1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd 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 )

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

2633 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On

Section I as amended –– 2633

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Brown

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lea

Mr. Cocke

section 2 –– 2642

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lea

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Macdonald

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lank

Mr. Howard

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Parks

section 3 –– 2687

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lank

Mr. Mowat

section 4 –– 2690

Mr. Lockstead

Mrs. Wallace

section 4.1 –– 2692

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Reynolds

section 4.2 –– 2695

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Parks

section 5 –– 2698

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Dailly

section 6 –– 2705

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Lea

section 6 as amended –– 2717

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Kempf

section 7 –– 2721

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Skelly

Appendix –– 2724

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 as amended.

MR. LAUK: The minister's amendment having passed by closure,

section 1 as amended includes the definition "terminate," and

"terminate includes layoff." Any arbitrator or judge looking at

section

1, and indeed looking at the Public Sector Restraint Act, trying to

determine what the intention of the Legislature was in defining the

rights and duties of employers and employees in the public sector,

would not be able to do so now that the amendment is included in the

definition section. "Terminate" has been judicially considered, and it

does not include "layoff." By its inclusion by this committee's vote

now, what we have is a situation in which they will then look to see

whether their

interpretation of the entire act is correct.

Consider for a moment, Mr. Chairman, if the amendment were not

included — if

section 1 were as it was proposed in the bill. If

Section

1 were left intact without the amendment, an arbitrator or judge would

look at this whole act and say: "Obviously what the legislation is

trying to do here is redefine termination, in terms of the act itself."

Once they look at sections 1 and 2 and the other sections taken

together they've got to conclude and interpret that the Public Sector

Restraint Act wishes to expand and redefine, for its own purposes,

layoff. If you look at

section 1, and in particular

section 2, you will

see that the government is proposing a new definition of layoff. Layoff

specifically means this: under certain circumstances — if you look at

the amendments proposed in the next

section we're going to deal with —

it means those provisions as set out in those proposed amendments.

The thing that ultimately throws the whole thing into complete

confusion is that termination now means layoff, and there's no reason

to put that definition in there if you look at the intention of the

whole act. But now that it's in there, it's open to an arbitrator or

judge to say: "If termination includes layoff, what does layoff mean?"

If you eliminate that inclusion then obviously termination is redefined

in this act as layoff under these provisions. Now they're saying: "If

parliament intended that, why would they include another definition of

termination as including layoff?" In other words, the plain meaning of

the words will indicate to any arbitrator or judge that it's absurd,

and they would — or could — choose not to enforce the sections on that

basis. That's the point that should be made.

The other point that should be made in this dubious piece of

legislation —

section 1 — is that if you look at

section 1(b), it says:

"...a corporation or an unincorporated board, commission, council,

bureau, authority or similar body that has (

i) on its board of

management or board of directors, a majority of members who are

appointed by

an Act, a minister or the Lieutenant Governor in

Council...." That wording is very unclear to me, and I don't know how

it's going to be applied. It is not clear to me precisely what that

means, particularly if a Crown corporation can be redefined. It says

any corporation. Let's take, for example, the British Columbia

Resources Investment Corporation. Through the power of the government,

with respect to its shareholding, it has the right to elect certain

members. It seems to me that BCRIC and all of its holdings may come

under the Public Sector Restraint Act. Do you follow what I'm saying? A

public sector employer means a corporation or an unincorporated board.

Okay, a corporation; let's say that's BCRIC. On its board of management

or board of directors it has a majority of members who are appointed by

an act, a minister or the cabinet. If you're looking for a strict

interpretation of this it's open to interpret that the shareholding of

the government will allow it to nominate and have elected — because of

a majority or controlling shareholding — a majority of members on the

board. You can say it's unlikely, but it's possible. It's even a

reasonable possibility. If that's the case, then all of those what we

consider private sector companies under BCRIC could, in its widest

possible sense, come under the Public Sector Restraint Act.

So the working of paragraph (

b) is really characteristic of the

drafting of this act. It's not very thoughtful, and it's not as clear

as it should be.

Those are the points that I wanted to make before being told to shut up, virtually, by the movement of a motion of closure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're reflecting on a previous vote now.

MR. LAUK: Yes, indeed.

In keeping with these

interpretations, the minister should revise

his view of the amendment that he has just included, because I think

that throws more confusion into

section 1 than he was trying to avoid

in the first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the

section as amended pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to be fast, hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MS. BROWN: This is ridiculous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, when the Chairman sees no one standing, one presumes that....

[8:15]

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: What do you mean, you have to be fast?

[ Page 2634 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have recognized the member for

Burnaby–Edmonds. If no one wishes to speak, the Chairman presumes that

in fact there's no dissension.

MS. BROWN: Well, at least give us the courtesy of being able to rise to our feet, Mr. Chairman.

There is a very distinct difference between termination and layoff.

There is a distinct difference between being terminated and being laid

off. When a person is laid off, it is presumed that at the first

opportunity that the employer is able to take on an additional person

they will be called back to the job. It is presumed that they are going

to hold themselves in waiting, that they're not going to go out and

find another job, because it's temporary. For the minister to say, in

his amendment, that termination includes layoff is the same as saying

that the definition of death includes sickness. That's nonsense. They

are two completely different things. You can be laid off without being

terminated, but once you are terminated you are terminated. The

minister should be very clear in terms of his amendment as to just

what's happening to these workers.

There was an editorial in the Times-Colonist on July 26 which

said: "The problem with Bill 3 is not that it eliminates job security.

The problem is that it replaces it with a distinct threat of unfair

employment practices." That's what we're talking about here, Mr.

Chairman. To lump layoff and termination together is to threaten to

introduce unfair employment practices. A person who is laid off knows

that his job is still there and it's just a matter of time until he

will be rehired. Even the Unemployment Insurance Commission relates

differently to a worker who is laid off than it does to a worker who is

terminated. Human Resources, if you apply for income assistance,

relates differently to you if you are laid off than if you are

terminated. It's not one and the same. For the minister in his

amendment to say that the definition of termination includes layoff is

definitely to introduce unfair labour practices. They are not the same

thing. He shouldn't be permitted to get away with that.

If the minister is going to terminate a worker.... If, for example,

the family support workers were terminated, they should have been told

they were terminated: "That's the end of your job. You're finished,

you're out of work. Your job no longer exists. It's gone, it's done,

it's finished with." But if they are laid off, it's with the

understanding, as the Minister of Finance often likes to say, that at

the first available moment, when the government finds itself

financially able, these workers will be recalled. It's one or the

other. The two can't be the same, because they're not the same. The

definition of termination cannot include the word layoff.

You know, I can hold up the business of the House by sending to the

library for a dictionary and reading into the record the definition of

the words termination and layoff. I don't think I should have to do

that, because I think that every member of this House should at least

be clear as to the difference. Termination means end; if you're

terminated, you're finished and that's it. When you're laid off that

indicates that there is some hope, some possibility....

HON. MR. CHABOT: So-so.

MS. BROWN: Yes, so-so, but there is a chance. When you are

terminated there is no chance. Mr. Chairman, I know that at the first

opportunity the minister is going to rise to his feet and explain to us

that this has been a grave error.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I shouldn't be here to

educate the member for Burnaby–Edmonds. She doesn't have to drag

herself out to the library; she can just meander over behind there and

look at the statutes of British Columbia to get a clear definition in

the Employment Standards Act, which clearly defines termination, which

includes layoff. Essentially this

section addresses it in the same

manner as the Employment Standards Act. So it's nothing novel, it's

nothing exciting; it's just a matter of law, long-time applied law in

the province of British Columbia.

The fact that the member for Vancouver Centre attempts to use his

legalese in an attempt to confuse the issue doesn't change the

situation here. For him to use examples of BCRIC is reaching to the

extreme. He might as well have used Canadian Forest Products or

MacMillan Bloedel, because there's not much difference. They're all

private companies with public shareholders. They've got no connection,

any of those companies — BCRIC, MacMillan Bloedel or Canfor — and no

relationship to the government. I want to suggest that the member for

Vancouver Centre has the ability to reach and to reach very far, and on

this amendment he was reaching to the extreme.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment has passed. We are on the

section as amended.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you talking about?

MS. BROWN: Yes. You moved closure, didn't you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's just a point of clarification. We are on the

section as amended. The amendment passed earlier.

MS. BROWN: Yes. They moved closure at a quarter to six.

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just think I should remind the

minister that I did not support the employment standards legislation.

The fact that the employment standards legislation includes a

definition of termination as layoff doesn't make it right. So to use

that as a justification is spurious. I'm not prepared to accept that.

There is a very clear difference between being terminated.... The

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) should be

the first one to know the difference between termination and layoff —

if one were, for example, to use it in terms of hair growth. There's a

difference between its termination and its resting, which is what

layoff is. Layoff is a temporary thing which hopefully will come to an

end. Termination is finished, and it shouldn't be included in this.

MR. ROSE: The thought just occurred to me, Mr. Chairman, of

the difference between a terminal illness and a layoff illness. I

wondered if we could use the adjectives there.

But before I get there, I wonder if I could chide the Chair just

gently; not abuse or criticize the Chair, but perhaps just ask for the

Chair's cooperation in one matter that I think is relatively important.

I think that many of us here are able to spring to our feet with

alacrity, if not considerable speed, but for the Chairman to suggest

that we had better hurry or rush on this is a bit precipitous. It would

be helpful if perhaps the Chair could say, "Are there any more speakers

on this clause?" or something along that line, because I was up there

[ Page 2635 ]

and ready to speak, but unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, you seemed to have a little bit of a problem with your left eye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let me say that the point of order is well

taken. I think the records will show that your Chairman and all

Chairmen here have always been willing to allow a member to speak.

MR. ROSE: I'm relieved to hear that, because it's nice that you don't have to rush for that opportunity.

I wonder if perhaps making termination and layoff synonymous.... In

effect, that's what you've done. You've made those two terms

equivalent. For the purposes of the bill you could perhaps do that.

That really isn't the argument here, because I agree that for the

purpose of the bill you can define black as white, if you wish, and for

the purpose of the bill that would probably be quite legal. Some people

would probably revel in that, especially if they were lawyers and liked

legalese, as the Provincial Secretary suggested.

What I'm suggesting here is that making these two terms synonymous

is really an attempt to fool the people. I think it's a bit cruel

there. If I were to receive a layoff notice, I would think I had some

hope. But if I were to receive a termination notice, I would think that

my job was terminal, that I was out and I was finished. If I were a

minister and I wanted to terminate somebody, I would not issue him with

a termination notice. He might go out and get all upset and go to the

local bar and might even involve himself in some sort of civil

disobedience; in any event, he might raise a hell of a lot of trouble.

However, if you issue him only a layoff notice, he may feel: "Well,

after all, if I'm laid off then if I only keep quiet there might be a

chance for me to get on a little later."

So I think that if the minister defends this congruency between

layoff and termination on the grounds that it appeared in an earlier

bill, I don't know why we have to rush in with an amendment at the

eleventh hour here when it appears....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, it's not the eleventh hour.

MR. ROSE: Well, it was either an oversight or rotten drafting

or something. It is obviously one or the other. The minister says:

"After all, there's nothing new. We always equate a coma with death.

There's nothing new here; don't get all excited. It's good, sound

legislative practice." Layoff is a euphemism for being fired, and

that's the only reason it's in here — not to make it consistent with

the labour standards act at all, but to make certain that people were

given the soft-touch, tough-cop routine. I think that anybody with half

an ounce of brains, or even a quarter of an ounce of brains, can see

through that. I don't think anybody should get away with that.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to the minister

again about the difference between layoff and termination. What layoff

hints at or indicates is that you've run out of jobs for the worker.

The sawmill has run out of logs, widgets or whatever; the typewriter

has run out of ribbon. That's what a layoff means. But once there are

more logs available and there are more jobs available, the people who

are laid off get first call. They're the first ones called back to do

the job. They have first refusal. What termination means is that the

job's finished. We're not anticipating that this plant is going to

operate any longer. It's finished. For example, if a program in Human

Resources is terminated, such as the child abuse programs in the Fraser

Valley and the lower mainland, they're finished. Those child abuse

workers aren't laid off, they're terminated. That program's finished.

If, for example, the people who administer CIP — where the disabled and

poor people get to pick up an additional $50 a month for doing some

volunteer work — are laid off, that means that as soon as there is some

work for them to do they will be called back onto the job again. But

once that program is terminated, it's finished. They are not to sit

around by the telephone waiting for a call that says: "Come back on the

job again." They are two completely different things. As a matter of

fact, I think when you're terminated all kinds of things then fall into

place: your pension, your health care benefits, and those kinds of

things; all sorts of termination things have to happen. You have, under

the Employment Standard Act, two months' severance pay and all that

kind of thing. None of that comes into effect when you are just laid

off.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Aye.

MS. BROWN: As my colleague from Coquitlam said, if you really

want to terminate a person, like that member for South Peace River

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do it under

section 2.

[8:30]

MS. BROWN: No. The way to ensure that he doesn't leap up and

down and start screaming and yelling and making problems is to say:

"You're laid off." It's the soft touch, as my colleague from Coquitlam

stated. It's the gentle way of easing a person out of a job. But it's

firing without just cause. That's what it is — a rose by any other

name, Mr. Chairman. It's termination in a way that ensures the least

amount of turmoil and hassle for the minister and for the government.

I think the minister should he upfront about what this is all about

and withdraw the amendment which says that layoffs should he included

under the definition of the word termination, because, really, they are

two completely different things. We have tried to show the minister

that they are two completely different things. We have tried to

demonstrate to the minister that we know that it is euphemistic and,

well, not a totally honest way of dealing with termination. I am not

accusing the minister. I am not imputing any motives to the minister,

but I am saying that it is not quite an upfront way of firing people.

It is in about the same category as saying positions are eliminated but

people aren't fired. It is the same kind of thing. We are in 1984 now,

where we are using newspeak to camouflage and hide what we are really

trying to do, and that is what this amendment does. To be forthright

about it the minister should withdraw the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order.

MS. BROWN: Did he call me Don Lockstead?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I wouldn't give you the honour.

[ Page 2636 ]

MS. BROWN: Well, I agree with him. I think very highly of Don

Lockstead, but if his eyes are so bad that he can't see the differences

between Don Lockstead and me I am wondering if he is well enough to be

sitting on the floor of this House, whether he shouldn't be terminated

— not even laid off, just terminated, period. That's the difference

between termination and layoff, if you want to know what it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MS. BROWN: I think that the minister should withdraw his amendment to

section 1 including layoff as part of the definition of termination.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For clarification, that amendment has passed. We are on the

section as amended, which still makes debate relevant.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the minister: has any aspect of

this legislation been checked with the federal government? Has there

been any consultation between the minister, his ministry or the

government of British Columbia with the federal government pertaining

to this act?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MR. LEA: As I see it, there are going to be a number of

people laid off or terminated at the end of October who won't be

working with the government any longer, and I think that possibly this

terminate and layoff thing may have some ramifications for people who

go down to collect unemployment insurance. There are different rules

for those who have been terminated and those who have been laid off; in

fact, the waiting period is much longer if you have been terminated as

opposed to laid off under the unemployment insurance regulations. I

wonder if the minister has given any thought to that, that he may be

putting these people in a very bad position when they go down to the

unemployment insurance office to get benefits and the unemployment

insurance officer says: "Were you laid off?" and he says: "No, I was

terminated." I am afraid that the federal people aren't going to come

to this

interpretation of this act to find out how they should apply

the federal rules. I just wonder if the minister has any comments on

that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I do have some comments on it, but I will comment on it under the appropriate

section of this bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, have you given up your job?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the statement made by the minister

appears to be correct, as has been mentioned before. The application of

these

interpretations could be better discussed under

section 2 and the

amendments to

section 2 listed on the order paper.

MR. LEA: But, Mr. Chairman, if

section 1 passes as amended,

that means that the definition of terminate then includes layoff. There

is no point in talking about this in some other section, because I am

afraid that once we have it in as the definition, it is going to follow

in all of the rest, and they will say: "To understand the meaning, look

for the definition in

section 1. I think it is germane to

section 1

that it be defined definitively, because it is going to make an awful

difference to somebody.... Maybe I am wrong, but I would like to clear

it up. What it points out is that there hasn't been a great deal of

thought given to this whole legislative package. It was thrown together

in a hurry, as fast as the Fraser Institute could think. If this

definition of "terminate includes lay off" stands as it is, I am afraid

there are going to be a great many British Columbians who are going to

be terminated, who go down to collect unemployment insurance and they

will say: "Well, I am afraid you were terminated, and our laws are

specific that if you were terminated you can't collect unemployment for

quite a length of time." I think that is a very important item. Once we

have this in

section 1 as the definition, then all other sections

follow, and I think this is the

section to clear it up under.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Prince Rupert is attempting

to muddy the waters. Really, we are just saying here that termination

includes layoff, and I think it is fairly clear. For him to suggest

that because there is a definition in the

interpretation section,

section 1 — that it flows into

section 2 and has a tremendous impact on

section 2 of this legislation — is mere nonsense. When the Employment

Standards Act was introduced, you might have had some concerns, but if

my memory serves me correctly you didn't really object to the

interpretation of that particular act, where termination, including

layoff, was defined. If you are not prepared to accept the definition

of the laws of British Columbia, I just happen to have another

definition which might help allay your fears or your concerns about the

wisdom of this particular amendment. This is from Black's Law Dictionary ,

fifth edition, and it says: "A termination of employment at the will of

employer. Such may be temporary, that is, caused by seasonal or adverse

economic conditions, or permanent." The Employment Standards Act says

precisely the same thing in slightly different words, so there is

nothing bewildering, shocking or confusing about this particular,

slight, three-word amendment to

section 1. For you people to read

something sinister into this particular amendment is sheer

foot-dragging.

MR. LEA: Heavens above! Sinister, Mr. Chairman? My goodness,

we would never think anything like that of this minister, even though

he accused me of trying to deliberately muddy up the waters instead of

asking a question that I wanted an answer for.

I could have asked him to withdraw, but I didn't — not that I think he is sinister, just possibly a little silly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member we are getting a bit personal.

MR. LEA: You're darned right I am, because he was. If he had

been asked to withdraw, we wouldn't have gotten to mine. He said I was

trying to muddy the waters in this chamber, and what I am trying to do

is to protect workers so that when they go down to collect their

unemployment insurance there is no undue delay. It may only be an

administrative statistical problem for a minister, but for a family not

to have food on the table because they cannot get their unemployment

insurance cheque is a far different matter.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the member is attempting to make a point under the wrong

section of this

[ Page 2637 ]

legislation. I have already indicated to that

member that I am prepared to answer his question under the proper

section of the legislation. I am not going to answer it under the

interpretation section, as much as you want to spring to the rooftops

and attempt to bring tear-jerker stories here on this particular issue.

I will answer your questions under the proper

section of the

legislation, not under

section 1.

MR. LEA: Well, I am sorry I asked a question that the minister didn't know the answer to...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: ...but it is obvious that the minister hasn't

checked with the federal government and doesn't even know what he is

talking about; that's what is obvious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we can have strictly relevant

conversation and debate on all these sections of the bill. The minister

makes the point that he feels that we are not being relevant with our

debate on

section 1 as amended. He has indicated that there are other

sections where the debate being offered now might be better presented,

and the Chair has a tendency to agree with him after looking at all of

the sections and the amendments to further sections of the bill. I will

ask if the hon. member for Prince Rupert can make his remarks with

respect to

section 1 as amended now.

MR. LEA: Are you ruling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not ruling, hon. member, I am just pointing out that we must be strictly relevant.

MR. LEA: I will reword that. I am not trying to be

argumentative. I will not say "ruling," because I am not going to trick

you into a division. Are you saying that when I read the word

"terminate" in further sections, after

section 1, it may not include

layoff? Is that what the minister is saying? Am I being silly to think

that when I read terminate in some

section following

section 1, and I

go back to the

interpretation, the

interpretation doesn't matter — that

we can have any

interpretation we want later on? That just doesn't make

sense, Mr. Chairman. What I am saying is that I would like to have this

word completely defined prior to us getting on to sections 2, 3, 4, 5

and so on. I just asked a simple question.

I wanted to know whether there had been any checking with the

federal government to see whether or not this would in any way — and it

may not.... Maybe I'm worrying about something that shouldn't be

worried about. But then I'm not the government; I didn't draft the

legislation. It seems to me to be sloppy for the minister to bring in a

bill of this magnitude and not check with federal ministries of the

government to see whether there's any problem in dealing with rules set

down. We are Canadians and British Columbians....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member

is discussing the consequences of termination, which are better

discussed under

section 2, which addresses terminations.

Section 1 does

not. It is a definition section, and it does not address the

consequences of termination. If he wants to ask a question about the

ramifications of an individual being terminated, he had better ask it

under the right section.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. If we can retain composure

briefly. There is a very fine line. I appreciate the concerns expressed

by the member for Prince Rupert and other members who have taken their

place in debate. I sincerely hope that they appreciate the fine line

that the Chair has to consider as to whether we're debating the

interpretation section, or other sections which deal with the

application of those

interpretations.

Further, the minister has indicated that he is quite prepared to

discuss the application in subsequent sections. I'm sure the hon.

minister has to be taken at his word.

MR. LEA: The minister took some umbrage that someone was

talking about legalese. We are talking about legislation and the

legalities of things. There is no other legalese except what goes

through this or the federal House. People are going to interpret this

act as it pertains to

section 1 and how it is in the definition. Each

act can define on its own; it doesn't have to refer to another act. So

when anybody in court takes a look at this act, they're not going to go

to another act to see what "terminate" means. They're going to use the

definition in this act. As much as the minister would like to point to

some other act and say it's exactly the same, I'm afraid a court

wouldn't look at any other act. They would look at the definition of

"terminate" or "layoff" as it is put into the definition of this act.

I would like to use an analogy. If you're looking at the top of a

legal contract, and it says, "The party of the first part will be known

as X," there's no point in the minister saying: "Oh, but when it looks

at X further down, we'll talk about it then and see how it affects the

person because it is defined in the definition of the party of the

first part being known as X." Once

section 1 is passed there is no

turning back. Whatever "terminate" means is going to stick under the

definition of this act. Whatever "layoff" means is going to stick under

the definition of this act.

[8:45]

We may very well get to another

section where the minister says:

"Oh, I'm going to answer all your questions, but I'm sorry, I wish you

had raised that in

section 1 under the definition." We're stuck with

the definition, unless the minister is telling us that if we do run

into a problem....

I hope he sent his deputy, or whoever is sitting with him, out to

check to see whether this will have any implications with the.... The

only

part I'm worried about at this particular time is how this will

apply to unemployment insurance. I really hate to let

section 1 go

through without having some idea whether this definition, as applied to

all the other sections of the act, is going to preclude people from

drawing unemployment when they should be able to draw it under

termination and not layoff. Those two words are defined differently by

the federal government when one is applying for unemployment insurance.

When the minister talks about my having a sob story, yes, it is a sob

story. I would hate to see that some family is not going to have food

on the table when they should have because the minister is anxious to

get

section 1 through. If that's a sob story, then so be it; I'm

guilty. But it seems to me that the minister is a little hasty. I

[ Page 2638 ]

don't know what it is. Do they want to have this

through before the Socred convention at the end of the week? He may

have his own motives and his own time schedule. All I know is that it

won't matter very much to the family that may not have food on the

table because of the minister's haste in getting

section 1 through, and

having the definition of "terminate includes lay off" in this

legislation.

If the minister would, when his person comes back.... Why not leave

this for a while? Let's come back to it. The minister laughs. "How

silly," he says. "Why would we leave it for a while? The government's

got to have it right now," he says. "There's no fooling around. Let's

get it through. I'll talk about it later."

When we raised the point in second reading, they said: "Talk about

it in committee." We get into committee and they say: "You can't talk

about it in committee; that's principle. You should have talked about

it in second reading."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense.

MR. LEA: The minister knows I'm telling the truth. He's squirming a little, Mr. Chairman; that's all.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're a twister!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister will come to order.

MR. LEA: As the hon. member for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr. Rose)

said, we all know there is.... Talk about legalese. Yes, there's

legalese subterfuge here all right. The fact of the matter is, the

public were worried about people getting fired without cause. They were

worried about people being terminated. Do you know the difference

between laid off and terminated, Mr. Chairman? When you're terminated

you're through with the company. They take you off the rolls; you've

got nothing further to do with them. They start doing up your pension

plan, your last cheque, and you're gone. When you get laid off, you're

not off the company rolls. You're just not working for the moment, and

you're not getting paid. That's the big difference. In my opinion, what

the government is trying to do with " 'terminate' includes lay off" is

to terminate a bunch of people and say it was a layoff. But as far as I

can understand it, these people, when they're laid off under the

definition of this act, have no hope. They're not still on the

government payroll and just not getting paid; they are not getting paid

and they're no longer on the government books at all. There's no hope.

Mr. Chairman, if we let this go through, then we're going to see a

whole lot of people terminated: off the books, off the payroll, off the

pension plan, off the denticare plan, off the medical plan. They're

finished. What would be wrong with the government saying: "Okay, at

this point we're going to lay you off. Who knows? Maybe the economy

will pick up. Maybe there's a new program we'll want to start and you

could come back to work for us — with your seniority." This is going to

make sure that their seniority is gone too. Once we let this definition

go through in

section 1, in all other sections of this act it is going

to be final.

The minister may be anxious to get it through — the government may

be even more anxious than he is — but in our anxiety to get this

through the House, if we do one single person in this province an

injustice, then in my opinion we are all guilty of misconduct towards

the public.

MS. BROWN: The minister says: "Why all this fuss about three little words?" There have been wars started over three little words.

I want to tell you what he does and why it is so important, Mr.

Chairman, that we deal with this definition in

section 1. It says in

section 1 that " 'terminate' includes lay off." He then proceeds to

section 2, which is headed "Termination of employees" but which spells

out layoff provisions. So as soon as we let it through that termination

and layoff are one and the same, he's off to the races. The workers of

the province will have no protection whatsoever.

I want to give you a couple of

definitions of layoff and

termination. I'm only doing this because the minister initiated the

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that a legal dictionary?

MS. BROWN: No. I'm talking about ordinary human beings. I'm not talking about legal ideas and concepts. I'm talking about working people.

It defines layoff as a period during which a worker is temporarily

discharged — slack. The same dictionary gives as a definition for

terminate: "Bring or come to an end" — make an end of. There's nothing

temporary about termination — it is like death. It is the end; it is

finished; it is over; it is done with. But as the minister said, it's

not a legal dictionary.

which is classified and arranged so as to facilitate the expression of

ideas. What does it say about termination? "End, conclusion, finish,

doomsday, day of judgment, fall of the curtain, windup, destination,

end-all, expiration, expiry, death, end of all things, finality, last

stage, death blow, knockout, end, close, finish, conclude, expire, draw

to a close, have run its course, run out, pass away, put an end to,

make an end of, get through, achieve, final, terminal, definitive,

conclusive, last, ultimate, once and for all." That's what terminate

means.

Let's look at the collective agreement negotiated between this

government and its workers on October 25, 1982. What is its definition

of layoff? "Layoff is a cessation of employment as a result of a

reduction of the amount of work required to be done by the employer,

and where, should work become available, employees will be recalled in

accordance with

article 13 or

article 31." And lo and behold, number 27

has a completely different definition of termination. "Termination is

the separation of an employee from the public service for cause,

pursuant to articles 10, 11 or 31." In this amendment the minister is

trying to say that the separation of an employee from the public

service is exactly the same as the cessation of employment as a result

of a reduction of the amount of work required to be done, and which

would result, should more work become available, in the recall of the

employee, according to articles 13 or 31.

Is that what the minister is trying to say? In other words, Mr.

Minister, should a worker receiving a termination notice assume that

she or he is merely being laid off? That is my question. Will the

minister respond to that question?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll respond to it under the appropriate

section of this act.

[ Page 2639 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to bring to your

attention — not reflecting on a vote any more than I have to — that

this is the very

section where we had closure pulled on us today. This

amendment is the one where closure was declared by the hon. member for

South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). The mistake we make in this

committee is that we don't thoroughly canvass something before all of a

sudden somebody jumps in. Mr. Chairman, you have seen the difference of

opinion in terms of the understanding of what we are talking about

here. On the one hand you have layoff and on the other you have

termination. As far as I'm concerned, this addendum to the

interpretation

section of the bill makes all the difference in the

world. The minister says let's discuss it under

section 2. Once you get

section 2 you're living with what we see to be wrong in

section 1,

regardless.

[9:00]

I'm not going to go into any further detail. I'm just trying to

point out that the whole thing is a mishmash by virtue of the fact that

it wasn't properly talked out in the first place. This bill was a

travesty to begin with. This

section was nuts. The amendments have done

nothing to modify my concerns. As a matter of fact, when you put the

amended

section in terms of

section 2, and I'll deal with that in more

detail.... Where you've taken off the "without cause" and put in this

interpretation, as far as I'm concerned you've given us exactly what we

had in the first place. And that's it. Anybody who says this bill isn't

as bad as it was to begin with is nutty. You have done exactly what you

intended to do in the first place. You've changed a few words here and

there.... Yes, you wink, Mr. Minister. I would wink too if I was trying

to get away with this kind of travesty. The fact of the matter is, this

bill is as bad as it ever was — worse, if anything, because it's

couched in.... Maybe editorials will buy some of this junk. In any

event, that's precisely what it is.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made quite a fuss

about the definition in Black's dictionary and about whether or not

layoff and termination are actually synonymous. I don't think that's

really the point. What we're concerned about is whether or not the

definitions in this act of layoff, termination and unemployment are

synonymous with those in the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is the

concern here. If someone takes his layoff or termination notice in his

hot little hand and trots down to the unemployment insurance office

expecting benefits, the different words in the notice may produce quite

different results.

Just to elaborate a little further on that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like

to ask the minister a question. Are the benefits to be awarded an

employee of the government who has received a termination notice

different from those awarded to someone who has received a layoff

notice? Are the benefits any different?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: All kinds. Pensions and that sort of thing. Various kinds of fringes. Severance pay, pension and the rest of it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, my answer is that this is an

interpretation

section which we're dealing with. The question of

termination or layoff is addressed in

section 2 and would be more

appropriately answered under the appropriate section.

MR. ROSE: With all due respect — and again I think the point has been made by a number of people on this side — it might be....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm getting a little fed up

with these people attempting to discuss the entire bill under the

interpretation section. If they want to address the problems associated

with people being terminated, they had better do it under the

appropriate

section and not under the

interpretation section, which

doesn't address the question of terminations. Those are under

section

2. I'm sure you can read. You're attempting to fuzzy everything up

here, and to delay and hold things up so that

section 1 will never be

passed. That's what you're trying to do.

MR. COCKE: On that very point of order, if we cannot clarify

the

interpretation, then what is the point of going on to this

section

which deals with layoffs or terminations?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't asking the member for South

Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to involve himself in this; I was

asking that the minister responsible for the bill try to tell us why

he's raising a point of order which in my view is totally irrelevant.

We're dealing with

interpretations at this time, with respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As I've already pointed out to the hon.

members, the Chair has some difficulty with this and I'm sure the

committee will appreciate that. We are on an

interpretation section,

and members have dealt with

interpretation and then strayed into

application as it's further defined in other sections and other

amendments. If we can make our remarks strictly relevant to the

interpretation section, which is

section 1 as amended before us now,

then debate can continue. I'm sure hon. members will appreciate the

difficulty the Chair has in this fine definition, and also the

difficulty that maybe the minister has. The minister has given the

committee a solid understanding that questions with respect to

applications and

interpretation of the applications will be dealt with

in following sections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I thought that I was being rather

gentle about this, and the fact that the minister is upset with me

really doesn't worry me at all. That's of no consequence to me. I'm not

standing up here to provoke the minister or to make his life easy or to

provide a substitute for Valium. I'm up here as a duly elected

representative, the same as the minister, to determine whether those

two terms are synonymous under the act and whether there exists any

difference in the benefits accruing to one public employee laid off as

compared to one public employee terminated, because it makes a lot of

difference in a number of other areas, including pension rights,

vesting, severance pay and even unemployment insurance. As I recall —

and I don't have the act before me — the Unemployment Insurance

Commission pays on the basis of loss of income due to unemployment.

Loss of income is not a fact if you have severance pay; you have

unemployment, but you don't have loss of income due to unemployment.

You might think this is a thin line, but lawyers retire on all these

thin lines.

If we don't get the distinction here between an employee who is laid off and who may very well qualify immediately

[ Page 2640 ]

for unemployment insurance under the definition I

just gave you, and one who is not eligible because of his severance

pay.... It makes a big difference to me, and it would make a big

difference to that employee as well. So if you can't make your

definitions clear in your

interpretation section, how can you make them

clearer in its consequences, which are the sections following it?

That's a simple question and, I think, an important one. If that is

defined, as you euphemistically define layoff with termination.... If

you define what I'm saying as stalling, then I would suggest that most

of the courtrooms in this country have been involved in stalling. We

want a clear, precise answer on the difference between layoff and

termination when it comes to the government's benefits package. That's

all we're asking for.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to discuss what's

going to happen to the worker as an end result of whether that worker

is terminated or laid off. I'm going to deal with the amendment, which

says that the definition of termination includes layoff. The definition

of termination does not include layoff. I have looked in the collective

agreement negotiated by the minister with the representatives of the

people employed by this government, and they have come up with two

different

definitions. They have a definition for termination, and they

have a definition for layoff. If they were one and the same at the time

when that collective agreement was being hammered out, the minister had

an opportunity at that time to say: "We don't need

article 17 and

article 27, because

article 27 embodies

article 17. They're one and the

same."

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're all mixed up.

MS. BROWN: The minister keeps mumbling that I'm mixed up...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: ...and his colleagues agree with him. If I'm mixed

up, it's because the words of the minister are mixed up. It states here

quite clearly: "...'terminate' includes lay off." A little less than a

year ago the minister sat down around the bargaining table with his

employees and hammered out a collective agreement, and that collective

agreement carried a different definition for termination than it did

for layoff. If they were one and the same.... Get your copy of the

master agreement, because I'm at a disadvantage knowing more about this

than you. You can't debate with me intelligently because I've got the

copy and you haven't. There, now you've found your copy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MS. BROWN: Through you, Mr. Chairman, turn to page 3. Now

we're looking under definition 17, the definition of layoff: "Layoff is

a cessation of employment as a result of a reduction of the amount of

work required to be done by the employer, and where, should work become

available, employees will be recalled...." That's the basis of layoff,

that you're eligible to be recalled. That is the definitive difference

between layoff and termination. Under number 27, which gives a

definition for termination, there is no mention of recall, and it makes

sense, because where there's a legal, social, literary, religious,

road-sign or poetic definition, termination means end; finish; that's

it; there is no more.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tout finis.

MS. BROWN: In any language, that's right, and that is the

intrinsic difference that makes this

section 1 amendment inoperable.

The difficulty that we're having with you, Mr. Chairman, is that if we

accept this

section 1 amendment, then that means that we have accepted

that terminations and layoffs are one and the same, so that when they

show up in other sections of the act, it's a fait accompli. That is not

possible.

The minister is going to respond, now that he has read his master contract.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'll be very brief, because I don't

want to go into the whole legislation under the

interpretation section,

but really, the argument the member for Burnaby–Edmonds across there is

putting forward on the question of dismissal, suspensions and things of

that nature — dismissals essentially for just cause.... Remember that:

just cause. They are quite different and quite separate from what we're

talking about — termination — here. Keep that in mind. Dismissals for

just cause in the collective agreement will always be there, despite

the fact that we're talking about terminations here for economic

reasons. There's a substantial difference between the kind of

terminations and causes that are defined here and the just causes that

are defined in the collective agreement. That's what you must

understand, and that's what you're failing to understand. There is a

substantial difference.

MR. LEA: The minister just made, I think, quite a statement. He said there's quite a difference between without cause....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I said "with cause" versus "just cause."

MR. LEA: Well, you can't have quite a difference between without cause and not with....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister whether his

assistant.... Maybe the minister should tell us who it is so we don't

have to keep referring to....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, the gentleman beside me, who will remain silent, is Robert Plecas.

MR. LEA: What's his post?

HON. MR. CHABOT: He's a director in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister: has it been checked out to see how this affects the Unemployment Insurance Act?

[ Page 2641 ]

[9:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: That question is one that should best be put under

section 2, at which time a response will be given.

MR. REYNOLDS: Listening to the member for Prince Rupert

saying that once this

section is passed there is no turning back, and

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) saying: "Some editorialists

will buy some of this junk...." Mr. Chairman, we've been listening to

the NDP on this legislation for an extremely long time — in fact, 53½

hours in second reading — and on this

section I've been sitting here

listening faithfully since they started to debate it and the amendment.

The debate is repetitious — I think you've talked to them a few times

about that — and because of that I move that the question be now put.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I find it

absolutely hilarious that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) moved an earlier closure in this House — the member who

debated a bill for 14 hours — and now the member from the Conservative

Party, which kept the bells ringing in Ottawa for bloody days.... These

people, without any kind of conscience, are moving closure in this

House. It's absolutely beyond any kind of understanding that I can put

forward. Mr. Chairman, I think that this committee has resolved itself

into chaos, and it was all started by the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who should bow his head

in shame forever in our province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When standing order 46 is moved, there are points of order but there is no debate.

Now the member for Burnaby–Edmonds on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that I wish

there were some way that the people of British Columbia would know that

that member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound is drawing a salary to sit

here and count hours. He hasn't participated in any of the debates in

this House. All he does is sit there and count on his fingers and his

toes until he comes up to 52 or 53, depending on how many fingers and

toes he has, and that's the only contribution that he can make to the

debate in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member. I've accepted enough points of order.... All right, the member for Nelson–Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I hope that

before you consider whether or not the question should be put, some

consideration will be given to the matter that certain very important

parts of this

section have not yet been debated. There are some

inconsistencies in the

schedule which is referred to in this particular

section. There is also the definition of an improvement district, which

certainly gives me some cause for concern. I've been waiting for the

answers to be forthcoming on some of the questions that have been

raised, certainly with the intention of taking my place in the debate

on this section.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member

for Burnaby–Edmonds made some comments about me, and I would just like

to tell her I would be happy to debate her anywhere in the province on

this issue or cricket; she can have her choice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think we have now exhausted the points of order.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Lockstead

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 1 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Lockstead

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

[9:30]

section 2.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[ Page 2642 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will take these as we have done in the past,

one at a time, so we are now considering

section 2(l) — that amendment

as indicated on the order paper standing in the name of the minister.

On the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here, of course,

with one of the most infamous clauses in this whole bill, which of

course originally dealt with firing without cause. I want to start off

with one question to the minister. As he did not choose even to give us

the courtesy of explaining this amendment, I wonder if I could ask him

a direct question, and that is: why did you not just simply allow the

Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to take the

place of that clause? Why did you have to remove it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Take the place of what?

MRS. DAILLY: I'll put it this way, and perhaps it'll be

clearer: why did you not apply the B.C. Labour Code and the Public

Service Labour Relations Act to this particular clause instead of

messing around with it in a way that is very confusing and that

actually gives no hope to the employees that you have really alleviated

their basic concerns? I'm just asking you this: why do you not just

apply the Labour Code?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the public servants of British

Columbia come under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the

provisions under that act and the collective agreement don't allow the

government to downsize to meet the shortcoming of revenue; therefore

we've had to introduce this particular piece of legislation.

We're probably dealing with one of the most significant parts of the

legislation at this time. What it essentially does is say, really, that

in circumstances where "there is insufficient work or insufficient

current operating funds budgeted to maintain current levels of

employment," or where the employer "makes a change in the

organizational structure" or "discontinues a program, activity or

service of the employer, or reduces the level of an activity or service

to the employer, the public sector employer may terminate the

employment of an employee in accordance with the regulations." Now what

we're saying, essentially, there is that under the circumstances there

is a need for downsizing the public service in British Columbia, and

we're doing it under this particular section.

I want to say this is not a — I forget the adjective you used, but

the suggestion was that it's a horrible piece of legislation. The

terminology used in this particular

section is terminology that is in

place by law in the provinces of Ontario, socialist Manitoba,

Saskatchewan and, I believe, Nova Scotia. Those four provinces used

language identical to that used in this particular legislation to give

them the ability to downsize the public service in their provinces.

Under our collective agreement, because of tenure and job security, we

don't have the ability to downsize to respond to the lack of revenue

flowing to government; we therefore had to introduce this piece of

legislation, which is similiar to legislation that exists in four of

the provinces. No more and no less. We are saying that in the event the

people of British Columbia can't afford certain programs of government,

we must downsize. Some of those nonessential programs must fall by the

wayside, and as those nonessential programs disappear, needless to say,

some positions must go as well. This is the mechanism whereby we can

downsize the public service of British Columbia. The mechanism is not

foreign to this country but is in place in four other provinces.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: I want to thank the minister for elaborating on that. It gives us a better opportunity to continue a more positive discussion.

I would like to ask the minister this question: in your need, as you

say, to downsize, did you not have the mechanism available through the

actual cooperative meetings that took place at some time, I understand,

between the B.C. Government Employees' Union and the Government

Employee Relations Bureau, which negotiates with them? Is it not true

that the union had been prepared to sit down and face the realities of

the economy, but that they wanted to do it collectively, cooperatively

and with the feeling that fairness would ensue? To achieve your

government's goals — we're not here to argue that; we'll do that at

another time — was it really necessary to bring in this heavy hand?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes. Immediately on the

introduction of this legislation responding to the economic

circumstances in the provinces, I established a consultative process. I

attempted to contact and meet.... Immediately on introduction of the

legislation, I sent a telegram to all the public service unions of the

province and asked them to meet with me in my office to discuss the

ramifications of this legislation and the possibility of changes which

they felt would be appropriate. At no time was an overture made to me

that we sit down and attempt, through the collective agreement, to

address the very serious economic condition faced by the province. The

B.C. Government Employees' Union and its president and vice-president —

or whatever his position is — plus representatives of about five or six

other unions came to my office to discuss.... I had hoped to discuss

Bill 2 and 3 and to determine what the ramifications were for the

unions. But the only discussion was the request by Mr. Richards to read

a three-page legal document prepared for him, indicating that the only

thing they would accept was a complete withdrawal of Bills 2 and 3. I

attempted to discuss the points they raised in the brief they had

presented to me way back in July. They didn't even want to discuss my

point of view on their brief, let alone answer my request for input on

the particular legislation and its ramifications.

I then proceeded to meet with other employer groups in the province.

I met with the Employers' Council of British Columbia, the public

sector employers' council — or whatever their proper title is — and

with the trade union leaders in the province. I met in Vancouver with

the secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Art Kube, and with Mr.

Placas, and we discussed Bill 3. One of the two major issues raised by

Mr. Kube at that meeting in the cabinet chambers — those chambers that

were occupied a while back — was that they could not accept that

language "without cause." I listened, certainly. It wasn't long after I

had that meeting with Mr. Kube that I came back with amendments in this

House because those words were found offensive by Mr. Kube and by

others in the province, not necessarily of the trade union bent or

affiliation. The other issue Mr. Kube raised with me

[ Page 2643 ]

was the question of recognition of seniority. There will be recognition of seniority, and it is spelled out in the regulations.

MS. BROWN: Where are the regulations?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The regulations are available. Do you want a copy?

MS. BROWN: Yes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We'll send you over a copy.

It was a very worthwhile meeting because it identified for me that

the two major concerns were the words "without cause" and some

recognition of seniority. I told Mr. Kube at that meeting that I would

take into consideration the concerns he had expressed to me, and I

have. I've removed those words "without cause" and I have defined cause

here similar to how cause is defined in the other four provinces. While

I didn't give him assurances of seniority, I told him I would look at

it. I recognize the importance of seniority, coming from a company

where seniority was very important to me. It meant working or not

working. Seniority is recognized in the regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you still have your seniority?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I don't have seniority any more, being junior management. I still have my pension rights.

MS. BROWN: There are a number of things I want to raise on

this section, but I want to start by dealing with the word

"non-essential." In speaking to this section, the minister said that in

order to balance the books, non-essential services were cut. I want to

give you a list of those non-essential services. It includes the family

support worker program, which cared for no fewer than 1,000 children,

according to the annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources for

1980. That annual report went on to brag that as a direct result of

this program, fewer children were taken out of their families and into

the care of the superintendent of child welfare. That's one of the

non-essential programs which was cut. It lost 226 of its child care

workers.

Another non-essential program was the family and child assessment

team, known as the child abuse program, in the Vancouver and Fraser

Valley area. Again, if we can go by the statement made by the ministry

in February, the minister boasted that 3,504 cases of child abuse were

investigated in 1982, of which 2,886 were found to have foundation. I

am only raising this because the minister raised the issue that the

programs that were cut were non-essential. I think it only fair that we

know what this government's definition is of a non-essential program.

The report says that as a result of the actions of this team, 673

children were removed from their families, 35 were sent to hospital,

and criminal charges were laid in 133 cases. This team worked with

children who were the victims of incest, rape and child abuse. That's

another of the non-essential programs which that minister tells us were

cut.

The income assistance coordinators. They are supposed to be

rehabilitation workers, working with income assistance clients to help

them get off welfare and into the workforce. That's one of the

non-essential programs that the Provincial Secretary tells us were cut

so the government could downsize the public sector.

In-home services, the mental retardation coordinators.... He's yawning! He finds this whole exercise boring.

[9:45]

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the member

is straying into estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources and is really

off the point of

section 2. In this particular debate I think we need to stay

with the meaning of

section 2 and not to discuss details of the Ministry of

Human Resources.

MS. BROWN: If the minister had been listening, he would have

heard the Provincial Secretary, in explaining

section 2 of this act,

state very clearly that non-essential services were eliminated in order

to downsize the public sector. It was the minister who introduced that

point. I was not the person who introduced that point.

HON. MR. McGEER: The individual members of the opposition

will have an opportunity to discuss in detail at a later time the

estimates of each ministry individually, and can at that time debate

with the ministers their particular programs and what they deem to be

desirable or undesirable. But if we embark upon a debate of this kind

during

section 2 of the bill, clearly we could cover the material

appropriate to estimates of every single minister of the government.

While we may at this particular time be discussing Human Resources, we

could as well extend that type of debate to include Education, Consumer

and Corporate Affairs, Attorney-General, the Ministry of Science and so

on. If the member does not have material that applies to this

particular section, I really think we should terminate the debate and

vote on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister is certainly correct when he

refers to the debate on the estimates. Perhaps we could proceed and

devote ourselves to the amendment to

section 2(l).

MS. BROWN: I am addressing myself to the amendment to

section 2.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman,

Standing order 38 states that "A member addressing the House shall, if

called to order by Mr. Speaker, or on a point raised by another member,

sit down while the point of order is being stated." The member stands

now and stood during the point of order raised by the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. I would suggest that she show

some courtesy to the rules of the House by taking her seat when a point

of order is raised.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Forests is quite correct. The

Chair didn't notice because the Chair was watching the speaker at that

moment. Would you proceed, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I hope the record will show that the

contribution the Minister of Forests has made to this legislation and

to this act is to tell the member to sit down. That's the sum total of

his contribution. It is understandable why the Minister of

Universities, Science and

[ Page 2644 ]

Communications would be uncomfortable with the

statements I am making. However, the Provincial Secretary, in

introducing and explaining this amendment, very clearly stated that

non-essential programs were terminated so as to accomplish the

government's goal of downsizing the public sector. That was the

minister's statement. If the minister wandered into estimates, I am not

going to be held responsible. However, I think it is only fair that the

House should know what programs the minister meant when he referred to

them as non-essential. It was the minister speaking on

section 2 of

this bill who introduced the whole discussion of nonessential services.

I was not the person who introduced this discussion. The member from

Point Grey has one function and one function only in this House: to

curtail the debate of the opposition and to see to it that we do not

have protected our right to participate in the debate on the floor of

this House. And so be it. He's the government. He's got the majority.

He can terminate this discussion whenever he wants to,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has been very

considerate of your remarks as they have been put forward and would

appreciate it if you could direct your comments to the amendment to

section 2. I think you have made your point.

HON. MR. McGEER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is no

attempt to curtail debate. There is only an attempt to make the debate

appropriate to the point of consideration. The member will have ample

opportunity during the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources to

raise all of the points she is raising under Bill 3. If we were to have

finished the debate of the Ministry of Human Resources, there might be

some point to the member's remarks this evening, but the appropriate

time for that particular debate is under the Ministry of Human

Resources. I must insist that the rules of the House not be abused, and

that the member either take up something relevant to

section 2 or be

asked to take her place so we can vote on the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've made your point of order, Mr. Minister,

and I thank you very much. Once again I would ask that the hon. member

for Burnaby–Edmonds please direct her comments to the amendment to

section 2.

MS. BROWN: I want the record to show that I have been

thoroughly intimidated. I am intimidated. I am going to change my

course of action. I'm going to change the comments I make because I

recognize that when you are up against a bully, it is better to run

than to stay and have your head beaten into the ground. I recognize

that and I'm not going to pursue this any further. I have been

intimidated. I am going to change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your pursuit is taking a long time, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: That's fine. I will get on to other business. I

just wanted to explain why I am not being allowed to respond to the

minister's statements.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon.

member is now moving from the irrelevant to the offensive. By that I

don't mean in a debating sense; I mean in the sense of propriety of the

House. I would ask that the member withdraw those offensive remarks,

because they are uncalled for and inappropriate. If she would only make

her debate relevant to

section 2, I am sure the House would be most

pleased to listen to the remarks she has to make.

MS. BROWN: I was referring to my experiences. I am the one who is feeling bullied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the words used were unparliamentary. Would you mind withdrawing?

MS. BROWN: I said I was feeling bullied, Mr. Chairman. I have my feelings, and I am feeling that I am being bullied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not what the Chair heard, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Well, I will withdraw whatever the Chair heard and

repeat that I am being intimidated and I am feeling that I am being

bullied. Whatever else the Chair may have heard, I'm willing to

withdraw. But I will repeat that I am being intimidated and I am being

bullied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, hon. member. The only thing I would

like anyone to repeat is something that's relevant to the amendment to

section 2(l).

MS. BROWN: And what is relevant, Mr. Chairman, is that the

minister made a statement about non-essential services. I am responding

to the minister's statement. However, I cannot continue to respond to

the minister's statement because I have been intimidated and bullied. I

cannot continue to respond to the minister's statement, and the list of

non-essential services cannot be discussed on the floor of this House.

So I will go on to talk about something else.

Would you like me to sit down again?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. The Minister of Forests on a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the way the members

opposite are going it's very likely that some hours from now some

member of the government, completely tired of the irrelevant babble

from opposite, will probably move a motion that the vote be now put. At

that time I'm sure the member now speaking will leap to her feet and

tell the world how she has been prevented from addressing the pertinent

sections of the amendment we are now debating. I suggest therefore that

she address these amendments now, rather than the irrelevant babbling

she has been carrying on with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, that is not a point of

order. I would suggest to all members that constant interruptions — to

mean taking advantage of points of order such that they become constant

interruptions — are disruptive to the business of this House, and I

would ask hon. members to consider very carefully before they rise on a

point of order.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the point of

order raised by that minister and by the Minister of Science, (a), (b),

(

c) or (

d) are not areas where the member for

[ Page 2645 ]

Burnaby–Edmonds can discuss the question of

termination, can discuss the question of irrelevancy of programs, and

so on and so forth. When it was the minister who raised it in the first

place, talking in terms that the member is now raising, I think it's

quite in order. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I feel there is no way we

can continue with this debate other than line by line, and if we must,

we will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I think it's unfortunate that we do not have access to instant Hansard

on the floor of the House. However, I made some notes, and when the

minister, in his explanation on

section 2, responded by referring to

the termination of non-essential services, that was not ruled out of

order. That was accepted as being completely in order. It seems,

therefore, that for a member of the opposition to respond should also

be in order, notwithstanding the statements made by the great alleged

parliamentarians from Point Grey and elsewhere. However, I accept your

ruling that although it was in order for the minister to refer to the

termination of vital services to children in this province, for me to

respond to that statement and to demonstrate and list the kinds of

services which that government considers to be non-essential is out of

order. I accept that. And I'm also saying that in accepting that, I

accept that I have been bullied.

Now it's been suggested that we go on and debate line by line. The

first line in this

section is the word "notwithstanding," and I, Mr.

Chairman, am not going to support that word "notwithstanding." What

that word says, when it's added to the Labour Code and the Public

Service Labour Relations Act, is that those acts are without value.

They are not important and we should discard them, in the same way as

we discard the children who are the victims of incest and refer to the

services for them as non-essential, in the same way as the Provincial

Secretary used the term "non-essential" in talking about wiping out

that program in order to realize his goal of downsizing the public

sector. So I'm not going to support the word "notwithstanding," and I'm

not going to support

section 2(l), which says that a public sector

worker may be terminated, notwithstanding the Labour Code and the

Public Service Labour Relations Act. The

section then goes on to list

not termination reasons but layoff reasons, which we are not permitted

to debate because that was dealt with in

section 1 — even though it

wasn't dealt with in

section 1; the minister said he wouldn't deal with

it in

section 1 because that was a definition section. But all of the

things listed in

section 2 are part of the definition for layoff, not

termination. For that reason we are not going to support the fact that

the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act should be

cast aside and ignored when this government decides to lay off workers

or terminate workers without cause.

[10:00]

That is precisely what this

section does. There is nothing in the

section that says a person should be terminated because their work is

unsatisfactory. There is nothing in the

section that says a person

should be terminated because they have failed to carry out their job.

All that the

section talks about is insufficient work, insufficient

operating funds, discontinuation of programs, such as the child abuse

program which the minister referred to as non-essential. All of those

are geared to the employer's wishes and

interpretation, and to what

happens to the employer, not to the employee.

So what we have is termination without cause. What we have is that

this minister has succeeded in doing by one means what he was unable to

do by another means, and he justifies this by saying that the programs

which are going to be lost as a result are non-essential. That minister

who, having done his damage, has now left the House said: "Wait and

debate it under the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources."

What's the point then? The programs will all be gone, and it'll be

etched in Hansard , written in the records, that those programs

are considered non-essential and referred to as non-essential by the

Provincial Secretary and by that government. Maybe some of them, in the

eyes of the government, are. I mean, why should they care about

services to the mentally retarded? Why should they care about

post-partum counselling? But to hear that they also don't care about

children who are the victims of rape and incest, and to hear that they

refer to services for those children as non-essential, is a measure of

that government's cruelty. I don't think we should ever miss an

opportunity to repeat that fact over and over again. For that minister

to stand on the floor of this House and refer to that service as

non-essential, and for the Chairman to rule, and the minister from

Point Grey to say that I am out of order in bringing to the attention

of the House that when that minister refers to a service as

non-essential, what he's talking about and what he is saying is that

it's okay, it means that this government says it's fine and has

declared open season on kids. Rape them, beat them, abuse them, do what

you want. That's what he says when he refers to that service as being

non-essential. It may be out of order to mention it, Mr. Chairman, but

I think that's a point that needs to be said.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, to get on with line (

d) in this

section, I want to raise this very carefully with the minister. When I

read the original

section it talked about firing without just cause.

Then I get down to line (

d) that says: "reduces the level of an

activity or service of the employer, the public sector employer may

terminate the employment of an employee in accordance with the

regulations." Mr. Chairman, we have been given the regulations today —

just this evening. I understand that the minister made them available

to others earlier in the day, but not much earlier. How can we possibly

debate this amendment without having had an opportunity to carefully

review the regulations? I suspect that when we go through the

regulations in juxtaposition with line (

d) of this particular amendment

we're going to find that you have in there exactly what you had before,

and that is firing without cause.

The minister said we can debate, and that he will debate with us,

the whole question of termination vis-à-vis laying off in

section 2 of

this bill. We're now at

section 2, and we're talking in terms of the

areas of reason for layoff — now it's not only layoff, it's

termination. As a matter of fact, if I go through these four

subsections of

section 2, I wonder what in blazes the minister brought

the bill in for in the first place. If insufficient work or

insufficient funds or a change in organizational structure, and so on

and so forth, were the key areas, you've already got it in your

agreement.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rubbish.

MR. COCKE: Come on! You have it in your agreement. You have

over the years used your agreement. People have been laid off when

there has been nothing for them to do, or

[ Page 2646 ]

whatever you deemed to be appropriate. Now, all of

a sudden we whip around with words. In the first place you were honest.

In the first place you came in with a bill that said exactly what you

wanted to do: fire anybody you want, for any reason or no reason. Now

you come in and skate around. But you place this

section in

juxtaposition with these regulations and I want to know if we aren't

back to exactly where we were in the first place. Will the minister

kindly give us his answer to that particular situation? No? That

beautiful, honest creature. That minister who promised us that he would

discuss and debate the whole question of termination vis-à-vis layoff

will not now, on this

section where he promised to debate the question,

rise in his place and debate the very question that I'm putting to him.

What's the matter?

MR. REYNOLDS: He's tired.

MR. COCKE: He's tired. Aw, is he really? And are you tired of

listening to me too? Oh, well, then that makes it all worthwhile. As

long as you're tired of listening to me, I know I'm on the right track.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to say

that the member's caucus staff must have been awfully slow in making

the regulations available to their members, because the regulations

were delivered to their caucus between 4:30 and 4:45 this afternoon.

The member attempted to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to say it's a clerical error

like the $100 million mistake that Levi made and that Barrett said was

a clerical mistake. I'll call it a typographical error. It's not a $100

million mistake like the one Levi made which was called a clerical

mistake by Dave Barrett.

MR. COCKE: What about the multi-billion dollar mistake that you made?

HON. MR. CHABOT: One hundred million dollars! You used to

shovel money out of the back of the truck like it was going out of

style. That was the record of this government — three and one-third

years. That was the sad record of that little socialist group over

there.

MR. COCKE: Who's in debt right up to their ears? You are!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Could the hon. minister please direct his comments to the question that was posed?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. No wonder that in the

last 31 years they've been elected only once, to serve three and

one-third years — because of their dismal performance when they were

government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member from Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm wrong, but the ex-member

that the minister referred to, Norman Levi.... I think the minister

knows as well as I do that the name is Levi and not " Lee-vigh," and I

just wonder whether the minister thinks it sounds a little more Jewish

to say it as "Lee-vigh" rather than Levi?

AN HON. MEMBER: Racist!

MR. LEA: Yes, "racist" is right!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I don't really think that is a very justifiable point of order.

MR. LEA: Neither do I. I think it's a justifiable point of

order, but I don't think it's a justifiable remark by that minister. Go

to Alberta and get your ideas.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, can we please settle down and

have a little decorum in this House and proceed with the debate. We're

still dealing with the amendment to

section 2(l), and the minister is

going to continue.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, it's a pretty low comment coming from the member for Prince Rupert...

MR. LEA: It's a pretty accurate one, and you know it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...but it's something I would expect from the mudline over there from Prince Rupert. A pretty low comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, you know better than that.

Personal comments like that are entirely out of order and unacceptable

in this House. Let's get on with the business at hand and forget about

the personal recriminations back and forth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for

New Westminster, I think he is attempting to confuse termination and

layoff. This particular amendment deals with the matter of termination

and the circumstances under which termination will take place. It gives

cause. It doesn't address the question of just cause. Just cause is a

matter that is addressed in the collective agreement. People are

dismissed for just cause, cause that is the fault of the individual.

That is the just cause for dismissal. It is an economic cause that is

defined in this particular legislation which brings about termination.

MR. COCKE: What a marvellous answer! What we were asking in

the first place was why in the

interpretation

section we were asked to

accept the minister's amendment which indicates that termination

includes layoff. Then we get to a layoff section, and all I asked was,

"Now tell us why it was necessary under these circumstances, where you

said you would debate" this particular area, to include that word

"termination" when "layoff" will do. And you know it, according to your

own agreement. Beyond that, if you juxtapose these regulations with

this section, I contend that we are coming right back to termination

without cause.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's nonsense for the member to suggest it

is layoff without cause, because those words which they found offensive

when they were first introduced

[ Page

2647 ]

have now been removed. It's economic cause. It's

clearly spelled out. The member attempts to muddy the water and confuse

the issue, but wherever you read "termination" you can read "layoff, "

because termination includes layoff.

[10:15]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister said this

section is necessary

because of the collective agreement, but under the schedule.... Well, it's

been pretty well established that this affects some 250,000 public sector employees.

This would include even the employees of the Duhamel Creek Water Improvement

District. It is very wide ranging. It would include employees of the B.C. School

Trustees' Association, and they are not a party to this agreement. It's

unfortunate that closure was brought in on

section 1 and I was not able to bring

to the attention of the minister some of the parties included in the

schedule

referred to indirectly in

section 1. That

section is now passed. Now we are

talking about not solving a problem that the minister might have because of

his professed inability to pay, or because of the government point of view that

certain programs are unnecessary or redundant, and many other types of expletives

applied to programs which I see in a totally different light. If we were allowed

to pick some of the programs that we would consider to be redundant and unnecessary

frills, I think we would come up with a very different list. It certainly would

not include some of the items referred to by my colleague from Burnaby–Edmonds.

It would include other things, probably such as some of the advertising programs

and so on of this government.

I want to ask the minister how he can justify applying a solution

which casts such a wide net that he presumes to have a problem with —

how many employees? How many employees are covered under the master

agreement?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't know whether we are really

discussing the master collective agreement of the BCGEU, but if you

want a ballpark figure I'll say 38,000.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister says 38,000; I would agree with

any figure in the neighbourhood of 40,000 people. We're talking,

though, about a piece of legislation that's going to affect about a

quarter of a million people. The minister has given us a rationale for

this new amendment and said that the government is faced with problems

with the collective agreement; that this particular collective

agreement does have certain clauses in it, such as

article 13, "Layoff

and recall," which this government considers a problem. Now this

government has applied this piece of legislation not just to that

problem but to a quarter of a million employees in this province. I

would like to know what the rationale is for applying it to all of

these others, including water improvement districts.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member attempts to leave the impression

that everyone in the public sector is going to be laid off and all

these essential services that apply to the people of British Columbia

will come to a halt. He is trying to suggest that it is going to have

an impact on.... I heard a little earlier this afternoon that it's

going to have an impact on 250,000 families in British Columbia, which

is sheer nonsense. Everyone who works in the public sector of British

Columbia isn't necessarily married with children, so it doesn't

necessarily apply to 250,000 families. But you attempt to leave the

impression that we're going to close all the prisons in British

Columbia, and that we might close the hospitals and schools in British

Columbia and gut every other program in the provincial government to

reach those 250,000 people.

All we are saying essentially is that provincially we're attempting

to cut back on expenditures because of a very serious downturn in

revenue to the provincial government. We're attempting to trim certain

government programs, which in turn addresses the question of positions,

the number of positions in the public service that have to go. As far

as the public sector beyond the realm of the public service is

concerned, if further down — as you will come to in due course — there

are layoff provisions contained within the collective agreement between

those employers and their employees, then there is an exemption order.

They can seek out and obtain an exemption order from the compensation

stabilization commissioner. I am probably debating in advance a

section

that is to follow, but I guess I almost have to touch on it to respond

to the question the member has raised.

Really, what I am saying is that many of the public sector employers

in British Columbia will be exempt from this particular legislation.

The BCGEU and other public service unions in the province, if they're

prepared to accept in their collective agreements provisions that allow

for the downsizing of government, can get an exemption from this

legislation as well.

MR. NICOLSON: One is tempted to widen the scope of debate. I

never suggested that the government is going to shut down all of the

hospitals in the province, or all of the schools or jails in the

province. I haven't suggested that they'll shut down any. Not today I

haven't, at least.

The question that comes to mind is that the minister said there were

problems with the collective agreement, and I suspect that this is the

one they had in mind; now, casting this wide net, everyone else is

caught in it. I'd like to ask the minister if to his knowledge there is

any collective agreement between the British Columbia School Trustees'

Association and any union.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, there is no collective agreement between

the BCSTA and its employees. However, there are some senior managers in

the BCSTA who I understand might be subject to certain sections of this

legislation.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for his answer. Are there

any employees of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority,

which is funded by the province and is a line item in the estimates of

the province of British Columbia, who might be senior management

personnel? Are they subject to the provisions of this bill? A line item

in the estimates of the province...ever since it was created back in

1968 by a unanimous vote of the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm trying to be helpful and get an answer

for the member. Other members could quite easily be yacking while I'm

looking. It appears that there are no further questions under this

particular amendment, and therefore I will hold off for a minute and

get the answer for the member.

MR. NICOLSON: It's the Creston Valley Wildlife Act. There is

a vote in the Ministry of Environment under recreation and

conservation, fisheries and wildlife. This province

[ Page 2648 ]

has been voting money to that authority for many years. How could it have been missed?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is it covered by the compensation

stabilization program? It's not covered in our regulations. I don't

want to mislead you with a answer, so I would have to determine first

of all whether any employees other than public servants are involved.

MR. NICOLSON: All kinds of employees.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not talking about volunteers. I'm talking about paid employees.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, there are.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Other than public servants?

MR. NICOLSON: Are these my estimates that I have to answer all these questions for the minister? I will take the question as notice.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put forward the

question I asked earlier. The minister said he would deal with the

question about whether or not there was any difference in benefits

accorded someone who was terminated, as compared to someone who was

laid off. As I suggested, it might affect his status and the amount of

his unemployment insurance, and the length of time he is able to

collect it. I wonder if he has that reply now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I attempted to get that information a little

earlier in the evening and said that I would respond under this

particular section, because this is where the reply really belongs. I

am informed by my staff — I might say they attempted unsuccessfully to

contact Manpower this evening — that where one is laid off, benefits do

flow earlier than where you are dismissed with just cause. In other

words, if the dismissal stems from your fault, there is a penalty

applied to the individual. But I am informed that under the particular

termination spelled out here, where it is not the individual's fault

and where it is not for just cause but for economic causes as spelled

out in the legislation, essentially the waiting period is the same as a

laid-off employee's waiting period.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: He perhaps cannot give me an answer this evening,

but in view of this, has the minister considered making the layoff

notice explicit, in the sense that it would get around any problems

that might be encountered because of its vagueness? Also, as I said

earlier this evening, the definition of whether or not a person is

eligible has to do with not only whether he's unemployed, but with not

receiving any funds because he's unemployed. Any kind of severance

package, as outlined in the regulations, could have a profound effect

on this. There are a number of other implications to the regulations

that we needn't get into now, but that's certainly one of them.

[10:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, needless to say, I'll pursue

the matter further with Manpower, but I've given you my response: that

my staff informs me there is no difference between a laid-off situation

and the causes defined in this legislation, but there is a vast

difference between just cause. It would be interesting to know what the

experience has been in Manitoba under their legislation, which has the

same terminology as this legislation — whether they have experienced

any similar problems there. But I'm led to believe that there is no

difference between a laid-off situation and a termination situation as

spelled out under this legislation. Under both circumstances it's

essentially not the responsibility — or I should say the fault — of the

individual. There should be no additional waiting period. It's only

where there is just cause. When an individual is dismissed under the

responsibility, a direct fault, that's where the penalty is imposed,

where the waiting period is longer.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether that business reference to

Manitoba was some sort of a crack or not, but that's not the point. The

point is not whether it's just cause or unjust cause. A terminated

employee is entitled to severance pay. There are provisions for that

kind of severance pay in the regulations. If that person receives

severance pay, he does not experience a loss of income due to

unemployment until the severance pay runs out. Now that is the

essential point I was trying to get at, but I give up. If we've....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let me answer that. I don't know if you're

fighting against severance pay or not. But my answer to you is that

where an individual is terminated and qualifies for severance, if he

doesn't seek work, or isn't able to get work elsewhere, then needless

to say he would eventually qualify for UI. He must recognize that.

MR. ROSE: I do recognize it, Mr. Chairman, but the difference

is that a laid-off employee is entitled to UI immediately, or within

two weeks,

whereas a person receiving severance pay isn't. Your

employees, Mr. Chairman, are going to be asked to make choices as to

whether or not they intend to stay on a layoff list or whether they

intend to accept the generous severance offers of the government. That

is the point I'm trying to make. However, I give up on that one as well.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this is the problem with hastily

thrown together legislation. What's going to happen — and this is under

"Right to recall" — is that some are going to opt for right to recall,

so they are not going to get their severance package, I wouldn't

imagine — or are they going to get it anyway? If they're not going to

get their severance package, then they can go on to Unemployment

Insurance for a while. Then they can opt and say: "I don't want to be

on the recall thing any more. It's running out. I'll get my severance

pay; I have been drawing unemployment insurance."

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, that's wrong.

MR. LEA: It's not clear and this is the problem with hastily,

I repeat.... This is going to go through the whole of government and

we're going to have a really big shemozzle. Every piece of legislation

that's come in has been hastily thrown together and there are going to

be effects because of that.

[ Page 2649 ]

It's pretty hard to discuss this amendment without going to the

regulations that the minister provided to us. I would imagine the

minister supplied them to us for the arguments that would come up under

this section. Under "Right to recall," 6(

l) says: "An employee whose

employment is terminated or who is laid off under the act may, instead

of receiving compensation, elect to have his name placed on a

recall-to-employment list." That means the person can go down and

collect unemployment insurance, I would think — if the minister's

interpretation is right that there is no difference between being

terminated or laid off because of economic reasons; that it doesn't

make any difference. I'm willing to buy that. It seems to make sense,

although dealing with federal legislation may not make sense when you

get there. It seems to me that this sort of thing should have been

checked out.

Now we're going to complicate it even further by having a number of

different categories of people who are terminated or laid off. It's

going to be compounded by these regulations that have been hastily

thrown together to meet the concerns of the public.

Section 6(2) says:

"An employee who wishes to be placed on a recall list shall make his

election within 30 days of the effective date of the termination of his

employment." As I understand it, if this bill goes through, the

effective date is going to be the end of October. Is it 30 days prior,

or 30 days after? You're not going to have that opportunity if it is 30

days after. So what's going to happen? Somebody will say: "Okay, for 30

days I don't know what I'm going to do, and I'm going to take these 30

days to make up my mind. In the meantime, I think I'll just wander down

and apply for unemployment insurance." At the end of that time, he

makes his final decision.

Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a nightmare. There are going to be

as many staff hired to sort this out as are getting laid off. That's

what is going to happen. To prove it, I can tell you that just to shut

down the B.C. Systems Corporation they are now seconding people back

into all the departments to make sure that it is shut down properly.

It's the craziest dammed package of nonsense that ever came through.

This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is not designed to do a job; it's

designed to meet what was considered to be a political call. It's going

to happen time after time after time.

The government can't have it both ways. First of all, they said this

legislation wasn't drawn up before the election so they couldn't tell

anybody about it. They say it was all drawn up after the election. We

know how hastily it was thrown together. If the government had just

taken its time to put its legislation together in a forthright and

administratively acceptable way we wouldn't be running into all of

these problems. Even if we were to roll over, fall down and say,

"Government, have your way; whatever you want you've got it," they've

got trouble.

They've got trouble with this section. When you take a look at this

section and the regulations and all of the things that employees are

going to have to go through, it is going to be the darndest mess that

you ever saw in your life. We haven't even seen the beginning of it

yet. It is going to be chaos out there. I ask the minister: are there

going to be people placed at the disposal of people laid off or

terminated to help them get through this maze of regulations? Is there

going to be some counselling for these people?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there will be people in every

ministry of government ready and willing to assist anyone who has any

difficulty with regulations which I feel are fairly clear-cut. They are

not as complicated and convoluted as the member for Prince Rupert

attempts to suggest. He suggests the regulations are very confusing —

they're not. I don't know if this is the appropriate

section to discuss

the regulations, Mr. Chairman. It's only as a courtesy that I make....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe they're mentioned in this amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Fine. But what we're saying is that after 30

days of an individual being given notice of termination — October 31,

20 days away from now — an individual would have 50 days from today to

make an election as to which he wishes to accept. Whether they're

prepared to take the very generous severance compensation package we've

put together here for them, or whether they're prepared to accept the

recall option which is in place, they have that 30-day period from

October 31 to elect which they're going to accept. It's entirely up to

the individual. We're giving them those options. Don't you think it's

right to give individuals these kinds of options and to make available

to them the kind of generous severance package that has been put in

place? If an individual accepts termination and the generous

compensation package we've put together, then if he has reached a

certain age in life and a certain number of years of service in the

public service he has the opportunity of gaining additional benefits

for early retirement as well.

It's a good package. It's one which looks after the fact that some

of the public servants of British Columbia are losing job security —

not all of them. When you take job security away you have a

responsibility to be fair. We're saying that for those who will be

terminated in the public service between October 31, 1983, and October

31, 1984, for that 12-month time-frame we are providing that generous

package for those who are terminated because of economic reasons in the

province. It's an excellent package. It's one that has been closely

examined and has taken into consideration the plight of those who are

being terminated in the public service who are losing job security.

Under those circumstances, during the hiatus, there's a responsibility

to be generous.

MR. LEA: The minister asks me whether I think it's fair. It's

really difficult to tell whether it's fair or unfair. I don't think it

is fair, because it is too confusing. People are going to be confused,

and I think there is going to be a lot of chaos out of it.

I'd like to ask the minister whether he sees it as being fair or not. It's

my understanding that there is a woman who worked 19 years in the Ministry of

Transportation who, in order to gain promotion, applied for a job within the

rentalsman's office. She received the job. She is now going to be either laid

off or terminated at the end of October.

There are people working in the Ministry of Transportation who

possibly have, let's say for argument's sake, five years of seniority

who are going to keep their job. I'd like to ask the minister whether

he considers that to be fair.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, my answer is that seniority will be taken into consideration under the regulations.

MR. LEA: Could the minister point that out to me under the regulations? I don't see it under the regulations.

[ Page 2650 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we're here to discuss the amendment before us, not to discuss the regulations. But I think....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister is still addressing the committee.

[10:45]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms.

Brown) will come to order. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will

take his place. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will maintain order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On page 3, subsection (5), it says: "Where

the employer considers that the ability, skills and qualifications of

two or more persons having existing recall rights are equal, the

employer shall hire the former employee who, at the time of his layoff,

possessed the greatest service seniority."

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about recall; we're

talking about the original termination. Because the minister asked me

if I thought something was fair, I think it's only fair that I ask him

about something and see whether it's fair. Why would the government

under this termination, under clause 2 of this act, say to this woman,

"You have 19 years in" — more than that, it was 19 with the Ministry of

Transportation and a couple more, so we're looking at about 21

years.... Why would the government consider it fair to terminate people

with no regard to seniority? The government has said that they are only

trying to bring things into line with the private sector. Personally, I

have never heard where this has happened in the private sector.

There are departmental seniorities that take place, too, in the

plant. Plant seniority will override departmental seniority. Bumping

goes on. What happens to this woman is that she is finished — there's

no bumping. She is going to have some right of recall that somebody

with less seniority doesn't have, but she should never be put in that

position in the first place. Surely a woman with 21 years with the

government of British Columbia should have more right to a job than

someone with five years, regardless of which department they work in,

whether it's the rentalsman's office or the Ministry of Transportation,

but that is not the case. People with lots of seniority are going to be

terminated. They do exactly the same kind of work as someone who is

going to keep their job in some other department, some other ministry

or some other program. I'm asking the minister: does he think that is

fair?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in reading the provisions of the application for seniority, it says:

"In determining which employee(

s) shall be laid off or

terminated, the employee shall consider (

a) the requirements and

efficiency of operation of the employer, and the skill, ability and

qualifications of each employee concerned; and (

b) the service

seniority of each employee concerned.

"

(3) Where subsection (2)(

a) is to all intents and

purposes equal as between two or more employees, the employee having

the least service seniority shall be the first to be laid off or to

have his employment terminated."

So there is the application of seniority under the regulations.

The member asked me whether the situation he raises is fair or

unfair. It's my understanding that there are going to be some positions

posted for which that individual will have an opportunity of applying.

The issue of redeployment is being addressed in her particular

situation, but you must remember that the BCGEU has expressed extreme

opposition to redeployment. They have told their employees not to

consider accepting redeployment. So I'm wondering whether you think

that is fair on the part of the BCGEU and its members.

MR. LEA: First of all, I understand that the union's position is on relocation, not redeployment.

The minister knows which woman I am referring to because he knows

the case. But I am sure there all sorts of cases that haven't hit the

papers. It's happening throughout the civil service. Many people have

good service records and have been good employees; the only reason

they're being laid off is that the government says that a program is

ending and that they're short of funds. They're being laid off for

economic reasons. The minister is saying: "Yes, this person and other

persons like her are going to be laid off, but their seniority counts a

little bit when it comes to recall — but not necessarily." Basically,

this is a mess and it's not fair.

The minister wants to know what I consider to be fair. Look at what

he means by redeployment. The union is against that — that there would

be no bumping for seniority — and I would consider that to be unfair.

I'd consider it to be unfair. I think that the government, the

Legislature, has some obligation to be fair. It is not fair to take a

person with all sorts of seniority and a good work record and say

"you're through," and someone else who has not as much seniority does a

job that this other person can do, and we say: "No dice. It's going to

be by program and not by seniority." I really believe that this could

have been resolved without this legislation, without demonstrations on

the lawn; it could have been resolved by sitting down with the union

and saying: "Let's work out a layoff plan that's fair, based on

seniority." Once the union knew it was the writing on the wall, that it

was going to happen, the union would have sat down and talked about

this. Everybody knows that. You don't run your head against a brick

wall and hope that it feels good when you quit.

Lastly, I'd like to say that none of this — this whole mess, this

whole disruption in society, everything that's going on, Solidarity —

would have happened or been necessary if the government had decided to

do things in an orderly administrative way instead of trying to ride

out what they consider to be a popular thing in the polls and hastily

throwing together all this legislation that doesn't even stand

administrative tests — never mind fairness.

MR. ROSE: On the same line, Mr. Chairman, but not necessarily

on the same subject, it seems to me that what we have to realize here —

and I understand it better now — the

section 1

interpretation of

"layoffs" and "terminations" means the same thing for when you move

down into

section 2, you find that what you have here is layoff reasons

for termination. That was a point made earlier by my brilliant friend

from Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown). What really bothers me — and I

suppose this is my first question, or

[ Page 2651 ]

essential question; maybe it's even my only question — is that "without cause" has been removed. There

have been layoff causes substituted, really, for termination clauses

when the government, on a political decision, holds all the aces. No

one can control a government priority that says: "We want to spend

money, let's say, for highway maintenance, but we don't want to spend

it for family maintenance." If I were a public employee and if I had

the choice to make, had I known down the road, I might well have gone

into the Highways ministry rather than become a member of the child

abuse team, because now I'm terminated. If seniority has no meaning

across different groups, but only within the group, then I do not have

a great deal of protection offered me.

What I'm really saying is that the government decides whether there

will be, as here, insufficient work or insufficient current operating

funds budgeted to maintain the current levels of employment. These are

really things that are determined by the government itself. For

instance, we have decided that there will be no work or funds for

painting of government buildings. That's a decision of the government.

They can decide to fund that or the rape relief centres, or not decide

to spend. So you see, these reasons are not the same reasons that

apply, perhaps, in the private sector. I know what's behind all this. I

think most of the members of the government would agree with this quote

here: "We cannot squander ourselves into prosperity." Most would agree,

and so would Herbert Hoover, who said it in 1932. But the point that I

think is essential to get around here is that this gets around any

other agreements — the Labour Code, collective agreements, the Labour

Relations Act — and so what the government has done is thrown aside all

the previous commitments over a great number of years on the grounds

that it wants to downsize government, but it wants to downsize....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, are you back? Oh, welcome to the House.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, are we not on

the amendment? As I understand the amendment on the order paper, it's

very narrow. I would think, in listening to the debate of that member,

that we're definitely straying back into second reading debate of this

bill.

MS. BROWN: On that point of order, I would just like to bring

to that member's attention that the amendment is two pages long. It's

not narrow at all. Maybe I should read it for him line by line. Smarten

up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Withdraw, please. That remark is offensive.

MS. BROWN: Don't smarten up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, withdraw the remark unqualifiedly, thank you.

MS. BROWN: Don't be smart?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just withdraw, please.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. One moment, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just a point of clarification for

the edification of the committee — and it's something that's been

twigged by the member for Burnaby–Edmonds — we are on an amendment to

section 2, and we are taking these one at a time, as is our custom with

this new numbering system that we have. So we are currently discussing

section 2(

l) as it's listed in the order paper, and that's all. We

don't have two pages of amendments. However, I will admit that since

this

section does mention regulations, it does broaden the scope.

However, the member for Omineca does make a good point in that the

member for Coquitlam–Moody is now embarking upon principle debate or

debate that might have been carried on better in second reading.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, just on that same point that

you're bringing up, the member for Burnaby–Edmonds mentioned that the

amendments are over two pages long. Would it not be a lot easier for

this committee if we were to consider

section 2 as a

section so that

the members of the opposition and members of the government who are

asking questions could ask them in a broad manner rather than go

through...?

MR. LEA: Because it's easier to bring closure.

MS. BROWN: That member is so helpful.

MR. REYNOLDS: I just want to be helpful; the member for

Burnaby–Edrnonds was already under the impression that we were doing it

that way, obviously, because she mentioned that it was two pages long.

I would think it would make a lot more sense in debate in this House.

The member mentions closure; we could bring in closure on every

amendment. It doesn't seem to matter anyway. They want to just talk on

in a frivolous manner. I think it would allow them the time and

latitude to ask a lot of questions — some meaningful ones rather than

just the filibuster we've been listening to.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Coquitlam–Moody continues.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I wondered if you had a ruling, Mr. Chairman.

I congratulate and welcome the member for Omineca in here. Perhaps

he hadn't benefited by all the debate and where we were. Actually the

amendment does cover two pages — the bottom of one and the top of

another — but certainly there's enough in here to indicate support for

the point that I was attempting to make, and if he reads the amendment

he'll find that the reasons for termination, which are really layoff

reasons, are for insufficient work, insufficient operating funds to

maintain the current levels of employment and changes in the

organizational structure of the employer. That means that it's again up

to a decision of the government. He can do that. The government can

decide to have a deputy foreman or a deputy minister or an associate

deputy minister

[ Page 2652 ]

discontinue a program or activity or service of the employer and

reduce the level of activity, shrink it or get rid of it altogether.

The point here is that it is the government's decision, the

government's priority, and as my hon. friend would probably say if he

were standing on his feet, it's a political question, not an economic

question. That is, I think, the essential point, and that's why we

can't support it. It negates a lot of previous agreements, it uses

euphemisms to fire somebody under the guise of a layoff, and we think

that it really is termination without cause and just softens the blow a

little bit by using means and language which perhaps gets away from the

aggressiveness of "without cause" but substitutes the same thing, in

effect, anyway.

MS. BROWN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to find out

whether this is it, because the title to this says "Draft Public Sector

Restraint Act Regulations," and in the pr