards, say. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. R. Blencoe: They would not be nominating, actually; they would be endorsing candidates in whatever.... By the way, the city of Vancouver does its own rules in this area. But if they wished to, they could endorse candidates in 12 wards in the city of Vancouver.

D. Mitchell: I think the member for Vancouver-Langara raises an important issue here that's not specifically addressed. So the minister's comments, which will be reflected in Hansard, may have to be relied on one day to determine who in fact is eligible to identify an organization as one that they are representing -- whether it's in Vancouver and if there's a ward system, or whether it's in any part of the province. So for the sake of clarity, because I think the minister's words could be very important here: is the minister saying that an organization with a membership of 50 electors, and that's been in place for 60 days, is the only kind of organization that can endorse a candidate, can be listed as the affiliation -- corporate, party or whatever -- of the candidate, and that those 50 electors must be within the specific geographic area that the candidate is running in, whether it's a municipality or a ward within a municipality?

Hon. R. Blencoe: They have to be electors within the community at large, but not necessarily within the neighbourhood constituency.

D. Mitchell: The minister's answer is too ambiguous. I think it's important here. The community at large could mean anything, and his words in Hansard could be interpreted in the future to mean the province. Community at large is not a legal term. It's not defined in the act; there is no definition of community at large here. I've asked the minister to be more specific, because this is not specific. Do the 50 electors who are members of this association -- political party probably, but it could be a ratepayers' association or anything -- have to reside within the specific geographic area, whether it's a municipality, regional district or ward within a municipality, to make this a bona fide electoral affiliation that can be listed on the ballot the minister so desperately wants to ram through in this legislation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: They have to be eligible electors within that municipality, whether property owners or residents.

L. Fox: To follow up on that briefly, the principle used for a municipality or regional district is different than for a ward. I understand that wards are available only to Vancouver and no other community. The principle the minister is stating is that the membership to form that organization has to come from within municipal or regional district boundaries respectively. But when it comes to wards, it goes beyond the ward to the total community -- the membership can be part of the total within Vancouver's borders, for instance, rather than just the ward. So there's a difference here in the principle applied in municipal or regional district elections and in ward elections. I guess I'm wondering why the difference in the two policies.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We are going to get to the section on wards a little later.

The rules apply equally to all municipalities, including the city of Vancouver. Actually, in terms of established wards, the change here is basically going to affect Vancouver because, as you know, Vancouver currently has the 60 percent referendum rule. We're going to bring it back to where Vancouver will be the same as any other municipality: it's by 50 percent vote of council. The municipality can go to referendum on the concept of wards if they see fit, but the rules will be universal for all municipalities on this issue.

L. Fox: I have one final observation, for the record. I want to endorse the concerns of the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. He pointed out that this process has taken away from the process of consultation and compromise, which many councils now endorse -- and, I believe, govern under. In fact, most municipal councils operate in a kind of compromise setting. If it moves into communities, supported by government, this particular structure will take away from the ability to compromise. We will start to get bloc voting like you see now in Vancouver, Victoria and other municipalities. Adherents to the party line vote in blocs, because that is the political will of that respective group and their membership, rather than what might be in the best interests of the community. I want to say on the record that it is a real concern of mine, because I know that the compromise system works well. Coming out of that system -- and this is not to say that the other system doesn't work -- you usually have a give-and-take by all council members, so you end up with decisions being made in the best interests of the municipality. Sometimes those objectives are lost in the party structure. It is a sad day when we see legislation in the House promoting something less than what a lot of communities already enjoy.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think we have canvassed this sufficiently, and I don't think we can say we haven't covered the topic. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member and to all members that this section is permissive. The member may very well be correct. In many communities, candidates or groups of candidates may say they don't wish to proceed with this kind of organization or this kind of endorsement on the ballot. But the electors will make that decision. You may be correct that this kind of organization is currently only a phenomenon in large urban centres; but we are saying that the potential is there, and they do exist. If candidates wish to be identified with a particular political organization within a political framework, they may do so. We are in a political arena, hon. member. It may very well be that in the communities you represent, this is not acceptable. Then those candidates won't do very well, and they'll go as a so-called independent candidate, as you say.

[ Page 8208 ]

K. Jones: Could the minister elaborate on what he means by this section being permissive? How does he define that? If one organization wishes to put it forward, it will be a case of the....

P. Ramsey: On a point of order, hon. Chair, you've cautioned this chamber recently about being tedious and repetitious in this debate, and I think we've just crossed that boundary. I would ask the Chair if we could keep the bounds of this debate in order -- on new material. This section has been canvassed quite consistently and repeatedly on the point this member is raising.

The Chair: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on the same point of order?

D. Mitchell: Speaking to the point of order made by the member for Prince George North, I'm not sure how he could have possibly anticipated what the member for Surrey-Cloverdale was about to say, because he hadn't quite said it yet.

We're dealing with a section in a bill that changes the way British Columbians cast their ballots in municipal elections. Nothing could be more fundamental to our democracy in this province than this. If we cannot properly give this section of the bill detailed and thorough scrutiny, there's something seriously wrong with the proceedings in this committee today. I think the member's point of order is not very well taken.

[5:45]

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member.

Does the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale wish to make a submission on the point of order? The Chair is apprised of the member's concerns. As I mentioned earlier, we should be cautious and ensure that we follow the rules of debate, which seek to avoid repetitious and tedious debate. However, having advised the committee, the Chair is at the will of the committee with respect to these matters. I would ask hon. members to do their best to respect the difficult job of chairing a committee where we can't be relevant to the matter before us.

K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's a very studied decision on the two points, and I congratulate you for taking that position.

My question is a very pertinent one that I'm making with great sincerity. The minister has several times repeated his statement that this is a permissive section, yet I'm not quite clear how it would be. Could the minister tell us how this could be withdrawn once it's established?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It is permissive in that consent has to be received from the candidate and the electoral organization; it is not ordered, mandatory or obligatory. It recognizes that this sort of organization exists -- I agree, predominantly in major urban areas. All we're doing is recognizing that fact. It's permissive in terms of the organization and the candidate, if they see fit.

K. Jones: But I think we have to go past the organization and the candidate to the ballot aspect, where it then becomes a fact of process. Could the minister clarify: if one organization chooses to do it and no others do, does it get put on the ballot?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Only the name of the one electoral organization that requested it would be on the ballot. You could not put on the ballot: "This organization does not want to be on the ballot." Give me a break, hon. member.

K. Jones: I wish the minister would show some patience with this, because it's a very important issue that needs to be addressed. The minister is now saying that once one party chooses to put it on the ballot, it will be there; if any other parties see it there, they will have to put their names on the ballot as an endorsement as well. Therefore, without giving the choice to everybody at each ballot, it will automatically become imperative to have it in order to stay in contention. Each political organization will require their political name on there, so that they can get support for their slate of candidates.

Once again, this is not a permissive piece of legislation. Once enacted, it will become mandatory and become entrenched in our political process, creating -- as we have previously stated -- slates and, as a result of that, an adversarial type of government. The actual practice of your own party in the municipality of Surrey is tying up the process of government. It is causing problems in other municipalities because those slate factions aren't willing to work together. They vote one way on philosophical lines, rather than in the best interests of the community. I don't think the minister, if he is a responsible Minister of Municipal Affairs, wants to create a process that would tie up the entire process of municipal government in British Columbia. He is creating a type of animal at the municipal level that is different from what there has ever been in the history of the British Commonwealth, I think we could probably go so far as to say -- and certainly of Canada.

A. Warnke: Admittedly, I wanted to take part in this section earlier. I believe the minister is aware that I made a lot of comments on this section in second reading. In particular, any time there is an attempt to establish and institutionalize a political party.... I think this is exactly what's being done in terms of establishing an electoral organization. This particular section institutionalizes a political party at the municipal level.

Along the lines of some of the cautions expressed by other members on this side, I would like to add my concerns about the provisions that are being made according to this section. In particular, I paid close attention to some of the problems that the member for Prince George-Omineca raised as to the fact that the elector organization may appear on the ballot to identify a particular individual. That is far more important than an individual's occupation, which reflects one's station, one's accomplishments and, indeed, one's identity in life. It's a premise that I'm not sure should be accepted so willingly. I would appreciate 

[ Page 8209 ]

it if the minister could elaborate on that. I'm trying to put a number of points together, and perhaps the minister could respond to those. It might actually facilitate the process here.

On another point, as the minister points out, the electors will make a decision. Along the lines of what the minister said, this is a permissive section because it does not disallow individuals from running as independents; but it is not permissive in the sense that it creates incentives for individuals to run as independents. The minister, as well as every other member in this chamber, is fully aware that independents may run in federal and provincial elections as well. Yet how many independents are successful? I can think of only one. I've studied the subject, and I participated in a federal campaign as an independent -- successfully, I might add -- and it is a rare bird indeed. It has occurred once in a federal election, certainly since the Second World War. Provincially I'm not aware of an independent having been elected in B.C. for at least three decades, and possibly much longer -- again, since the Second World War. Yes, the section may be permissive in terms of allowing independents to put their case before the public and get elected, but the minister and members are fully aware that the permissiveness of the section is extremely limited.

Therefore it begs this question. We have a system already in place at the municipal level that provides -- or has so until recently -- the incentive, environment and opportunity for individuals to run on their own merit in a particularly modest campaign and yet get elected. But once political parties or elector organizations -- to use the term that's used here -- are institutionalized, I would suggest that the incentives for individuals to represent their community on school boards and councils will become fewer simply because we have institutionalized electoral organizations. Fair enough. Perhaps there's permissive legislation for an independent to run in federal and provincial elections as well. That doesn't really mean a heck of a lot when the incentives, environment and opportunities to encourage individuals to run at the municipal level are being diminished. I think this is something that the minister hasn't looked at.

I have one final point I would like to raise. As I read the legislation -- and let's just stick to section 79 -- an argument could be put forward that, once we have such an electoral organization institutionalized and in place, the next step is that that set of institutions could be transformed so that federal and provincial parties and their counterparts could set up an electoral organization that uses their names. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale put this quite well: in the municipality of Surrey the Civic New Democrats are already putting forward candidates. We certainly see it in my own municipality of Richmond, where there is a political party called the Civic New Democrats. I don't think it goes very far to say that therefore we will see Civic Conservatives, Civic Social Credit, Civic Liberals. Some people might think that's quite an innovation, that it's the way to go in the future -- maybe we should institutionalize political parties at the municipal level. If that's the case, let the minister state it's so. That's the premise they're operating from, but I don't see it as the route we should go. I'm wondering if the minister might make some comments on that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I've made all the comments I need to about this issue, and I don't think we need to keep covering it. I know the member's concerns and viewpoints. But as I've said over and over again, it's permissive in terms of the candidate and the elector organization, and if communities don't want to endorse this sort of thing they go elsewhere -- they go the independent route. We're recognizing reality, and we're being totally upfront about that.

R. Neufeld: I have a couple of quick questions on the part about being permissive and being able to write who you represent on the ballot. At what point in time is that decision made? Can one group make that decision in isolation from another? Or is this going to be a meeting together with candidates, and they're going to decide they're going to put these names on the ballots? When the minister talks about it being permissive, and I think about small communities, there could be some organizations that put their name on and some that may not. I just want to know when that decision is made.

Hon. R. Blencoe: There are certain stipulations about what a valid organization is, and that's in a later section. But they have to be in existence 60 days prior to the nomination period.

V. Anderson: I still have to come up on this question of the 50 electors. When I look ahead to the Vancouver Charter one, which will come up later, the only electors that can vote in a neighbourhood constituency are the electors of that constituency. I find it difficult to interpret that as the minister has done previously. I find it difficult to understand why 50 people who are not members of and cannot vote in a constituency are allowed to be the endorsers of the candidates within that constituency, and I would ask the minister for clarification.

[6:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have already clarified that they have to be electors within the municipality.

L. Fox: Given the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House stand recessed for five minutes.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:11 p.m.

[ Page 8210 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 65.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to take this opportunity to speak for a few minutes with regard to this important legislation, which we as a government are quite pleased to be introducing and bringing to this chamber for discussion and for debate.

This legislation makes significant changes to section 2(2) and section 5.1 of the Employment Standards Act. The legislation is a consequence of work done by Prof. Mark Thompson of the faculty of commerce at the University of British Columbia, who heads a panel reviewing the Employment Standards Act. The panel is looking into a range of issues as they relate to employment standards. Professor Thompson is a one-person commission, and he has advisers representing business, labour and a number of equity groups in society who are advising him on potential changes to the Employment Standards Act. The government had asked Professor Thompson to take a look at section 2(2) on an expedited basis so that legislation could be brought forward to this House during the course of this legislative session.

As hon. members may well know, the government conducted a review of labour legislation last fall and introduced the new Labour Relations Code, Bill 84, in this House at that time. Debate with regard to that legislation concluded in December. As part of the advisory group for the Labour Relations Code that was headed by my deputy minister, Mr. Heywood.... The government received recommendations that we eliminate the loophole in section 2(2). As a consequence, once in receipt of that recommendation, the government obviously felt, as I believe it should, that it had a mandate to proceed with changes to section 2(2) -- a mandate which, of course, is rooted in the election of October 1991. The question really was: how does one make changes to section 2(2)? That is what we asked Professor Thompson's group to take a look at.

Professor Thompson's report was made public with the tabling of this legislation. I think it's important that the following statement in his report be read into the record. When he explained the fundamental rationale underlying this legislation, he said: "...there is no other province in Canada that permits the parties in collective bargaining to contract out of employment standards legislation.... It is unusual, if not unique, that a government should permit parties to negotiate away the protections of basic social legislation."

[6:15]

This is basic social legislation. For a long time we as a society have made a conscious decision to define the minimum requirements in all sorts of social legislation. In the case of employment standards legislation as a piece of social legislation, we have simply said that people must be paid overtime and vacation pay, and must have, as a minimum, protections with regard to severance, termination and recall. One would not expect parties to contract out of the minimum provisions of social legislation any more than one would expect people to enter into agreements to violate the minimum wage protection. As a matter of social policy, we as a society have decided that there ought to be basic protections. For example, in the area of the minimum wage, to ensure that people get at least the minimum wage, we've defined the floor and said that no one can get less than that defined in the regulations dealing with minimum wage.

In a similar vein, it is the view of this administration that there ought to be protections with regard to provisions relating to overtime, vacation pay, severance and a number of other areas -- which we'll debate when we get into committee stage of this legislation -- that make it impossible to contract out. If the law says that you must pay overtime, that you must provide for vacation pay and that you must make provisions for severance and notice of termination, that's the law. One ought not to be able to contract out of the law as expressed by this Legislature.

The law is defined, and we don't expect people to avoid it by signing agreements to do that. That, of course, is a basic tenet. For example, if I can give another analogy, we don't allow mortgage companies to execute agreements with consumers so as to require people to pay something in excess of what's required by legislation under the provisions of the Interest Act. The previous administration, for a lot of reasons -- which I'm sure they will articulate in the course of this debate -- made a conscious decision to bring forward amendments to the Employment Standards Act, through section 2(2), to allow for contracting out of these minimum provisions. That decision was made by the previous administration about a decade ago, if my memory serves, and it has been controversial. Obviously one of the reasons the government is moving with this legislation is our desire to deal with that controversy. Having said this, I think it's also important to acknowledge that over the last decade, a number of collective agreements in mature settings were negotiated with both section 2(2) and the ability to contract out in mind, as were agreements concluded in what I would call immature collective bargaining environments.

Be that as it may, when government makes a decision to remedy a wrong -- and I do think it is wrong to allow parties to contract out of minimal social legislation -- one has to deal with the realities of the situation that's been created by the contracting-out provisions -- in this case section 2(2). Therefore the legislation contemplates ways in which we can look at the current situation -- the existence of contracts that have been negotiated on the basis of the law as it is right now -- and at the same time tries to deal with plugging what we see as fundamental wrongs and the violation of the basic principle that people ought not to be permitted "to negotiate away the protections of basic social legislation," if I can paraphrase Professor Thompson.

This legislation therefore says that you can't contract out of the law. The law is that you have these minimal provisions. That's the law, and you can't sign an agreement to get around it. One of the reasons we do 

[ Page 8211 ]

that and take this position as a government is that sometimes the most vulnerable in society can be asked to execute agreements. Inasmuch as some will say that this legislation is aimed at "rat unions," if I can use that terminology, it's also aimed at protecting some of those who, because of the inequality of bargaining power which exists between an employer and an employee who is not represented by a trade union.... Unfortunately, people use that inequality of bargaining power to extract agreements that are in violation of the minimal provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

We don't think that's right. We don't think that the power relationship between an employer and an employee should be used to extract the lowest common denominator of provisions. It shouldn't be used to extract concessions that are less than what the law requires for vacation pay, overtime and termination. As a consequence, the government feels that this legislation is in the public interest, in terms of dealing with that inequality of bargaining power and defining the minimum standards.

With regard to group terminations, in section 5.1 of the act the rights and obligations of employers as well as union and non-union employees are now clarified to reflect recent court cases in termination or layoffs. Employees will have the benefit of either recall or severance, but not both. We also add that employers will now be required to provide severance pay when they fail to give proper group termination notice, and severance will be equal to the period of notice required. This deals with the famous Royal Oak Inn decision rendered a year ago, I guess, by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Esson. We've tried to remedy the effect of that decision with the changes to section 5.1.

The amendments to section 2(2) will come into effect on January 1, 1994, with an option for an extension of up to three months for the parties. This will give employers and employees a maximum nine-month transition period to comply with the new provisions. Amendments to section 5.1 on group termination will come into effect immediately.

We're making these changes to the Employment Standards Act as part of our overall effort to adapt our province's labour mechanisms to meet the challenges and demands of today's economy. This means having an adaptable workforce enjoying a basic level of protection and security, as well as having viable industries capable of meeting the demands of a highly competitive marketplace.

Let me reiterate. We feel very strongly as an administration that this province should be on the same footing as all other provinces in this country, to prevent people from contracting out of basic employment standards and social legislation. This therefore represents, I think, a victory for working men and women in British Columbia, who will now have the protection of this legislation. I would hope that the opposition -- I will have my opportunity to deal with their concerns in my wrap-up comments; that's why I'm going to keep these comments short -- will see the benefits of this legislation, and will come to appreciate that the previous Social Credit administration erred in making the changes it did and that it is wrong for people to deny minimal protections. These protections are in place, and they will inevitably benefit working men and women. I therefore look forward to support for these provisions from both opposition parties.

G. Farrell-Collins: I, too, am interested in taking my part in this debate and in starting what I am sure will be a fairly raucous debate over the next little while that we deal with this.

Time after time this Minister of Labour has stood up in the House and told us about all the wonderful things that they were mandated to do by the people of British Columbia in October 1991. The reality is that in October 1991, over 60 percent of the people in British Columbia voted against the NDP and against exactly the type of legislation that he continues to bring in.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is quoting from polls to say that they support this type of legislation. Knowing the type of polling that governments are prone to do, I can imagine the types of questions that they were asked.

Time after time the Minister of Labour and many members of the government stand up in this House and tell us that they have this mandate from the public to bring in changes to all sorts of legislation. They tell us it is something that the public has been crying out for; that they have been waiting with bated breath to vote in the NDP so they could bring in this type of legislation and change everything and make the world wonderful for British Columbians.

The fact is that this government has been over-reacting. They have taken the election -- the change that was given to them by the public in October 1991 -- for granted. The public in British Columbia thought they were electing a moderate government; they are finding that they did not. Through piece after piece of legislation in this House, they are finding that they have elected a very extreme government that clearly is not being controlled from the top, but by interest groups and ministers, despite the promises that the Premier made to the province prior to the last election.

The Minister of Labour calls this basic social legislation. I don't think it is basic social legislation -- certainly not the sections that deal with the problems in section 2(2), which the minister outlined. We sat in this House for eight weeks and debated Bill 84 at length. I remember a good debate between myself and the member for Vancouver-Hastings, when they argued time and time again that nobody had the right to intrude into the collective bargaining process; that a collective agreement signed by employers and employees and then voted on in a secret ballot by those employees was sacrosanct.

We argued about Bill 84 as it relates to certification and said that people should have the same right to a secret ballot on whether or not they want to become part of a certified bargaining unit. The minister, the Premier and the member for Vancouver-Hastings -- we know her past affiliations with the B.C. Fed, so I'm sure she's quite educated in this area and quite in tune with 

[ Page 8212 ]

it -- stood up and stated that there was no need to have a secret ballot for certification, because the vote of confidence in the bargaining unit that represented those individual workers took place when they signed a collective agreement. Their vote in favour of a collective agreement was their vote of confidence in the union. If that concept stood up to the standards then, why is the government now falling back and saying that they didn't really think workers were smart enough to sign a collective agreement that was in their best interests? How come that argument was valid when we dealt with certification but it's not valid now? Why the contradiction?

I'm sure we'll go through this as the debate goes on over the next little while, but the fact is that there are hundreds of collective agreements out there, parts of which do go below what is prescribed in the Employment Standards Act. If you were to look at basic legislation such as the minister talks about, a small number of the dips below the minimum level prescribed in the Employment Standards Act are probably unfair, but the reality is that the majority of them are traded off for some benefit elsewhere in the contract -- not just specifically, as I'm sure the minister will say when he gets up to close debate, in those parts of the employment standards, but there are payoffs back and forth throughout the contract. In order to get some benefit and flexibility from the employees, the employer will oftentimes give them something better in one section to make up for that which they have received in the other section. That's something that the employers and the employees need to remain competitive in the world economy. There are times when you have to make those types of concessions; you have to give something up in order to get something better later on. The whole idea of productivity and flexibility is exactly what we're hearing from in the world economy. Those are the requirements that are needed in order to be competitive in the world economy.

Those are all things that need to be addressed. I think that the minister, by bringing down this type of legislation and by looking at it from a social engineering perspective, much as he has with the other legislation he has brought down -- certainly Bill 84 -- and much like we're seeing from a number of other members of the executive council in their legislation, including the Minister of Education.... They put on their Captain British Columbia outfit in a phone booth and come rushing out and bring in legislation for us all. The minister stands up and says he's rescuing workers from those evil villains. In many cases the workers themselves have requested that flexibility in work hours and days off. The minister is going into those collective agreements; he's going to open them up and somehow appoint a director to determine what's right and what's wrong, and what's fair and what's not fair. And their politically appointed hack -- we can only guess, given their track record -- is going to go in as the director of this program and decide what's fair and what's not fair, despite what the workers have said, despite what the employers have said and despite the collective bargaining that has gone on, in many cases, for years.

[6:30]

Somehow this government knows better -- this minister knows better -- than all those workers and all those employers. This minister and his director know better than all those people out there who have gone through this sacrosanct collective bargaining process that the Minister of Labour was so opposed to getting involved in, so opposed to putting any pressure on, that he let the students of this province twist in the wind for six weeks -- in some districts, like the Vancouver district, for three weeks -- before he finally took orders from the Premier, stepped in and did what needed to be done, and got the students back to school. This is a minister who, quite frankly, in the last session of this Legislature was beat up pretty badly over letting things go on as long as he did in the labour disruptions in the school system. This is a Premier who had himself in an embarrassing position because he failed to show strong leadership and take control of that issue. They did it because they said that collective bargaining is sacrosanct; that it's the primary right of a person in this province to have collective bargaining.

But somehow that right only goes so far. As long as the government agrees with the contracts, as long as the minister is comfortable with the contracts, as long as this director they're going to appoint is comfortable with the contracts, it's okay. Collective bargaining works as long as it works the way they want it to work. But if it doesn't work the way they want it to work, if people are negotiating contracts that have flexibility in them, if they have to give something up in order to get something else back, then all of a sudden it's a problem, and the government has to go in and correct it. I don't think that's the way it's supposed to work. The government said: "Where collective bargaining works, we want to support it. Where it's broken, we'll come in and fix it." They said that about education, and it took forever to get them to do it.

In this case we have collective agreements that are in force and are working -- and yes, some of them are substandard. But the way to address that -- and I am sure the minister would agree -- is to give those workers the right and the power to negotiate those contracts, to fight the hard fight and to make the difficult choices that have to be made in order to get a collective agreement: maybe a prolonged and protracted strike. Those are the very rights that this minister spoke so much about during debate on Bill 84. Why can't those workers do that?

The government has now brought in so much legislation that employers can't just shut down and leave, because they're certified. The certification isn't going to stop. The employer can't have a strike, go out of business, and come back and try to start up a business again without having the same union represent them. Those changes were made during Bill 84. That protection is there for the workers. If the workers want to get those types of agreements and clauses in their contracts, they should do it the way the rest of labour has done it: strike; do the hard bargaining and the negotiations that every other labour person in 

[ Page 8213 ]

this province has had to do in order to get those things in their contracts.

Why should the government step in like some big sugar daddy and grant these people all the things that other workers have worked for? Why is it the government that's saying whether these contracts are what's right or what's wrong? Where do they get off making those decisions? Where do they get off playing the big person -- God -- when it comes to labour relations? Do they somehow know better than everyone else?

That's just one aspect. That's the philosophical aspect, I suppose, to this piece of legislation. But there are some other problems with it that are more practical. We had a briefing on this legislation last week, and the people from the ministry who were giving us the briefing weren't clear on what it meant, particularly the sections with the eight weeks and the 26 weeks, and the rollover and the timing of those schedules. They couldn't quite agree among themselves on exactly how it worked. They had to talk about it for some length of time before they came to some sort of agreement on what it really meant.

Once again the Minister of Labour has brought in a piece of legislation -- he hasn't brought in many -- which down the road he is going to find simply doesn't work. He's going to find out that this section, which is so complex, is going to have to dovetail with thousands of collective agreements in this province, particularly in the resource sector, the pulp and paper sector, the mining sector and others -- if there are any working miners left in this province after some of the things the government has done. It's going to be so difficult and so confusing for those collective agreements to dovetail with that section that it's going to take well beyond April 1 of next year to sort it out.

But he has been even more optimistic than that. He said: "Let's have it all in place by January 1." Somehow this minister thinks he can open up, as he says, thousands of collective agreements in this province that are in existence right now and have all of what he calls the deficiencies sorted out, negotiated out and dealt with by the time January 1 rolls around. I imagine that will be about as successful as the minister's fair wage policy, which said that all the people working in the various trades will have to have their journeyman papers or apprenticeship papers in by a fixed date. We saw what happened. The date came and went, and they couldn't get their papers because the training programs weren't put in place by the Minister of Advanced Education. There wasn't the ability to do it. We simply couldn't achieve the deadline that the minister had put in.

I know that he thinks from an ideological base, but sometimes he should get off his high horse -- his thinking horse -- and come down into the trenches where things really take place, and ask people what the implications of this legislation are going to be. What is actually going to happen? How are these things going to be sorted out over the next few months?

If this section of the bill is as contentious as it's going to be -- and I'm sure it will be -- I don't think his director will have the ability within the ministry to look at the collective agreements and decide in those cases where it is contentious what the actual results are going to be and what the final collective agreement will be. It's a totally unrealistic time frame. Why not let those collective agreements run their course through the normal bargaining process? After those agreements expire and we go through the normal process of collective bargaining as it has been done in this province for eons, it seems, let those issues be thrown out on the table for discussion. Let them be debated and negotiated when the whole contract is up there, and everybody can discuss them when those trade-offs can be balanced. When those increases or decreases or those flexibility provisions need to be negotiated, they can be done when the whole contract is up for negotiation.

Why has the minister put in some arbitrary deadline of January 1? I've wrestled with that for a week or so, since the minister brought in this legislation. I've wondered what the rationale could possibly be for that time frame. The only answer I can come up with is that the Minister of Labour is likely to be shuffled out of his portfolio in September. When he packs up his boxes and answers all the mail he hasn't answered over the last year and half, he wants to walk out of his office and put his little Boy Scout badges on his sleeve and say, "Look at all the wonderful things I've accomplished as Minister of Labour," and leave the mess to whoever his successor is.

We saw this minister bring in Bill 84, the labour code amendments, last fall. He tried to dump all the problems onto the Minister of Education, as she dealt with the strikes and labour disruptions this spring. Finally, however, he had to get in there and grapple with it. He didn't want to, and he resisted it at all cost. But he finally had to get in there and try to clean up his own mess. Even at that, he did half the job. He's going to bail out of his ministry in September. Come January or April of next year, some other member of the NDP cabinet or of the back bench, who gets moved into cabinet, is going to have to deal with that and clean up some of the messes left in this piece of legislation by this minister.

D. Lovick: On the bill.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess the member for Nanaimo is still hopeful that he may have the honour of being the one to clean up the mess left by the Minister of Labour. We're all rooting for him, as things come together in September. I'd love to see him on the opposite side during question period so we can go at it.

How are the government, the employers and the employees in this province possibly going to be able to open up these collective agreements and negotiate the provisions by January 1? The minister said they would have a 90-day, three-month, extension if they can't do it in that time frame. What happens if April 1 comes and they haven't reached it yet? Where does it go? Will it go to the overtaxed mediation department they've got in place? Or will it go to arbitration? That's the same thing. Despite what the minister says, only a small number of people in this province are really qualified to look at those things. Or is it going to fall on the director's lap, 

[ Page 8214 ]

and is he or she going to have to deal with it one way or the other?

Those are questions the public is asking. Those are things that not only the employers in the pulp, mining and forest industries and the Government Employees' Union want to know about, but also the workers want to know. A lot of workers out there have negotiated flexibility in their contracts because they like having the four days on, and the four days off. They like to work so many hours a day and then have so many extra days off. They like those types of provisions perhaps because of their lifestyle. They like to work hard when they're there, and then they like to take three, four or five days off and go hunting or fishing or do something they enjoy doing. Those are things that employees have asked for in many cases, which have advanced them.

Why does the government feel it needs to say to them: "No, I'm sorry, you can't do that. You're going to have to go back and renegotiate your contract so that it falls within all these standards we've put in place for non-union employees." Those aren't all rat unions, as the minister calls them, that have those provisions. Hundreds of collective agreements exist in the mining, forestry and fisheries sectors. This is a resource-based economy, and a lot of those resources require flexibility in order to get the job done. They involve seasonal work, in many cases.

The construction industry is another one where there are sometimes abuses, but there are also great requirements for flexibility. Why does the government feel they need to change that? A lot of those employees have asked for those provisions. People in the IWA, the pulp and paper workers, and in the BCGEU for that matter have certain provisions in their contracts that don't comply with this 100 percent, and those are going to have to be dealt with. There is so much confusion in his own ministry, among the public and, I am sure, in the labour movement as to what these actually mean. It is going to have to sort itself out one way or the other over the next six or nine months. Somehow all this confusion is going to come to an end. Everything is either going to go through wonderfully, as the minister says it is, with minimal confrontation and problems, or it is not.

Given this government's -- and particularly this minister's -- hiring practices, I can imagine that the director we are going to get in that position is not going to be an impartial one. I suspect that that director, who is going to be dealing with this one time process of cleaning out all these collective agreements and jacking them all up to the minimum standards, is going to be picked precisely because they side with the labour unions in the province and decide against the employers. It is just something innocuous like the government's track record that makes me feel that way, but that is the direction that I think they are going. I would imagine, particularly given this minister's hiring practices, that that is exactly what we are going to see.

There is so much leeway in there and so much confusion as to what this actually means. There is so much possibility, if you take it to one extreme or to the other, for this legislation to mean something totally different that we are not comfortable with it. I don't think that the public is comfortable with it. I know the employers aren't comfortable with it, and I am sure that there are a lot of workers out there who are wondering what the heck's going to happen to the flexibility that they have negotiated in their contracts.

I know that the Minister of Labour is going to stand up and say: "We have tried to take some middle ground and go partway along in this; we have tried to allow some flexibility by allowing slight dips below the employment standards to be negotiated and to continue to exist within certain parts of the act." That is such an arbitrary method. A collective agreement is made up of a whole bunch of things, and there are a whole bunch of trade-offs. At a bargaining table -- I know he knows how a collective bargaining system works -- you don't just negotiate a collective agreement within one part of the Employment Standards Act. You don't go in there and take your collective agreement and divide it up into six parts and say, "This is one part in the Employment Standards Act, this another part, and this is another part," and negotiate and bargain them all separately. The whole thing flows back and forth. Often what you get in one part of the act, you give up in another part.

[6:45]

The minister is going to try to sell us on the fact that this is a balanced piece of legislation and that somehow the provision for flexibility is there. I am not buying it, and I know that the businesses of the province aren't buying it. I am sure that a lot of individual workers in this province aren't buying it either. I think we have some significant problems with this act, and I know that my colleagues and members of the third party will also be speaking to it.

We are at the stage in this legislative term where the government has brought out every piece of legislation they can find, in hopes of getting it through and dealing with it in this term so that they might have a small chance or hope of winning re-election next time around. There will be a long enough time frame between now and when the election needs to be called that people will have forgotten this type of legislation.

This spring during the education strikes we saw the impact of the new labour code, when essential services was no longer a provision. The minister dragged his feet in dealing with that issue. We have seen the implications of the legislation they brought through. It is not going to go away. This legislation will continue to be controversial throughout the next six to nine months -- and, I would wager, well beyond that. I think the confrontations and court challenges that are going to result from this legislation will go even beyond that. The minister doesn't care because he is leaving his office in about two months, and somebody else will have to clean up his mess.

The government and the minister should be warned that this type of legislation isn't just going to disappear once it passes through this or the next session. It is going to be there until the next election. The people will remember the types of legislation that the government brought in. They will particularly remember the effect it has had on their children, on their jobs and on the economy of British Columbia.

[ Page 8215 ]

Hon. Speaker, I know that other members want to engage in the debate, so I will take my seat and allow them to do so.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 65, which follows a trend of significant labour relations changes that this government has brought in. That trend is to set up a fact-finding commission or committee, a process that allegedly invites input from various stakeholders. Then that consultant or process furnishes a report that becomes a blueprint for the kinds of decisions on labour relations that the government intended to make at the very outset. Certainly it's a process that we noted with the introduction of Bill 84 last fall. This legislation, which is clearly ideological in nature, is another example.

There is a litany of open-ended problems with this poorly drafted piece of legislation. As we get further down the road of this session, we note that the bills...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

W. Hurd: ...get worse and worse; they get more poorly drafted as we go on. The minister is suggesting in a rather cavalier manner that upwards of 1,000 contracts will be subject to revision, one would assume, before or after the January 1 deadline. If the minister were asked for a breakdown of these 1,000 contracts -- where they are and specific examples of workers who are being oppressed by the existing collective agreements -- I doubt that he would have the information available. That is all the more reason to argue that this is an ideologically driven bill: the background simply isn't there.

Let's look at the comments that have come from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Business Council of B.C. since this legislation was introduced. This was supposedly a consensus-driven process that involved all the stakeholders. Why is it that every time the government brings in labour legislation, we get this kind of reaction from people who were supposedly consulted and who supposedly had their input considered when the labour legislation was drafted?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Would the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock wait until the House comes to order.

Again, hon. members, I will call for order. All hon. members will have an opportunity to enter into the debate, but at this time I think we need to extend the courtesy to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, who does have the floor.

W. Hurd: Thank you, hon. Speaker. There were so few members in their seats opposite, it's indeed incredible that they could offer that kind of heckling.

As I was saying before being interrupted, this legislation is another example of trampling the rights of employees, and it follows denying the secret ballot in Bill 84. Our reading of this legislation is that individual employees will have less right to complain about contract revisions on employment standards than they had previously. Indeed, the director, who will undoubtedly be an appointment for longstanding service to the governing party, will have all kinds of ability to interfere and intervene in existing contracts. Can you imagine the power of this particular director to intervene in a contract duly signed and negotiated on a collective agreement basis by two parties? The minister assumes, as Ken Georgetti assumes, that every one of these thousand contracts represents an oppressed worker or an oppressed union in British Columbia.

As the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has mentioned, such an assertion is utter nonsense because there are many instances in this province -- particularly in the construction area -- where those revisions were negotiated in good faith by the parties. They were negotiated, for example, based on short construction schedules, on weather conditions, and for a whole host of reasons. Unfortunately, the Minister of Labour is saying that under Bill 84 the workers are going to be protected in this province and that collective bargaining in the end will always win out -- that they were proud to stand in support of collective bargaining. When it comes to this process, with these thousand contracts that Ken Georgetti has identified -- rat contracts -- the employees really didn't know what they were signing, or if they did they were being used, abused or whatever the case might be.

It's utter hypocrisy. We understand that, but it really troubles the opposition to see this kind of legislation.

Interjections.

W. Hurd: I am never troubled by heckling from the Minister of Labour, because I know that he too will be travelling in a different direction in a few months' time. It's a fate that he richly deserves, based on legislation such as Bill 65 that we're dealing with here tonight.

I welcome the opportunity in committee to talk about some of the specific areas of concern that the opposition has with this remarkably poorly drafted piece of legislation. It will be a challenge, indeed, to get to the bottom of layer upon layer of language. I note, too, that when we deal with bills from this minister we often have as much trouble as the minister in interpreting the language, when it comes to committee stage and addressing exactly what this legislation will mean when it is put into practice out in the cut and thrust of collective bargaining in the province. Rarely do we receive an objective answer from the Minister of Labour on those important questions.

We give him the benefit of the doubt, with our suspicions that perhaps he doesn't understand some of the provisions of the legislation he brings in. Perhaps that's the reason he might be taking on other duties in a few months. We can only hope, hon. Speaker, that that will take place. I certainly am delighted that the Premier is still with us in the assembly and listening to the important comments being made by members of the 

[ Page 8216 ]

opposition about the kind of legislation we see coming from the Minister of Labour on labour issues.

Certainly we welcome the debate in committee on this bill. We look forward to explanations from the minister on exactly which contracts, in his view, of the thousand that will have to be ripped up and renegotiated, represent an oppression of the workers who signed those collective agreements, or even if he knows in what sector of the economy of British Columbia those thousand agreements are located. I hope that when we get to committee stage, he won't rely on the assertions of the B.C. Federation of Labour and that he will have done his research and determined where these contracts exist and how much of a problem they really represent. Obviously, there are certain stakeholder groups that have a dramatically different opinion than the Business Council, for example, on exactly how widespread and pervasive a problem this is.

With that, we welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues in committee. I know that members of the third party and my other colleagues will want to talk at length about the rights of individual workers, who -- believe it or not -- will have less opportunity as individuals to complain about violations of the Employment Standards Act and their terms of employment than they previously had. One can only assume that it's another in a long line of labour bills that reflect the collective versus individual rights viewpoint of this government. I know that my other colleagues will have much to say on that particular issue. So with that, I take my seat and welcome the ongoing debate on Bill 65.

L. Hanson: I rise to speak on second reading of Bill 65. The NDP government, who put forward this bill to change sections of the Employment Standards Act, continually assure us that the consultative approach to things is one of their principles in the generation in any piece of legislation. I cringe every time I hear the Minister of Labour suggest that the consultative approach is the only way legislation should be generated. I know that within the next day or two a bill is going to come forward, wrapped in this wonderful flag of consultation, that really hasn't anything to do with consultation.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, I hear one of the members talking about Bill 19. It would be really beneficial to me, and I'm sure to the members of this House and the people of British Columbia, to compare the records of Bill 84 and Bill 19 in terms of damage to the economy of the province.

The Minister of Labour appointed a gentleman by the name of Mark Thompson to go out about the province and spend some time consulting with different people on issues related to the changes in the Employment Standards Act. I think that's a very conscientious and reasonable approach to amendments to the Employment Standards Act. If anything is important, it is to find out what people in British Columbia are thinking in relation to any piece of legislation, whether old or new. That's a reasonable and positive approach to changes.

[7:00]

But every time a committee is sent around the province, it seems -- almost immediately or shortly after they start -- we get a piece of legislation before us that changes what these people are supposed to be studying by going around the province. I would never suggest this, because I know it just couldn't be true, but it seems almost a certainty that the government knows already what they intend to do. And this committee they're going to send around the province to get the views of people is again that consultative approach the government wraps everything in but never follows through with.

I don't think there's any doubt that this piece of legislation we see here is part of a promise the NDP made during the election campaign. The only thing is that they never told the public about this promise; they just told their allies in the B.C. Federation of Labour and those unions that contributed financial support to their election campaign. So I think we can put this bill in a category by itself as evidence of a promise that the government made during the election campaign, even though it wasn't public, to someone in British Columbia. It's probably the only promise they will be able to look back on and say: "We didn't break every promise we made during the election campaign."

Interjections.

L. Hanson: I keep hearing comments from the member for Nanaimo. I suggest, hon. Speaker, that we would love to listen to his debate so that it could be properly put in Hansard. We might be enlightened by those comments rather than the remarks that come across the floor.

I heard the Minister of Labour suggest that what was happening here was in the interest of the public. I think that what I was talking about earlier as the consultative process is a process to determine what the interest of the public is. I don't think that government, even though they got elected with a majority and can form government under that process, can really lay claim -- through the election that gave them that authority -- to the authority to decide completely what is in the interest of the public. The consultative process that the minister continually wraps his legislation in is, I think, a good process, if it truly is a consultative process and if the public is given the opportunity as a result of that consultative process to comment on it after it is put in place.

I have to give the minister credit. This bill was introduced probably a week ago, and we're now on second reading. That's not his normal speed. He is usually much faster than that. It comes in one day, and if there isn't an emergency ruling on it, we get to debate it the next day. This one has had a whole week, so I have to give the minister credit. It's better than his normal record.

I heard the minister suggest in second reading that this piece of legislation is designed to meet the challenges of today's economy. I suspect that the 

[ Page 8217 ]

minister knows deep down inside that it is just the opposite: in fact, it is going to hinder the economic situation in British Columbia.

It's interesting to hear how supportive the members of the NDP, who are so supportive of the negotiating process, are of the two factions -- labour and management -- having the opportunity to sit down at the table and negotiate the conditions of work, the amount of pay and all those other things. But when they see -- or they've made a promise during the election campaign; I'm not sure which -- that there might be something bargained away at the table that shouldn't be bargained away, they have to bring in legislation to, in their opinion, reverse that process. We see here a piece of legislation that is going to ultimately apply the Employment Standards Act minimum standards to all labour contracts in British Columbia. I think it was the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove who suggested that those things were negotiated in the contract as a result of some trade-offs. I didn't hear a sound out of the Minister of Labour suggesting that he was going to apply the minimum standards of the Employment Standards Act to all of those contracts. He wasn't going to give any opportunity for those trade-offs, which had been put in place as a result of some of the reductions in the standards of the Employment Standards Act, to also be reversed by law. If you're going to apply the minimum employment standards in the act, it would seem fair to me that you should also remove those trade-offs that the various unions had negotiated. But I don't hear anything about that.

When it comes to the certification process, the Minister of Labour spent a lot of time during the Bill 84 debate saying that there was no need for the members of a union, or at least a proposed union, to do anything but sign a membership card. That was ample, reasonable and proper indication of the employee's intent. He said there was no longer a need for a democratic process, where there could be a secret ballot that would not be subject to coercion, intimidation or anything like that. But then the minister suggests that we have to bring this Employment Standards Amendment Act in place because those employees didn't know what they were doing when they signed their contracts. That's obviously the intent.

That seems to me to provide two kinds of standards. It may be convenient to suggest that there's no need for a ballot or that the people know what they're signing when they sign the membership card. But then we turn around and say that if some employment standards have been traded off for other benefits in the union agreement that's in place, that's not right because they didn't understand what they were signing. I think the implications of that are obvious: the Labour minister has a biased opinion about what the situation is when he feels it is convenient.

The minister suggested that this was in the interests of the public and was necessary to meet the challenges of today's economy. I also heard mention of Bill 19, the labour legislation that was in place before. I really wish the minister would go back and compare the time that Bill 84 has been in effect with the first six or eight months of Bill 19 and see how many labour days were lost in British Columbia as a result of labour disruption. The record is very clear on which piece of legislation kept British Columbians working.

People of British Columbia need to have the ability to make up their own mind. Those contracts negotiated between the unions and employers that have given away some employment standards in exchange for other benefits are now going to be changed. That is wrong, because those people negotiated that at the table of their own free will. There was no coercion used. They signed that agreement under those circumstances. To me, this is totally wrong coming from a government that says they support the negotiating process in a society that negotiates those contracts.

When I read and analyze this legislation, I can understand why NDP governments in British Columbia are one-term wonders. I can understand why the NDP were annihilated in Alberta. I ask the members of this government to look at the results of the rest of the elections that are coming up. They will see the result of this kind of legislation in the public's opinion.

F. Randall: I had no intentions of speaking on this, but after listening to the opposition parties, I know why I ran for office. There are times in this House when I wonder what I am doing here: now I know.

The people speaking on the opposition side of the House really don't understand the problem. They are certainly not supportive of people who have to work by the hour. I can tell you that all these comments you hear about people freely bargaining.... The rat unions have hundreds and hundreds of agreements that I know of. If anybody wants a list, I can give that to them; I have it downstairs, as a matter of fact. No free collective bargaining takes place. Those agreements are signed by the rat, directly with the employer. The employer drafts the agreement, and the so-called union officer, in effect, signs it.

The rat unions -- they call them homegrown -- were recognized in this province under the previous government. They were really employer-dominated organizations. There have already been two decisions in other provinces that those organizations are employer-dominated. One of them was in Alberta recently, and that case was thrown out. They are not allowed, in effect, to even apply for certification in two other provinces.

I had lunch one day with the personnel manager from Peter Kiewit construction. I had a copy of an agreement just signed with a rat, and I said: "Who the hell drafted that agreement?"

Interjections.

F. Randall: I meant to say "heaven."

The agreement provided that the employer had the right to cancel the agreement any time he wanted; to hire non-union people anytime he wanted, and to hire building tradespeople anytime he wanted. It was unbelievable; it was no agreement. He said: "I drafted it. The employer drafted it. They will sign anything." The workers do not get votes on those agreements.

[ Page 8218 ]

As an example, Sandbar Construction right here in Victoria, which is working on the Jack Davis Building, has a rat agreement. They wouldn't let any legitimate workers on that site unless they signed a rat agreement. In effect, the workers had absolutely no vote; no choice whatsoever. They were told: "If you want to come on this site, you have to sign with the rat." There were 12 rats signed at that particular time. All this talk about democracy and letting the free collective bargaining work -- there is no free collective bargaining taking place.

[7:15]

In a recent case at the Vancouver airport, a rat contractor was again low bid on the job. They contracted out all of the work to an Alberta company. They were advised by that contractor that they had to get a rat agreement to protect themselves from being organized by the legitimate trade unions. They shut the job down; they stopped work completely on that site to allow the rat to come in and sign up all the workers. They had to sign if they wanted to do that particular job. So despite all this talk, I don't think people here really understand what's happened.

I think it's important to note that this legislation has been in effect for ten years, and B.C. is the only province that has this. In other jurisdictions they have employment standards that apply to everybody. What's happening here is that the non-union contractors are being unfairly treated. If I was a non-union contractor, I would have to abide by the employment standards; but if I'm a rat, I can make all kinds of deals and can pay straight time right through -- no overtime, it doesn't matter how many hours a day. So as a non-union contractor, I have to pay overtime after eight hours; but the rat can do whatever he wants and can make all kinds of deals. It's not fair to the non-union contractors who have to abide by the standards.

Interjections.

F. Randall: The opposition members seem to feel that's funny. I don't know what's wrong with a non-union contractor. There are all kinds of fair, honest non-union contractors.

Interjections.

F. Randall: I don't think people understand what's going on here, hon. Speaker. They don't seem to be listening too well, unfortunately.

I think the whole bargaining process, in effect, was taken away by the previous government's legislation. I'll just tell you what has happened in the building trades particularly, which I'm fairly familiar with. If you had a collective agreement and wanted to get rid of the union or, in effect, the right to bargain, you just didn't put anybody on your payroll for 24 months.

Interjection.

F. Randall: I know, but I'm trying to make this point. There were hundreds of collective agreements cancelled because of that legislation, and the building trades lost the right to bargain. You say: "Let free collective bargaining take place." What has happened to that industry is that there's no more bargaining, because the government took away all the certifications by legislation. It was the only area of the labour movement which really lost all their bargaining rights. I think the major problem here is that all the bargaining rights are gone, and the rats -- recognized at that time by the IRC -- moved in.

I don't even agree with the legislation that's introduced. I think it should be effective immediately -- I don't understand this idea of January 1. I don't agree either with the provision to have an extension of three months if the employer and employees agree, because I know exactly what will happen: the employees that are represented by the rat unions will have no say whatsoever. In fact, I challenge the opposition members to bring forward the name of a company that has a rat agreement, where the employees were legitimately organized and had a vote on a collective agreement. I'd like to see that first agreement because I don't know of one.

It's the same comment that was made in this House by the opposition with regard to the Minister of Labour. They were talking about him having some work done on his house, and I said then to the opposition members: "There is not a non-union housebuilder in this province." I offered a $100 reward to anybody who could come forward with the name of a union contractor.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. I want to encourage the hon. member to address second reading of Bill 65.

F. Randall: I was endeavouring to make the point that the opposition members make all kinds of accusations in this House that have no merit whatsoever. They make accusations, and they can't deliver. If you challenge them to produce the facts, they don't produce them. So I don't think you can put very much stock in what's being said. I'm darned proud to be a New Democrat after listening to what is being said in this House. I want to say also that I think the Minister of Labour is doing a first-class job, and all the comments about how the minister is going to be leaving us one day are not true. I certainly hope that it doesn't happen.

D. Jarvis: Not being an expert on labour, I was a little apprehensive about getting up here and saying a few words. After hearing our eloquent critic, the member from the Langley-Cloverdale area, I realize what a good Labour minister he would make, because he's probably more familiar with the labour bill than the minister is. Having heard now from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, I'm even more convinced that the critics on this side are a little more familiar with the labour bill than perhaps the other side of the House. In any event, I'm very apprehensive that Bill 65 is another bill of appeasement by this government for their friends and special interest groups. Not only that, but there seems to be an overt rush to get the legislation passed, 

[ Page 8219 ]

bad as it is. They want to push it through the House without real consultation. The Employment Standards Amendment Act feels very wrong.

When I refer to areas such as the resource industry, I can see that the minister is completely unacquainted with what is going on. Without question, this bill is going to be very detrimental to that industry, which is barely holding on. The legislation will only hurt workers and management and, in many cases, the employers. The minister is probably aware that many miners in this province actually work on shifts. Or maybe the minister isn't aware of it, given that he's done such a poor job, in my opinion, with regard to the miners in different valleys throughout this province. They're having nothing but tough times, and this bill is only going to exacerbate that situation.

Many collective agreements do not now conform to the legislation. In some areas of this province, miners are working 12-hour shifts, four days on, four days off. That adds up to about 48 hours a week, which is in contravention of this bill. These workers are making $50,000, $60,000 and $70,000 a year and are quite happy with their collective agreements.

An Hon. Member: When they have work.

D. Jarvis: Yes, when they have work. The Labour minister's track record in areas like the Elk Valley is not very good, however. Because of his lack of performance, hundreds and hundreds of workers are actually out of work at this time, and this legislation will probably create more unemployment in those areas. I do not feel that these workers will be that happy with this bill; it takes away what the workers really want and have agreed to, which is a collective agreement. They have all bought into these agreements with their employers, and they've been getting along very well.

Another example is that a little while back the minister said that he felt the reason for this legislation is so that they cannot extract any bad deals in the relationship between employer and workers. We know that workers have enjoyed this collective agreement. For example, it wasn't too long ago that several of the largest mines in this province -- which the minister is fully aware of -- back in September and October signed three-year collective agreements that will go all the way into 1995. On the basis of this bill, they are going to have to reopen those agreements. The cost, the upheaval of the workers and their attitude to what is going on because of the bureaucratic feeling of this government, are going to cause nothing but hardship to the workers. He has taken away the entrepreneurship of the workers. These contracts are out there on this basis, and this bill will have to be readjusted and rewritten if it's opened up again.

A while ago the minister said that he felt there was no problem with opening up this legislation in midstream. He used the example of mortgages being opened up and rewritten. The minister shows he is not familiar with business, because that is what happens in the business world; contracts are opened up in midstream and there are changes for the better. Not like this bill -- this bill will just cost money.

This bill is fundamentally wrong, and the Labour minister is aware of that as well. It's fundamentally wrong, and he's being hypocritical. To use my favourite word, he's a Pecksniffian individual.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I am going to call the House to order and ask that those members who are entering into conversations desist from doing so unless they wish to be recognized in debate. I would also ask the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour to refrain from language that could create disorder. Please continue, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hadn't realized I had been speaking in a disorderly way.

In any event, I believe that this bill will be disastrous, especially to the workers in the Elk Valley. The minister is fully aware of what he has done to them in the 18 months he's been in office, in allowing them to reach the state they are in of massive unemployment. The unions are finally very happy working there, having written a contract and gotten back to work. Now he's going to ask them to rewrite the contract.

[7:30]

On that premise I want to move a motion for second reading of Bill 65 to be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence." It is my opinion that this government is doing nothing but writing legislation by conflict and that they are not thinking what most people are thinking.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

On the amendment.

L. Stephens: It is a pleasure for me to take my place in this debate and support this hoist motion before the House. As we look at Bill 65, we see that section 3 of this new bill replaces section 2, and it is what members on this side of the House have most objection to. Again, this bill clearly shows that the government simply isn't listening to the concerns of business. This is another bill that clearly demonstrates that.

The existing collective agreements were negotiated in good faith by the parties to those agreements. They arrived at acceptable contracts with the normal give-and-take, and now Bill 65 destroys all that.

An Hon. Member: Not true.

L. Stephens: Very true. The minister has destabilized hundreds of collective agreements across the province -- agreements that followed mature negotiations between labour and management. Flexibility of business versus the control of trade unions is what this bill is all about.

When I was serving on the committee that travelled and looked at lumber remanufacturing in this province, I had an opportunity to visit some establishments and businesses in the U.S. One thing that was quite clear to 

[ Page 8220 ]

all of us on that committee was the difference between the Canadian and U.S. labour contracts. I think all members opposite will agree that one of the provisions in those contracts was the flexibility of unions and employers to reach agreements that were in the best interests of all concerned.

An Hon. Member: And it kept everybody happy.

L. Stephens: Everyone was happy. Everyone was allowed to fulfil their obligations under these contracts. That is what Bill 65 eliminates. I think it's a step backward. We need the flexibility that increased global competition demands today. We simply can't allow ourselves to be confined to a straitjacket definition of what the trade union movement believes is or is not the right way to go.

Although the amendments are designed to combat the so-called rat unions, as articulated by the Minister of Labour, they also will affect some contracts in major industries in this province -- such as pulp and paper, construction, mining and the public sector. This is what some participants in those industries have to say about this particular bill, which further illustrates why this bill should be hoisted for six months.

Eric Mitterndorfer, president of the Pulp and Paper Employee Relations Forum, says that his industry is among those that could be hit. He says: "There is no question, in order to get at a few people, they are going to get a whole lot of people and drag them through the same knothole. We're in an industry that has been losing money for three years -- this kind of help we don't need." He also says that, "not counting possible exemptions, conforming to Bill 65 could cost his industry in the order of $60 million." He says again that "many mills across the province, which operate on a four-day-on, four-day-off work schedule averaging 42 hours a week, would contravene Bill 65. The bill limits flexibility of employees to choose to work longer hours in return for longer holidays."

Kathy Sanderson, head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and chair of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, was an adviser on this review. She said that she heard ample evidence that unions, other than rat unions, have negotiated contracts that would contravene Bill 65. The BCGEU uses it in some cases, and municipalities use it in some cases. Most of the exemptions are on hours of work, and they are employee-driven. It goes on to say that workers have made tremendous gains in recent years in winning more flexibility. There's that word again: flexibility. The Minister of Labour obviously doesn't agree with having flexibility between employers and employees. It says that in many cases -- and I think everyone would agree -- this has improved the quality of life for the employees and the competitiveness of business. That's another word I know that members opposite don't like to hear: competitiveness.

Again, I would like to call the attention of the members opposite to an article by J. Edward Newall, who was the president and CEO of Nova Corp. of Alberta, and chairman of the Business Council on National Issues. He talks about the challenge of competitiveness and says: "Private sector innovation is the single most important ingredient in achieving sustainable competitive success." I'm going to read from the article. The Business Council on National Issues commissioned Prof. Michael Porter, who all of us in this caucus are aware is the Harvard business school professor. He undertook a major study on competitiveness for the Business Council, and his findings were not comforting. The fastest-growing province in Canada is British Columbia. No thanks to the present government. No thanks at all. I think, hon. members, that as time goes on we will see just how thankless this government will be to this province.

They identified characteristics of our economy, and they were: outmoded attitudes on the part of organized labour; excessive government intervention in the economy -- classic NDP British Columbia government; poor coordination of government policies; and a lack of competition in the domestic market which demands change. This is all of Canada and particularly British Columbia.

This issue of rat unions and the so-called difficulties that these impose isn't about less-than-perfect unions defying labour movement dogma. It's all about legal choices, and it seems to me that the government and the big union labour organizations are intent on shrinking the choices that business and employees negotiate for themselves. These independent unions have negotiated agreements with the employers that don't measure up to the ideas of this particular government or the labour standards of the B.C. Fed. As for the so-called substandard contracts that the minister and his labour friends and insiders are complaining about, remember that members of these independent unions and the employers approved the agreements before they came into effect. It is quite clear that these kinds of agreements serve all participants well, and that the only benefit these changes bring to labour relations is to limit the ability of independent unions to negotiate in the best interests of their members.

With that, I will simply say that I endorse the hoist motion on Bill 65, to allow more input and to allow the government to make sure they pay attention at this time to what they heard from the interested parties -- particularly business -- to bring into the legislation a more balanced view.

J. Weisgerber: I stand to speak to the hoist motion on Bill 65. I believe the Employment Standards Amendment Act is a bad piece of legislation, in a session that has seen bad legislation become the trademark of this government -- hastily cobbled together legislation brought into the House with little thought, debate or opportunity for input from people affected by the legislation.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says that's my job, and I'll certainly do my part.

But in this legislative process, if the minister hasn't realized it yet, more people are involved than the government and opposition. There are the people 

[ Page 8221 ]

affected by this legislation: employees who the minister purports to help, and employers, and consumers of the goods and services provided by those employers and employees. They all have a stake in this kind of legislation. The minister has short-circuited that process and attempted to bring in legislation that doesn't give people affected an opportunity to express their concerns about the legislation.

Let me say, first of all, that I think this legislation is bad because it's poorly drafted. People reading the legislation are going to have a great deal of trouble following it. I suppose one could suspect that's exactly what the Minister of Labour wanted. Maybe he wanted people to have difficulty reading his legislation. Maybe he hopes people will have to rely on interpretations from labour lawyers, colleagues of the ministers or people who advise union members -- all of those kinds of things. More importantly, I suspect it was cobbled together so quickly that the government couldn't implement its own commitment to plain language, which would have been useful in this legislation. Aside from the direction that I think is skewed with this legislation, just the fact that it's poorly written is bad enough.

I believe the legislation is bad because, in the main, it doesn't help workers. Indeed, people have entered into agreements to vary the Employment Standards Act. I know the minister rarely gets out of Victoria, and if he does it's usually up to Mount Washington for a couple of zips down the slopes. Whether the minister realizes it or not, there are people who work all around this province -- in remote parts, on camp jobs up the coast, in mines in the interior of British Columbia -- who don't want to be confined to working only eight hours a day. If the minister had ever worked on a camp job that had no distractions around it, he might understand that the employees would welcome the opportunity to work a number of 12-hour shifts in exchange for some time off, a week or two away from the job site. The minister would also understand, if he had nearly the work history he likes to pretend he has, there are people who work split shifts, people who work for short periods of time and people -- for example, university students -- whose other activities make it impossible for them to work a four-hour shift. Maybe those people the minister purports to defend are going to be denied employment because of this legislation. Maybe the people managing those facilities and using those part-time workers and part-time instructors will simply find a better way than paying for a four-hour shift for a one-hour call-in.

[7:45]

The minister doesn't seem to have given much thought to what happens with public utilities that negotiate special clauses in their agreements to allow for emergency call-outs, which this legislation will not permit. The minister seems not to want to recognize that the extra costs brought on by this legislation are going to wind up on your utility bills, they are going to wind up on your tax bills and they are going to wind up on the price of the goods you buy. The minister doesn't seem to realize that our resource industries have to compete nationally and internationally. This government would put barriers around this province and have us immune from the effects of competition with Alberta, Washington State and Oregon. That's not realistic. If we change legislation unilaterally and impose new conditions now -- in the midst of contracts -- they are going to increase operating costs. They are going to make the organizations that people work for less efficient.

I thought it was a reasonable suggestion that if the government is committed to bringing in these kinds of changes they would do it so they coincided with new collective agreements. Allow these changes to come in when a new collective agreement is signed, and allow the employer and the employee to sit down as bargaining groups and say: "There are new rules and regulations. The ground rules have changed; the playing field has been altered. We're not going to have opportunities to bargain away conditions under the Employment Standards Act, so let's sit down and renegotiate our contract. Let's think through the way we're going to do business." But no, the minister is not willing to do that. He sets an arbitrary and unreachable date, and then his critic, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, stands up and says he's not going to support the legislation because it isn't being brought in fast enough. It's going to be the one break in solidarity we've seen in this government, because the member didn't like the fact that it might take a few months to change thousands of collective agreements around this province.

We see unrealistic expectations followed by totally unreasonable demands. Surely to goodness, you would think that in their caucus these folks would have an opportunity to sit down and discuss this kind of legislation. One process that was followed when I was in a government that brought legislation in was that the legislation went from cabinet to caucus and then to the Legislature. In their indecent haste to get this stuff into the House, it appears that it may pass briefly through cabinet and never even touch caucus, because clearly the caucus members are not happy with the legislation. They don't like the timing provisions that are being brought in. So we see bad legislation being rushed into this House. All of these things have become the trademark of this government, and this is certainly no exception.

Over the course of the evening the minister has expressed an interest in knowing in which circumstances an industry or its employees might be hurt. I'd like to talk a little bit about someone perhaps working in the construction industry, perhaps working in northern British Columbia where the construction season is very short, someone who is anxious to get as many hours in as they possibly can during the short construction season. If that individual sits down and says, "As part of a collective bargaining agreement, I want the opportunity to be able to work 12 hours a day," I think it's not unreasonable if the alternative....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds says: "At straight time." If the employee decides that because of the very short work season, as 

[ Page 8222 ]

part of a collective agreement and as part of an overall package, they want an opportunity to work 12 hours a day at straight time, then I believe they should have the right to sit down and negotiate that kind of agreement. We've heard an enormous amount of talk over the last 18 months about the sanctity of collective agreements, about the wisdom of workers and their ability to enter into agreements that meet their needs. But now all of a sudden, these folks don't have the common sense to know whether or not it's in their best interest as individual workers to be able to work longer than eight hours a day.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: So the minister wants some examples: in the construction industry, in the mining industry -- when mining is operating in British Columbia, when it hasn't been undermined from every direction by this government -- people are working in remote parts of British Columbia. They want, then, an opportunity to go into an area like Cheni Gold Mines, 150 miles north of Smithers, and when they're in there on a job they want an opportunity to be able to capitalize on that time and work a good number of hours.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Capitalization, I understand, immediately puts the minister off, immediately makes him nervous, immediately makes him think there must be a sinister plot, because the word "capital" is in there.

Indeed, in the mining industry -- if the government ever gets around to giving the go-ahead to the Stronsay project up on the north side of Williston Lake -- people may want an opportunity to go in there and work more than eight hours a day. It may well be in the interests of both the unionized workers there and the company to work out a different hourly schedule. So there are all kinds of examples in the mining industry, as there are in the forest industry.

The minister never gets north of Mount Washington -- he doesn't even ski the north side of the slopes -- or he would understand that there are people who work north of Rupert along the midcoast, who spend a great deal of time travelling to and from the work site. They want an opportunity to maximize the number of hours that they're on the job. This legislation denies them the right to sit down with their employers and negotiate an agreement that's in their best interest and in the best interest of the employers.

Most municipalities and recreation facilities are unionized. Many of them have people come in for short periods of time. There are all kinds of areas -- swimming pool facilities, skating rinks and hockey rinks, for example, and students who come in for short periods of time. Now there's a four-hour call-in.

What is the answer going to be? Is it going to be calling those kids in for four hours? Is it going to be calling them in for two hours and paying them for four? Or is it simply going to be changing the shift so that the regular full-time employees cover those slots? Maybe that's exactly what the government and the people who advise the government want to see. They don't want to see those kids coming in for a couple of hours after school. They want to see somebody take a full-time job, pay union dues and contribute to the NDP at election time. That's what this legislation is all about. It's got absolutely nothing to do with protecting the rights of workers and the competitiveness of employers, or with recognizing the need for flexibility and competitiveness in the economy and the workplace. No, it's got everything to do with the orders, the instructions and the drill that have come down from Ken Georgetti and John Shields that this is how they're going to get more full-time folks on the payroll, paying dues and making their contribution to government. That's what it's all about, and we should resist this legislation.

As I said earlier, I think students at university who are also workers are going to find that this legislation makes it more difficult for them to work their way through school. My goodness, they need all the help they can get. The minister bragged about keeping an election promise. They made 41 of them, but they only keep those that suit their needs. One of the promises was that they were going to freeze tuition fees. That didn't work for them so they got rid of it, but they'll bring in this one so that the kids who are faced with higher tuition fees can't even get a job at university to pay their way through school.

This legislation is bad legislation. It's poorly thought out and poorly worded, it's being rushed through, and its motives aren't at all those that the minister would have us believe. Indeed, the motives of this legislation are the motives of the government. They have nothing to do with concern for workers or concern for the province. I would hoist it for far longer than six months. I would hoist it out of existence. The minister should be sent back with instructions to come up with amendments that are democratic and recognize that agreements were entered into freely and shouldn't be arbitrarily changed. Obviously I will vote for the hoist and against this piece of legislation.

A. Warnke: I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour after he looked at the mining industry and focused on how this particular legislation will affect that industry. We all know that mining is seasonal in B.C. It's 16 years in existence and then four years off. I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is quite correct in his assessment of how the legislation affects that particular industry and various other industries. Indeed, mention is made over and over again about the construction industry.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Once again there are some comments from the other side. It affects universities and colleges, and those members should know that.

We're faced with the interesting situation where the Employment Standards Amendment Act is perceived as redressing some existing wrong. The funny thing is that in the fall of last year we debated Bill 84, which was 

[ Page 8223 ]

again, I seem to recall, important because it was going to right every wrong. If Bill 84 was the legislation that it was purported to be back in the fall, then it begs the question: what the heck is Bill 65 doing here? It has been suggested that this piece of legislation has to do with rat unions. It doesn't impress me a whole heck of a lot that you have transformed rat unions into red unions. So what? There are problems with particular unions that are set up by employers. Everyone recognizes that, and there is a way to deal with it. Let's face it, the legislation that's before us is not simply to do with rat unions or just to redress some minor outstanding wrongs with regard to how labour is addressed in this province. The legislation really has nothing to do with redressing the problems of employees, because as the members for North Vancouver-Seymour, Langley, Fort Langley-Aldergrove and Peace River South pointed out, employees as well as employers and consumers are adversely affected by this legislation. In the last analysis, if it is purported to do all that it is supposed to do in redressing some outstanding wrongs to employees, then why do so many members point out that we can think of many employees who are still adversely affected by the legislation that's put forward right now? It is odd that this bill purports to defend a number of people, and yet those same people are adversely affected by this legislation. So something is dreadfully suspicious here.

[8:00]

This bill does not contribute to the development of the economy. It does not necessarily build up a vibrant labour force -- so-called by the government members -- whereby workers now feel better, are going to work harder and form a great basis upon which we can build up our economy. I don't even see that kind of reference in the opening remarks by the Minister of Labour. So it's not to do with the economy. The employees are adversely affected, and if we were to take a look at the economy and employers' roles, we would find that both are extremely complex these days.

An employer is not the same today as an employer was 20 years ago. An employer faces a myriad of decisions and responsibilities that just weren't around 20 years ago, when perhaps a certain ideological approach or a certain perspective on the world could apply to the polarized social structure in which we lived. Those days are long gone. Of course, I've mentioned before -- and I realize that point has fallen on deaf ears, but it's worth reiterating -- that the social structure and the nature of our economy have changed traumatically, in some ways, but dramatically in the last 20 years, especially for those who continue to live in a world of make-believe composed of just two classes, and that's all there is to it.

What an employer faces in this day and age is far more complex than the employer of old who simply maybe exploited or manipulated workers, or created rat unions, as some members claim. Hon. Speaker, I guarantee you that any employer that does that in this day and age is simply not adapting to the new economy. The evidence is crystal clear that such an employer just doesn't survive in this economy.

I am afraid that some of the arguments used to buttress the government's case are irrelevant and wrong, and are therefore terribly misdirected in terms of where the economy ought to go; in terms of the implications for employees, employers and consumers. In that context one begins to wonder what this legislation has to do with employees. If I were to concede any ground to the government, I would say: "Very little." But it does have a lot to do with the government's agenda and its links to organized labour. The member for Langley hit the mark as well as anyone I have heard today, saying that this bill is not about less-than-perfect unions. Much like other legislation presented before this House that faces us with discussions about organized labour, unions, employers and so forth, this bill is designed to transform every corner of economic activity and labour into organized labour -- as defined, approved and endorsed by the New Democratic Party. This is another bit of a series of legislation in that direction.

When I reflect on the debate last fall on Bill 84.... We don't have to explore that again, thank goodness. Nonetheless, the point was raised then, too: the character of Bill 84 was suspicious. Why is it so necessary to deny certain kinds of democratic activity in one arena in favour of certification of workers, to ensure that there is a transformation of a certain kind of labour into organized labour? Why is it so essential? We know, from Bill 84, that the legislation was designed to transform every corner of organized labour into a certain area endorsed by the New Democratic Party, and that there would be a reinforcement of the link between organized labour and the governing party. That is fine, I suppose, from that perspective. But the arguments that were presented then.... People want to work on certain kinds of contracts and develop an individual lifestyle for themselves. To essentially undermine that option, so that every form of labour is somehow reinforced into organized labour, was suspicious in Bill 84, and it is suspicious in Bill 65.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds was one of the few members who actually got up to support this proposed legislation. He has argued that this will essentially attack rat unions. But I still find it very interesting that when the member went beyond that and claimed to have discussed collective agreements with employers who are not conforming to some of the legislation that was passed last fall.... I wonder not only where that member was on Bill 84, but where the government members were, if there was something about that legislation which was inadequate to deal with non-unions and a number of people in the labour force in this province. I thought Bill 84 was to cover a lot of that.

There is a comical side to this legislation as well. I draw members' attention to section 9. This is a comical section, because it's all about recall. As I recall, in another piece of legislation they are having tremendous difficulty defining recall, yet somehow they have had no trouble here. The recall period is defined in detail. Somehow this government knows how to recall employers, even after employers go broke or businesses go belly up and there is severe dislocation; somehow 

[ Page 8224 ]

it's not difficult to recall employers or businesses. But sometimes we have difficulty defining recall as it applies to other individuals.

Another area of concern is the appointment of someone called the director of employment standards. I think this is the core of the legislation before us. There is no recourse to appeal a decision made by the director either to the minister or anywhere else, it appears. The director has a considerable amount of power, if you want to look at it that way, to deal with certain problems that may confront employees and employers. The director of employment standards can investigate complaints, provide awards and unilaterally suggest appropriate overtime pay. This is not just saying: "The employer has paid below the minimum standard; what is required here is a minimum standard." Looking at it far closer than that, the director of employment standards can actually provide an award of overtime pay beyond the minimum. There is a host of other penalties that may be applied to employers by the director of employment standards. The director has a lot to say.

A good, conscientious, truly non-partisan director could apply themselves in their job so as to be beneficial to the process of employment standards in this province. But who is to say by what criteria one assesses a director as objective, non-partisan or neutral? There are no criteria here that suggest that. If the director is appointed by the governing party, then we have a first-class problem, because potentially that director.... I suspect it will be the case that the director will be partisan, will not be neutral, will investigate complaints and will provide awards. But on whose side? Who pays the penalty?

In that context, which is entirely possible under this legislation, some of Bill 65 is actually antagonistic to the collective bargaining process. Here is a government that talked about nothing else in Bill 84: "This is going to contribute to the collective bargaining process. We must present legislation. We must do whatever we can to buttress and reinforce the collective bargaining process. Trust us. What we are doing will contribute to the collective bargaining process, because we know what it is like to be on the side of collective bargaining." Yet the nature and implication of this legislation, Bill 65, as exemplified by the appointment of the director of employment standards, is actually antagonistic to the collective bargaining principle and process.

Further, I'm suspicious insofar as mention is made of the construction industry, especially in its relation to the director of employment standards. That immediately sounded alarms in my mind: why is this government attacking the construction industry? I think it's because this particular government and the NDP have had a bias toward the construction industry -- perhaps for more than 40 years, but certainly in the last 20 years. Let's face it. Whether it was Expo '86 or some other project -- even the W.A.C. Bennett Dam -- the NDP has always been antagonistic toward the construction industry. It's those big, bad employers of the construction industry. In a sense, this is a payoff, one that I'm sure has come from the union bosses of this province who have had nothing but an axe to grind in that particular industry and others.

[8:15]

In terms of the hoist motion put forward by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, there is a very good reason -- one basic reason.... I have to agree with the member for Peace River South. Ideally, the idea is to withdraw this bill -- take it away and shred it. Do whatever you can, but don't pass it. But apparently the government is adamant about going ahead. I'm enough of a realist to know that the government -- headed by Ken Georgetti, or at least linked to him.... I imagine Ken Georgetti is defining the agenda here. I cannot assume that anyone else would. The government somehow has to sober up and realize that this is inappropriate. This bill just doesn't work. It is essential for this government to consult widely. Other members have brought up examples of where the government has not consulted certain parts of the economy.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: I hear shouts from over there: "They don't have a bias?"

The point is that one consults. A good government consults broadly, not just with their own constituency and, in this case, the union bosses and Ken Georgetti. You consult with many people, and you pull it all together into some sort of decent legislation. Mind you, I'm not sure that that is going to work either. I recall other bills, not only Bill 84, dealing with labour where we've seen the same situation. In fact, both parties of the opposition have had the same complaint over and over again. Sometimes legislation is brought in and passed quickly. You bring in legislation that you expect to be passed quickly, and where do you get the content of that legislation? You get it from Ken Georgetti or someone else. You don't consult.

We've mentioned before the lack of a consultative process. I guess I'm an optimist. You think that by banging your head against the wall, somewhere along the line the wall will crumble. I'm an optimist, because I say: let's at least give it a try; let's see if the government will listen to the opposition. Both opposition parties have been saying: "Consult." What is the matter with leaving this bill for six months and consulting with a broad range of the groups that are directly affected? Even university and college students are going to be pretty upset once they get an idea of what this bill is about. It's obvious that members on the government side haven't consulted them, I suppose because they're way above dealing with the riffraff public -- anyone who has to work, and so forth.

[F. Garden in the chair.]

Sometimes members of the opposition are pointed to, and they ask: "Well, have they worked?" You know what? Members of the opposition worked pretty hard in their day as well. Maybe someone has worked in the past, but they forget where their roots are. You forget just who in your constituency is going to be affected by some of your legislation. If I could provide some advice 

[ Page 8225 ]

for this government, the quickest way for them to stay in power is to go back and consult the members of their constituency. Consult university students. Consult women who have to work for an hourly wage. Consult men who have to go out on a short-term contract.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the speaker. The member for Richmond-Steveston has the floor.

A. Warnke: One bit of advice is to go back to one's constituency and consult. This is essentially all that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is saying. It's darned good advice. As a matter of fact, I don't know why government members are not applauding the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, because he's telling you how to get re-elected. But you don't applaud him, because you figure you know it all. Ken Georgetti says: "This is the way it's got to go, ladies and gents; otherwise, forget it." Too bad, because it will be an opportunity missed. You should applaud the member for North Vancouver-Seymour; but you don't, and it's too bad. He's providing you with good advice.

Hon. members on that side need to consult their constituency and then provide that advice to members of the executive council. It's obvious that members of the executive council are badly in need of advice. They need to be in touch with a variety of groups throughout the province. It's obvious from the legislation that has been introduced, including Bill 65, that they do not consult widely in B.C. It's unfortunate, because Ken Georgetti, John Shields and Bob Williams -- there's a variety for you -- don't have access to what's really going on in this province. They don't have a monopoly on the truth. They don't have a monopoly on the direction this province should go in that would be in the best interests of employees, employers and consumers in British Columbia. Once in a while -- that member from way down yonder ought to know this -- it would be good to ignore that advice and talk to British Columbians. I don't care what polls they drag up, the people of British Columbia are not too happy with this government, and it doesn't take any rocket scientist to figure that out.

This government would be well advised to consult the people of British Columbia, not only on the basis of wide-ranging groups in our society but over a period of time. It takes time to talk to people. It takes time for ideas to settle in the cranium. As I understand it, more than 1,000 collective agreements are going to change. I sure would like to see this government consult the people who are affected by those collective agreements. We are not just dealing with a few rat unions; we are dealing with a heck of a lot of people.

On that basis, I support the motion put forward by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour to hoist Bill 65. I would strongly urge all members to have a good, sober, second thought about what they are doing here, and consult with British Columbians.

H. De Jong: I am rather surprised that this government would come up with a bill of this sort. It does nothing other than destabilize -- and I want to emphasize that -- collective agreements. The bill appears to simply replace section 2(2) of the Employment Standards Act, which only deals with a couple of issues. There is more in this bill. It also says that it can add or change regulations at its whim. Is the government going to do that, or is the director going to do that? Certainly the director is going to eventually make the decisions.

I heard the member for Burnaby-Edmonds speak this evening, and he took shot at the rat employers. There are two parties, if not more, to any type of agreement. Union agreements have two parties: the employer and the employee. I'm sure that Ken Georgetti called the unions that are involved in this kind of thing rat unions. I haven't heard that yet from the members sitting here in the House, although I'm not so sure that they don't call them the same thing. But it's those unions and employers who collectively devise agreements that they can live by and with. It's those kinds of agreements that provide for continual employment. Is this government saying that they're going to change those continuing agreements by which both parties can live and flourish? This government is now saying they're going to change those agreements because they don't fit the socialist philosophy. It's socialist philosophy we have here; it's as simple and pure as that.

Now I hear Bob Rae of Ontario talking about a social agreement with his public employees. There is no such thing as a social agreement; it's a labour agreement. The minister talked tonight about social legislation. There is nothing social about it; it's socialist legislation.

There have been many things said here, and I certainly don't want to repeat too many of them. But one must look at what this director would do if in fact such an agreement were tilted too far in the direction of the employee. Is he then also going to make those changes? I'm sure he's not. So we're looking at a one-way, one-sided bill. It's simply to make it more difficult for the employer and perhaps a little easier at times, if work is provided, for the employee.

[8:30]

I also know that since the government passed Bill 84 last spring.... A little sawmill in the Matsqui area provided a steady job to 25 people, year in, year out. Simply because of a union agreement, that little mill has shut down, putting 25 people out of a job. The employer probably didn't vote NDP, but perhaps some of the employees did. But from the conversations they've had with me on the telephone and privately, I'm sure they're not going to vote NDP again. That was also something that was forced on the employer; besides that, his premises are attached to a union from here on in.

When I was mayor in Matsqui some years ago, the local police union wanted parity with the Vancouver police. In some instances the Matsqui agreement was considerably better than in Vancouver, except that the wages were a little lower. They did not want to drop those good things, but they wanted pay equity. They didn't get it, mind you, but they wanted it. It was the 

[ Page 8226 ]

same thing every year. If a union is not paid what other unions are paid within a certain category of work -- let's take the police -- is this director going to say: "Yes, you must pay that wage being paid in Vancouver"? I know that the policemen in Vancouver use the agreements that have been negotiated in Montreal, Ottawa and who knows where else. They will use those arguments. So are we going to have a continual spiralling, with this director being allowed to give what is fair for one also to the other? I think it's absolutely ridiculous.

It also states -- or I would assume anyway -- that this bill will probably make several adjustments. I notice there's some talk about 1,000 labour contracts being affected; surely they must be in many different areas of the province. Is this director going to make special changes to the agreements aimed at where they are highest and best, and those areas where they are lower than those that are highest and best? I kind of doubt it, because we wouldn't be able to afford it. Not only the employer but also the general public can't afford it.

We talk about the forest industry. There are probably about two or three months of the year when the forest workers can't work. So what's wrong with having a longer day during the time they can work? The same with construction workers: they're guided by the weather as to when some jobs can and can't be done. Why should some director or somebody here in Victoria direct, "Yes, you shall work eight hours a day," or seven and a half hours, or whatever the case may be? Why not allow that flexibility? Other situations have been brought forward already, and I won't repeat them.

The minister also talked vaguely about the contracting-out clause, saying that it would be affected or done away with. Has he ever thought about what happens to the fruit farmer who needs pickers -- usually on a per-pound or volume basis, not necessarily on an hourly wage -- or the raspberry farmer, or to the many kinds of seasonal work that happen in the agricultural community?

I think the hoist motion is correct. The minister has said he wants to wait six months for some parts of this legislation to take effect, so why the big rush? There is still time for comment from the public sector to come in. In fact, they were given to the end of the month to comment or make suggestions.

The member for Richmond-Steveston mentioned the word "recall." Yes, that word is actually in the bill. I think the government would have been far better off had they spent their efforts on the recall and initiative that the people have already voted for, rather than dealing with the issue here -- as badly written as it is -- and trying to force it down the throats of the people of British Columbia.

Several suggestions have been made as to what should happen to this bill. I support the hoist motion because that's the only thing that we can do as an opposition. We can't destroy the bill; only the minister can do that.

We had an excellent speech a couple of years ago at the Social Credit Party convention, where Phil Gaglardi spoke about the days of his youth. He spoke at length about how he enjoyed living in the Silverdale area, which is close to Mission, and he talked about going to the mailbox in the morning to pick up the local newspaper. He said that by the time he got back to the house he probably had about half of it read. Then sometimes when he got to the house he had to do other things, but eventually it all went to this little 6-by-6 building in the back yard, where he said it always had a good purpose to serve. That is exactly where this bill should be as well.

R. Chisholm: I have to compliment the member for Abbotsford on his last couple of statements. I think he hit the nail right on the head, especially when he said that the minister is the only one who can destroy the bill. The only mistake he made is that I think the minister destroyed the bill before he ever brought it to this floor. It was destroyed when they were writing it, and unfortunately the minister doesn't seem to understand this bill any more than we do.

We are having more trouble with this bill than we are with Bill 35, which is 300 pages long. This bill, which is eight pages long, has more discrepancies than the other one.

This minister says that we are going to have to change these agreements. They have been agreed to by all parties in the past; they were happy with the agreements. They went into them and signed the documents. Now we are looking at having to adjust 1,000 or 2,000 agreements -- we are not too sure. The minister has said that 1,000 agreements are going to be done by January 1. The minister is in dreamland if he thinks those will be done by January 1. In case they aren't, we can take up to April 1 -- I still think we are in dreamland, because it is going to take a lot longer than that to do this. This arbitrary date was put into this bill as a guideline for us for us toe, but I don't think it is going to work.

The minister doesn't even understand his own legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, hon. member. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the member. Would you keep the noise down in the chamber? The member for Chilliwack has the floor.

R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Like I said, this bill has some faults. They are not the type that we can overlook; they need to be adjusted. This bill needs to go to the people so they can decide whether or not they like it. They need to be consulted; that has not happened. Why do we keep talking about different bills, whether it is 32, 65, 35, whatever? Why do we have to keep saying: "Give some time for consultation. Go to the affected parties. Hear what they have to say about this. See if they are in full agreement. See if they want the government arbitrarily telling them when and for how long they can work, and if or when they can have time off"?

I think people will tell this government that they want to have that flexibility. I think business is going to tell this government that they need that flexibility. We are in a very competitive economy. If we take flexibility 

[ Page 8227 ]

away from business, it will not enhance our ability to compete in NAFTA, free trade, or any other organization in the world. This world is very competitive now, and every time we turn around, whether we talk about Bill 84 or Bill 65, we seem to handcuff our businesses and employees -- and that is done by this NDP government. It is done for their agenda, and it has got to stop, because it is not helping us compete with the rest of the countries of the world.

In this bill are things like seasonal work. How can we talk about fisheries when these boats go out to sea for months at a time? How are they going to be able to compensate them for their work and for their time? That should be between the business and the employee, because if it's arbitrarily done by government, we are going to be in trouble. The same principle applies to agriculture -- to seasonal work with pickers, that type of thing -- and to forestry, where there are three or four months when we cannot harvest. That has to be compensated through agreements between the affected parties. The government shouldn't be in there dictating exactly how they will toe this and that line.

I want to go back to fishing and talk about what happens here. The Ministry of Fisheries here is not doing much, and John Crosbie is doing next to nothing for the fishing here. We have the Americans taking whatever is left, and we have this government, through labour, ensuring that whatever remains is a disaster. This has got to stop. This is very poorly written legislation, and it is not going to enhance the stature of this province when it deals with the rest of the provinces or with the United States.

Another thing this bill brings in is a position called "director." This director is going to be allowed to make decisions on overtime pay, etc. This might not be too bad if that person is neutral. But if the person should happen not to be neutral, as we suspect, what happens then? What happens to this lopsided legislation? And when this director makes poor decisions in favour of whatever party, where do you appeal to? The director is obligated by this bill -- not by cabinet or by this government, but by Bill 65. So his say is final.

Employees, employers and consumers will not know where they stand with this bill and what the end results will be, but we do know that it is not going to help society. As I said, at a time of competition, where does that leave the consumer in this province? Where does that leave the employee and the employer? We are seeing bill after bill that is doing nothing but digging a hole for us, and it's time it stopped.

Another point about this bill made by the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston concerns section 9(2)(b): "to maintain the employee's right of recall under the collective agreement." The people want recall for this government, and they voted 80 percent in favour of it. We haven't seen that, yet we see recall in this document. Maybe we should start putting some of our emphasis into that recall and then something would happen around here. Why doesn't this government consult? Why don't they take this bill and allow business the time to make its comments? What are they afraid of?

[8:45]

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: I hear from the hon. minister that they did consult. Well, if they did, why did Jerry Lampert say that parts of the bill are "unacceptable" and will cause business hardship? If there had been consultation, this individual would not be making that statement. I'll give the minister another quote. This is from Kathy Sanderson, who said that "the amendment removes flexibility and is disappointing to employers." If that's consultation, I'm afraid we're in big trouble.

This is just another piece of the puzzle of this NDP government's agenda. Unfortunately, this piece is not going to help the province, which should supersede this government's agenda. The cabinet, which produced this legislation, is out of touch with their caucus and with the people of British Columbia. The only thing they are in touch with is Bob Williams and the likes of Ken Georgetti. Unfortunately, that is not going to help this province either. If this government is going to start spouting off about consultation, it's high time they started doing it.

All this government has to do to make this acceptable to the people is let them have their say. If this government listens to the people and amends this bill before it comes to this House, they will be in power again for another term. But this government is so headstrong it won't listen to the people. They won't consult. They just ram it down their throats. Unfortunately, that is going to be the termination of their next try for that side of the House.

It's like the member for Richmond-Steveston said: "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this thing out." I heard another comment about them all being left-hand threads. Well, maybe it's true. But after this many bills and after 18 months of this, you'd think they would be willing to listen, willing to accept a few statements from the individuals on the opposition side and a few statements from the public themselves, because that is going to be their next term.

I have only one thing to say to the minister, and I hope he takes this to heart: take the bill back; allow the hoist to happen; allow the people, the industry and the interested parties to have their say; and then amend the bill. Bring it back to this House, and there will be very little opposition to it. If other ministers of this government do exactly the same thing with some of their bills, this government will be in power for another term.

R. Neufeld: It gives me pleasure to rise in support of the hoist motion to take Bill 65 out to the people for consultation for six months. During the election campaign the government used those famous words and said they would listen to everyone. As I understand it, Mr. Thompson will be touring the province later on to find out what the people really want, but we are passing the bill at 9 o'clock at night. We're going to get through second reading tonight, come high water or whatever -- I won't use the word the member for Burnaby-Edmonds used. Here we are tonight, going to jam this bill through.

[ Page 8228 ]

I want to read a little of the news release from the minister himself. This is what they call consultation, working together cooperatively. Keep in mind the words "cooperative" and "working with people" and "trying to make things work." This is how the NDP interprets it: "Parties are not free to trade off superior conditions in one category, for example hours of work, for inferior conditions in another category, for example no provision for severance pay on termination. Such trade-offs contradict the principle that all citizens enjoy some basic standards as a right, not subject to negotiation." This is what the NDP socialist government thinks is consultation, working together with everyone and trying to make things work. You just lay it out, plain and true: parties are not free. There you go. That's what this government thinks of negotiation.

The other thing the minister talked about in speaking to Bill 65 was meeting the challenges of today's economy. Let's run through a few points about today's economy and what the socialist view is of the economy in British Columbia. Is their view of shutting down the mining industry part of the economy? Is it telling mining companies, as the Premier did, that we are happy to see you leave, and if you need some help, we'll give you some? Is that what the minister meant when he talked about the challenges of today's economy? Did he mean overtaxing small business: "Mr. Clark, you're taxing us to death"? Did he mean the huge hydro rate increases that this minister is in control of? Is that what he meant about today's economy, the economy of the nineties and the future? Was it new taxes of every make and description, and increasing existing taxes sky-high? Bill 84 -- is that what this government thinks about today's economy?

This is the government that was so labour-oriented that they were going to start logging on the Island in Clayoquot Sound and all those areas. It wasn't going to be valley-to-valley conflict anymore. They were going to have that accord with the environmentalists, the unions and the companies. Is that the record of this government? Some record! Creating massive new parks? Is that the record of this government in meeting the challenges of today's economy?

Is their goal to unionize the province? Now I think we're getting closer to home. We're going to unionize everything in the province. We're going to put everyone under government control. If we can't unionize them, we'll put them under government control. We'll intrude into every part of their life in such a way that we can control them. Is that what the new directions and the challenges of today's economy and today's world are? Creating 2,800 new jobs in government instead of jobs in the private sector -- is that what today's economy is about for this government? It comes home more and more every day. That is obviously what this government thinks today's economy is. They don't understand economies. The only economy they understand is deficits and spending money, because it grows on trees. They talk about deficits and how they can control them. My goodness, if that's control, are we in some trouble!

L. Fox: It's a good thing that money grows on trees, because we can't mine gold.

R. Neufeld: You got 'er, that's the truth. They better start having trees that grow money, because pretty soon we're not going to be able to go out and mine any gold here.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds talked about rat unions -- how terrible they are and how they could have the nerve to make agreements with employers about hours of work, rates of pay and everything that goes along with labour and working. You know where we hear "rats" and "scabs" all the time? It consistently comes from that side of the House. Those are the only words that side of the House knows. If it happens to be Ken Georgetti's union, that's a different story. If it happens to be the leaders of one of the other unions they're party to, then it's fine. But when it's any other union or any other agreement in British Columbia between employers and employees, it's "scabs" or "rats."

Before I ran my own business for the last 13 years, I worked almost my whole life in the labour force. I didn't have any trouble with rat unions. I don't think I was a scab. I didn't have to work in a union to be able to make a living. I made a living and learned a few lessons along the way. Somebody wasn't always looking after me; I'd look after myself once in a while. There's nothing wrong with that -- not a thing.

The member also talked about homebuilders and the trouble that the present minister was in awhile ago about not hiring a union company to build his house. In fact, I guess he's not the only one in the executive who's doing that. Apparently there are some others that are having a little trouble finding union companies to build homes. But it's amazing how the fair wage policy all of a sudden didn't play fair with that minister. He thought it would cost him more money. That was another one of the.... What do you call it? Meeting the challenges of today's economy: the fair wage policy.

Something that has occurred to many of us on this side of the House has maybe never occurred to most members over there: the reason why the homebuilding business is booming is that there are no unions. That seems to be what's driving the economy in the lower mainland; that seems to be what's going on. There are housing starts all over the lower mainland and the Okanagan. If they're not union, how are they doing it? They seem to be doing a pretty good job. They don't need John Shields or Ken Georgetti to make those agreements for them. They seem to be able and go out there as adults, make agreements with their employers and get the job done. It's amazing. They get the job done -- and that's what keeps the economy going.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: They talk about economic barriers. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds was trying to.... Again, it's just like their thoughts about NAFTA. They get into a little huddle and figure they can build a fence around British Columbia, and we can just do whatever we want. We don't have to compete with Alberta or the 

[ Page 8229 ]

northwestern United States in the world market. Yet the Premier just had a working dinner with the Prime Minister of Canada, and they talked about economic barriers between provinces.

What do we have on that side of the House? The aspiring Labour minister telling us that we have to build a fence between British Columbia and Alberta, that we don't want Alberta contractors over here. Is that what we want?

This government better get its stuff together. They can't figure out which way they want to go. Maybe Bob Williams hasn't had a meeting with them lately; maybe he has to get them straightened out a bit. It's typical of what has come into this House in the last while -- poorly and hastily drafted legislation. I think the member for Okanagan-Vernon said he was quite amazed that the Minister of Labour took a week before bringing this to second reading. They usually introduce it on a Friday morning, and Monday afternoon they want to jam it through second reading. Look at my binder and all the bills that have come forward in the last while. We're going to be sitting here many nights going through this legislation. It's probably all as poorly drafted and as biased as this is. They wonder why we're still here. We will be here for a while yet, that's for sure.

[9:00]

Some legislation that has come through, especially on labour, taxation and those things, has a tremendous cost in our economy. I spoke a little while ago about the boom in building houses in the lower mainland and the influx of people coming to British Columbia. That's a fact, but in the rest of British Columbia -- what the enlightened group calls the hinterland; what I call the real British Columbia.... Hon. Speaker, it's the part of British Columbia that you and the member for Nelson-Creston come from; it is the part that supplies the money and keeps this province going. It's slowly dying from stupid legislation like this. This group won't wake up to it, because they're too lower-mainland-driven. You have to get out in the rest of British Columbia to see how it really works. You know as well as I do what I'm talking about, hon. Speaker. You come from the interior, and you see what's happening with some of the legislation that's coming through here, what it's costing our economy and what's happening with jobs.

I've spoken many times in this House about jobs, jobs, jobs. The only job this government knows how to create is one within government: "Let's get another FTE over here. Let's get another one over there; let's put 300 or 400 over here." Those are the only jobs this government knows how to create. When it comes to the good, high-paying jobs that pave the way for British Columbia to receive the benefits that it does, what do they do? They turn it into a park. They just shut down the mining industry -- poof, 1,500 jobs.

An Hon. Member: No consultation.

R. Neufeld: Magic! That's what they call consultation. It just doesn't work with this government. They still haven't caught on.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I don't want to talk about the very good record of job creation by the last government, because it would make this government look much more dismal than it already is. We have to be careful....

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The member for Peace River North has the floor. Let's keep the noise down while he's making his presentation to the House.

Go ahead, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, every one of them is quite free to stand up and talk about how good this legislation is -- and all the other legislation. Not too many of them do. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has already gone, because he dared to stand up. Maybe that's the problem. Even he disagreed with the minister. He said that the bill should be hoisted, I believe, for a while. Even he said: "I don't agree."

That's what I'm talking about: this government not getting together or knowing what they're doing. They just don't know. We talk about who controls this government, and it's no secret. It's Ken Georgetti, John Shields and the public sector union leaders.

I want to read into the record -- because I really like this little piece from the Vancouver Sun of June 11 -- a quote from one of the union leaders, national CUPE president Judy Darcy, who said "the NDP government belongs to the unions." She told the protesters: "...the Educational Programs Continuation Act" -- which was used to send striking Vancouver and Surrey school-teachers back to the classrooms -- "must be repealed." This person knows who owns the NDP government. I haven't said that name too often, but Judy Darcy, along with Ken Georgetti.... We talk about the ghost of Bob Williams walking around the building; every once in a while I see him. But I see Mr. Georgetti in the Premier's office quite often, because we meet there quite often. So we know who pulls the cord. We know who tolls their bell, and they're tolling it harder and harder all the time.

One of the members talked about a trip that we took to the U.S. I was on a committee that went down there in regard to the supply of lumber for remanufacturing. The thing that really amazed me when we got further south of the border was the cooperation between management and unions there. There was an awful lot of cooperation between management and unions. They accomplished terrible things, such as: if you work a little harder, you get paid a little more -- some things that in British Columbia don't go.

L. Fox: That's that horrible word "merit."

R. Neufeld: Is it merit? Something like that.

As we walked around the plant, we visited with the workers, and they were happy and smiling. They were working on piecework and had to guarantee the product they were putting out. It was a completely 

[ Page 8230 ]

different atmosphere from what we experienced going through some of the unionized organizations up-Island. I would like to see us get to the point where we could have that kind of harmony and working relationship between business and labour, but when you have hard-nosed people such as we have right now in the NDP socialist government, who always say that they know so much about labour, we're going to continue having this loggerhead, and it's not going to work.

Bill 65 is another example of why we're in trouble in B.C. and why we're not cost-competitive. Many things happen in B.C., in the north especially. Some of the members opposite talk about having been in the north. If they were, it was only in the summertime. They have never been there in the fall. They don't know what freeze-up is. They don't know what it's like to work in the muskeg. They don't know what it's like to work against a time barrier. They would know that there just have to be trade-offs in some areas. I worked in that field, and I didn't mind it at all, because maybe I got a little longer holiday. I was paid fairly well to go on holidays. I didn't always get four hours for a one hour call-out. I wasn't privy to that. People who worked for me weren't either, but they received other benefits.

They say "shame" because those people weren't paid four hours for call-out, or I wasn't paid four hours for call-out. In the end, who pays for that call-out? You're paying a person $20 an hour, and you have to call them out for one hour to do a short job. Let's say he has to go out and help a customer in a business. The customer wants to buy $100 worth of goods, and we're in a part of the province where midnight doesn't matter because we're trying to get a job done, and where it's frozen up in the wintertime and you only have four months to do a year's work. If that person goes out, you're going to pay him $20 an hour for four hours, which is $80. Who pays for that in the end? The small businessman pays for it, and who does he pass it off to? He passes it off to his customer, who happens to be a logging firm or an oil company or whatever is out there trying to do the work and get some more dollars into this economy, and then it goes down one step further to the average person on the street. If it's for an oil company, it's reflected in the price of their gasoline or lubricating oil. What does it come back in when you want your child to have skating lessons?

Talking of skating lessons, I wonder whether this government has unionized the people who sharpen skates. Isn't that what they did in Bill 84? They did something with skate sharpening, but I can't remember.

An Hon. Member: It's being taxed.

R. Neufeld: That's right. It's a double whammy for those families that have a number of kids in skating. Now they have to pay 7 percent on the labour to get the skates sharpened. On top of that, with the four-hour minimum that they'll have to pay for that person to come out and teach or turn a valve on or do something with the ice plant.... They're going to have to charge another couple of bucks. And who are they charging? They're charging the average British Columbian that this government says they represent. That's who is paying the bill. When are they going to wake up? It doesn't work. You can't continue to lift up the prices for everything. It comes right back to the consumer. Where do you think the increase in hydro rates is going to come from? This government says: "Oh, I'll tell you. These big corporations that make all the money -- Island Copper and all those that make millions of dollars -- are going to pay for it." That's b.s. They're going to pay part of it. But I'll tell you who's going to pay a good part of it: the average citizen.

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: Now isn't that interesting? We even got the Premier heckling.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The member for Prince George-Omineca has the floor. Let's listen to what he's saying.

L. Fox: Not quite. Pretty soon, but not at this time.

R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

It comes right back to the average citizen in British Columbia. That's who's going to pay the bill. If we continue that increase, where are we going to end? It's the same as jobs. Or maybe it's tourism, as the member down the way said. Maybe all those people who are going to go rafting up in the Haines triangle are going to pay for all this extra -- what was it, $1 million gross a year for one company? That's what is going to pay all this: the thousands and thousands of people who are going to visit the Haines triangle.

We talked about young people. I've talked about young people quite often in this House, and the difficulty they have out in the workforce getting jobs that pay half-decently so they can get their education and try to get ahead in life. What do we have? A government that introduces this backwards legislation. It's dumb legislation. We had this dumb legislation from '72 to '75, 20 years ago. These people talk about being the enlightened group and looking to the future, and they're bringing stuff from the 1970s. Can you imagine what else is on our plate? It's no wonder people in British Columbia are upset with this government. They're bringing forward everything from 20, 30 or 40 years ago. That's the only thing they know: tax and spend. But the young people who want to get their education are out there trying to do some of these jobs. Maybe they'll work for four hours here, or three hours there or two hours here.

All of a sudden, employers are going to have to take a second look at it. What are they going to do? Are they going to come to this government, and is the government going to put them on the payroll? Very likely, because that's how they know how to create jobs. If they can't get a job out there in the private sector, bring them to government. We'll put them on the payroll. We won't call them full-time employees, but soon they will be. That's what this government knows.

[ Page 8231 ]

I said it's dumb legislation. It should be pulled. It should go to a hoist motion for six months -- out there with Mr. Thompson, who is advertising all over the province right now about what days he'll be in different parts of the province to discuss this legislation. This should be hoisted for six months and the whole thing taken out there. I don't know why we're standing here talking about it, anyhow.

On top of that, I think it's such poor legislation it should be turfed -- gone. We should start over again. This government should try to work with labour and business, and see if we can't get a bit better harmony going. Right now, all that happens with the legislation this government has brought forward is that it puts everyone at loggerheads.

[9:15]

I stand in support of the hoist motion. I ask that this government please take this legislation out for six months to see what the people of British Columbia really think about it.

Deputy Speaker: My apologies to the member -- I incorrectly identified him previously as the member for Prince George-Omineca.

G. Farrell-Collins: As long as you don't recognize us as members for Cariboo North, we'll know you're still doing okay.

I am glad to come back into the debate and clear up some of the points raised by the member from Burnaby, certainly some of the points that were raised by heckling, and indeed, some of the points that were raised by myself. In my remarks at the beginning of the debate this evening I made reference to a briefing given to us by members of the ministry, and I just want to make it clear -- if there is any confusion out there -- that at no time did I intend to make it seem as though the members of the ministry didn't know what the bill was about, because in fact they did. They gave us a very thorough and complete briefing. If there was confusion as to what its impact was, it was merely my difficulty in understanding certain sections of the bill and the questions that I needed to ask in order to determine that.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member asks if I support it, and I can tell him that my position certainly hasn't changed on that.

I do want to make it clear that it wasn't the intent of my comments to make reference to the ministry staff. I wholeheartedly believe that this piece of legislation -- that area in particular -- is going to be incredibly difficult to interpret for the general public. I think it's going to be at least as difficult to interpret for various employees in the province and the employer groups. When they get back to the bargaining table and have to negotiate some of these provisions, the changes that are going to take place in this act.... I am sure the labour lawyers in this province are rubbing their hands with glee looking at this bill, imagining all the negotiations that are going to go on between now and January 1 and April 1, and probably beyond that -- the number of cases that are probably going to be brought before the director and the ongoing discussions that will take place. I'm sure the only ones who are going to make a lot of money out of this are going to be the labour lawyers in the province. That's often the case when this type of legislation comes in. So I want to stress that I do have grave concerns with the complexity of the bill and with the clearness of the bill in that particular section. I don't want to attribute that confusion to the ministry staff, but rather to the difficulty that we will all have in interpreting this section.

Some comments were made by the Minister of Labour about the effects that this bill will have on raising minimum standards and the fact that employees are in situations where they don't have an opportunity to vote on collective agreements -- these collective agreements are basically signed by the representative of the union and by the employer, and away they go. This is a rat union we're talking about. I'm just flipping through my favourite document that both the Minister of Labour and I had some months to live with last fall, because it keeps coming back to haunt the minister. I am looking at section 39 of the new Labour Relations Code, Bill 84, which we spent a good deal of time debating last fall. Section 39(1) states, and I'd like to quote it for the House:

"All voting directed by the board or by the minister under this Code and other votes held by a trade union or employers' organization of their respective members on a question of whether to strike or lock out, or whether to accept or ratify a proposed collective agreement, shall be by ballot cast in such a manner that the person expressing a choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed."

We have a secret ballot process for ratification of collective agreements, and if that process isn't taking place, as the member from Burnaby said, then it should be dealt with under section 39(1) of the Labour Relations Code. Given his experience in the labour movement, if that member was as aware as he should be, he would know that that piece of legislation was passed last fall. That clause is in the code, and in this province a collective agreement should never be signed by a representative of the employees and by the employer without having been ratified by a secret ballot of the employees. Quite clearly, that shouldn't be a problem. I am sure the member now sees the error of his ways, that there is legislation to cover just that sort of an example.

I think it is important, however, when we are looking at a piece of legislation like this, that we look at the implications of how it dovetails with Bill 84, because there are some dramatic changes to the way collective bargaining is going to operate in this province. There are some dramatic changes to certification and decertification, to the way votes are held in the province, and to the way the whole collective bargaining process is going to work. It is important that some of these members who have perhaps been out of the labour field for the past 18 or 20 months -- soon to go back into it, but have been out of it for a while -- refresh themselves with the legislation that has been passed by the Legislature here in Victoria in the intervening period. I 

[ Page 8232 ]

know that many of them didn't participate in that debate, and that many of them aren't aware of what is in the legislation, but it is important that they reacquaint themselves with the up-to-date legislation.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Yale-Lillooet asked me if I have. I was here for eight weeks participating in the debate, and I didn't see him up once. I am sure that if he would read it and spend eight weeks understanding past legislation, he would engage in more intelligent heckling.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Again, I would ask the members to allow the member who has the floor to express his opinions without the large amount of noise.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I wish that the member for Nanaimo would participate more in debate, because the place is always that much more lively. Once we have deciphered what it is he said, using our dictionary, we then have the opportunity to go back and heckle him. The member for Yale-Lillooet, however, who we rarely see on his feet in this House, doesn't give us that same graciousness, and grace us with his intellect. I hope that he will stand up and participate in the debate. I have yet to see him, certainly this session, but I would be glad to. The people in the province would like to know that he is making his $50,000 a year and $100 a day when he is here, because they don't know what he is doing for it. Hopefully we will see him up in the House.

I did want to make another point as it relates to the bill. I think it is important that we look carefully at section 3, section 2.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Saanich North and the Islands says he wants to talk about it. I will give him the opportunity to talk about it also.

I want to quote briefly from the bill, if I may. Section 2(2) states:

"Where a collective agreement contains any provisions respecting a matter set out in Column 1 of the following table" -- and I will inform people what those various columns are in a minute -- "the sections of the Part of this Act or the regulations set out opposite the matter in Column 2 do not apply in respect of employment covered by the collective agreement if the provisions of the collective agreement respecting the matter, when considered together, meet or exceed the minimum requirements established by the sections of the applicable Part or regulations, when considered together...."

That is plain language? That is as good as we could make it? Column 2 lists the numbers of parts of the Employment Standards Act. It lists parts 3, 4 and 5. Part 3 deals with the hours of work, overtime and special apparel, or uniforms; part 4 deals with time limits for annual vacations, number of days off, etc.; and part 5 is termination of employment, severance in the event of termination and rights of recall. That is column 2. So we've listed those three things. Hours of work, uniforms and overtime is one group. We have vacation and time off as another group. Then as the third group we have termination and severance. The section that I read, which probably nobody can understand, allows certain variations to be made and minimal flexibility to be brought into this act. It allows collective agreements to contain provisions that are somewhat below the Employment Standards Act; as long as they're within that same section, they give something to benefit it.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

The way the government has it in this piece of legislation, you would be allowed to trade your uniform rights -- i.e., trade off the cost of cleaning your uniforms and take that onto yourself, as long as they give you extra overtime or a higher rate of pay. That's the compensation there. If as an individual you were to trade extra time at work for extra holidays, you could bank those hours and use them for holiday time. You're no longer allowed to do that under this act; you're no longer allowed to save up hours and use them as holiday time or extended time for your annual holiday. For example, if you were in the type of business that was seasonal and when the project was finished you were terminated, instead of getting a severance package at the end of that time period, you might choose to negotiate for a higher wage settlement. So you would get paid more per hour, but you wouldn't get severance when you were let go. You can't do that anymore under this act. These new changes to the Employment Standards Act will take that away. You can no longer say: "I know my job is probably going to be terminated, and if it happens all of a sudden, then I won't get my severance." You won't have the right to transfer that to a higher level of pay.

A lot of the flexibility that we've been talking about and a lot of the comments that have been made by members of my party and by members of the third party.... Those issues of flexibility are real. They deal with international competitiveness and the ability to compete in an international market. Indeed, the member for Peace River North spoke quite eloquently on that aspect of it, I thought. My colleague from Langley spoke on it also. Both of those members toured this province with the standing committee on lumber remanufacturing. They also went to Bellingham in Washington State and down into Oregon, and they had the opportunity and the privilege to go into various remanufacturing facilities and see how the Americans are outdoing us at something we should be the best at in the world. How is it that we sell our lumber to the Americans, who turn it into doors and sashing and various value-added products that they then sell back to us? It's because of the flexibility of those companies. It's because the employees have the opportunity to do a number of different jobs. They're not stuck with a collective agreement that's so rigid and doctrinaire that 

[ Page 8233 ]

they have no flexibility to compete in some of the more competitive industries in the world.

The Premier is laughing. He's talking about jobs in Langley. I happen to know somebody in my own constituency who was going to build a lumber remanufacturing facility, and instead of doing it in Langley or Aldergrove he moved down to Bellingham, and he took the jobs with him.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hope the Premier will take his place in the debate if he has points to make. He brought up the Japanese manufacturer of homes who is building a new plant in the Port Kells area to manufacture components to send all over the world. The Premier should know that they're not in Langley, they're in Surrey-Cloverdale. But they are in B.C., because compared to Japan we've got some good things going for us here, not the least of which is supply.

[9:30]

But we're not competing just with Japan; we're competing with Washington State. A great deal of it has to do with the things that the Premier is talking about. It has to do with land, locale and the transportation infrastructure that's there. It has to do with the quality of our workforce in B.C. Quite frankly, the quality of the workforce in this province doesn't have anything to do with the NDP, because if they had their way they wouldn't be in school half the time. We'd do as the Minister of Education says and stay home and do better. So to state that the NDP is somehow responsible for the quality and the education of the workers in this province is less than pointed. To state that the cost of land is a factor, given the taxes and the corporation capital tax that this government has been bringing in -- and indeed, the fact that the Premier brought it in after he promised the investors outside this country that there wouldn't be any new taxes -- is perhaps one of the deterrents, not one of the pluses. His government certainly can't take responsibility for infrastructure. In the last 18 months they've done everything they possibly can to hack away at the budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways so that we can't deal with infrastructure in this province. For the minister or the Premier to list those three items as reasons why people are building their plants and bringing jobs to British Columbia.... Those that are a credit are not because of his government. It's because there has been a reasonably decent government over the past 40 years, with the exception of the last five.

For those other items he listed, his government has done everything they possibly can to deter bringing in those companies. I would say that the company from Japan that located in Surrey-Cloverdale did so in spite of this government -- and because they were too far along in their program to go elsewhere. That's why, not because of anything the Premier has done. I would hope that the government, in trying to deal with some....

Now we have the Premier up; we finally managed to get the Premier up to speak. It looks like he's on the list.

Instead of the government giving us all these lists of wonderful things that they're doing....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Another member of the NDP has a big mouth when he's sitting in his seat, but not much to say when he actually stands up to speak.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Please address the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would hope that when the government tries to get rid of the rat unions, as they call them, they would do so by using their heads instead of their fists -- and by dealing with changes in Bill 84 so that there has to be a secret ballot for those votes.... Deal with it in the operations of those unions; deal with it in the secret ballot for certification that we talked about, so workers can't be intimidated by either side. If government members were to use their heads instead of their fists in dealing with the rat unions, they would find the workers in this province can fight their own battles. They can take their employer to the mat if the employer is being unfair.

Put the rules in place that allow for the operations of businesses and unions and employees in this province to be fair, with the same rights for any union or non-union member. If you use that as a guiding light, if you use your head to deal with these issues, you can address the problems of a rat union. But if you bring out a big bazooka and let the whole group have it because of a few bad unions and employers, we're dealing with the same things we dealt with in Bill 84: the government takes away the rights of individual workers, of collective workers and of employers in this province because of a few bad apples. You did that with sections 8, 9 and 10, I think it was, of Bill 84, and you're doing it again with the changes to the Employment Standards Act.

We're not saying that there aren't some bad unions out there, unions that don't represent their employees very well. But you don't deal with that by shooting all employers. You don't deal with....

F. Garden: Fifty-year plan.

G. Farrell-Collins: Fifty percent?

Deputy Speaker: Order! Would hon. members please refrain from speaking from your seats. When you do so, it obviously provokes retorts and sometimes requires that the Chair intervene in order to bring a member back to order. So it would be of assistance if members would respect protocol in that regard. Please proceed, hon. member.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. I would ask the hon. member to consider that it doesn't assist when he takes the liberties that he's just taken. Please proceed, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll take your words as guidance.

[ Page 8234 ]

It's right that we in this House all recognize that yes, there are problems with some unions and some employers in this province. But you don't deal with it by going out there and smacking everybody; you don't deal with it by bringing in legislation that's going to inconvenience every decent employer in this province who has these types of provisions in their contract, having made some trade-offs for flexibility in the interest of competitiveness, many of which were requested by the employees themselves. Legitimate trade unions and legitimate employers who pay top dollar have some of these provisions in their collective agreements. Why start messing around with those? Why go out and start messing around with those? Why go out and stir the whole pot up to deal with a few bad apples? Why not deal with the bad apples? Why not deal with it in the Labour Relations Code, like we tried to last year? If this Minister of Labour had accepted our recommendations on certification and the secret ballot, those employees wouldn't be intimidated into joining a union they didn't want to have anything to do with, because they wouldn't have to do it.

There are lots of changes that the government can make, lots of things they can deal with if they use their heads to deal with the labour relations problems in this province. Instead of dealing with their ideology and coming out and attacking with a fist, trying to smash the whole thing to the ground because of some anger or bias they have, let's deal with the bad apples and use our heads in doing it. Let's have constructive legislation that works for employees, employers and for businesses in this province. Ultimately it will work for the whole economy, because our economy will be more vibrant and more competitive because we'll be more flexible; there will be more jobs in this province; and those workers will develop the skills that they need to demand a higher wage. We will develop our economy to the point where we don't have to deal with this type of stuff in the future.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have been listening patiently and with some interest to the debate on Bill 65, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1993, which has about three pages of basic provisions. I've been trying to find a way of describing the rather long-winded description of this very modest bill. It struck me that both the Liberal and Social Credit opposition have strikingly similar arguments. Really, the best description of their arguments is summed up in the movie Back to the Future, done by a very famous Canadian, Michael J. Fox. That's really where they want to take us. They want to take us back to 1983, to the labour laws and to the radical restraint budget that savaged this province's economy, and to the time when hundreds of thousands of British Columbians were mistreated by the government of the day. The government of the day didn't just practise restraint -- they practised radical restraint. They practised an extension of the depression in this province for an extra two years. The deficit went from $300 million to $1 billion a year for five years, and it put scores of workers out of work unnecessarily. It abused and misused the workers and the employers of this province with the confrontation that it bred. It was done without any consultation and without any mandate. The government of that day didn't even have the courage to bring that sort of legislation before the citizens in May 1983. That is where the combined opposition want to take us.

There was no consultation in 1983. As a matter of fact, there was no consultation when the then-Minister of Labour from Okanagan North went out naively around the province and talked to 700 people in 1987. Unbeknown to him, the Premier of the time and two of his henchmen sat in his office in December 1986 and drafted the real labour code, Bill 19, on the back of an envelope. It was going to be rammed through this Legislature with nothing but a sham of consultation. So to hear these members talking about consultation makes you want to be sick from the hypocrisy of their arguments.

Let's look at the consultation that has occurred around the labour code. We had three experts representing the business community, the labour community and the labour-management relations experts in the province; an advisory panel of nine other people; and six or eight months of consultation. As a result of that, the three experts -- Tom Roper, Vince Ready and John Baigent -- came back and said: "Get rid of section 2(2). That was brought in in 1983 as an attack on working people and good labour-management relations, and as a radical restraint program that had no consultation and no mandate." To hear the combined opposition here speaking about consultation and fairness is a bit much.

As a result of the consultation the labour code and the unanimous recommendation that section 2(2) be removed, the Minister of Labour, out of an abundance of caution and concern for full consultation with the business community, workers and others, named Prof. Mark Thompson, one of the experts in this province -- in this country, as a matter of fact -- to work further with British Columbians on this issue. After his comprehensive review of the Employment Standards Act, Professor Thompson reported back and said that it is unusual, if not unique, for a government to permit parties to negotiate away the protections of basic social legislation. That's what the opposition wants to do. They talk about business confidence. I don't see how you can build business confidence by asking the parties to break the law that exists in every other Canadian province. These are basic rights about hours of work, severance, overtime and holidays that have been going on for many decades. They are basic rights that were introduced by W.A.C. Bennett in the 1960s. The opposition is now saying: "Break the law." That's how pathetic this opposition has become.

Then they say: "What about Clayoquot? There was supposed to be peace in the land." Under the Social Credit government there were firestorms of controversy in the Carmanah and the Stein and all over the province. There were more fights going on among British Columbians than forest fires. We have heard in this debate on employment standards that they're against this government establishing parks. They're against the Tatshenshini, the Clayoquot park and the Khutzeymateen. They're against these magnificent 

[ Page 8235 ]

wilderness areas this government has put aside for future generations.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The hon. member for Richmond Centre rises on a point of order.

D. Symons: As much as I'm enjoying the Premier's rambling, I have no idea what connection all of this rambling about the Clayoquot Sound, Carmanah and all the rest has to do with this particular bill.

[9:45]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order! Would the hon. member please take his seat.

Hon. members, we are on the hoist motion of second reading of the bill. All hon. members know that considerable latitude has been allowed, and it is the practice of the House to do so. Otherwise I doubt if any member would be able to speak more than a few seconds. Hon. members know it is improper for the Chair to enter debate. I ask hon. members to please refrain from interjecting from their seats, and to assist the Chair in this very stressful time.

Please continue, hon. Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Thank you, hon. Chair, for your wise judgments on these matters. I am restricting myself to the arguments and points you have already allowed the opposition to make. I'm staying well within the range of remarks they have made. Quite frankly, I'm dealing with some of the points they made about consultation, business confidence and taking away worker rights.

Taking away worker rights: that's really what they're talking about -- not to have proper holidays, hours of work and termination, and decent severance. These are basic issues they want to take away from people. To say there's no flexibility or that they can't have averaging out is just nonsense. It just shows that they didn't listen to the briefing, they haven't read the bill and they are obviously here for another reason, which is to take us back to the future without consultation, without any concern for the dignity of working people and without any concern for a genuine flexibility between employers and employees.

They talk about business confidence. The people of Canada are showing their confidence in British Columbia. Eighty thousand people were new to this province in the last year from Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the Yukon. They are even coming from Ontario and Saskatchewan. Eighty thousand people came to this province and 25,000 babies were born in this province, and they are showing good judgment in choosing British Columbia.

Talking of business confidence, 33,000 new jobs were created in British Columbia this year, and the rest of the provinces are creating 70,000 jobs among them. British Columbia is a leader in creating new jobs in Canada, in the confidence of people coming here, in investment up, in retail sales up -- and these whiners and moaners ignore those facts.

We're talking about a million people who don't have any standards except these standards. That's really what this is about. We're talking about people whose only standards are contained in this bill: that they be respected in terms of hours of work, severance, termination and holidays. These are radical measures to these back-to-the-future dinosaurs in the opposition.

What we have seen here today is very straight-forward. We have seen the Liberals and the Socreds together keeping section 2(2)....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's not a nightmare; it's a reality that we live with every day. You think we're fooled by the changes in the seats and labels and who's supporting whom this week and who's supporting whom next week. Believe me, we're not fooled. We're just waiting for the dust to settle to get on with the real fight. When you make up your minds, this government will be ready.

This bill is about restoring the fairness contained in the original W.A.C. Bennett bill introduced in the 1960s. This government is committed to that. We can see that the opposition wants to take us back to the future.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise, especially after the Premier. I hesitate to put my glasses on, because I wouldn't want to be mistaken for him.

Interjections.

L. Fox: I look forward to other members, particularly members from the back bench, standing up in their places, showing their courage and contributing to the debate.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

L. Fox: When we look at this legislation and listen to the debate from the government side, we have to wonder what the motives are. Over the last five to six years, even when they were in opposition, the government consistently chimed in with Ken Georgetti and classified the so-called non-B.C.-Fed unions as rat unions. There's no question in my mind that there's a motivation that isn't contained within the argument from the government. It certainly isn't evident in the legislation. This self-righteous government, this very arrogant type of government who believe that only they know what's best, put it forward in a way that they are going to save the workforce of British Columbia. There is no question in my mind that the real motive is that Mr. Ken Georgetti, now that he has the government on the same side as he....

C. Tanner: In his pocket.

[ Page 8236 ]

L. Fox: Yes, in his pocket. He has encouraged and is going to encourage the Minister of Labour and this government, through this legislation, to increase the numbers within the B.C. Fed. One of the things that the union groups targeted by this legislation have failed to do is become B.C. Fed members. They failed through that process to contribute to the New Democratic political campaign fund. That's the major fact behind this legislation, not the way the arguments are coming forward.

When I look at the first paragraph of the discussion document that came into the House at virtually the same time as the legislation, called Standards for a Changing Workplace, it says: "British Columbia's economy is changing. It is shifting from a resource-based economy relying heavily on jobs in forestry, mining and fishing to a service-based economy. The future success of British Columbia companies and their ability to create jobs will increasingly depend on introducing new technologies and on developing skills to compete successfully in a global economy." I believe that's the one part of this whole document that reflects the concerns of those employers whom this particular bill is targeting. They are indeed concerned about their ability to compete in a global economy. So collectively they have negotiated with their responsible unions an agreement which reflects those real issues out there in the workplace, and the real issues with respect to competing within the global economy.

I stand here supporting this hoist motion. One of the reasons why I do so is contained in part 6 of the discussion document. We have before us a bill, which we're supposed to support for a speedy resolution through this House, when part 6 of this discussion document.... I'll read it for the benefit of those in the government who haven't. It's obvious that they haven't from their discussions and even their heckling. I quote from part 6:

"In this document, we have highlighted some aspects of the present Employment Standards Act and asked questions. If you would like more details on the Act, please contact a local employment standards branch. Your comments will help bring changes and improvements in employment standards. We invite you to attend a public hearing scheduled for June and July, or to write us. We would like your written comments as soon as possible, but no later than August 1, 1993. Two samples that follow will make it easy to send us your ideas."

There you have it. The discussion document gives the public until August 1 to write in and give their comments. Yet here we have sections of the act going through at this point in time. Obviously the consultation that the Premier alluded to was missing in this particular exercise. It's either that or they may consult.... But the act is already written and their consultation will fall on deaf ears. Obviously that is what's really happening with respect to this bill. It is very important for this government to recognize that in this document a commitment was made. They should live up to it by supporting the hoist motion and allowing the public input, which they're asking for, to be meaningful in the drafting of the legislation.

It's really interesting to hear the Premier stand up in debate. Much to his credit, at 10 o'clock at night the Premier entered the debate in order to try to defend the troops and the Labour minister. I think it's great. It's just too bad that he didn't have something worthwhile to contribute; it would have made it a whole lot better. The Premier talked about 80,000 new people moving to British Columbia and what a great job this government is doing. In fact, that trend was started some five to six years ago when this province had some real leadership. As hard as they try, they haven't been able to dissuade people from moving to British Columbia, because there was such a positive climate built from 1986 to 1991. The Premier also talked about 33,000 new jobs in British Columbia, but he failed to recognize that at the same time his government policies have been costing almost the equivalent amount of higher-paying jobs in all areas of the province, never mind just in Vancouver and the lower mainland region where these new jobs are being created. That's the reality.

[10:00]

I really have to wonder, when I look at the agenda of this government. It's in total disarray. We saw evidence of that last Tuesday when we stayed up into the wee hours of the morning debating the supply bill. Why was that debate necessary? Because this government can't even manage its own agenda, never mind the interests of the people of the province.

As well, the Premier said that the opposition parties were not supporting the ordinary labourers and that in our arguments we did not recognize that there were people out there working in the real world who were not getting holidays and other benefits that were due to them and who were working overtime without pay. My experience suggests that the opposite is true. There may be one or two unions out there that have negotiated contracts which are less than what the entitlement should be, but the fact is that those contracts were freely negotiated between the employees and the employers. What right does this government have...? We've seen evidence all the way along of where its arrogance allows it to intrude into matters that don't concern it. But it knows best, so it forces its ideology on different segments of the province. What right does this government have to break an agreement that has been freely negotiated between an employee group and an employer? I suggest that they do not and should not have that right. That is too much interference by government. What we need in this province is less government interference, not more.

What I really enjoy is the cost to the economy. This government suggests that they are going to improve the economy through higher wages and more contributions to unions in the B.C. Fed. I can only see that it is going to add to the cost of doing business. I think the member for Peace River North summed it up very well when he used the reman sawmill and the remanufacturing examples in the United States versus what we have here in British Columbia. Even with their agreements with their employees, those employers in that situation in the United States are able to recognize production through merit pay -- something that I know this government certainly doesn't support. In fact, they 

[ Page 8237 ]

don't support self-initiative. That is obvious, because the backbenchers sit all the time and don't give us any of their initiatives. They just heckle and support party policy; there isn't a free thought in any of those minds.

The time frames placed on these negotiations are also the subject of a lot of concern. I think that renegotiating almost 1,000 contracts -- and those have to be negotiated and implemented by January -- is unrealistic and typical of this government. They are placing the same kinds of demands on the Legislature when they bring in 35 pieces of legislation in the last three weeks, expecting the opposition to roll over and allow it all to go through. That is why this legislation is before us at this time. It is not because Mr. Thompson wasn't able to make his report earlier; it was a timing issue by this government. This government actually believes that the opposition is going to roll over and allow this stuff to go through without adequate debate.

I and other members have said it before in this House: if any legislation goes through slowly and allows for public input and scrutiny by all those people it will affect, and if the government reflects that input in the legislation, at the end of the day we will have legislation in the best interests of British Columbia. That's the way legislation should go through this House -- not the way this government is putting it through the House. Every day since the last two weeks of June until now we've seen mounds of legislation dumped on this House, only because they feel....

An Hon. Member: Poorly written.

L. Fox: Yes, it is poorly written. We see a municipal act where they've already had to make umpteen dozen amendments to it. We haven't even gone past the fiftieth page at this point, and there are 300 pages of legislation. That's the kind of legislation this government is bringing forward. It's a shame.

What we've seen from this government so far has driven the mining industry out of British Columbia -- exploration dollars going out by the millions to Chile and other parts of the globe -- because it's known by those industries, particularly the mining industry, that this government doesn't want investment in resources. We saw that when this government made the decision on the Tatshenshini behind closed doors, without any input from the communities that looked upon that opportunity in the triangle up there as a way to stimulate the economy in northern British Columbia. We've been losing jobs through technological change, cutbacks, log-arounds, and on and on it goes. I feel, as sure as I'm standing here, that before too long this government is going to hear a lot from the northern and northwestern mayors over that decision, because they see that it will take away a lot of opportunities from their community. You may not get all the mayors, because there may be one or two up there who support this government.

An Hon. Member: Oh, heaven forbid.

L. Fox: They used to support this government. But I think now you'll find them all stand up and strongly make their views known to this government. Its policies are affecting the economy in northern British Columbia in a very severe way, and they're not going to stand for it. I believe they will carry with them the support of their respective electorates -- knowing , however, that what they say will only fall on the deaf ears of this government, because this government hasn't listened. Unless you agree with the ideology of this government, it doesn't listen to you. That's purely and simply evident from their lack of listening to the debates of both opposition parties on all the bills they've brought forward.

We're seeing an exact replica of the kind of persistence we saw with Bill 84. This government said, "Damn the torpedoes," and moved right ahead irrespective of the concerns of the public of British Columbia, because it had to fulfil a promise to the B.C. Fed and the labour union leaders. That happened then, and it is happening again now. I find that despicable and shameful, because even though they were elected by that particular segment of British Columbia, they have to represent all British Columbians. That is something this government has failed to recognize.

But the public is recognizing it -- hence the polls that show that this government and this Premier are not held in very high esteem by the electorate of British Columbia.

So I'm going to support this hoist motion. Right in part 6 of this document, the promise is made that the public has until August 1, 1993, to make written submissions to Mr. Thompson on legislation concerning the standards for a changing workplace. This government has not even lived up to the promise made in this discussion document. I think that's absolutely despicable and shameful, but it's very typical of an arrogant government that fails to listen to the people and to consider the opposition's words as something worthy.

C. Tanner: I rise late this evening, at 10:10 p.m., to talk on the amendment to Bill 65. First, I want to thank the Premier for taking part in this debate. It's the first tine I've seen a minister on his side of the House help filibuster his own bill. It's a different tactic, but I suppose there is some merit in it.

When the Premier did that, he referred to the thousands and thousands of people who are pouring into this province from all across the country. I want to disabuse the Premier as to the reason that they're coming into this province. It's going to be a surprise to you, Mr. Premier. Most of those people arriving here are NDPers from Alberta who have been driven out of that province. They're NDPers from Ontario who have given up on that province. They're NDPers from Ottawa who have given up any hope for the NDP nationally. They're NDPers from Saskatchewan, and there's a bunch of no-hopers, if ever I saw them. But most of all, they're even coming down from the north. We just threw that NDP government out of the Yukon, and now they're coming down here. Do you know why they're coming down, Mr. Premier? They're coming down to watch the final throes of this government. They're coming down to see you get out of power for another 25 years, so that 

[ Page 8238 ]

the real people can get on with running this government instead of leaving it in the hands of amateurs. But I mustn't exaggerate. There is another reason why they are coming. They're coming to see if there is any patronage left, and they're going to be sorely disappointed. They've run out of friends, so they have to import new ones to give them some of the gifts that they hand out so readily to all of their friends here.

This is the government, Mr. Speaker, that a couple of weeks ago brought in a bill of 300 pages, late in the day, with a month or six weeks to go, and they expect us to go through this and talk about this legislation intelligently along with 32 other bills. This is the government that brings in this piece of rubbish and expects us to debate it at this time of night and this late in the season, when we should be going home and talking to our constituents to find out what they think about this government.

Let's look at the quality of this nonsense that they like to call legislation. My friend the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove mentioned the first part of section 2. I don't know why, but for some reason my hon. friend didn't get to the meat of this thing. For the benefit and edification of the members here and for the Speaker, I've got to read what section 2(3) says. I beg the Speaker to pay particular attention to this paragraph, because it's a particularly interesting one that every member in this Legislature will understand. If not, maybe the Premier will get up and give us the benefit of his wisdom. Section 2(3) says:

"Where the provisions of a collective agreement respecting a matter referred to in Column 1 of subsection (2) do not, when considered together, meet or exceed the minimum requirements established by the sections of the applicable Part or regulations referred to in Column 2 of subsection (2), when considered together, (a) the sections of the applicable Part or regulations are deemed to be incorporated in the collective agreement and to replace the provisions of the collective agreement respecting the matter, and (b) the dispute resolution provisions of the collective agreement apply for the resolution of a dispute arising in respect of the application or interpretation of the sections incorporated in the collective agreement under paragraph (a) of this subsection."

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That's pretty clear.

C. Tanner: Somebody over there understands it -- or claims to. I know the member for Kamloops will be happy to stand up and explain it not only to this side of the House and the public but to his own members. More importantly, he had better explain it to his Premier and to the Minister of Labour, because they haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

[10:15]

The Premier of this province is so desperate for a source and for somewhere to look for justification for what he's doing here that he has gone back 20 years to Premier Bennett. He can't find any sources for this nonsense anywhere else. He had to go back to his enemy: the person he fought years to defeat. He has gone back there and said: "He's our authority." Have you ever heard of anything so pathetic in all your life? Maybe there is something as pathetic. One of the reasons for the Premier's great diatribe we just heard was the fact that a movie called Back to the Future, which was made in Hollywood with a Canadian actor who, incidentally, used to live in Burnaby and had to go down to the United States to get a job because he couldn't find one here, thanks to these guys.... He was saying that this is what we should emulate. Back to the future? These people haven't got out of the past yet. They're living in an era that doesn't exist anymore.

It is a sad day when the Premier has to stand up in this Legislature and defend his Minister of Labour, because the Minister of Labour doesn't understand his own legislation. In your many years in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen a time when the Premier had to stand up and defend his ministers? I think it's probably the minister's last hurrah. I think this is the last time we'll hear from him in this position, because he's going to get shuffled -- maybe over there somewhere, or maybe over here with the other flunkies. But it seems to me that the Minister of Labour wanted to finally say something, and he fluffed it. And what do they do? We get the Premier trying to defend the poor fellow.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo rises on a point of order.

D. Lovick: I believe we are on a hoist motion, and thus far it seems to me the only resemblance that the remarks of the member opposite have to a hoist motion is that he is single-handedly trying to hoist this motion for six months. I wonder if he might be able to tell us precisely what his comments have to do with the hoist motion.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, for the point of order. As the hon. members know, it wasn't too long ago that the Chair was asked to rule on the relevancy of debate by a previous speaker. I suggested then, as I do now, that latitude has been allowed for members to speak. However, as we know, there is the requirement that the member speaking relates the subject matter to the question before us. In that respect, I think the hon. member for Nanaimo is quite correct; you should relate your comments to the hoist motion. Please proceed, hon. member.

C. Tanner: I appreciate the member for Nanaimo bringing to my attention the fact that I might have strayed slightly. I was merely following the example of your Premier, who was talking about movies made in the United States. I couldn't really see that it had much relevance to this particular debate. I'm sure the Premier, who's been here a long time -- much longer than I have -- knows more than I do about how a debate works. I'm prepared to be guided by his example -- not by what he says, but by his example.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

[ Page 8239 ]

C. Tanner: In reference to the debate we have at hand.... For the member's edification, that is Bill 65, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1993, about which we've all been speaking. Apparently the member lost most of it. I don't know why. He probably has difficulty understanding.

The fact is that I'm speaking to the amendment of that bill. I refer members' attention particularly to the interim report that came out. In the very first paragraph the member making the report said: "I understand that the government is committed to repeal section 2(2) and amend part 5.1 in the current legislative session, but wished to receive recommendations on how legislation might be framed."

Well, framed is the word; I don't know who framed this legislation, but somebody has framed the government. I think it's a pity. They saw the government coming. They had the money in hand, and they said: "What can we do?" They thought: "Keep it going." So they said to themselves and to other legislators, particularly to their fellow lawyers: "Listen. We've got a grab bag of good tidings for you, my friends, because we've got a piece of legislation that will keep you and I in office, well endowed and rich for the rest of our natural lives." It's this piece of nonsense they call Bill 65, which we think they should hoist. We think it's so bad that, for their sake, they should give it a six-month rest. Then we could probably have another go at it. We have two or three lawyers, and most of us have had some business experience. We'll give them the benefit of our advice and show them how to write legislation. These poor fellows don't know how.

This isn't the only piece of garbage that they have presented as legislation in this House in the last while. They have 36 more pieces of it to come! Can you imagine? It was bad when they gave us a 300-page job. That was the biggest that has been done for years. Now we have this little slim piece, which is even worse. I guess we should thank our lucky stars that the nonsense in here isn't repeated in this volume, because we'd be here forever.

Interjections.

C. Tanner: I would ask the members, at least the backbenchers on that side of the House, to stand up, show what they are made of and vote against this piece of nonsense for once in their lives. Just vote for the amendment to hoist it, so that you have the chance to look at it again. You'll feel better in the morning.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

F. Jackson: It's a great pleasure to rise at this time of night to speak in favour of this bill. It's quite easy because it's quite simple, good legislation. The bottom of the first page of the explanatory notes says it all: this bill "provides that those protections are minimum standards that parties may enhance by collective agreement." That is what this bill is about: minimum standards that the parties may enhance.

[10:30]

This bill complements the labour legislation that we passed in this House last fall. The bill also complements the fair wage policy that we've introduced and which we intend to keep on working to improve upon. This bill also complements the work we've done toward raising the minimum wage. This bill continues a trend, which members of the opposition parties commented on, toward better working conditions for working women and men in this province -- a trend which the opposition would gladly reverse.

At this time I would like to give the members opposite a treat by disagreeing with the Premier. The Premier said that they wanted to take us back to 1983. What they want to do, in fact, is take us back to 1883. They would like to take us back to the days when we could have young adults and single parents working at McDonald's for 50 cents an hour instead of the minimum wage.

Some of the things that have been said here tonight really surprise me sometimes when I think about them. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock attacked this bill because somehow it was based on ideology and philosophy. I think they should give their head a shake and look around at where we are. This place is based on differences in ideology and philosophy. That's why we're here; that's what this place is about.

G. Farrell-Collins: You've got it all wrong. That's why you're here....

F. Jackson: Hon. Speaker, that is what the Liberal opposition is about. They have no ideology, and they have no philosophy. He's here to earn a wage; he's here to make a buck. I would suggest that because he has no ideology or philosophy, he's doing his constituents a disservice by being in this House...

[ Page 8240 ]

An Hon. Member: Thank Gordie Wilson for that, Gary.

F. Jackson: ...among the other surprised members of the opposition.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

F. Jackson: We have heard....

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I heard an hon. member refer to a member by his proper name, which is improper in the House. We refer to members by their constituencies. If this hon. member is....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. The problem with allowing for a bit of latitude and humour is that unless members can appreciate the intent, there is a good chance that we will find members becoming more and more lax, making it necessary for the Chair to intervene, which is regrettable. I would ask that members please keep in mind the standing orders. We should all recognize why they're there. Would the hon. member please proceed.

F. Jackson: Hon. Speaker, hon. members of the third party seemed to be quite surprised about this legislation, as if it was something new. They said that the public and the voters of British Columbia were not aware that this was likely to happen. I know for a fact that in my election campaign, labour legislation, the fair wage policy and minimum standards were talked about quite often. Getting rid of Bill 19 was talked about quite often. I defy them to say that our platform didn't include getting rid of Bill 19.

When the member for Peace River South talked about the ability of people out there to negotiate, he thought that it was all right to work 12 hours straight time -- again, reversing a trend. Make it 14, make it 16; cut the wages down, back to 50 cents an hour. That's the trend they would like to see.

The hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour admitted that he didn't know very much about labour, but he did talk about working in mines. I worked in coalmines and hard-rock mines in Europe and in this province, and I know what miners think about labour legislation. They support it. The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston suggested that employees were adversely affected by this legislation. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that would adversely affect employees -- nothing at all. He said that the polarized social structure has gone. Anybody watching what those people over there have had to say today would realize that the polarized social structure is very much alive and well, and with us today.

The member for Langley and the member for Peace River North referred to working with the legislative committee on remanufacturing. I was also on that committee, and I spent an awful lot of time talking to the people who worked in these plants. I know that the vast majority of them will be happy with this legislation, and I would like those members to find some who are not.

We have reinforced here today what this government started out to do: provide a better place in the workplace and in the home for the ordinary working women and men in this province. And we shall continue to do that. As far as I'm concerned, this is only a step in the right direction; this is only a step in the trend. I would suggest that if the hon. members opposite are not happy with what we've done here today, maybe they should find other places to spend their time.

D. Mitchell: I compliment the member for Kamloops-North Thompson for standing up and contributing to this debate. I think that as a government member he demonstrates a courage that many members on the government side have not demonstrated in debate on Bill 65, the Employment Standards Amendment Act. I think the member for Kamloops-North Thompson made some excellent points in his speech. He indicated that this bill continues a trend, and indeed it does. It continues a trend established by this government during the first session of this new parliament with its infamous labour legislation, which I think was quite misguided. It continues it with many so-called fair wage pieces of legislation that in fact were biased; they favour one side of labour-management relations in a paradigm that reflects a nineteenth-century approach to industrial relations in our province. But the member for Kamloops-North Thompson is right: this legislation does follow a trend.

He indicated something else. He indicated he was surprised that some members of the House had said in this debate that the bill may have been ideologically inspired. The member suggested that this Legislature itself is a tribute to ideology. I think many British Columbians would differ with that interpretation of our democratic rights as they're expressed in this Legislative Assembly. This institution is not by any means a tribute to ideology. Certainly it is a chamber which in the past has witnessed philosophical debates on a wide range of issues affecting British Columbians. But a tribute to ideology? I think that itself is a vision of the past; it's not a vision of the present or of the future that British Columbians aspire to.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson also indicated he believes in the virtues of a polarized social structure. The member is sadly mistaken if he believes that all British Columbians believe or take delight in a polarized social structure pitting us against them, pitting good guys against bad guys. Certainly there may be some. There may be some who voted for the member; there may be some who voted for the party that he represents in this House. That's not the kind of vision that British Columbians aspire to. That's the problem with Bill 65 and the inherent bias that it reflects.

During the course of this summer session -- and we're heading deep into the summer season -- I've been reflecting on and enjoying some summer reading in the few spare moments that are available. I'd like to quote 

[ Page 8241 ]

from a book I've been reading that members may be interested in, because it relates directly to the trend the member refers to that is exemplified by this legislation.

The book is written by the president of the Czech and Slovak republics, V clav Havel. The title of the book is Summer Meditations, which is extremely appropriate. The joint Czech and Slovak republics, the former communist regime which is now going through a period of reform, trying to bring itself into the twentieth century before we head into the twenty-first, has abandoned the shackles of ideology, as much of the communist world has. The president of this newly reformed and reforming republic is a playwright. There are very few countries or federations in the world that have a playwright or poet serving as president -- and a very articulate one indeed.

V clav Havel, writing a year ago, wrote some very wise words which I think sum up the ideological bent that the member may have been referring to. I'd like to just quote very briefly from what he says in Summer Meditations. The chapter is entitled "What I Believe." Havel says:

"Though my heart may be left of centre, I have always known that the only economic system that works is a market economy, in which everything belongs to someone -- which means that someone is responsible for everything. It is a system in which complete independence and plurality of economic entities exist within a legal framework, and its workings are guided chiefly by the laws of the marketplace. This is the only natural economy, the only kind that makes sense, the only one that can lead to prosperity, because it is the only one that reflects the nature of life itself. The essence of life is infinitely and mysteriously multiform, and therefore it cannot be contained or planned for, in its fullness and variability, by any central intelligence."

That was written by the president of a former communist regime. Even though his heart has always been left of centre, he doesn't believe in centralized intelligence. The playwright-president doesn't believe that a centralized bureaucracy can ever express the spirit of or satisfactorily give freedom to a people. He doesn't believe in these things. He doesn't believe in intervention in the economy, because he believes the free marketplace defines, in the best fashion, the aspirations of a people. This is V clav Havel writing. He regards himself as left of centre in his heart, but he is pragmatic when it comes to power, realizing that in order to free the peoples of a former communist regime, new ways have to be tried.

I mention that and I mention Summer Meditations in the context of the debate on Bill 65, the new Employment Standards Act, because when we think of employment standards legislation and when we compare it across the country, we know that it tries to provide a level playing field and minimum standards for workplace conditions. In the past in British Columbia we have tried to uphold that as well. What do these amendments to our legislation in British Columbia really try to do? What are we trying to achieve? The Minister of Labour was uncharacteristically modest in his debate in second reading by referring very briefly to Bill 65. It is one in a series of pieces of legislation by thunderbolt, pieces brought in very late in the session with not enough debate or consultation. Yet there is a trend here. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson is absolutely right. There is a very discernable trend, and what the government is attempting to do is obvious. The ideological bent that the member opposite took great pride in is very obvious. There is a pattern here.

[10:45]

Without speaking in detail to specific passages of the bill, because I know that when we get to committee stage -- one day -- we will go into this in quite a bit of detail, I would like to raise a concern was raised earlier in this debate, but in the context of the quote from V clav Havel that I read, in the context of centralized power or "central intelligence," which really represents government intervention in the economy. We have a director of the employment standards branch whose powers are, I believe, significantly augmented by Bill 65. The powers of that director to define hours of work and overtime, conditions for employees, annual vacations and vacation pay, termination of employment and layoffs and general holidays -- the general conditions that are normally covered by employment standards legislation -- are significantly augmented by this legislation. Why is that necessary? How can we feel comfortable or feel any confidence that the director of the employment standards branch, an unelected official, will be impartial and unbiased when it comes to dealing with issues that he must mediate between the sometimes conflicting demands of employers and employees?

We have seen the trend that this government has established by its appointments to the labour relations tribunal in this province. Mr. Stan Lanyon, a very prominent member of the NDP and a former NDP candidate, was appointed chair of the tribunal. This is not to reflect in any negative way on Mr. Lanyon's credentials in the labour relations community, but his impartiality is certainly an issue. It goes beyond that when we take a look at some of the commissioners of the labour relations tribunal and at the appointment of Mr. Hans Brown, the former head of the New Democratic Party, to the labour relations tribunal. These are the kinds of appointments that this government has made. These are the trends that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson refers to, and we can anticipate future trends where the director of the employment standards branch will certainly not be impartial, unbiased or fair in the way that the director of the employment standards branch needs to be. We can anticipate that a party hack will likely be appointed to this position, who will take the interests of one side of the labour-management equation into consideration when defining the terms and conditions of these amendments to the employment standards legislation that we're being asked to consider here this evening.

That's why there has to be some concern about the impartiality of the director who can unilaterally make decisions, without any appeal, that affect the basic conditions in the workplace for employers and employees. There's more government intervention in the economy and centralized power. This government, of course, believes in a centralized intelligence when it 

[ Page 8242 ]

comes to all aspects of industrial relations in our province. That's not something that most British Columbians believe in. Even though the member for Kamloops-North Thompson believes that that's the right way to go because this governing party has power, the governing party must exercise that power on behalf of all British Columbians -- not simply the B.C. Federation of Labour, which has obviously inspired this legislation.

One of the real problems with this legislation is the fact that it takes away flexibility from the workplace not only for employers, but for employees as well. In a modern, changing economy that's striving to be competitive, there's a need and a demand for flexibility in the workplace not only for large employers like pulp mills and other companies that experiment with different scheduling, shifts -- four days on and four days off -- and different operating times in industrial facilities, but more particularly for small employers. We have to think a little about whether or not this legislation meets the needs of a modern, changing, dynamic economy by imposing the same one-size-fits-all working conditions on every employer in the province -- or at least seeks to impose that.

F. Jackson: Minimum standards, David.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, minimum standards don't need to provide a straitjacket to all employers in the province, or all employees. I should point out that this relates to employees as well, because many employees may choose to work longer hours in exchange for extra pay or for time off at a later date. But under this legislation, will they be able to achieve that? It's difficult to say; that will be up to the director of the branch. No one can tell if the director of the branch will decide this in a fair and evenhanded manner or whether he'll impose conditions on collective agreements.

There was an interesting article in the Vancouver Sun on the weekend written by Gillian Shaw, which refers to one submission in the Thompson report that referred to a municipality where community centre classes have instructors who are paid two hours minimum for one-hour classes. These are the tiny tot classes in a municipality. Instead of the employment standards four-hour minimum, the instructors in this class are paid a minimum two hours for a one-hour class. This particular article on Saturday, July 3, points out that teaching tiny tot soccer could become quite lucrative if you have to show up for only one hour and get paid for four hours.

This is the kind of anomaly or perhaps inequity we can see with this legislation. It seems ludicrous. It might seem unimportant, but these are the kinds of issues that I think we have to come to terms with. This legislation may in fact be imposing a straitjacket on employers, whether those employers are big businesses, small enterprises, municipalities or public agencies. The flexibility to run them in a wise, managed way that allows for the greatest efficiency for both employers and employees and reflects the needs of a modern economy -- is that really there? Or are we really trying to impose some kind of centralized intelligence on the economy as a whole? That has to be a concern. As ludicrous as the tiny tot soccer program is that I've just referred to from the Vancouver Sun article, if you extrapolate that and if you go further and impose it on all enterprises and agencies in the province, you can see the ways we're going to be tying employers' hands behind their backs, preventing employees from having the flexibility they want in today's workplace. We're vesting all that power in the hands of the director. Who is the director? We don't know. The director will be imposed by the minister, and we've seen the calibre of appointments that this minister has made in the past.

There's one other issue here that I think needs to be addressed as we deal with the main motion in second reading of Bill 65. It's unfortunate that the amendment to hoist this bill for six months was defeated. Of course, that amendment was a dilatory one which sought to actually kill second reading of this bill. But we're now dealing with the main motion.

Much has been said about the fact that this legislation was inspired by the B.C. Federation of Labour. I think there must be some truth to that. There's been talk of so-called rat unions, and there's even been discussion in this debate of rat employers. Who are these rat unions and rat employers? Are these simply people who have organized collectively and negotiated collective agreements, and the B.C. Federation of Labour doesn't like them, doesn't want to honour them for whatever reason? What is this bill? Is this bill trying to enshrine in legislation minimum standards that meet the minimum of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and does that minimum therefore become the maximum? These are questions that we have to ask. But certainly this legislation appears to be inspired by the B.C. Federation of Labour, by Mr. Ken Georgetti, as a way of taking away from the free collective bargaining of so-called rat unions and rat employers.

Again, it's government intervention and government interference in the economy. Why? It's because of a centralized intelligence that knows better than what British Columbians might be able to negotiate on their own in terms of flexible scheduling, pay and working conditions, generally speaking. So those are the issues. The continuing trend is there. We can see what the trend is. The government is hell-bent on pursuing that trend and achieving their ends.

It's shameful that the government would be bringing in such legislation at this time and trying to ram it through -- legislation by thunderbolt. We saw that once before in British Columbia, some 20 years ago. A previous NDP government tried, during the course of a very short three years in office, to pursue a legislative program by thunderbolt, by bringing in masses of legislation -- more than the House could possibly deal with efficiently. Much of it was ill-considered and poorly drafted, and it took a decade or more for a subsequent administration to iron out many of the wrinkles of that legislation. Some of it is still on the books, and some of it is still requiring further amendment or even repeal. Now this government, not even two years in office, is already trying to impose its will on the province through legislation by thunderbolt; by bringing in legislation that is not well-considered 

[ Page 8243 ]

and that is poorly drafted, and by trying to squeeze it through the House in the summer months late at night. It's not well thought out, but is certainly ideologically inspired -- as the member for Kamloops-North Thompson so proudly declared.

This is no way to do the business of the people. This is no way to do the bidding of the B.C. Federation of Labour. If this is an attempt to squash the rat unions, are we, as one newspaper columnist said, trying to kill a fly with a bazooka? Is this legislation really required, or is it really very heavy-handed labour legislation? It is a very heavy-handed approach to industrial relations in our province that does fit a trend, that does fall into a well-established pattern, but not one that British Columbians can be proud of -- not one that is going to inspire confidence in the labour relations community, and not one that is really going to bring about the employment standards that we want to achieve.

We talked a little about doublespeak. Earlier in the session this government brought in a piece of legislation dealing with human rights. It actually dealt with human wrongs. Now they're bringing in a bill that they refer to as employment standards. It's not really enshrining employment standards; it's really bringing about inequities in the labour market. It's really bringing about an NDP-B.C.--Federation-of-Labour-inspired approach to employment standards.

It's enshrining, in the director of the employment standards branch, a centralized intelligence that knows better than British Columbians who might want to negotiate collective agreements on their own. It's a further imposition on the collective bargaining process by a government that pays lip service to free collective bargaining but seeks to interfere wherever they can in that process, which we all believe should exist.

So here we are in this Legislature at 11 o'clock at night, discussing Bill 65 in second reading stage. It's not a proud moment in the B.C. Legislature to be doing this. The government wants to ram this through. I don't think we will let it through easily. One amendment has been defeated already. But as the debate continues, Mr. Speaker, I know you will pay keen interest to the debate. I hope that more members of the government side will rise to speak on this legislation.

We shouldn't assume that all employers in British Columbia are bad or necessarily evil, as some of the comments from government members seem to suggest. Likewise, we shouldn't assume that employees don't know what they want or that they can't achieve that on their own through a collective bargaining process. We shouldn't assume that legislation needs to be biased in favour of one side in labour relations. In order for any labour relations framework to be successful over the long term, it must be balanced. It must try to strike a balance between the different sides in the labour relations process. When legislation such as Bill 65 comes into this House -- legislation that fits into a trend -- we have to be concerned, because there is no balance. There is no balance in legislation that says that employers are bad and therefore have to be controlled, and that some unions are bad because they do not meet B.C. Federation of Labour standards.

This is legislation that will further polarize the community and further poison the labour relations climate in British Columbia. For those reasons, I will vote against this legislation.

D. Streifel: Listening to the opposition, I notice that every time we get past 10 o'clock at night, every one of them who speaks refers to the time. I'm going to try it and see if it feels good.

[11:00]

I rise at 11 o'clock tonight to add my support to this legislation. It's been a long time in British Columbia since we've had what the opposition is looking for, and that's a balanced relationship between union and non-union employers. In 1983 the Social Credit government removed a right from a group of individuals because they belonged to a union, a right that was available and applied to all other workers in British Columbia. This group off to my right tonight keeps talking about balance, fairness and prejudice in legislation. In fact, that's what that piece of legislation under the former Social Credit government of 1983 did. It penalized a group of citizens in this province because they chose to belong to a trade union. It set up a situation that permitted a group of others who choose to call themselves unions.... They're referred to in the press and in this chamber as rat unions. I don't do them the courtesy of calling them unions. In my experience in the trade union movement, they don't fall into the category of a group that has come together for the betterment of the workers. They are there for the advancement and the privilege of a few employers.

Why would we bring forward a piece of legislation that grants some minimum standards to all workers in British Columbia? Whether you're in the category of the 35 or 40 percent who are unionized or the rest of the workers in this province who are non-unionized, you will know now, when this piece of legislation is passed, that you can count on a minimum set of standards.

I could spend some time this evening, at 11:01 p.m., talking about the technicalities of this bill, but I think I'll talk about just one or two items. The Liberal and Social Credit opposition has picked out a couple of words in this bill and tried to spin something out of them that doesn't exist. One of the words they pick out is "recall." Any worker understands what recall is: it's job protection and family security; it's the knowledge that when you're within your recall period, you have the right to go back to your job. This bill enhances that.

Hon. Speaker, I'm only going to take a few minutes this evening, but I want to speak of a story, one that I'm very familiar with, that happened in that great democracy to the south of us. It had to do with a group that got together to try to negotiate away a right that applied to all other workers in the country. In most instances in the United States, federal labour relations law overrides local laws. The employer in this case was Nordstrom's. A group of employees decided to work for free, to work as volunteer labour, to advance their employer's position within the retail market down there. This group of employees was called Nordies. This group was organized under the United Food and Commercial Workers' Union, and the right of these 

[ Page 8244 ]

workers to work for less than the federal standard was challenged in the federal courts of the United States. The union won, on behalf of those workers, some retroactive overtime pay -- just a little overtime pay: $300 million was awarded to that group.

I ask the members in this chamber tonight why on earth they would support a system that would permit any group to enter into an agreement that would supply a lesser standard than that which is applied to all others in this land and all who work to the south of us. The opposition in this chamber would suggest that these few employers who work under these organizations called rat unions should operate above the law. I don't believe anybody should operate above the law. When we have employment standards legislation in British Columbia in place that once again brings us in line with the rest of the country and with the United States, we will all be able to go forward and say yes, we have done something for the workers of this province. That is why I got elected; that is why I am active in politics; that is what I've dedicated my life to; and that is why I support this piece of legislation.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I've listened with a great deal of interest to this debate about the fundamental principle that would be established under the Employment Standards Act. It is important that we recognize that the provision of standards that must be implemented by government must not only be fair but must also respect the law of the province. We recognize that when the law is being applied, it has to be applied in a manner that will be agreed to and cannot be overridden by a private agreement or through collective agreement. If I was to put my finger on the one problem that people in the province may have with this bill, as we look at some of the amendments, it has to do with trusting the powers that are entrenched in a director to make decisions that are indeed fair and equally applied to those people who will be governed by this particular piece of legislation.

Quite frankly -- and I speak for a moment as an individual elected MLA from a riding that is made up of two major pulp mills, a large number of unionized workers, people who are going to be affected in many ways as a result of the union movement and people who are involved that obviously are going to be affected by matters governing overtime and regulations around overtime, hours of work, annual vacation and vacation pay -- I would have to say that there are many things that are included in this bill that in fact are progressive. It is important as we look at the progressive changes that have been brought forward that we don't lose sight of the fact that there are also areas that are of grave and real concern. It's important that we recognize what this bill is really all about, in terms of what this government is attempting to accomplish by these amendments to the Employment Standards Act.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

It is quite clear, with respect to the labour bill that was brought in last fall, that the philosophical direction of and implementation of standards by this government has directed us in a way that certainly meets the philosophy and principles of the members opposite, which is their right as an elected government constituting a majority of this Legislature. As has been pointed out by members in the opposition, the fact that they hold a majority of the seats doesn't mean that they received a majority of the votes cast in the province of British Columbia. It's also been pointed out that while every British Columbian wants to have fair and honest legislation that puts in place fair regulations to govern the employment standards of British Columbia, we also have to recognize that the entrenchment of powers in a government-appointed official certainly has to be looked at with some concern. When we get into committee stage, those aspects of the bill that I hear the Minister of Labour saying are not being properly interpreted will be canvassed thoroughly. If we look at sections 2(2) and 2(3) of this bill in terms of what we are dealing with by repealing the existing section 2, quite clearly we run into a very strong philosophical direction that this government is putting forward, which needs to be looked at, debated and covered.

Is it desirable for people who are engaged in some way in a collective agreement to be able to have that collective agreement run counter to the law of the province? I think most people, when they review and reconsider and think about the weight of this legislation, would argue that in fact it is not desirable. That comes back to my point on trust. If we are going to say that the law of this province must prevail, then we obviously have to have some trust that the government is going to implement laws that are themselves fair and are going to be applied in a manner that is consistent with looking after the interests of all workers, unionized and non-unionized, as well as the interests of those who are investing and who are managers of the corporations, companies and small businesses of this province that engage in those activities. Quite clearly, the fair application of the law must be a paramount principle, recognizing that where people do not like the law, they must seek and have the opportunity to amend that law or appeal the process to get by it.

So, hon. Speaker, in some sections of this bill there are some progressive changes. I recognize that some progressive changes are attempted in this bill, but we must also recognize that our concerns are placed squarely on the philosophical direction this government is taking us in with respect to the degree to which this government and its agents can control and direct what takes place in the workplace.

As has been pointed out by a number of members on the opposition benches, that is not necessarily desirable for companies and the management side of the scale, and it may in the long term not be in the interests of the worker. We have to recognize that what this Employment Standards Amendment Act will provide is a vehicle or an instrument not only for the government of the day, but also for subsequent governments that may be elected, may take different directions and may use their powers and direct influence over this process in manners that are different and less desirable -- if this 

[ Page 8245 ]

government is desirable at all, which is obviously up for considerable debate.

We have to recognize that in putting together fair legislation on this question, it is incumbent upon us to try, wherever possible, to reduce the direct influence and direct involvement of government, to allow greater flexibility and a greater degree of that flexibility to rest in the workplace with respect to the collective bargaining process. An unimpeded collective bargaining process needs to have an opportunity to work and to succeed, recognizing that the government will put minimum standards in place and that within that legislation there will be a fair application of the conditions and standards.

I also have some serious concerns with respect to the provisions in this bill that refer to standards relating to the hours of work and to matters relating to the transitional period under section 10, section 49.9, regarding no right of recall if severance pay is accepted. That's something we will want to look at. We need to look at section 13, the transitional section on page 6, with respect to the January 1 and April 1, 1994, dates set out there and whether or not there are some realistic expectations being put in place there. Those need to be canvassed in detail in committee stage of this bill.

Let's recognize that if we start to look at section 6, which deals with overtime and the wage provisions of a collective agreement, we must make absolutely certain that in the provision of those conditions we not only put in place realistic minimum standards that relate to the average workplace, but we also take into account the fact that many businesses are going to be potentially impacted in a negative manner by what has been put in place because of what seems to be relatively rigid standards that apply -- not providing the employer and the employee an opportunity to work a more flexible schedule. I would say that taxicab drivers might want to look at this section in some detail. There is a difference, and the split shifts that take place in these instances may not fit the pattern and standard of the language here. However, to be fair to the government, if they are essentially trying to deal with matters with respect to overtime and are looking at employers' unrealistic demands in terms of what should be paid to a worker, we would in fact argue that the implementation of that as a minimum standard is something that is indeed desirable and something we might want to support.

We need to get to the nuts and bolts of this particular piece of legislation in committee stage. We need to understand it fully and completely, because this is extremely important legislation with respect to the working people in the province. Notwithstanding much of the passion in the debate that has occurred on both sides of the House, quite clearly any government that is in power must look at some provision of fair minimum standards in the workplace to regulate against employers who will take advantage of workers. But in doing so, it is important that we do not implement rigid standards and provisions for government intervention. We have effectively transferred the balance of power, which is normally agreed to within a collective bargaining process, into the hands of a third agent, which is the government or the government's agent. In this case the director will be given the powers to make those kinds of decisions.

[11:15]

Hon. Speaker, here we are again at 11:15 at night. Let me say that this piece of legislation will have a profound impact on the working women and men of this province. Certainly the Liberal opposition -- and all of us on this side of the House I think would agree -- looks toward the implementation of fair, honest and equitable standards that apply equally to all working people in the province. We have some concern with respect to the trust this bill asks us to place in the government, its director and its appointed agencies and with respect to making sure that the implementation and final adjudication of this bill is going to be done in a manner that will be acceptable to working women and men. It's up to the people of British Columbia -- and we will be dealing with this in committee stage -- to make a final assessment as to whether or not this government deserves the trust they're asking for through the implementation of this bill.

Deputy Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. M. Sihota: I rise to close debate, and in so doing I want to deal with the issues raised by members of the opposition during the course of their comments both on the hoist motion and in second reading debate on this legislation.

If I may put it this way, the issue before the House is very straightforward: that is, do we, as members of this Legislature, believe that people should be entitled to enter into contracts that break the minimum provisions established in law? In other words, is it okay for people to enter into contracts that break the law? We have standards established in legislation which are defined as minimum standards to govern workforce sites from one end of British Columbia to the other. We define in legislation the minimum standards that ought to apply for vacation pay, overtime pay, holidays -- for a whole range of provisions. The legislation deals with issues that go beyond those that have dominated debate here today; provisions for maternity leave, wage protection and child employment are all found in this legislation.

We on this side of the House don't think people should be able to contract out of the minimum provisions established in legislation. If the law says that you have to pay overtime, then you ought not to be entitled to enter into a contract that says you don't have to pay overtime. If the law says that you have to make provision for vacation pay, then you ought not to be able to sign a contract that violates that provision of the law. If the law says that there are rules that apply to maternity leave or child employment, again, you ought not to be entitled to contract out of those kinds of provisions. The Liberals and Socreds who would oppose this legislation believe that you should be able to contract out of the law -- that you ought to be able, by way of contract, to violate the law. I find it repugnant that the members opposite would agree to support a provision that exists right now, the only one of its kind in Canada, allowing people to contract out of the basic 

[ Page 8246 ]

minimum provisions provided in social legislation of this nature.

Much was said during the course of the debate this evening with regard to flexibility and whether or not it is possible for people to work in mines in northern B.C. or on construction sites in southern B.C. or in sawmills throughout B.C. on split shifts, flex hours and other arrangements that take us away from a nine-to-five kind of arrangement. The argument put forward by the opposition was that this kind of flexibility is denied in the legislation. I find it incredible to actually hear the argument put forward, specifically from the Liberal Party opposite, that this legislation somehow denies the flexibility that is so necessary in today's competitive world, a world where we don't have nine-to-five arrangements.

This administration provided a briefing to the Liberal opposition so that they could grasp the legislation, understand its import and come to realize the extent of flexibility that's provided for. It's disconcerting, to say the least, that the member for Chilliwack, the member for North Vancouver and, I believe, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove -- there were three of them -- would argue on different occasions that flexibility is being denied, when during the course of their briefing it was made clear to them that the legislation allows the kind of flexibility that currently exists to be maintained within parameters defined within the legislation. Those parameters accommodate most of the situations that occur in B.C. They don't countenance contracts that break the law but they certainly do allow for flexibility within the context of the number of hours that people can work over an average of 40 hours as defined in legislation.

It is misleading in the extreme for anyone in this House to suggest that the flexibility existing now in the workplace is denied by this legislation; it is completely erroneous to make that argument. The members of the opposition, and particularly those in the Liberal Party who were briefed for this very reason, know better than that. Either people in their caucus have been misled and misinformed, or they simply don't want to acknowledge the truth that this legislation provides ample scope and flexibility for people to deal with the workplace environment as they see it now -- not in the nine-to-five context, but with a lot of flexibility built in to allow for split shifts and differentials, whether it be in the taxi industry, forest industry or mining industry.

It is also troubling to sit through this debate and hear members of the opposition suggest that the director of employment standards, in whom power is vested by this legislation, is an order-in-council appointment. One would think that the members opposite, after having the opportunity to serve the public for the better part of 18 months now as members of the Legislature, would come to understand which civil service positions fall within the legislated provisions governing the hiring of people and which provisions are OIC appointments.

I want to make the record clear on this point: the director of employment standards is a competitive position within the civil service. This ministry has advertised the position and has just concluded a whole series of interviews to try to determine the best candidate for the position. It is wrong for the opposition to equate this position with some of the order-in-council appointments, which I agree they have a right to debate. It's appropriate for the opposition to deal with OIC appointments in the cut and thrust of debate in this chamber. But to suggest that the director of employment standards is a political appointment -- to quote some of the members opposite -- is simply showing a lack of understanding of how that position is established and how that person is hired.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

It's not surprising to see the opposition dissolve to that low standard during the course of this debate. Their arguments basically run along the line that the sanctity of freely negotiated contracts has to be respected. To take that position to its full extent means that the hon. members opposite don't realize that we have all sorts of legislative intrusion into the freedom to contract. As I said earlier, we have employment standards provisions that limit one's ability to enter into contracts in areas like maternity leave, child employment and wage protection. It is wrong to assume, as the opposition has in the hyperbole of their debate, that either you have freedom to contract or you don't. We place limitations on what people can contract in all walks of life, including labour law. You can't contract out, nor should you be entitled to contract out, of basic legislative provisions that define the floor.

It's unfortunate, because one would expect the opposition to be constructive in their criticisms during the course of debate. Where that criticism is valid, we're open to taking a look at legitimate amendments. But during the debate here tonight, we've seen this opposition be subservient to a certain element in society, wishing only to articulate the views found in newspaper editorial comments over the weekend -- I guess that says a little bit about the extent of their research -- and subservient to those interests which are funding various Liberal campaigns. It was not without note that the first....

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: While I am not running myself, I take great offence at the Minister of Labour impugning the motives of members of the opposition who may currently be engaged in campaigns by assuming that they would take bribes.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. If the hon. member is asking for withdrawal of a matter that he found offensive, I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw any improper motives.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I wasn't at all trying to suggest that anyone is taking bribes; I am talking about the realities of campaign funding. If it impugned the motive of any member, I will clearly withdraw that.

[ Page 8247 ]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. Minister.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have no difficulty saying that, but it seems very easy for the opposition at this time to make suggestions about the relationship between the political party that I represent and the labour movement. Yet somehow they object to the fact that over the past few months, and certainly during the course of this debate, the Liberal Party is endeavouring to establish itself as some pitiful clone of the Social Credit Party.

In any event, the opposition knows full well that this legislation provides for flexibility. They know full well that the position of director of employment standards is a competitive one within the civil sector. They know full well that it is wrong to sign contractual agreements which break the law. They know full well that other jurisdictions, all other provinces in Canada, including the federal government -- and I say to both Labour critics opposite that the federal government has introduced legislation very similar to what is before the House today -- have said it is not right to contract out of basic social legislation. Yet we see the members opposite somehow taking the view that it is right in British Columbia.

[11:30]

I don't think that I would like to see a society in British Columbia that tries to go to the lowest common denominator. There was a time here when many on the other side argued that we ought to get rid of WCB protections, pension protections and perhaps even minimum wage provisions in order to attract investment. We do not want to create the kind of jurisdiction that competes on the basis of the lowest common denominator. We therefore do not believe that people ought to be entitled to contract out of the minimum provisions of this legislation -- what the opposition suggests they should, do in defence of their position.

With that said, hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 65.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 65, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:36 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1993: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada