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

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 21

[ Page 9303 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

B. Copping: In the gallery today we have four visitors from Scotland: John and Margaret Glen, and their children, Ewan and Kristy. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Serwa: I would like to introduce Monica Rainey to the House. Monica is the founder and executive director of an organization called CACE -- Committee Against Child Exploitation. She is in Victoria to raise awareness for her particular concern among the government members in the Legislature. Would the House please make Monica welcome.

J. Beattie: I would like to ask the members of the House to welcome my son, Cedric Beattie, who is in Victoria practising at the skate board park on Esquimalt Road. I would like to thank the council in Esquimalt for building that wonderful skate board park. My son thanks them as well.

S. O'neill: It's a pleasure today to introduce a friend of many years from Armstrong. Mrs. Mildred Inglis is in Victoria visiting her sister, Laura Clarke. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: I have a very sad announcement to make to our Legislature this afternoon. Last Monday, Dale Fiddick, a valued member of my ministry and a dedicated British Columbia educator, was killed in an air crash at Klemtu, near Bella Bella.

At the time of his death, Dale Fiddick was the superintendent of field services for my ministry. At various times over the past 30 years, Dale served as a teacher, principal and school superintendent in the school districts of Meritt, Kitimat, Peace River South and Prince George. Dale Fiddick's many contributions to the children in this province are well known, and include outstanding leadership in the development of special education programs.

Dale had a remarkable sense of humour. He always found the positive side of every situation. He brought a fresh and vigorous perspective to his work, as he had contact with every single school district in our province. He made many friends in his long and distinguished career. I know I speak for them and for those who may have known him in his professional career when I say that he will be deeply missed. I know, too, that I speak on behalf of his family -- his wife, Sandra and his children Thea, Scott, Brad and Paul -- and to all other family and friends when we extend our sympathy to them in this tragic loss.

Hon. Speaker, I want at this time to acknowledge the death of four other people in that crash. Their deaths bring all of us very close to the nature of our coastal communities -- the closeness of those communities, the recognition of families, the work that people do and the services that they provide. I'd like, on behalf of all of us, to extend sympathy to the families, friends and the community who are so closely involved with this tragic circumstance.

H. Lali: I too would like to join the Minister of Education in offering my condolences to the families and friends of all the people killed in the plane crash, in particular Dale Fiddick. He not only lived in Merritt but I also knew him personally. His death comes as a complete shock to me, because I knew the man and played ball-hockey with him at the local school. I was shopping at one of the malls just last Wednesday when I happened to see Dale coming down the stairs. I hadn't seen him for almost a year, not realizing that that was the last time I would ever see him. I too would like to join the minister in offering my sympathies and condolences to Dale Fiddick's family.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled Mr. Justice Peter D. Seaton's report of the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Conflict of Interest.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister Responsible for B.C. Rail. The minister considers the rail strike to be only a week old, but for businesses in the interior the effect of this labour dispute has been with them since June 19, when the union was in a legal position to strike -- that is six weeks. The rotating strikes started at the beginning of July.

The people of the interior remember that this government did not act when their schools were struck, but it did react when Vancouver went out. When will this government recognize that the interior is part of British Columbia and act to protect their interests and economy?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would be pleased to advise the House that the mediator has called the parties to meet with him tomorrow morning, and I am sure that fruitful negotiations will follow.

D. Symons: I would like to remind the minister that we have heard that answer before, and it has not happened yet. Some major employers are planning to shut down next week because they are dependent on B.C. Rail. A delegation representing affected interests will be coming to Victoria next Tuesday. Will the minister commit to meet them to listen firsthand to their plight?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have always been willing to meet with people of all persuasions, and in this case, I would most certainly be interested in meeting with those parties.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: The last time this government was faced with a major labour dispute during the teachers' strike, they became paralyzed with indecision. We waited for weeks before they finally bit the bullet and did what the opposition proposed all along. Due to their procrastination in the face of duty, the House had to be recalled for a special Sunday sitting -- we all remember that -- to authorize their belated decision. Can the minister at least assure this House that we will

[ Page 9304 ]

not require a special recall of the Legislature, after having risen, in order to deal with this government's aversion to action?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I will not give you that assurance.

MILLSTREAM INDUSTRIAL PARK

A. Cowie: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister has had the bylaw on the Millstream industrial park in the Highlands on his desk for 18 months now. A decision like this normally takes one month. Will the minister explain why he has arbitrarily delayed a decision on this bylaw for so long?

Hon. R. Blencoe: That bylaw has not been on my desk for that period of time. The ministry has to review it first. I have explained clearly to the Capital Regional District why that bylaw is.... There is a pending incorporation vote in the Highlands, and that vote will be announced very soon. The people of that area will determine their future. That is a significant land use decision in that area. I have determined that it's in the provincial interest and in the interest of those citizens that they will determine what should happen in that area.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

A. Cowie: Sometimes you have to make a decision. The minister prides himself in not interfering with rezoning matters in regional districts. I believed him when he said that he was at arm's length from the Bamberton proposal. Why would he interfere by delaying the Highlands proposal that has gone through full due process?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have made my position very clear. The hon. member is aware that the Highlands people will make a decision in September. The vote has already been indicated to those people. Then they will make a decison on that piece of land.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

A. Cowie: This proposal was started some three years ago. Does it have to take three years to get a simple industrial project through? The minister has agreed, and the CRD has given approval. All the public hearings were completed a long time ago. As I say, it's gone through due process.

This proposal would mean new jobs in the Langford-Highlands area. Why is the minister not supporting his government's job creation initiative by approving this bylaw?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Once again, that bylaw came to my ministry in mid-1992, hon. member. As you know, there are all sorts of regulations and rules that have to be looked at by my ministry and other ministries. In December '92 I notified the regional district that because of the Langford incorporation and a pending incorporation by the Highlands people, who will determine their own future, that bylaw would be set aside until that was done.

HIGHWAYS PRIVATIZATION

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Back in October 1989, the then Leader of the Opposition said that privatization was the triumph of ideology over common sense. Now his government defends the privatization of roads and bridges as the triumph of common sense over ideology. Does the Premier support his minister's position that private enterprise could design, build and operate roads and bridges in a less expensive manner than the government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The hon. member is part of a former government that let ideology triumph over common sense. It cost the taxpayers many millions of dollars in squandered sales at distressed prices of government trucks and lands. We already had a highway system where over two-thirds was built through the private sector, and there was a good balance of public and private enterprise. As a government, we are prepared to be pragmatic about what work is done inside the government with public employees and what work is contracted out. That pragmatic approach to getting the best value for the tax dollars of the taxpayers of British Columbia is what guides this government.

J. Weisgerber: In 1988 the Premier said that the general thrust of privatization didn't make sense. In 1989 the NDP critic said that privatization was not, nor ever had been, in the public interest. Does the Premier support the position taken by his minister on the privatization of roads and highways and the construction by private operators of roads and bridges in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That is one option this government is looking at. We are certainly open to a private proposal. That approach of public and private enterprise has worked in many other jurisdictions. If you have been to Hong Kong, for example, you would see some very successful private sector tunnels and LRT systems built by private enterprise. They also have a very good public transportation system. So that pragmatic approach towards transportation is what the people of British Columbia want.

J. Weisgerber: A final supplemental. This year alone the government will raise $891 million in revenue from fuel tax, motor vehicle licences and Coquihalla tolls. Yet the government's capital budget for highways construction this year is $96 million -- one-sixth of the last Socred budget in 1991. Why doesn't the Premier simply commit sufficient resources to highway and bridge construction in British Columbia and fulfil his obligation to the people of this province rather than to the interests of the NDP?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The previous government left the people of this province with a $2.4 billion deficit after saying while campaigning that there was a $400

[ Page 9305 ]

million deficit. They told the people of this province that the...

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...Coquihalla would cost $375 million. A commission of inquiry said it cost over $1 billion, and that was covered up too. They built the Alex Fraser Bridge, which was supposed to cost $130 million, and they blew $400 million on that. Now they are wondering what we're doing paying off Socred debt. We're being responsible with the tax dollars.

COMINCO LABOUR DISPUTE

D. Jarvis: Approximately one week ago, Cominco announced the layoff of another 195 men. That brings this year's total to 300. There were 500 last year. For a political party pretending to represent its workers, this continued inaction by this government is political cannibalism. I'd like to ask the Minister of Economic Development how many workers have to be laid off before he and his government finally take some action on the Cominco situation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The whole reason that we're involved in negotiations with Cominco at the present time is to save as many jobs as we possibly can. As you know, discussions have broken down between the company and the union. Some of the members clearly don't want to listen. I might have to add that I have arranged to provide a briefing for the members of the opposition parties in order that they understand this complex issue and fully understand the government's commitment to maintaining as many jobs as we can in the Trail area.

We have said consistently that we have to have an economic plan in place. That means the union and the companies have to agree to restructuring the work-place. The provincial government is going to make some kind of commercial arrangement that deals with the purchase of future power rates. That combination in an economic plan, with contributions by the municipalities, the provincial government, the unions and the company, will provide the maximum security for the maximum number of jobs in Trail.

D. Jarvis: The job protection commissioner reported tax measures would have to be issued to save Cominco, and he recommended that this government give them a $14 million saving. Since that report the government has in actual fact increased Cominco's taxes by $7 million. How can you sit around and ignore your own job protection commissioner while more and more workers are being laid off?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The fact of the matter is that we did not sit around and ignore the job protection commissioner. A special commissioner made a recommendation that dealt with some tax concessions. We responded on the recommendation of the ministry experts on trade policy and countervail issues. The job protection commissioner advised, on the recommendations of experts in the field, that we should not do anything specific that could be countervailed by industry in the United States or by the U.S. government. We have been consistently negotiating, not sitting....

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. minister, I must ask you to conclude your reply.

Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: It's obvious that he doesn't know what he's doing, Madam Speaker.

B.C. MINING INDUSTRY

D. Jarvis: I have some good and bad news for the Minister of Mines: the good news is that it turns out that all the mining companies are not crossing the border to go to Chile; the bad news is that they are now fleeing north to the Yukon. My question to the Minister of Mines is: having driven the mining industry across two of our borders, can she tell the House how she plans to bolster the mining industry in Alberta?

Hon. A. Edwards: It's a pleasure to be able to give our story about our support for the mining industry in British Columbia. The mining industry in British Columbia has been going through tough times that started some considerable time before this government came to power, and it has been getting some attention from this government. This government has said very clearly where we are, where we're going to go and how we will help the industry. We intend to continue helping the industry move ahead and recognize the very rich mineral resource in this province.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call report on Bill 62.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Bill 62 read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 35.

LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 35; M. Farnworth in the chair.

[2:30]

Section 10,

section 90 as amended approved.

section 10,

section 91.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to the proposed

section 91(1) of the Municipal Act.

Amendment approved.

Section 10,

section 91 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 92 to 96 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 97.

[ Page 9306 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to the proposed

section 97(1)(

a) of the Municipal Act.

On the amendment.

L. Fox: We're working from a number of pieces of paper, and I would appreciate a little more distance between sections. I realize you're in a hurry, and the minister's in a hurry to go home, but if you'd at least allow an individual to find the amendment so that they can....

An Hon. Member: Get organized.

L. Fox: Yes, big deal -- get organized.

I will allow the amendment to pass.

Amendment approved.

L. Fox: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 10, is hereby amended by deleting from new

section 97 of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, all of subsection (2), and by substituting therefor the following:

(2) At least one advance voting opportunity must be held for an election by voting on the 10th day before general voting day.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: In moving that motion, I want to speak to that a bit. As the act sits right now, it requires two advance polling days, which in many instances does not make a lot of sense. Small communities would be required to staff an advance polling day and pay the staff, when there is really no need for it. One advance polling day would be more than sufficient. But if the community or municipality decides that it's in the best interests of the electorate, a further clause would allow them by bylaw to put forward more than one advance polling day.

So I would ask the minister -- and we have talked very briefly in the corridors on this issue, and I think he understands my concerns -- to seriously consider the amendment. I believe it is fairer and more workable. The clause as amended does not limit the minister in being able to allow municipalities to have more than one advance polling day.

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, I appreciate the member's amendment, and want to let him know that we have had no complaints from local government about the two mandatory advance voting opportunities that we currently have in the legislation. The required advance voting day is on the tenth day before the general voting day, and it's a workday. The voting hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. mean that the staff will have to be available for four extra hours, which I don't think is totally unreasonable, given the importance of ensuring that electors have the opportunity to vote.

I have talked to the hon. member a number of times on this issue and have heard his views about smaller communities. What I have suggested -- and I will suggest it now.... I even have the wording for an amendment to his amendment. It's somewhat unusual, but it's in the interest of trying to meet some of his suggestions. If the member would agree that exceptions to the second day would be allowed in communities under 5,000, then I would be prepared to accept that amendment, but two advance voting days in larger communities....

We do have the 5,000 tied into other sections of the bill, and it would be advantageous to continue to have two advance voting days for most communities. But in those communities that are particularly small and have few staff, I am willing to compromise and suggest that the second advance voting day is optional for those communities.

I don't know what the protocol is, but I have the wording of a new amendment that is not in my name.

The Chair: If it's agreeable to the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca, he can withdraw his present amendment and substitute the appropriate one.

L. Fox: Just for clarification, it is my understanding that if my amendment was withdrawn, the motion would read: "...one day for any municipalities under 5,000 people." Would it replace clause (2) as it exists?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We would allow them to opt out by bylaw.

L. Fox: In that case, I respectfully withdraw my amendment, and move the following amendment that is identified here on this paper.

The Chair: The amendment to

section 10,

section 97, reads as follows:

[SECTION 10,

(

a) in the proposed

section 97 of the Municipal Act by adding the following subsection:

(2.1) As an exception to subsection (2) in relation to a jurisdiction with a population of 5,000 or less, the local government may, by bylaw, provide that the advance voting opportunity referred to in subsection (2)(

b) is not to be held for the jurisdiction.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: I know that later on we deal with the

section under school trustees, but the only concern I have with respect to this amendment in the way it is, is that we could have some inconsistency between local school board elections, regional district elections and municipal elections. Further on in the act, you may request in the same municipality two advance polling days in the school district but not in the municipality. If that's not the case, then I don't have any problem.

Hon. R. Blencoe: They can request the minister to opt out of one or both, hon. member.

Amendment approved.

L. Fox: I just want to make a quick observation under this section. Earlier the minister suggested that he hadn't heard any concern about this information from any municipality, nor had the UBCM. The minister alluded to the fact he'd been talking to the UBCM this morning. As a matter of fact, so had I. At 10 o'clock, when the bells rang, I was still talking to the UBCM.

[ Page 9307 ]

Just for clarification so that the public isn't left thinking that everybody supports everything in the legislation, one of the problems that I've been told about by UBCM and other municipalities is that 28 pieces of legislation have come through this session which have affected municipalities. They have had a difficult time trying to keep up with it. That came from the UBCM this morning at 10 o'clock. The minister shouldn't take too much comfort from the fact that there hasn't been a lot of concern identified.

I think the concerns, if there are any, will come once the election process has started and some of the wrinkles appear through the process. I just wanted to put that on the record at this stage, because the minister said earlier that nobody had stated any concerns.

Section 10,

section 97 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 98 and 99 approved.

section 10,

section 100.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to the proposed

section 100(1) of the Municipal Act.

On the amendment.

L. Fox: Could the minister give us some rationale for bringing forward this amendment?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Our legal advisers on this huge piece of legislation said that it was unnecessary to use the term "by mail" and recommended that we use "in conjunction with this voting." Mail can be interpreted to be only by post. Therefore we wanted to ensure that people could actually deliver it by hand. These are the kinds of things we go through, hon. member, in terms of putting forward legislation. It's very difficult.

L. Fox: The only question I have with respect to that is the determination of whether or not a post-date is going to be recognized as a legitimate time frame.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, it has to be in the chief electoral officer's hands by the close of voting.

[2:45]

Amendment approved.

section 10,

section 100 as amended.

A. Cowie: I have two amendments on the order paper that refer to and ensure that the words "property electors" are in the legislation regarding the mail ballot. I move that both (2) and (3) be considered at the same time, as follows.

[SECTION 10, in the proposed

section 100

Subsection 100(2) be amended to read: For a municipality, the only electors who may vote by mail ballot are property electors and persons who have a physical disability, illness or injury that affects their ability to vote at another voting opportunity.]

[SECTION 10, in the proposed

section 100

Subsection 100(3)(

c) to be added to read: persons who are property electors.]

On the amendments.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm trying to do about 5,000 things at once here.

I looked at this, because I would very much like to accommodate the member on these amendments, but mail voting is quite a new innovation for local government elections. It offers local government the opportunity to allow electors who have been effectively disenfranchised because they can't attend on every voting opportunity. Consequently, we have extended it to shut-ins and those sorts of things.

We are not making it available for general voting at this time. It is the request of the UBCM executive that the ministry not proceed with a mandatory mail ballot system at this time but rather that we consider it a voting option for shut-ins. Their concern obviously was managing it. There is already enough to manage, and mail ballots are cumbersome and difficult. As much as I have some sympathy and support for what you are doing, the request from those who have to administer this at this time is that they already have enough to do. They are asking that we let them get through some limited mail ballots to see how they do and then maybe next session extend it widely.

A. Cowie: While that may be the case, I would hope that in the ongoing years we at least consider this. After all, if one is out of the country and a person is looking at how they want to vote in advance, what difference is this than an advance poll? I don't see it as being any different at all, and I don't see what the objection would be. It does assure that property electors have an opportunity to vote, which they should have.

Amendments negatived.

Section 10,

section 100 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 101 to 109 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 110.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendments to sections 110(2) and 110(4) standing in my name on the order paper.

The Chair: There are two amendments, minister. Shall we deal with both amendments at the same time?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I suggest we deal with both.

On the amendments.

L. Fox: Would the minister give us some rationale as to why it was necessary in subsection (

b) to include "section 49 or 121"?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We have added that people can assist either under

section 121 or under

section

Section 49 is the translator one.

[ Page 9308 ]

L. Fox: Given that now you've included the translator one, is that outside or within the voting booth?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Depending on the situation and how they're assisting, it could be either.

L. Fox: Does this not give you some concern about pressure on voters? Let's suggest that a particular ethnic group has difficulties speaking. There may be the opportunity to pressure some of the individuals into voting a specific way, if they're accompanied right into the booth. Would it not make more sense that that

interpretation take place outside the voting booth?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll try to explain this to you. If they are assisting outside the booth, then

section 49(4) refers to the oath the translator would have to take. However, if they're assisting inside the booth, they have to provide an oath under

section 121, which is quite definitive: "...(

i) preserve the secrecy of the ballot of the elector being assisted, (ii) mark the ballot in accordance with the wishes of the elector, and (iii) refrain from attempting in any manner to influence the elector as to how the elector should vote...." That's inside the ballot box.

Subsection 121(3)(

c) say that "if assistance is needed because the elector needs a translator to be able to read the ballot and the instructions for voting, the person assisting must make a solemn declaration in accordance with

section 49(3)."

We try to cover it as much as possible, but obviously we'll watch it. I think we'll probably flag that area for returning officers and staff.

Amendments approved.

section 10,

section 110 as amended.

A. Cowie: I'd like to make a comment on subsection (4), where it says the candidate must not be present while voting proceedings are being conducted. I think this is a disappointing change. It's been customary in Vancouver over the years that those people who have been elected have gone and visited the polling stations and shaken hands with the polling officers. As far as I can see, absolutely nothing untoward has gone on at that time. In fact, the officials like it to be known that the candidates are around and paying attention. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with one visit.

I say this is just somebody being paranoid. Whenever I've been in the election polls it's always the NDP scrutineers who are complaining; nobody else. I think it's a big disappointment that we cannot visit the polling stations now.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I was hoping we'd get through this. I think everyone was saying, "Hon. minister, don't speak to this section," because I definitely have views about it. But I have been asked to comment, and I will.

The Chair: To the section, though.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I tell the hon. member that indeed there has been great discussion on this issue by me, staff, those I know and the government benches. We know that the presence of candidates at polling stations is a bit of a tradition. But I think more and more there's a sense from the electorate that candidates should go to vote, but they should not be in polling stations -- for whatever traditional reasons. The impression left is that they are trying to campaign or make representation during the voting time.

The other issue at the local level -- and reports have come back, and this is an accurate position -- is that, because the returning officers and the people working in the polling stations are invariably or nearly always the officers of the municipality or paid employees of the regional district, circumstances have arisen whereby those paid employees, acting in their dutiful capacity as returning officers, have had to tell the mayor to take a hike or to desist. Of course the mayor normally might not frown on that from a public servant, but in election time it's a different circumstance.

What has happened, and I mention no names, is that once the election is over and that mayor or elected official is returned to office, all sorts of pressures or retribution is put upon the public servant, because the public servant, while acting as a returning officer, was only doing their job.

That's primarily why it's here. I must admit that it's breaking some tradition. We all know what we do on election day: we go around to the polling station and we talk to our scrutineers. But the sense today is that once the election campaign is over and it's voting day, we should be out of the polling station once we have cast our vote. Municipally, there have been circumstances like I indicated, and I think all of us would agree that we do not want to put any public servant in that position. I should also conclude by saying that the UBCM approved this recommendation; 64 percent were in favour.

A. Cowie: I belong to the other 36 percent.

An Hon. Member: You're used to it.

A. Cowie: No, I'm used to being on the winning side.

I think what this is doing is just admitting that you can't trust politicians for some reason or another. I think that's going in the wrong direction. We should be making sure we clean the act up. If that mayor is acting improperly, then we should deal with that mayor -- that's how we should be dealing with it. We should make sure that politicians act correctly and not restrict them. That's a real disappointment, in my opinion.

L. Fox: It's not often that I disagree with my Liberal colleague, but in this instance I do. Having been through this process a number of times at the local level, I appreciate the intent of that particular section. As we know, we can't hang up any advertisements or wear badges or any of those kinds of items on the premises. I think the candidate who is received the best by those in that voting place is the individual who comes in, votes and leaves, and doesn't play politics

[ Page 9309 ]

within the voting area. I think he is respected more than the individual who attempts to, through kindness, be known or noticed at the voting place. I support that

section of this legislation.

Section 10,

section 110 as amended approved.

Section 10,

section 111 approved.

section 10,

section 112.

L. Fox:

Section 112(1) says: "If the start of voting at a place, as set by or under this Part, is delayed and the presiding election official considers that a significant number of electors would not be able to vote without an extension under this section...." That kind of statement concerns me, and I need some clarification. In other words, what this is saying is that if the polling station is delayed ten minutes in opening, that official can then suggest that it can stay open ten minutes later. I think that provides a lot of inconsistency in the process and may confuse the electorate.

I strongly believe that the polls should close when they say they're going to close, because we all know the process that goes on during election day. If there is more than one poll in a particular community, and one candidate is aware of that and trucks as many voters.... As we know, we send out our vehicles to pick up voters and get them to the polls. One particular candidate could have a decided advantage, with one poll being open later than others. I don't think we want to get into that situation.

I could see it if the decision were made to keep all polls within the jurisdiction open for extra time, but I think it's open for some manipulation under this scenario -- not that it would be intentional, but it could happen. It could cause a lot of concern and hard feelings.

[3:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: If it becomes abused and a matter of concern, we will deal with it. But, hon. member, you should know that this is something that came to our attention. Much of what is in here is the result of many years of consultation with local government -- not just in my time, but in the former government's time -- and also suggestions that came in over the years for changes to this act. As you know, we're changing it for the first time in decades.

This is a safeguard, and the issue is.... For instance, sometimes a polling station can't open for half an hour or an hour because of a power failure. All we're saying is that in circumstances that are out of the control of the officials at that voting station, citizens should have the right.... Those special circumstances warrant the hours being extended for the length of time the voting station is down. It's a safeguard. I think citizens, who are used to having 12 hours to vote, would like to know that if they go to a voting station and can't vote because of a power failure, or whatever, that the hours will be extended. If it's a problem, though, we'll look at it later on.

L. Fox: Perhaps I could live with that if the minister would assure me that it's going to be mandatory by regulation to advertise it, so that all people are aware of it. Just posting it on the door or extending the hours within the premises is not sufficient, in my view. If it's closed from 8 to 9 o'clock in the morning, opening it from 8 to 9 o'clock at night is not going to affect those same voters. What's mainly going to happen is that people who want to vote in the morning are going to stay until the polling booth is open or come back early in the day.

The reason they came in the morning is out of convenience, so it's highly unlikely they are going to come back between 8 and 9 o'clock at night.

But if the minister is suggesting that he could look after that in the regulations, by advertising voting hours that were extended at particular voting places so that all citizens were aware of the extension, then I could live with that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We'll look into that. There are some problems, of course, with advertising on the day of the election if you get to the building and find you can't open it right away, for whatever reason. It's really hard to go out and advertise at that point. Obviously what we could do is post it on the voting place. But we'll look into our ability to widely advertise when a voting place is open for an extra hour or two. We will check with those municipal officers who will be administering this, and we'll see what we can do. This is for special circumstances.

It's for an emergency, and obviously emergencies can't be foreseen. So advertising that might be difficult. But, hon. member, we'll look into it.

L. Fox: I have one final comment. Everybody's idea of a special circumstance or an emergency is different. For instance, if somebody has a flat tire on the way down to open the polling booth and is not there for 20 minutes, they could deem that to fall under this section. In many rural areas, in the early hours of the morning there aren't a significant number of people at that spot. In fact, many polls within an electoral area will be in a home, or just one person is there.

I think we have to be extremely careful here that we don't run amok and find ourselves with so many inconsistencies, in terms of the hours that polls are open, that -- while the intention was to look after power outages in the middle of the day or whatever -- we open up the door to a very confusing situation for the electorate.

With respect to notification through the media, the media on election days cover the polling turnouts and so on on a regular basis. I think they would be more than prepared to carry a public interest story suggesting that XYZ poll, for whatever reason, will now be open to 8:30 or 9 o'clock or whatever. That way, I believe that nobody could be accused of having one poll accommodate a particular candidate bringing his voters in at the last moment. It would be known throughout the total municipality that that poll was going to be open late. I think it's very important that something along that line happens, to provide some comfort to the electorate with respect to clause

Section 10,

section 112 approved.

[ Page 9310 ]

section 10,

section 113.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to the proposed

section 113(2)(

d) of the Municipal Act.

Amendment approved.

Section 10,

section 113 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 114 to 128 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 129.

L. Fox: With respect to the rules for accepting votes and rejecting ballots, now that we're going to allow a tick mark or an X.... Prior to this particular legislation, if parts of the X were outside the box a considerable amount, quite often it was rejected. But later on, in most cases, it was accepted in an official recount or a judicial recount.

I have a bit of concern with the tick mark. The issue here, in my view, is whether or not there is a clear indication of who the vote is for, irrespective of whether it is a tick mark or an X. We all know what people do with tick marks. Quite often they will go a lot further than the box. One of the reasons the X was used in the past was that most people went corner to corner in the square. The tick mark could be elongated substantially. Can the minister tell us how the previous judgments on the X outside the box are going to affect the tick mark?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I swear that the hon. member was present at the discussion I had with various people and staff on this. First, let me say the UBCM endorses the acceptance of tick marks. In their survey, 76 percent were in favour of it. You should also note -- we've actually passed this section, but I will go back -- that

section 129 clearly states that "a mark of the type required by

section 119(1)(

b) that is out of or partly out of the location on the ballot in which it is required to be put by that provision, as long as the mark is placed in such a manner as to indicate clearly the intent of the elector to vote for a particular candidate," is to be accepted and counted.

Section 129(2) says: "A mark on a ballot other than a mark referred to in subsection (1) must not be accepted and counted as a valid vote."

We've tried to cover it as best we can. Clearly, it has to indicate a preference for the candidate. In some of this legislation we are very progressive and are leading the country, and some of these things we'll monitor, hon. member. And if it becomes a problem, we'll deal with it. We don't think there will be any problems.

Section 10, sections 129 to 145 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 146.

L. Fox: In this

section we get costs of an application. I want to clarify if this is any change from the previous legislation.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one where I can actually read the notes. It continues the provision that the costs of unsuccessful petitions are to be paid by the local government. It's the continuation of an existing situation.

Section 10, sections 146 to 153 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 154.

L. Fox: There is an amendment to

section 154(2) standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 10, is hereby amended by adding to new

section 154, subsection (2), of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c.290, the following paragraph:

(

e) a candidate, elector organization, and any person acting on their behalf, who accepts, directly or indirectly, from a federal or provincial political party or one of its fund raising agents, a campaign contribution for which a tax credit receipt has been, or is to be issued, commits an offence, and is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000.]

We know that an earlier amendment....

The Chair: Hon. member, unfortunately, your amendment as a private member seeks to impose a fine and a penalty, and is therefore out of order. Only the Crown can move an amendment like that.

[3:15]

L. Fox: I am still extremely concerned that this section, and earlier sections that dealt with this, show that it is certainly not the intent of this government to stop the flow of dollars from provincial or federal parties into local municipal contributions. It could be perceived, and probably is conceived by this party in government, that this is a shot in the arm for their organization -- the NDP. Probably that's primarily because they are the only party which has municipal, provincial and federal parties who are all affiliated. I think the minister wants to be sure that in the process of municipal elections, nobody is at a disadvantage in terms of raising funds.

Obviously, then, we should have a

section similar to the amendment I put forward, which, in the interest of fairness, prohibits that flow of dollars. I'm disappointed, as I was in the discussion of an earlier amendment, that the minister, while he seems to talk tough on this issue, is failing to recognize it by way of legislation. That is a factor of extreme concern to me and other members who spoke on it earlier. I think the issue in Surrey raised its head very prominently and showed how the process worked. I'm disappointed that the minister would not see fit to put forth my amendment.

Earlier he wrote out an amendment to me and passed it across the floor. I would be only too glad to reciprocate and allow the minister to table this amendment if it's an illegal amendment for a private member.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Let me say, hon. member, that I think we've covered this issue many times already in previous amendments and sections. Let me reiterate, though, that it is not my intention to deal with federal

[ Page 9311 ]

legislation about who can contribute or what gets tax-receipted. If the federal government wants to make it explicit that they're not going to allow that to happen, so be it. I can assure you, hon. member, that the very nature of political campaigns, and of candidates running and donations, is sometimes not very fair. Some candidates, by their positions or whoever they are running for or whatever, do not necessarily attract huge donations, but certain campaigns may. The nature of that....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You're right there.

What we are doing is leading the country in terms of ensuring that whoever does make a contribution, whether it is whatever you are opposed to in terms of a Liberal party, or a Tory party, or a Conservative party, or a Social Credit party -- or whatever party, or chamber of commerce or real estate development association.... If they want to make a contribution -- you may not like it in one area; I may not like it in another area, hon. member -- that's democracy, that's the system. But I'll tell you what we are doing for the first time in the history of this province, hon. member....

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We are saying that if you are going to donate, the people are going to know who is giving the money. It doesn't matter who you are or what party or institution you represent -- in this piece of legislation, you are going to be covered. We're going to see....

I complete my discussion on this issue, because this legislation will ensure that disclosure happens in British Columbia.

L. Hanson: I can't help responding to the remarks of the minister. The minister is deliberately ignoring the issue. The issue is that some people are taking advantage of a situation that is not available to everyone, and there is that unfairness. There's nothing unfair about people making a decision where they want their donations to go; it's the unfairness of some people being able to use the system more than others. That's what's unfair, not the fact that people decide on their own what organization they may want to contribute to.

Section 10, sections 154 to 157 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 158.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would remind the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca that there is an amendment he should move in this section.

L. Fox: I would propose the amendment that I'll hand in after we make two more amendments that will align this with earlier amendments. This amendment to

section 158(2) deletes "as if the other voting were an election" and substitutes "as if the other voting for the voting area were an election for a jurisdiction."

Amendment approved.

Section 10,

section 158 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 159 to 162 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 163.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, the proposed

section 163(4)(

a) of the Municipal Act.

Amendment approved.

L. Fox: I move that

section 163(4) be amended by adding "for a voting area with a population of more than 5,000" after "As an exception to

section 97(2)(b)."

Amendment approved.

Section 10,

section 163 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 164 to 166 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 167.

L. Fox: I move that

section 167(2)(

b) be amended by adding the words "if applicable" at the beginning of the paragraph.

Amendment approved.

Section 10,

section 167 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 168 to 172 inclusive approved.

The Chair: At this time I would advise the committee that

section 10 has now passed, and we are now on

section 11, which comprises sections 208 to 213.

Sections 11 to 49 inclusive approved.

Section 50, sections 39 to 41 inclusive approved.

section 50,

section 42.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to

section 42(c)(

i) of the School Act.

[SECTION 50,

(

a) in the proposed

section 42(c)(

i) of the School Act by deleting "under of Division (17)" and substituting "under Division (17)",]

Amendment approved.

Section 50,

section 42 as amended approved.

section 50,

section 43.

L. Fox: I move the amendment in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 50, is hereby amended by deleting from new

section 43, subsection (2), of the School Act, S.B.C. 1989, C. 61, the phrase "on the same board".]

[ Page 9312 ]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: The reason I move that motion -- and I think it's a very important motion -- is that when schoolteachers are sitting on school boards in another district, they have found themselves in conflict over very important issues, and certainly around the issue of bargaining. Given that we are modifying this election process for all local elections, we should give consideration to the issue that was before us only recently with respect to the Vancouver School Board.

Four individuals found themselves in conflict and weren't able to vote on the compensation package because they were schoolteachers in neighbouring districts. We saw it in that situation. A few years back we saw a very similar situation in Nanaimo, when schoolteachers once again found themselves in conflict because they were trustees in a different district than the one where they taught. I have no problem at all with schoolteachers being trustees when they are no longer schoolteachers.

But I really believe that it's essential, as I stated earlier, that we put ourselves in a situation where we still have a board to operate.

I know the minister will suggest to me that we let the electorate look after those issues. More importantly, I think that if we're going to give directions to the electorate, the opportunity to do it is through this legislation. We should not allow ourselves to get into those kinds of conflicts, because education suffers. Schools are shut down for long periods of time when there aren't sufficient board members left who are able to vote on a situation, because they've ruled themselves out on the basis of conflict.

So while I understand that it's a significant change in position by the provincial government, I believe it's one that deserves a lot of discussion and dialogue. It isn't something that we should automatically rule out.

[3:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have been joined by staff who will try to help us through the School Act amendments section.

I will make this as quick as possible. I think we had this debate and discussion on the Municipal Act section, and the member disagreed. What we're suggesting is that for municipal.... We're not going to deny someone the opportunity to run if they work for a municipality or a school board. We're suggesting that you have to take a leave of absence to run, but if you win, you have to resign. My understanding is that there's no difference to what we've done before. Currently, if I'm correct, you can't sit on a school board and be an employee of the same district. We're going to make sure that that continues within this legislation.

L. Fox: I know there are others who want to talk on this same issue. What the minister is suggesting is contained within

section 43(7): "Before making the oath of office under

section 59, an employee on a leave of absence under this

section who has been elected must resign from the person's position with the employer." But that is not the case here. In this

section we're talking about a trustee or a teacher who is not an employee of that board; she is a teacher in a neighbouring district. The amendment suggests that that individual then would have to do exactly the same thing as I have put forward, and wouldn't be eligible to run. That is the issue that's before us. Obviously the minister wasn't listening to the argument when I put it forward. All he has to do is relate to the Vancouver experience only a short time ago to understand the importance of this particular amendment -- it's very important.

If we just extract the four words from there we could save a lot of children a loss of class time, and prevent a lot of difficulties in the educational system. I think it's an extremely important issue. The minister should try to understand it, and not just wipe it off without giving it any consideration.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to belabour this point, because we have had this debate. I apologize to the member, because I think I may have misunderstood. I am trying to do too many things at the same time.

If you wish to run in the district in which you work, you have to get a leave of absence or resign. The issue currently is -- and we're not changing it -- that if you are an employee in a neighbouring municipality or school district or whatever.... If you are a teacher, you can run. We aren't changing that. Conflict-of-interest rules apply. There will be new conflict-of-interest rules in the near future for local officials. We have not been able to get to that yet, but that's being worked on. Be assured, hon. member, that there are current conflict-of-interest rules that do apply. There are some changes, as a matter of fact, in terms of pecuniary interest.

I think we have debated this long enough. There is obviously a difference of opinion. Some say that real estate agents should not be able to run in local elections, because most of the work at the local level is land use and zoning.

G. Farrell-Collins: I should clarify for the minister -- and certainly for others who are trying to listen -- that the amendment put forward by the member for Prince George-Omineca is an attempt to change that. He's trying to change it, and the minister is not changing it.

The minister is referring to municipal councils and things that go on there. In the case of education, it is substantially different. The inquiry done by Judith Korbin, which came out less than a month ago, stated quite clearly that there was a problem with the bargaining structure in the school districts and the fact that there is a whipsawing effect, and all those things that went on. Indeed, the Minister of Finance agreed.

Given what we have seen take place this spring with the crumbling of the school board in Vancouver over this very issue of whether or not there was a conflict -- the uncertainties around that; the fact that it shut down the Vancouver School District, and the board was unable to make a decision because of this very problem.... On top of that, with the report from Judith Korbin and the comments of the Minister of Finance, I think we're looking at a case that is different.

It's different from municipalities, because of the bargaining structure that exists with teachers and with the school boards, and the fact that the plan under Bill

[ Page 9313 ]

78 is to bring together all those various districts to work together to try to set a bargaining plan across a large number of districts -- at least by region. We then have a bigger problem, because while somebody may be sitting on a school board in one riding and bargaining as an employee in an adjoining riding, they will now be sitting on both sides of the table at the same time because of the coming together of the employers' groups, or the boards. There are significant problems with that in the education system right now. I think the points made by the member for Prince George-Omineca are valid. And, indeed, the points made by Ms. Korbin and the Finance minister are valid also.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I appreciate the remarks. The points are well taken. As you can imagine, I am putting forward legislation that we can currently work on. You are quite correct, hon. member, that there are some circumstances that have arisen in the Vancouver situation. I won't say there will be some changes or new legislation, but I can assure you that the issue has been raised and is of concern. I think that's probably part of the concern of my hon. colleague across the way.

In terms of the bargaining issues out of Korbin, I am told that that is under review right now.

L. Fox: The minister suggests that this is under review. I have heard that all the way through this legislation: "We're going to monitor it; we're going to see how it works." In the meantime, we end up with the same problems.

Here were have an opportunity to deal with the problem in a very simple way. We take four words out of this clause, and it deals with the problem. I'm disappointed, because this particular amendment has been sitting on the order paper for something like three weeks, and the minister didn't understand the intent of it. He couldn't even understand what I was trying to get at by putting the amendment forward. I would have thought he would have had ample time to consider it, consult and look to whether or not....

If he wants to stand up in this House and say it's the principle of his government that he is not going to allow legislation to go forward that would deny school teachers the right to run as trustees, I can accept that. The minister has an airy-fairy idea here, where he's just going to try to shrug it off. This is a very much an issue of principle. Either the minister is going to give consideration to the amendment which deals with the issue, or else he's going to stand up and say: "Look, this NDP government will not prevent schoolteachers from running for school boards" -- one of the two.

You can't have it halfway in the middle. If the minister is prepared to make that statement, then fine. It's on the record, and we know where he and his government stand. That is to say, they're not concerned about the length of time the students in Vancouver were left out of school, primarily because of this type of clause and the conflicts that this type of clause provide within the bargaining system and the school districts.

If the minister wants to stand up and say, "No, we are totally behind the BCTF; we're not going to put legislation forward which would prevent those people from running as school trustees," hey, I can accept that. I certainly differ, but I can accept it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I can say to the member: yes, we are not prepared at this time to deny anyone the opportunity to run for office.

There are rules for running in the same jurisdiction: they take leave of absence and resign. That's where we leave it at this time.

Hon. member, you know as well as I do that if you start limiting or barring certain groups of people, there are repercussions that have to be looked at carefully. You can't just do that overnight. Many would say certain other categories of occupation should be limited from running for municipal office, and I've already cited one. I think our position is clear at this point. But I'm the first to admit to you and the Liberal colleague who also mentioned the Vancouver situation that that has to be looked at. It will be, hon. member.

L. Hanson: I'd like the minister to give us his rationale as to why in the circumstances of.... As we know, school districts, in urban areas are across the street from one another, if you will; they can be that close together. The minister says in the act that it is appropriate for someone running for an office -- for the school board, in this case -- to ask for a leave of absence until the election happens. But if the election happens and they work in that school district, before the person is sworn in to officially take their position they have to resign.

I'd like the minister to explain to us the difference he sees. It's obvious to everyone in British Columbia -- and I'm sure to the minister too -- that during the process the various school boards go through, what happens in one is usually reflected in the other in a short time. Even the judges said there was a conflict of interest.

The least the minister could do under those circumstances would be to suggest that if a person runs for a school board, even if it is not the district that the school they work for is in, they have to resign if they're elected as a member of that school board, because it's obvious that a school board can have an effect on the next one, particularly with negotiations.

I'd like the minister to explain to us and to the people of British Columbia how a person working in a school that could be two blocks from the school board where they are a trustee, who therefore shouldn't have to resign if they are elected, is now free from any conflict of interest when even the courts decide that they are in conflict of interest.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have stated opposition to this issue. It is a complicated and delicate issue. You can't limit who can run and who cannot run by just striking out four words of a piece of legislation. The Korbin commission is not finished. There are lots of things going on in review, and the hon. member knows that if you rush in and make eliminations and changes overnight without considering the implications, you get yourself in real trouble. The issues the member has raised are well known, a number of them are being reviewed, and I will leave it at that.

[ Page 9314 ]

[3:45]

J. Weisgerber: Despite what the minister says, the issue is not complex. It is quite simple. The principle is quite simple, and the minister has one of those rare opportunities, when legislation has been tabled in which the minister neglected to deal with a serious issue around which the legislation is framed, of being presented with an amendment that resolves the issue that he failed to deal with. He has an unusual opportunity to simply accept the amendment.

The difficulty for the minister is that apparently he doesn't have an opportunity to check with cabinet and his caucus to find out whether or not he has permission to proceed with the amendment. Every once in awhile every minister is in a position where they have to make a decision and simply stand up and say: "I am going to make a decision, because the rationale is so obvious and the window of opportunity is so narrow." We have seen other ministers in the House accept these rational amendments. This is an important opportunity for the minister to deal with a problem that he has acknowledged.

The problem is not new, and the minister says he understands it. The minister suggests that he wants to come back and visit it. He's throwing away this opportunity to simply take the initiative and deal with an important issue in the closing days of this Legislature and resolve it. It's a disappointment to me that the minister feels he has been backed into a corner, and now, in order to save face, or because he hasn't been able to consult with his colleagues, he is unable to make a decision and so holds onto a position that I believe even he doesn't agree with.

Let me finish by urging the minister to take the initiative, make a decision, accept this amendment and deal with a problem that's been around for too long in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Blencoe: On the amendment, I assume the member will send me a copy of his mailout.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to belabour the point, but I think the minister is taking this issue a little too lightly. This is something that caused gridlock in the Vancouver School District this spring; it caused the government a great deal of embarrassment; it caused students a great deal of absence from classes; it caused teachers and other employees to lose time at work and the money that goes with it. I think this is an extremely important issue. I would have thought that that type of amendment would have been put in during the initial drafting of the legislation.

If it wasn't put in then, it certainly should be one of the many amendments the minister has on the order paper, in an attempt to fine-tune it. If he missed it, then I thought he would have at least taken a look at the other amendments that have been sitting on the order paper which aren't his own, and dealt with this issue in perhaps a more serious manner.

I know it is getting late in the session, but I think this is an extremely important point. The government missed the opportunity to deal with the necessary changes in the education system during Bill 84 last year. The result of that was the protracted strikes and labour disputes we had this spring, and the fact that many students lost weeks of school. We have another opportunity to deal with part of that here. I don't imagine that we're going to see the Municipal Act or the Labour Relations Code come up in this House in the next session, unless there are some huge problems that the government just can't deny.

We have a window of opportunity to deal with this. There are some substantial changes in the bargaining structure with the schools in this province that are coming down the pike. The minister said that that is on the way; we have a direction from the commissioner and from the Minister of Finance that there are going to be changes in the bargaining structure. I think this type of amendment is crucial and important. If the wording is a problem for the minister, then he should stand down the

section and come back when he has a better solution.

L. Fox: I just want to make one last appeal to the minister. I recognize that it's a very important issue, as I'm sure the minister does. I also understand that it's very difficult for any minister during discussion of a bill to take some responsibility unto themselves to make an amendment that would be this effective.

Perhaps the minister would utilize a few minutes before we vote on this amendment -- I notice that the Minister of Labour is available after his extremely busy agenda -- to consult with the Minister of Labour about this issue. The lack of this kind of legislation cost this NDP government a substantial amount of money to recall this Legislature for a Sunday sitting. The minister should be concerned about that necessity, and may want to consult with the Minister of Labour before he votes against this without any real consideration.

J. Weisgerber: Let me make one last appeal not to the minister, but to the Premier, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance and whoever is listening to this debate -- I know it is broadcast through the buildings -- and is in a position to make a decision on this issue. Would they please send a note to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and suggest that he accept this amendment? I'm sure that anyone who is listening to the debate and understands the issue would recognize that it is ultimately reasonable.

Perhaps someone is already coming down the hallway with a note suggesting that he accept this amendment and do things properly. I will speak for a moment or two, in case that person is just rounding the corner and would be too late.... Perhaps calling a division would give the minister and the Whip an opportunity, even at this late moment, to change their minds and accept this most reasonable and important amendment. With that, I will wait for the minister's reply, although I don't particularly expect one.

L. Hanson: The minister owes an obligation to this House and to the people of British Columbia. Why does he think that somebody should resign from their position, if they are elected to an office, in the circumstances that we have seen happen with the Vancouver School Board? Why should those people be

[ Page 9315 ]

allowed to continue their jobs in the adjoining school district? Why would you put the one clause in there and say that they have to resign, and on the other side say that if they are in this other school district, it's all right? Give us some idea of what you are thinking. Maybe we can understand your reasoning on why that should be. The judge and the conflict-of-interest commissioner don't seem to think that, but you do. Maybe you can tell us why you think that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have explained over and over again. I take very seriously the issues that have been raised by my colleagues across the way. Many of the aspects that have been raised -- the Korbin issues, for example -- are under review. Much of it is a collective bargaining issue and will be resolved. To you and to those citizens you are appealing to out there about your mailout or whatever you are trying to do, hon. members: we do take this seriously. We got the message and we will deal with it. Indeed, I have a note here: "You have my full support. Mike."

F. Gingell: This is an interesting subject, and I am surprised to see, with so many former school trustees like myself on both sides of the House.... I see one across the room from me now who has dealt with and thought about this question for many years. As you know, and I will repeat it for the record, I was a school trustee for ten years. That is not insignificant experience. I can assure you that the problem with employees, whether they be teachers or others -- and it's primarily with teachers on school boards -- has nothing to do with salaries. That's irrelevant. They can absent themselves from the discussion.

The issue has to do with what a school board is, and what the school board represents. It represents the interests of the people, not of the educators. A school board is organized in such a fashion that there are professionals who for their skills, their abilities and their merits have been promoted to the position of superintendent, assistant superintendent, deputy superintendent, supervisor or principal. They represent the interests of education within the whole facet of the administration of schools.

I am sorry that the minister isn't listening, because there aren't many opportunities that the school trustees have of speaking to these issues. Perhaps the deputy Whip would like to take his seat and allow the minister to listen.

An Hon. Member: Deputy House Leader.

F. Gingell: Deputy House Leader.

It really is an important issue. Think about what a school board is and about who represents which interests. School trustees clearly represent the interests of people -- of taxpayers and of parents. They do not represent the interests of employees, whether they are teachers or others. It's critically important to get this right, and now there is an opportunity to get it right. I'm really disappointed that you aren't taking this opportunity, and I would encourage other members of this Legislature who have been school trustees to stand up and speak to this issue, too.

It is important, and there's an opportunity now to do it right. I really do ask you to consider this amendment, which will do the right thing for the right reasons, and to give it your support.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would remind all members who are speaking about disqualifying a certain

section of our community that the implications are substantial, so we should think that through. But I would also remind the hon. members that you have left an important equation out of your debate: the voter. The voter is the ultimate decision-maker. You left that out of your equation. They know who they're voting for, they know who's running, and if they decide to vote for someone on a school board who is a teacher in an adjacent community, that's the ultimate decision. We have covered it as much as possible by ensuring that if you reside in the same community or the same school district, there are rules, and you resign if you get elected.

L. Fox: I appreciate that statement by the minister, but he fails to recognize that now when many people vote, they will not have the privilege of knowing whether or not that person is a teacher, because they no longer put their professional title on the ballot along with their name.

Unfortunately, the minister is missing the point, and I think the member for Delta South put it better than any of the previous speakers when he talked about the importance of a school board being representative of the public, and being a lay body that represents the public's interest in education. I really believe that that is something which the minister should give serious consideration to. As was pointed out by all of the previous speakers who support this amendment, he has a narrow window of opportunity here to do the right thing on behalf of all British Columbians.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have to stand up for the voters of this province. You have slandered the voters by saying that they don't check who's running, that they don't check the credentials. The voters of this province are sophisticated. Do not underestimate them by suggesting that just because the ballot doesn't list occupations, they don't know. Have some greater faith in the voters of this province. They are the ones who are going to determine the future of who gets elected at our level and every level, so we on this side don't believe in slandering the electorate. We believe in trusting the voter.

[4:00]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm amazed that we didn't see the same minister on his feet during the debate on Bill 84, when this government took away the right of workers in this province to vote on whether or not they wanted to join a union. Where was the minister when that debate was taking place? The workers of this province aren't stupid either, and the workers of this province will make those decisions also.

[ Page 9316 ]

The Chair: Order, please. We are on the amendment to

section 43. Please address your remarks through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think it's scandalous for the minister to stand up and make that type of comment as it relates to the amendment on this section, in light of the type of legislation this government has brought in in the past. This minister voted in favour of removing the right of workers in this province to have a secret ballot vote on whether or not they wanted to join a union. That's a fundamental civil right, and the minister voted to take that right away. So to have him stand up in this House in a sanctimonious fashion and speak for the voters of this province, I think is incredible.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 18

Chisholm

Reid

Gingell

Dalton

Farrell-Collins

Stephens

Hanson

Weisgerber

Serwa

Dueck

Mitchell

De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Symons

Hurd

Anderson

Jarvis

NAYS -- 30

Boone

Edwards

Barlee

Charbonneau

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Smallwood

Gabelmann

Sihota

Clark

Zirnhelt

Blencoe

Barnes

B. Jones

Copping

Lovick

Ramsey

Pullinger

Evans

O'Neill

Doyle

Lord

Randall

Garden

Kasper

Brewin

Janssen

Section 50,

section 43 approved.

Section 50, sections 44 to 62 inclusive approved.

section 50,

section 63.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We're moving so fast here, which is a pleasant surprise.... I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 50,

(

b) in the proposed

section 63 of the School Act by adding the following subsection:

(2.1) As an exception to subsection (2), if fewer than 3 trustees remain in office,

section 45(5) applies to require that the vacant office be filled by election or appointment and

section 147(4) of the Municipal Act applies to the person elected or appointed to the vacant office and to the person declared disqualified.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: Could the minister give us a rundown as to why this amendment was necessary?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This bill requires that if a court declaration of disqualification has the effect of reducing the number of school trustees below three, the current vacancies of the board must be filled by election or appointment. I think that's what we're clarifying in this section. Am I correct?

An Hon. Member: That certainly clarifies it.

Interjections.

L. Fox: I find that a rather humorous response, to say the least. The amendment proposes that "if fewer than 3 trustees remain in office,

section 45(5) applies to require that the vacant office be filled by election or appointment and

section 147(4) of the Municipal Act applies to the person elected or appointed to the vacant office...."

Given that the amendment earlier was refused, it's too bad that this

section didn't say how those vacancies could be filled when conflicts occur that bring the number of trustees down to three on a board of seven trustees. I'm being a bit facetious. The only thing I wanted was clarification from the minister about the intent of this section.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Because it refers back to

section 45 and is complicated, I'm going to ask that this

section be stood down, and then we'll get proper clarification for the hon. member.

The Chair:

Section 50,

section 63 is stood down.

Sections 51 to 55 inclusive approved.

section 56.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask the minister about the amendments of the Islands Trust Act under this bill. I think I understand what this

section is doing. It's a very brief part of the bill. But when we deal with the Islands Trust appointment of local trustees, under

section 56,

section 6(1), it says: "For each local trust area, 2 trustees are to be elected to represent the electors of the area." Principally, that means each individual island within the Islands Trust. I know the Islands Trust has a special statute that is being amended. But whatever happened to representation by population? For instance, Bowen Island, which is in the constituency that I represent, has a significantly greater population than other islands within the Islands Trust. Yet it receives only two trustees; its population certainly warrants greater representation within the Islands Trust.

Can the minister comment on why representation by population is not honoured within the Islands Trust, when it is within every other municipality in British Columbia?

[4:15]

Hon. R. Blencoe: These are consequential amendments. If there are to be any changes in the areas

[ Page 9317 ]

that you requested, a more thorough review would be needed than what we're doing with this legislation. As I think you have indicated to this House, that could very well be. There is an ongoing review of the Islands Trust Act for changes to the legislation in the 1994 session. The issue of rep by pop and increasing the number of trustees in local Trust areas may be altered. I can't say at this time, though.

D. Mitchell: This is not to belabour the point, but I understand that these amendments are consequential to the remainder of the act. They allow the Local Elections Reform Act to apply to the election of trustees for designated areas within the Islands Trust. But clearly the system of having two trustees for each designated Trust area -- in other words, each island within the Islands Trust -- is preserved with this system.

Every other municipality affected by Bill 35 has a system that is far more democratic. Essentially it is representation by population within a municipal area. Bowen Island and Saltspring Island -- two of the major islands within the Islands Trust -- have much greater populations than some of the other islands. Why was this opportunity not taken to address that? Was there any specific consultation with those areas within the Islands Trust on this legislation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: As I said, hon. member, when we consulted with the Islands Trust, it was to ensure that what we have now and how the system works now would obviously fit; therefore these consequential amendments. I've already said, though, that a significant review of the Islands Trust Act is ongoing at this time. Hopefully we will have changes for '94. It may very well be that some of the issues you raise.... I think I've already said to the member he may wish to put those suggestions into the Islands Trust council, which we're working with now for legislative changes next spring.

Sections 56 to 60 inclusive approved.

section 61.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment to

section 61 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 61,

(

a) in the proposed

section 23(1)(

a) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "next", and

(

b) in the proposed

section 24(1)(

b) by deleting "next".

(

c) in the proposed

section 28(2) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "an election official." and substituting "a person authorized by the chief election officer or by the City Clerk.",

(

d) in the proposed

section 28(3) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "presiding election official," and substituting "person authorized to receive the application,",

(

e) in the proposed

section 47(4)(

d) of the Vancouver Charter by adding at the end of that paragraph "or is disqualified under

section 64 from endorsing a candidate",

(

f) in the proposed

section 62(4) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "51(1)(f)" and substituting "51(3)(f)".

(

g) in the proposed

section 63(1) of the Vancouver Charter by adding ", or as a local trustee of the Islands Trust," after "board of school trustees",

(

h) in the proposed

section 72(1) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "by mail." and substituting "in conjunction with this voting.",

(

i) in the proposed

section 82(2) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting paragraph (

b) and substituting the following:

(

b) persons assisting under

section 21 or 93;,

(

j) in the proposed

section 82(4) of the Vancouver Charter by adding "at a voting place or special voting opportunity" after "must not be present", and

(

k) in the proposed

section 85(2)(

d) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "the ballot" and substituting "a ballot".]

Amendment approved.

Section 61 as amended approved.

section 62.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 62, in the proposed

section 137 of the Vancouver Charter,

(

a) by renumbering the

section as

section 137(1) and by adding "under subsection (2)," after "Except as established", and

(

b) by adding the following subsections:

(2) Subject to the limit that there must be at least 10 Councillors, the Council may, by by-law, change the number of Councillors, in which case the quorum for the Council is the lowest number of Council members that is a majority of the total Council size as established by the by-law.

(3) A by-law under subsection (2) must provide for an uninterrupted transition from the previous Council.

(4) A by-law under subsection (2) that would reduce the size of Council must not be adopted without the assent of the electors.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: Given that this particular

section deals with the size and quorum of a council, as well as other sectors, what is the purpose of the amendment? Does this change anything that's reflected in the existing Vancouver Charter? Why has the minister found it necessary to make this amendment to

section 62?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's done in consultation with Vancouver. It basically allows Vancouver to do what every other municipality can do to increase their size. It is basically keeping in line with other sections we have passed in this legislation.

L. Fox: Are you suggesting that this allows the city of Vancouver to increase the number of councillors?

[ Page 9318 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Correct.

Amendment approved.

section 62 as amended.

A. Cowie: On

section 62,

section 138, we are essentially talking about the ward system. We don't like the word "ward," so we now call it "neighbourhood constituency." It's a nice, vague term that will last for two or three years, I guess. It's a ward system. It is aimed at Vancouver to start with, but it applies to the whole province. I have made some inquiries in a lot of municipalities, and they are not interested in it. But in Vancouver most people have expressed an interest in the ward system, although the present council has said they aren't interested at this time.

Previously, the requirement was for a referendum, and now a ward system can be implemented simply by a majority vote of council. Since the ward system is fundamentally a very important thing for any city or municipality, I wonder why we aren't looking at a two-thirds vote on this as we would do on a money matter. Why is that not included here? Why would it be a simple majority vote?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, we are putting in place for Vancouver what is in place for every other municipality in the province. It's a simple majority vote and by bylaw of the council. Like other municipalities, Vancouver can have a referendum on the concept of the neighbourhood constituency system if they want. But in terms of endorsement, it is returning to a simple bylaw of the council, as in every other jurisdiction in the province.

A. Cowie: For years there has been debate for or against ward systems in Vancouver. When this legislation came forth allowing it, it was a big surprise to a lot of people, I guess. In other words, by letting the municipality decide on its own, suddenly a lot of fears come up. I just want to point out that I am not totally convinced that there should be at least a two-thirds vote on an important matter like this in order for people to have an opportunity to think it out. I just want to express my opinion.

Section 62 as amended approved.

Sections 63 to 66 inclusive approved.

section 67.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 67(b), by deleting '"the next annual election"' and substituting '"at the next annual election"'.]

Amendment approved.

Section 67 as amended approved.

Sections 68 to 100 inclusive approved.

The Chair: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Before we go too far, I believe there was a

section stood down. I don't know if the minister wants to come back to that or not.

On the amendment to

section 50,

section 63.

Hon. R. Blencoe:

Section 63(2) says that a vacancy holds until the final decision is made by the courts: "The office of a person declared disqualified on an application under subsection (1) must remain vacant if the decision is appealed and no election to fill the office may be held until the final determination of the matter or until the next general school election, whichever is earlier."

This amendment clarifies that there must still be three members. They can either elect them or ask the minister to appoint them in the interim.

L. Fox: I guess, then, the only question is: does this fall in line with the other clause in here -- I just forget which one it is -- that provides the opportunity for the school board to continue to operate for up to six months? If an election is within six months, could they operate with three, or would they have to appoint others?

Hon. R. Blencoe: They have to have three. It's in

section 45.

Amendment approved.

Section 50,

section 63 as amended approved.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, when you went through the last number of sections of the bill, including the commencement clause, I'm not sure that you took a vote on that. If you did, I would seek leave to ask a question on the commencement clause,

section 100 of the bill. It's the final section.

[4:30]

Leave granted.

section 100.

D. Mitchell: Just a question to the minister on the commencement clause, which is an unusual commencement clause for a bill. It says: "Section 2 comes into force on July 31, 1993 or, if this Act does not receive Royal Assent on or before that date, is deemed to have come into force on that date and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date." There is an element of retroactivity with this commencement clause. The second

section of this clause says: "This Act, other than

section 2, is deemed to have come into force on June 15, 1993 and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date."

[ Page 9319 ]

When the bill was first introduced in the Legislature, I noticed that the minister issued a news release from his ministry at the same time -- on June 14, which is not so long ago, but it has taken a little while to get the bill to this stage. The final paragraph of the news release said: "The Local Elections Reform Act, 1993, is now in effect and will govern preparations for the 1993 November municipal elections." It seems highly extraordinary to me that when the bill is introduced in the House, the minister would issue a news release saying that the bill is now in effect before the House has even considered it.

So I would ask the minister if he could clarify this very unique commencement clause, explain what this retroactivity is really doing here, and address my concern about the presumptuousness of the news release that he issued at the time that the bill was given first reading in this assembly.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We put it back to June 15 -- and all local governments have been preparing as of that date -- because we had to give them a certain amount of time to prepare. There were some concerns that they wouldn't have the time. They have been preparing. You are quite correct: the news release gives the wrong impression. It is June 15, and I don't know what the date was in the news release. You are saying June 14? In the act it is June 15, and we wanted to give local government certainty in allowing them to prepare for significant changes.

The Chair: Hon. member, leave was granted for one question, and....

Interjections.

The Chair: Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: The minister has answered part of the question I raised with respect to the discrepancy in the news release, and I appreciate his apology for the error in it.

But the larger question is: at the time the minister was introducing a bill, why would he state that the bill was in effect? Whether it was June 14 or June 15 is really not the question here. Is it not presumptuous for a government to say that a bill is in effect before the House has considered it, before it has been debated in principle and before it has been considered in committee? Is there not an issue there of presumptuousness about whether or not this parliament is going to pass the bill?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There have been years of consultation with this bill. The UBCM has requested it. We would obviously not reflect on the ability of the House to debate it, but the concern of local government was preparation time, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. If there is some semantic argument here in terms of what I said, I didn't say.... If the member has taken offence, of course I indicate to him that I apologize for that.

My overall objective was that this is progressive legislation, that everyone has basically endorsed it and we wanted to get it moving. We wanted local government to have the opportunity to get ready for November, which is going to be a tremendous challenge. We wanted to give certainty to them and accommodate them. That is why we said it would be retroactive from June 15.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Before I move the appropriate motion, I want to thank my members of staff, who have worked incredibly hard on this piece of legislation -- really very hard. There have been many hours and many years of work. With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 35, Local Elections Reform Act, 1993, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Welcome back? I'm amazed. I was gone for a day on business, and that's why it was so quiet and peaceful?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: The heliskiing was great. In any event, I'm sorry I generated such amusement on the other side, but I would like to get out of this and call committee stage on Bill 66.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 66; M. Farnworth in the chair.

section 5.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 5, is hereby amended by adding to

section 5, subsection (3), paragraph (h), the following: "which are consistent with hiring and promotion on the principle of individual merit".]

Right now, subsection (

h) reads "developing and implementing employment equity policies and programs," and I would add "which are consistent with hiring and promotion on the principle of individual merit." It seems that it's one of those motions that one

[ Page 9320 ]

would almost think would have been automatically included in the legislation as it was developed, given the amount of lip service that has been paid to the merit principle in this legislation. We want to make sure that the merit principle is not only part of the rhetoric around the legislation but also inherent in it. I'm confident that the minister will accept the amendment in that spirit.

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: This is another example of members of the opposition pandering to the element that would say that this is somehow an attack on merit. The entire purpose of the bill is to promote merit in the public service -- merit which has not been promoted. It is widely held in the public service that the principle of promotion in the public service is not merit, and that's the entire purpose of this legislation. To suggest that we are somehow undermining that principle for the purpose of promoting ethnic minorities, women or otherwise is to suggest that there are no women, Indo-Canadians or other visible minorities who have merit for positions, and that's fundamentally wrong.

These amendments are designed to do one thing: pander to that element in society that would say that it is somehow bad for government to have a public service that is broadly representative of the people it serves. It's reprehensible, and I suggest we vote against the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I followed the first two-thirds of what the minister said, despite the rather excessive volume, which was essentially that he, as minister, and the Crown embrace the notion of merit, that merit is an integral part of this legislation and that he embraces the idea of merit. I was expecting, despite the volume, that he was going to wind up saying that he supports the amendment. Unfortunately, then the rhetoric took over and we got off onto the question of whether or not certain groups in society have or don't have merit, which is obviously not the issue.

I believe everyone wants to see a principle, a program and a set of policies that encourage a diversity in the public service on the principle of merit. I believe everyone wants to see merit be an objective, be inherent in all of the decisions and principles, and be foremost in our minds as we seek to encourage new and different applicants and a newer and broader diversity -- if indeed that's a goal we all share.

But to get on a soapbox and rant and rave because someone wants to put into the legislation those things that the minister himself has given so much lip service to causes one to wonder. Is the notion of merit an integral principle of the legislation, or simply a cloth that the minister tends to wrap this legislation in, but which he is reluctant to put into the fabric of the legislation?

Surely on sober reflection the minister will reconsider and look at this amendment, which I don't think at all undermines the principle of the legislation. It seems to be entirely consistent with the rhetoric and the public relations work that has gone on around this legislation. So I'm confident, even though it was rejected once by the minister, that he will see the benefit, the reasonableness and the importance of including in this

section an amendment which recognizes that hiring and promotion should be consistent with the principle of individual merit. Surely to goodness no thinking person would reject that kind of an amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: This amendment is nothing more than political pandering.

Section 8 of this bill is an entire

section called "Appointments on merit." The entire

part 3 of the bill deals with the question of merit. So to single out one of the responsibilities of the commissioner where merit is not discussed -- it's an administrative responsibility of the commissioner to develop employment equity policies -- to suggest that somehow we have to add merit to that is simply political posturing of the worst kind. The bill has whole sections dealing with merit. It's not required in the administrative responsibilities or duties of the commissioner, and it's certainly not required in one subsection of the responsibilities when it comes to developing employment equity policies and programs.

C. Serwa: It's interesting to note the change in approach from one minister of the Crown to the other. I listened to the tirade and the bluster based on the shallowness of this hon. minister, and I compare that to the realistic, sensible, logical type of debate from the hon. Attorney General.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

On this particular section, it's interesting to note the bluster and pandering -- I think those were the words that the minister used -- with the need to emphasize merit. The union indoctrination of the Minister of Finance is clearly evident. In the union sector, merit is not worthy of consideration; only seniority is considered. Merit should not be recognized on the pay scale, or for calling back an employee to the job earlier. That is the foundation of the Minister of Finance.

[4:45]

The fiscal fortunes of British Columbia are in the hands of what is an obviously incompetent Minister of Finance. We are in our present desperate situation primarily because that individual doesn't recognize the responsibility of merit. Merit has to be first and foremost in whatever we do. When we go to see a doctor or a professional individual, we see these individuals on their merit, their reputation and their competence. But for some reason, this piece of legislation is pandering.... There is nothing superior to the merit principle.

That's the ability of all people to strive to be the best they can possibly be, not to simply be the lowest common denominator because they are no better or worse than anyone else, and that's good enough and that's acceptable. That's where we run into problems with the runaway spending in the Ministry of Finance; there isn't merit in the driver's seat. That's the concern I have.

[ Page 9321 ]

If we're talking about merit and the intent of this bill with respect to merit, as the minister continues to say, then why isn't it identified in the purposes? It's not identified. We skirt around that word because clearly it's a non-word in the union sector which the minister represents. The lowest common denominator is the height of ambition of the minister at the present time. That's not good enough for the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. We have to have the merit principle embodied in

section 5; there is no question in my mind. If you dismiss that, unless you continue to refer to the merit principle, you are denying someone the opportunity to achieve and to become the best they are.

It doesn't matter whether you're looking at visible minorities, people with handicaps, women or anyone else in society. The goal we all strive to achieve is to become the best we can possibly be. I don't care whether it's in music or in athletics, it's the merit principle. We have to hire on the basis of the merit principle. If we don't, there is no accountability or responsibility for handling and being accountable for the taxpayers' dollars. I'm strongly in support of the merit principle.

It may be a non-word or a dirty word in the minister's vocabulary, but it's a very essential ingredient if we're going to talk about something that is supposed to promote the concept of merit. The minister has failed, through his blustering comments, to indicate why merit should not be included here, other than the fact that it is a non-word in the union sector, which the government of the day represents.

Hon. G. Clark: It's an interesting argument, hon. Chair. The question has to be asked: why are there very few women in senior management positions in government? Is it because they're stupid? Is that what the member's position is? Clearly it is. He's saying that we have a perfect system now; we have merit now. That's why there are no aboriginal people in senior management positions in government. That's why there are very few women in management positions in government. There are very few Chinese Canadians because they're stupid. That is precisely the logic that the member opposite pursues.

He is saying that currently we have a pure system of merit. Those who are successful must have the merit. The only way they're promoted in government now is because they have merit.

What is patently obvious to anybody, other than the members of the Social Credit Party and some members of the Liberal Party, is that there are obstacles in the way of pursuing equality and of ensuring that there are meritorious applicants from a broad cross-section of the public, that women have access to compete for jobs or that people who are disabled and visible minorities have access to compete for jobs. Merit is the overall principle behind this bill. What we're simply saying is that we're taking employment equity action.

The policy was passed by the government of which that member was part of in December 1990 to try to pursue ways in which we can find meritorious applicants from a cross-section of the public in British Columbia. It is not good enough to say that the current system is working well; it is not. It is patently obvious that it is not.

The particular

section that we're dealing with on the commissioner's administrative responsibilities doesn't mention merit; it mentions advising the minister on personnel policies. This is the administrative section. There is an entire

section of the bill that deals with merit. It is the overall principle behind the Public Service Act. It is what the Korbin commission set out to review. What we heard from public servants is that the current system does not reward merit, nor is it representative of the public that it serves. That's what this bill does. To stand up in the House and constantly move what are essentially trivial amendments to attach the word "merit" anywhere they see employment equity is, frankly, only political posturing.

Pandering to that element of society which does not support taking action to promote women or visible minorities or disabled people in society is the most reprehensible politics I've seen here, and it's coming from those members, particularly from the last member who spoke. I suggest that members dispense with this and vote against the amendment. We'll get to the

section on merit, and we'll deal with it there.

C. Serwa: Another interesting tirade from the minister, and that's all that it is.

We're concerned about the merit principle, and the purpose of the amendment is to ensure striving for the best possible individual. That's what is really important. The minister indicates that women are not represented in senior positions in numbers similar to their percentage of the population, which is 50 percent. What has happened over the years since the thirties, forties, fifties, sixties and seventies? The change has been systematic and progressive. It has been changing, and it has been advancing.

If you look at visible minorities in government or any other field, they've made their entrance into the economic activities of this province, and over a period of time they make advances. Their children and their grandchildren make further advances.

The minister, in this self-righteous and indignant mode that he's in, thinks you can somehow legislate something automatically. The reality is that good and responsible change occurs over a long period of time, and we have made tremendous advances. You're not going to change something overnight because of some do-gooder intent in the legislation. You are going to make these progressive changes on the basis of merit and attitudinal changes in society. All that any individual is looking for is an opportunity. Then they will strive to fill the positions.

The moment you compromise the merit principle, you compromise the effectiveness of the civil service. An individual who is your superior doesn't have the background, capability or ability; they are there for some other reason. There's no pride or self-esteem for the individual employed in that particular position, and there is certainly no job satisfaction for those who are subservient to that position.

My fundamental concern is that if you want solid gains, those opportunities have to be made available. You will make those gains through education and

[ Page 9322 ]

opportunity; you are not going to make them by legislation. We talked earlier about the difficulties that the RCMP and the military have run into. Merit has to be the fundamental basis for hiring. All people have competence, capacity and ability. We all fit into different niches, but the merit principle has to be fundamental. The minister may continue with his tirade if he wishes, but it will fall on deaf ears here. Capacity and ability are inherent in all peoples. Whether aboriginal peoples or some other ethnic diversity anywhere in the world, male or female, the merit principle applies.

It applies in sports, in business, in politics, in government service as well as private industry. You can't deny it.

The wealth of opportunities that we have today in Canada is because of the free market economy and the concept of the merit principle. If a business has merit, then it survives and continues to provide jobs. If it does not have merit or competence, then it fails. You cannot ignore that principle in the cost of government. If you don't employ the merit principle, and if you don't continue to advance its cause, then mediocrity is the top level that you strive for. That is my concern. I think the minister fails to understand, and wishes to try to make political hay on an issue that most people understand is critically important.

J. Weisgerber: The minister talks about reprehensible political posturing. I suppose that would suggest there is some other kind of political posturing, and I suppose he practises it often enough to have accepted it as part of his regime.

It's ironic that this minister -- who was one of the senior ministers in a government that came into office in October 1991 and summarily fired every woman deputy minister in the government -- stands up and talks about women in senior positions in government and the need to promote and encourage women to take senior positions in government. It was this Minister of Finance -- one of the most senior ministers in the government -- who oversaw that activity, and for him to give us the kind of lecture we have just had is absolutely incredible.

If the minister wants to be honest with this Legislature when he talks about women in the civil service, he would acknowledge that women under 40 are well represented in all management strata in the civil service. That is because of policies that have been in place over the last few years that have encouraged women to enter the administrative side of government. The minister knows very well that women up to 40 years of age are well represented and that that will continue to increase as those women move through the service and take more senior positions. So we've got nothing but political posturing.

I find it reprehensible, and I find it ironic that the minister would stand up here, having taken

part in the firing of all the senior.... All of the deputy ministers in government who were women were fired by the cabinet that this minister was part of.

The Chair: Before I recognize the next speaker, the Chair observes that the tenor in this House seems to be deteriorating. Members should avoid personal allusions in their debate and we might restore the constructive atmosphere of the House.

Hon. G. Clark: Just for the record, there are about the same number -- one more I think -- women deputy ministers today than there were when we took office. I am pleased to say that there are 12 management categories, and in every single category there are more women represented in the public service today than there were when we took office. So there has been significant improvement since we took office in every single category, although clearly not enough. More work has to be done, and that's what we're doing.

C. Serwa: On the merit principle, I think it hypocritical of the minister with his posturing. In the former administration I watched when the Leader of the Opposition was surrounded by four male colleagues, for example, and there was never reference to the women's caucus. It was protected by four male colleagues sitting around them, including Bob Williams -- who is still the power behind the throne, so to speak, at the present time.

The Minister of Finance conveniently forgets history very quickly and goes on to speak long and loud about women in management positions. That is a progressive change which is coming forward. The other aspect of concern that I mentioned enters into the statistics the minister is looking at. The number of older women apparently diminishes in the civil service,

whereas men continue on longer to retirement age, so that's partially a factor in what transpires. When we talk about merit, it still has to be the fundamental basis, and that's why I would support this amendment.

[5:00]

V. Anderson: I find myself in an interesting position: I agree with the amendment, but I disagree violently with the last two speakers from the Social Credit benches. I think we're losing sight of the context of words and their meanings, and we are treating them legalistically. If words begin to be treated legalistically, whether it's words that deal with equity or merit -- no matter what they are -- we've lost sight of the principles we believe in, and we become involved in dealing with a legal document rather than with people.

As long as we're concerned with people, people always have merit and have to be dealt with equitably. The two aren't opposite ends of a pole, separated from each other. If they are dealt with properly, they are an inherent part of each other.

As I understand the amendment, it's simply to remind us that merit and equity are the same, as I've heard the minister saying. I think that merit and equity need to be considered within the same context. They're not opposites or contradictory; they are one and the same. If we are dealing with merit in a legalistic sense and taking the paper qualifications of a person, it doesn't mean that that person has the experience or the

[ Page 9323 ]

attitude that would enable them to do the best job. Somebody without the paper qualifications may be able to do a far better job -- and they have done -- than the person who has the right qualifications, because they can interact with people in a fair and equitable manner.

On the other hand, if you take the position that equity has no relationship to merit, you'd be doing exactly the opposite. I disagree violently with the last two Social Credit speakers, because if I've heard them correctly, they've taken a legalistic point of view by separating....

Interjection.

V. Anderson: They say that they know they're on the right track if I'm disagreeing with them. Well, fine.

As far as I'm concerned, they separate them and give them a complete distinction,

whereas we try to put things together and develop a balance between them, rather than setting two good principles against each other. Our intention here is not to set principles against each other. Rather, we say that both principles must be considered and given equal consideration, because they are both relevant. We're not dealing with machines, which you can measure according to a certain standard and if they deviate, they don't fit. We're dealing with people here, and both merit and equity must be taken into account, because we want people who can do a certain job in a certain circumstance.

When we have done all our examination, with whatever categories we want to use, the final judgment has to be made in the minds of the people who are developing a team to enable them to do a job together. So I would not rule out the human element, and I would not want us to be legalistic on one side or the other; I would simply say that both of them must be together. That's why I would be happy to have this amendment here. I think that equity and merit must be seen together as a common opportunity for people, rather than as opposites or as contradictory.

Therefore I will support the amendment, but not on the basis that the last two speakers of the third party have presented it; I will support it from the point of view -- apart from the rhetoric of the minister -- of the minister trying to say that merit and equity stand together and that one must be considered with the other. For that reason, I will support the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 20

Chisholm

Cowie

Reid

Gingell

Dalton

Farrell-Collins

Stephens

Weisgerber

Serwa

Dueck

Mitchell

De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Symons

Hurd

Warnke

Anderson

Jarvis

K. Jones

NAYS -- 31

Boone

Edwards

Barlee

Charbonneau

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

Lali

Miller

Smallwood

Gabelmann

Sihota

Clark

Zirnhelt

Blencoe

Barnes

B. Jones

Copping

Lovick

Ramsey

Pullinger

Farnworth

Evans

O'Neill

Doyle

Lord

Randall

Garden

Kasper

Brewin

Janssen

J. Weisgerber: I move the second amendment standing in my name on the order paper. The amendment would add subsection (5) to

section 5.

Perhaps I should pause for a moment and allow those who have other agendas to carry on with them.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I would give the member for Nanaimo credit for having read the amendment, which is probably more than most of the others have done.

The Chair: Please proceed on the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I move that

section 5 be amended by adding subsection (5), as follows: "The Commissioner shall ensure that remuneration for managerial positions do not contain any incentive for the maximization or increase of numbers of persons or sizes of budgets supervised by a manager, except as expressly authorized by enactment of the Legislative Assembly."

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: I have much more sympathy for this amendment, but unfortunately I can't support it. I will try to briefly explain why.

The Public Service Employee Relations Commission is not the arm of government that manages the finances or scrutinizes the spending practices of government. That is the job of Treasury Board. In terms of trying to drive productivity and the like, that is line ministry management responsibility driven largely by Treasury Board and program evaluation guidelines.

While I'm very sympathetic to the thrust here, it seems improper for the commissioner responsible for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission to have in it something that really deals with the question of the budgetary management of the public service. Another way of putting it is that the size of the public service is obviously something which the government is very concerned about. We want to promote productivity and the like, but in many respects that's not the job of the Public Service Commission. It's the job of management and Treasury Board to deal with those questions.

The commission is more concerned with operational, labour relations and human resource questions. As sympathetic as I am to the principle behind this amendment, I don't think it properly fits in this section.

[5:15]

[ Page 9324 ]

J. Weisgerber: As the minister knows, it's very difficult to get amendments into Treasury Board. So one takes the opportunities that one gets. The purpose of the amendment is to recognize that there is growing public concern and, I think, growing administrative concern with the increasing size of the bureaucracy. It's important to recognize the need and responsibility of government, perhaps through the civil service act, the policies of Treasury Board or some other mechanism.

There are circumstances where the size of the bureaucracy and the size of the staff that's being managed should be rewarded. It's sometimes difficult to rationalize the opposite side of this question. You have a Ministry of Health with one-third of the budget and an enormous staff, and other ministries that are relatively small. The ministerial pay is the same, and in many cases the deputy minister's pay is the same. I believe that it should be the function of whatever process is in place to reward those who do their jobs cost-effectively. I think there should be some kind of a reverse incentive.

In other words, those who are able to spend less than their budget allowance and keep their staffing levels below the target should be the ones rewarded, rather than those who have ever-growing bureaucracies. That's the point of the amendment. It's apparent that while we agree on it, it's not going to get included in this section. But I would hope that it would, in any event.

A. Cowie: Since I've had a fair amount of experience on the municipal scene and have been party to a fair bit of provincial work, I have the pleasure of adding a few words here. I believe it would be a good principle to state. I'd like to see it stated in other areas where these principles would be important. In one case where I was managing a department, we reduced it by one-third and it worked a lot better. Since then it has gone back up to where it was, and I personally think it's not working as well. I'll leave others to judge that.

It's pretty typical in the municipal, provincial and federal service for people to feel more comfortable if they have a lot of people working under them. It's almost like the military. It's not necessarily a sign that they'll perform their duties better. Especially in today's times, there are departments and operations that work well with very few people. They're the ones that make the difference, while line functions like huge engineering departments that have many people working for them.... You'll also find that the more people they have and the higher the budget, the greater the tendency to give them more pay, and they appeal to that.

So I can personally support this amendment. I'm very proud to support it, and I would like to see it go through.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister could advise us if there are presently any pay-incentive programs for senior managers in the provincial civil service. If there are, under what authority are these arrangements entered into?

Hon. G. Clark: No, there are none in the public service.

Amendment negatived on division.

D. Mitchell: Under

section 5 (3)(h), where "developing and implementing employment equity policies and programs" is referred to, is there a conflict in the minister's mind between this and the mandate of the Ministry of Women's Equality? Is there an argument here that this is really duplicating the role of a ministry of government? Does it presage, perhaps, a possible elimination of that ministry?

Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct in the sense that currently the employment equity program in government, which has been in existence since about 1990 -- and Brian Dagdick, who is here today, is the director responsible -- essentially will move to the Public Service Commission and out of Women's Equality, although I understand Women's Equality will still be responsible in a governmentwide sense for employment equity policy -- not in the public service, but broadly applied. It may be in the public sector; we're reviewing that question, but there is going to be a substantial movement to the commission from the current mandate within Women's Equality ministry.

D. Mitchell: I guess we'll simply have to wait and see what happens with the cabinet shuffle that we're all anticipating to see whether or not that ministry will still exist. It would seem that a major portion of that ministry has been transferred, and one wonders whether or not there is any reason for that ministry to exist.

section 5(3)(m), "establishing and maintaining a personnel management information system," I note that volume 1 of the Korbin commission's final report refers to the need for data collection. This doesn't seem to be a new function, necessarily. This is something that I think government is probably already doing. Would the minister be able to inform the committee whether or not something new is contemplated her