1985 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5091 ]

CONTENTS

Reading and Receiving Petitions –– 5091

Orders of the Day

Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Committee stage.

section 7 –– 5091

Mr. Williams

Mr. MacWilliam

Third reading –– 5092

Financial Information Act (Bill 36). Committee stage.

section 2 –– 5092

Mr. Stupich

section 4 –– 5092

Mr. Stupich

section 5 –– 5092

Mr. Stupich

section 7 –– 5093

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Third reading –– 5094

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 41). Committee stage.

section 3 –– 5094

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Division

Third reading –– 5096

Public Service Act (Bill 35). Committee stage.

section 2 –– 5097

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Davis

Mr. Gabelmann

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Reading and Receiving Petitions

CLERK ASSISTANT: In the matter of the petition presented to

the House on February 20, 1985, by the hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace), it is reported, pursuant to standing order 73(6), that

granting of the prayer of the petition would involve an expenditure of

public money, for which provision would have to be made in the

estimates. Accordingly, the said petition is irregular — Speakers' Decisions, volume 1, page 112.

All of which is respectfully submitted. Ian M. Home QC, Clerk of the House.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

EXPO 86 CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 44; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 7.

MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the Expo budget, it's my understanding

that there's an estimate of $30 million for decommissioning the site — in

terms of dollars. Maybe the minister could comment on the adequacy of that amount

and the relatively short time between the end of Expo and B.C. Place picking

up the land again. I think it's a two-month period between Expo continuing

to hold the lease with respect to the land and reversion to B.C. Place, which

seems like a fairly tight

schedule 1n terms of dealing with decommissioning

the site. It would appear that the costs of decommissioning other expositions

has indeed been significantly higher than that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think the nature of the foreign pavilions, which

comprise most of the buildings on the site — they are modular-type construction,

are reusable and are designed to be taken down quickly — probably accounts for

the time-frame. As to the amount of the budget — the $30 million — I don't

recall that figure offhand. If the member says it's $30 million, I take

his word for that. We are just going by what the engineers and experts tell

us, that that will be the cost and the time-frame. I must remind him though

that all the services that are in the ground — the piling and decking — will

of course remain, as will three of the buildings: the B.C. pavilion, the geodesic

dome and the CPR roundhouse, which is a heritage building. The corporations

must dismantle their own pavilions — or whoever the government designates is

responsible for taking down the modular pavilions. They are quite easily knocked

down and transported.

I should at this time respond to a couple of questions posed late yesterday

by the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam). One has to do with

section

7, which we were on, and the fact that it says: "one year after the end

of Expo." I think the member, with all due respect, is misinterpreting

the one year. What it is saying is that the management of Expo, the board. must

report the financial status of the fair to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

within one year of the windup of the fair. so it's not a case of, as I think

he put it…. I can't find his remarks, but whatever the status of the

fair at that time, they must come back to the L-G within that one-year period.

Then he jumped back to

section 6 regarding remuneration. That clause was put

in there to ensure that no person on the board, save the president of the corporation,

who we put on there specifically, can work for the corporation and be a member

of the board. So there is no thought or intent of remunerating anyone. It's

to prevent someone from sitting on the board and being an employee of the corporation.

The other remark was about lottery funds, I think the member knows

that lottery funds other than 6-49 have not been diverted to Expo.

Lotto 6-49 was brought into being to fund Expo. The other lottery funds

have nothing to do with it. I just want to make that point clear.

Lottery grants per se have not been affected because of moneys going

into Expo.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In response to the minister's comments, Mr. Chairman.

with regard to lottery moneys other than those of 6-49 not going into Expo,

when a senior citizens' society up in the North Okanagan asked to receive

lottery funds in a request for construction moneys available, it was informed

— and I don't know who the informant was; I don't have the material

here — that there was virtually no money available for them, because that money

had been tied up and earmarked for Expo. So the minister's response to that

question leaves standing the question as to why that comment was made in the

first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That subject, although the minister has

broached it and the member has replied, might be more appropriate in

another minister's estimates or while dealing with other legislation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would just respond very briefly, Mr.

Chairman, that if that is the case, then someone has misinformed

someone. Lottery funds are dispensed from the Ministry of the

Provincial Secretary, and I would suggest that the member verify those

remarks and whence they came through the Provincial Secretary.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

[10:15]

section 9.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, to reiterate an earlier concern with regard

to — I'm just trying to read here, and it's a little difficult at that distance:

"…a person designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or a person

authorized in writing…shall be the local assistant with respect to the exposition

site." The concern in both this

[ Page 5092 ]

section and sections yet coming is that we would like assurances by the minister

that persons so designated by order of the Lieutenant-Governor would, in fact,

be persons who are fully qualified to handle the responsibilities of those positions.

The reason I bring that up is in order to guard against the

enactment of responsibilities upon people who do not have full

qualifications. I think if the minister can assure us that those

individuals charged with the responsibility for assuring building and

fire codes, etc., will be fully qualified, I can't see too much problem

with these sections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, as I said in second reading of the

bill and will reiterate today, we have every intention of maintaining the highest

standards, of safety. It behooves us to have the highest standards there, and

we are just as concerned about it, if not more so, than the member of the opposition.

So I can assure him and all British Columbians that people who are designated

by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to carry out these supervisory functions

will be the most highly qualified people we can find. As I said earlier, they

will probably be the — and I say "probably" — the provincial fire marshal

and a health inspector designated by the Minister of Health. The workers'

compensation rules apply as they do on any other construction site. I want to

reassure that member and everyone else that safety is a paramount concern of

ours.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair,

Bill 44, Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 36,

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, the usefulness of this

section

will depend on the limits set by the minister. With reference to 2(1)(f),

I wonder whether the minister can tell me if he has any idea at all at what

level he might set that. I know it can be changed the day after, but I'd

just like some guidance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With reference to 2(1)(f), we envisage in

this that a setting of the minimum amount paid to a single supplier

would be $5,000. That's what we have in mind. It's presently at $500,

and frankly I think that's too low. I think that legislators here want

to be able to get to key amounts, and by moving from $500 to $5,000 we

think that we're going to reduce the paper flow by about 65 percent.

That's the intention; it can be changed, but that is the stated

intention in this amending bill.

MR. STUPICH: The minister said the "stated intention"; it's

actually not stated, but nevertheless I accept the change and think it's

reasonable.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. STUPICH: Once again, perhaps the answer is the same with respect

to 4(

b) determining the minimum financial limits for the reporting of individual

accounts, but I'll just ask the same question. That's the only question

section 4.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is intended that we would move from the $500 to

an initial limit of $5,000. That will be recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

. When I said "stated intention" in the earlier sections — this is a

companion section, in effect — I meant, by stating it here, that that was my

public acknowledgement of the number which I believe to be correct.

I hope that over time it won't change very much; I don't think it should.

The real problem exists with those very small amounts. We go to $5,000 and

then, I think, we are meeting the spirit of the legislation in disclosing key

information.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, here it's the directives that make

me wonder. I think it's good legislation; I think we're moving forward

with this; but it could all be spoiled if the improper directives…. I

can appreciate there has to be some direction, but I wonder if the

minister can tell us what he has in mind with respect to the

availability of this information to the public. That's really what it's

all about.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it is correct that the

section is somewhat

vague. I would expect that the directives again would reflect the spirit of

the Financial Information Act, I can't table or describe for the member

the kind of directive that we will use –– I would think that if it

is felt by any member of this House that the directive was working against the

interests of the bill, that would be raised pretty quickly.

Certainly if the member, as the Finance critic, upon the completion

of directives should find that he wants to see a sample directive, then

I would be more than happy to provide that to him; but I don't have a

directive here. It would be a little presumptuous to prepare one before

we have the legislation.

MR. STUPICH: Only a little presumptuous, in view of the circumstances.

[ Page

5093 ]

There was one question I should have asked, perhaps, under 4, and

yet it's really a directive, and that is the fee. Maybe that will vary

from one organization to another, but do we have any idea at all what

kind of fee we're going to be charging?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is under

section 4(c), My

proposal is that the fee will be $5. That will be recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

It is a fee for the provision of copies of the information to be provided. I

think there should be some element of charge associated with this, but it should

not be such that it would be a disincentive to seek some information. I will

recommend $5 to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but if it later becomes

$7.50 or $ 10, I still think…. That's the range that I have in mind, in

order to cover just a little bit of the cost of producing the information.

MR. STUPICH: That would include all the information that is

envisaged in

section 2 — all of the statements, the schedules and

everything. Is that the intention?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, that is my intention. Now if someone requests

volumes of information, then I think we're going to have to examine that

with an element of cost recovery, but more than likely the information requested

will be relatively straightforward in printout form and should not be too expensive

to produce. A little experience will come, I think, with the passage of this

bill, and if we have someone who walks in and says, "I want all the financial

information about all these agencies, " then it might cost a little more

than $5.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I guess it's at this point that I have

to register some concern for the demise of the Crown corporations reporting

committee. It would seem that with the passage of this legislation it will now

be said that anyone who wants the information can go to the appropriate office

and get copies of it. We will take the information as provided by each one of

these organizations, rather than have the kind of analysis, inspection and study

of these various organizations — at least some of them — that has been going

on through the Crown corporations reporting committee. I think that's been

a useful exercise. Some very important information became public simply through

the actions of that committee, a committee which hasn't met for some time.

I think the passage of this

section will be the final sweeping under the rug

of the Crown corporations reporting committee.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that may well be the case. But

this is a sunshine bill. This is designed to provide access to the kind

of financial information which I earnestly believe the people of the

province are entitled to. I hear what the member has said.

MR. HOWARD: I just couldn't resist the opportunity to relate to

that last comment of the Minister of Finance, and to pay great tribute, Mr.

Chairman, as you yourself would do if you had the opportunity to engage in the

debate in the chamber, to the former chairman of the Crown corporations committee,

the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who did an excellent job in participating

in and running that committee and ferreting out the secret information that

B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro and ICBC had, arranging for public hearings so the public

of this province could see what ICBC and B.C. Hydro were doing to them — full

disclosure of information to the public. That great member for Omineca — I'm

sorry he isn't here. I thought he would be here participating in this debate

himself.

But as the member for Nanaimo (Mr Stupich) pointed out. this is is the final

burying of that once-great committee of this chamber, the Crown corporations

committee — the final disposition of an opportunity for the general public to

know what's going on. Now if people want to discover what's going on,

first they have to be an accountant to examine the books that are going to be

prepared. Then they have to find their way, say, from Terrace, Prince George

or anywhere in Omineca down to the head office of B.C. Hydro in Vancouver or

B.C. Rail wherever it happens to be at the moment, and find their way through

the labyrinth of those corporations and have a look at the documents that are

being made available. It's a hoax, It's just window-dressing to the

concept of access of the public to information.

You have to have two things: access and some mechanism of interpreting or analyzing

what's presented as a result of the access. The Crown corporations did a

good job on it, such a good job that the Premier killed the committee. Maybe

the real reason behind it was that it did an excellent job. This is an extremely

insignificant substitute for that committee's functions.

HON: MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is

back down in the mud again. I knew it would happen sooner or later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Personal references….

HON. MR. CURTIS: He describes legislation as a hoax, Mr.

Chairman; that's a personal reference. He should check with the member

for Nanaimo, who came in here in second reading and said that it was

good legislation. Which one is right? Would the real opposition finance

critic stand up'? Who's right?

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Maybe it's Mackenzie; I don't know. I'm

confused. One says it's good, the other says it's a hoax. What the hell

is going on over there?

[10:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. What is going on over there? Has the member for Skeena read the bill? Could I ask that?

I'm having fun this morning. We had good debate. I'm enjoying this

very much, except for the fact I wonder if the member for Skeena could

tell us: has he read the bill? That's the first question. Secondly, has

he consulted with the member for Nanaimo, who has read the bill?

[ Page 5094 ]

MR. HOWARD: There probably isn't any rational way which can satisfy the ignorance of the Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That will have to be withdrawn.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, no question about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The comment is withdrawn. I'll advise the

minister and the member that if we can maintain temperate language,

then the debate can carry on in order.

MR. HOWARD: If I were the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I'd be

incensed at what the minister said just now. I stood here and applauded the

activities of the member for Omineca on that Crown corporations committee. I

drew the comparison between this bill and that committee, and in that comparison

this bill is a hoax. Standing by itself in isolation from the really good job

that that committee had done, one can look at the bill, as the member for Nanaimo

did — and as I did — and just isolate that as one event in the course of time,

and say: "Yes, it's a good bill because it does that." But in

relation to what the member for Omineca did, steering that committee in the

direction of providing full information to the public, yes, the bill's a

hoax. There's no question about it. I hope the lack of full understanding

on the part of the Minister of Finance…. You must remember, Mr. Chairman,

I was dealing with this in the most credible way I can by applauding the member

for Omineca. Then the Minister of Finance got incensed that I talked about his

colleague that way, and referred to this question of "mud." It indicates

where the reality is in that minister's mind about anybody who disagrees

with his pure approach to politics in this province. If I were the government

House Leader, I'd lay it on that Minister of Finance completely for trying

to have this whole debate degenerate into name-calling. It's disgraceful

for the Minister of Finance to do that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate

myself with some of the remarks of the member for Skeena, and some of

the remarks of my colleague the Minister of Finance — commending that

excellent member for Omineca on the great work he did on the Crown

corporations committee. But I'd also draw to the attention of the hon.

member for Skeena that, as a result of his endeavours and those of his

colleagues on the Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee, we have

amended the rules to include the Crown Corporations Committee as a

standing committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're straying a bit from the bill and the clause that's before us.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, we did make that unanimous recommendation.

At the same time, and on the insistence of government, we wiped out

other references in the standing orders that would have made the Crown

corporations committee more functional than it is likely to be at the

moment. So it wasn't all beauty.

Section 7 approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Financial Information Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 41, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman,

section 3 is the act.

Section 3

establishes what the foundation might do, will do, and has to do in

some instances. It strikes me that the reason for this stroke of

altruism is that, rather than putting the money into a current account,

which was non-interest-bearing — because real estate deals are normally

very short in duration — the real estate people are now able…. Now the

banks have these daily interest account situations, which are

relatively new and relatively widespread in the banking system. So what

the real estate companies have access to now which they didn't have

before is interest. No. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Gardom) shakes his head.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sure, you'll clear up the confusion. The fact of the

matter is, instead of the public — that is, the people who are actually transacting

a real estate transaction — having access to the interest on their money, they

are giving over that money to this new foundation….

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It's interesting to have these debates where one

stands on his feet and the other sits and does a job. The fact of the

matter is….

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: All right, you'll get your chance in just a second.

The fact of the matter is, as I read it and there is interest on the

trust funds that will go to this new foundation, and the new foundation

will expend those moneys that they make for the betterment of the real

estate industry — education, etc., etc. The minister has the right to

designate where 50 percent of the funds go. If they weren't going to

this foundation, where would they go? That's the question I want

answered.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I want the member to understand that there is no change here from the present

[ Page

5095 ]

legislation. Under the present legislation and under these amendments, a consumer

— a client of a real estate agent — can direct the real estate agent to place

the deposit into an interest-bearing account, daily interest or otherwise, so

that the client gets the benefit of the interest on that account, Nothing has

changed. That's happened.

This is no different than the conditions of the law foundation which

is set up, where there are amounts of money that sit in the bank

accounts in trust and under the present legislation are not to earn

interest to the benefit of the agent, so that the only benefactor under

the present legislation is the bank.

Rather than have that money sit idle, earning no interest, while the bank has

free use of the money, we are saying that it be put to good works. Put it into

a real estate foundation. Have this board of governors direct it for education

and information purposes, not just for real estate agents but also for consumers

and for people who may need additional information or explanation about matters

of real estate, so it benefits the public. It is a positive move, and one that

I think should have been done a number of years ago. The only benefactor from

present trust accounts not identified by the client to earn interest has been

the banking system, not the public or anybody else.

That's the reason for this amendment, and I think the government

House Leader would probably want to support my comments in this matter.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I would very much like to do that, Mr. Chairman,

because I think there is a feeling out there that the statements made by the

hon. member for New Westminster are correct. With every respect to the hon.

member, he has misconstrued the concept.

To put it very simply, as indeed my colleague the minister did: if

you happen to put up a deposit with a real estate company, and it takes

quite a while for the transaction to mature, it's possible for you to

request that that would go into a separate account wherein you, as an

individual, would be entitled to that interest. The real estate company

is a trustee, per se, and is not entitled to any of the interest in any

event. The only people who gain the use of the money are the banking

community.

So, essentially, Mr. Minister — if I'm not misstating this — this

applies more to the general fund. But if any person in the province

wished to allocate a certain sum of money…. Say there's a deposit of

$10,000 or $1,000, and it might appear that the transaction would be

subject to a variety of matters, such as locating a mortgage or

awaiting the completion of a structure, and you might have a

three-month hiatus. Under that situation you would be able to request

the trustee to put the money into an interest-bearing account and you,

as the client, would be entitled to that interest. This deals with

moneys that are not so specified and requested to be separately

interest-bearing. Under those circumstances the trustee is not entitled

to that interest. The trustee in this case would be the real estate

company, the realtor, as it is in the case of trust accounts with

lawyers; lawyers themselves are not entitled to the interest on a

person's money. But where there is no allocation of a separate

interest-bearing account to the client, then interest is not paid to

anyone and essentially the banking community has the use of free money.

This is to prevent that. That is the correct

interpretation of the bill.

MR. COCKE: That's marvellous, Mr. Chairman. Both those two ministers

— both of them are very well versed in the marketplace — told me that I'm right

and they're wrong. Because were they to bring in

an act….

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. COCKE: You will have your opportunity.

I agree that the banks have made millions and billions on these very matters.

It strikes me that what the act should say is that the client automatically

gets access. Why would some, because they are a little more business-oriented….

[10:45]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I realize that,

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's big bread.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it is. Exactly: it's very big money. The

minister continues to interrupt, but listen to this chain of events.

Were the government to bring in

an act that would specify that everyone

dealing with real estate companies had access to the interest. whether

they opt for it or not…. What you're saying is that if people aren't

highly skilled, in terms of the business world, they get deked out of

theirs and it goes into some marvellous enterprise for this foundation.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's not nonsense, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In the public interest.

MR. COCKE: In the public interest! The people are making a

donation to this new foundation. On the other hand, if this act were to

specify that the money would go into these daily interest accounts or

whatever for the good of the person to whom the money is flowing — that

is, the capital plus the interest, under those circumstances — the

large real estate developers and so on will make sure that their money

goes into accounts that will give them access to interest. That money

will not go to the foundation. On the other hand, the little guy or

little lady — woman — who's making a transaction and doesn't have the

benefit of all knowledge in terms of real estate transactions will not

receive a nickel, because it goes to the foundation, for the whole

community.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with the whole community?

MR. COCKE: What's wrong with the whole community is the fact

that if it's good for the whole community, then why don't we entitle

people to make that kind of a contribution at their will to the Red

Feather fund, or whatever? I don't feel that this particular foundation

is going to be for the good of the whole community it's going to be

good for the real estate board and the realtors as a whole.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I differ. I feel that if you're going to bring in

a piece of legislation. bring it in and say that the clients, in every

instance, are entitled to the interest on their money that is held in

trust. It's pure and simple. Now what's wrong with that?

[ Page 5096 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member opposite has read John Wood's recent letter to the editor of the Times-Colonist .

Let me say this to the member: first of all, there's no change for

those people. Any client may direct the agent to put it into an

interest-bearing account. That happens now, and there is no change.

What the member fails to understand is that if we bring in a law that

every real estate agent must put money into an interest-bearing account

for the credit of the consumer, then consider the amount of

transactions — phenomenal numbers. In some cases the individual

interest may be less than a dollar — the money may only be in there for

a day — or it may be less than $10. Consider the cost of opening an

account at the bank. If you say, "Don't do that, just put all those

little bits in the general account to make it earn interest," then

consider the cost of having someone calculate the day's or two days'

interest at the small amount; it would be astronomical. The cost of

administration would far outstrip the benefit that the client would

get. The attempt here is to take idle money that nobody gets the

benefit of, allow it to earn interest, and turn it back into public

good: to good works, as the statement goes — for information,

education, improvement of real estate activities. Also, you'll notice

that the minister — the government — has the opportunity to direct up

to 50 percent into things in the public good. I think that would

indicate to you, Mr. Member, that the real estate industry doesn't gets

the entire benefit. I think it's a good act, a positive act, and I

think the member in retrospect would also agree.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this monumental job of calculating interest,

which is done today by computers and all the rest of the paraphernalia that

we have available, is not of the magnitude that the minister suggests. The minister

is saying that we're establishing a new foundation, and that new foundation

isn't given the kind of direction to do good works that I feel it should

have. I feel that the people who are making the transactions, particularly the

little people, are entitled.

When you're dealing in real estate today you're not dealing in 50

cents and a dollar. You're not dealing in $100 deposits anymore. On a

normal home you're dealing in a $1,000 deposit which sits there….

HON. MR. HEWITT: For three days.

MR. COCKE: Has he ever transacted a real estate deal? I've

never done one yet that was less than 30 days in terms of that deposit

sitting in trust. That's nonsense.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKE: Now hear me through, because I have done a few

myself. The three days that the minister is talking about are the days

when the whole sum goes from the vendor to the purchaser. That, I

agree, is a short time, but that may be $100,000 or $75,000 or

whatever; that is the time of some significance. The other time is the

$1,000 deposit that sits there while that interim agreement is being

brought to fruition, and that is a 30-day period — very rarely any

less. In 30 days that $1,000 isn't 25 cents, not with today's interest

rates; and probably after this afternoon they're going to be

considerably higher, unfortunately.

That's all I have to say. I disagree.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Parks

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 16

Macdonald

Skelly

Howard

Cocke

Stupich

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

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

[11:00]

MR. REID: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce today in the

House the Kensington Prame Elementary School class of 27 students,

their parents and Mr. Shields. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 41, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 35.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

[ Page

5097 ]

section 2.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we're opposed to this bill, and we're

opposed to

section 2 of the bill. What it fundamentally does is remove the Public

Service Commission and its role of hiring, recruiting, selecting and appointing

staff within the public service of this province, and that authority is taken

over by the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. The language

of the clause gives the cabinet minister the authority to issue directives

of all types, to determine many areas which have been to date subject to negotiations

and collective bargaining with the various employee organizations who work for

the government.

We oppose this move because it is a retrograde step. It's moving

back to the days when the political component was very much a part of

the recruitment process in government.

There are two things that a government really should not do. One is

that it should not buy on the basis of friendship or political

association. That's why we have purchasing commissions. That's a

long-standing feature of government. Purchasing commissions came in in

the twenties. They didn't come in because someone thought they'd be

nice; they came in as a result of a series of scandals that resulted in

the consensus that there had to be independence in buying goods and

services for the government.

Public service commissions didn't come about because someone just came

up with a clever idea and thought it would be fun or nice. They emerged as a

result of a series of scandals of hiring and appointment. Into various positions

of government that had political overtones. So the government was always off

balance, reeling from scandals surrounding appointment policy within the public

service. That was the old way that governments had of recruiting. They suffered

from it. We now have a situation where this government feels that it must take

over the appointment policy themselves.

I have a number of questions around

section 2. Let me just point out some of

my concerns. The Provincial Secretary can issue directives, and we don't

know the nature of those directives. They're not the kinds of things that

come out of policy manuals that are there in the Public Service Commission,

which are somehow independently developed and relate to hiring — you know: "Here's

a job description; here's a process around the hiring and appointment procedure."

But we are buying a pig in a poke.

The Provincial Secretary will be charged with the responsibility and authority to write directives:

"(

a) recruitment, selection and appointment of staff,

"(

b) training, development and the health and safety of

employees;

"(

c) general administration of all labour relations matters

of the public service;

of compensation and employee expenses and allowances, subject to any applicable

provisions of a collective agreement."

My first question, Mr. Chairman, is why that particular clause in

subsection (d): "…subject to any applicable provisions of a collective

agreement…" is not added to the other subsections under 2, like (

a) to

(g), which all are contained in collective agreements to one extent or

another. Only (

d) says that whatever happens will be subject to

contracts arrived at between the employer and the employees. All of the

others give the authority for the directives, almost in the sense that

it overrides provisions of collective agreements or that those are no

longer negotiable items. The various employee organizations will no

longer have any say in (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (

g) and so on; (

h) the

establishment and maintenance of a personnel management information

system — that's pretty much a management prerogative in many respects;

(

i) monitoring and auditing of personnel functions — personnel as an

extension of the management role. What I am concerned about is (

a) recruitment, selection, appointment. training development, health and

safety, job evaluation and classification, standards for employee

conduct, all matters respecting discipline, suspension and dismissal….

Those things are contained in collective agreements . But this act.

further down, contains a clause that says this act overrides provisions

of collective agreements. So my first question is: why don't you have

that clause subject to any applicable collective agreement provisions

under (

a) to (

h) inclusive?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few words. The member for Victoria

consistently suggests that the legislation we're attempting to introduce

here, which is the streamlining of existing procedures…. What we're

really attempting to do is…. We've initiated the melding of GERB with

the Public Service Commission, and that in itself is what brought on this legislation.

The member constantly suggests that this bill has been introduced just for patronage

purposes.

Nothing will be changed as far as the hiring policies of this government are

concerned. You have to take into consideration that recruiting and hiring at

this time dots not deviate from what has taken place in the past. Since 1965

the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Attorney-General's ministry

and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways — I might say that is the ministry

that has the greatest number of employees of any ministry of government — have

been hiring their own staff. All ministries of government have been directly

hiring staff for some time, but these three specific ministries have been hiring

since 1965. So I don't understand why you have this perverted point of view

about what we're attempting to do. You see something sinister in what we're

attempting to do. I don't see anything sinister in streamlining the act,

making it more appropriate to our times. There's nothing sinister in that.

You're concerned about directives that will be issued under this

section

on personnel management. Any directive issued will be issued after consultation

with the unions affected. Essentially, the status quo will prevail. The reason

for the directives…. We can't possibly allow different ministries

of government to go every which way. The directives have been issued primarily

for the purpose of establishing consistency in ministries of government vis-à-vis

the items that are contained in

section 2.

The other point that you raised…. You talked about the collective

agreement. You talked about, I believe,

section 1.03 regarding conflict

with regulations. Did you raise that one under the old act? That reads:

"In the event that there is a conflict between the contents of this

agreement and any regulation made by the employer or on behalf of the

employer, this agreement shall take precedence over the said

regulation." Well, that provision is already contained in the

collective agreement, so it's redundant to repeat it here in the act.

[ Page 5098 ]

MR. HANSON: I'd like to ask the minister why he feels that it

is more desirable to hire directly through his authority and his

designated deputies and managers at various levels in the ministries

than through an independent body that can, as the other act states,

maintain a competent and meritorious public service. Why do you feel

that you're more able to hire than a body that is separate and apart

from any political bias?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, essentially I answered this question

a little earlier. The member for Victoria said that hiring has already been

taking place through various ministries of government for twenty years. Hiring

takes place under all ministries as well, and what we're attempting to do

is to remove the bureaucratic mechanism that is in place of moving the approval

— essentially the rubber-stamping of the hiring of employees in various ministries

— up to the Public Service Commission to be approved and then back to the ministry.

Also, I think the most important part of this change is ensuring

that there is accountability in the various ministries of government on

hiring practices.

The member attempts to leave the impression that I would be the czar of the hiring practices in this government. Certainly not.

MR. HANSON: That's what this act says.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Certainly not. I have said in this

legislation that there will be directives and there will be consistency

in the hiring practices of government. The status quo essentially will

remain. So I don't know why you have these tremendous fears and

apprehensions, and suggest that I have all these tremendous powers

which are instilled in this act. I have indicated….

MS. BROWN: You just look powerful.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I look powerful? I'm just a little country

boy from Columbia River. I certainly don't want all these great powers

you suggest that I have. Therefore I will be delegating these powers by

directives to the various line managers of the government, to ensure

that there is consistency in the hiring practices in government.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a very specific question: why

is the clause that comes into 2(d), "subject to any applicable provisions

of a collective agreement," not attached to the prior subclauses and those

up to (h), which are already within collective agreements and within the collective

bargaining process? Why does only (

d) have that clause?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Because in some cases the collective agreement does not apply at all. That's the only reason it's been done.

MR. HANSON: Sorry, I didn't hear you.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Because in some cases, vis-à-vis the section,

the collective agreement does not apply at all.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, this

section deals with management. The hon.

member for Victoria is asking why more of the powers of management are not subject

to applicable provisions of collective agreements. I suggest that if the substantial

powers of management are subject to collective agreements, it's no longer

management. That's the real answer.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that the minister

will be happy with the assistance he's received from the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour, because what has happened now is that we've

got the discussion in focus.

Section 2 is in fact a management rights

clause. The Provincial Secretary was shy in telling us that, Mr.

Chairman. Thank you to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for

telling it like it is.

Not to make a long speech about it, but the history of workplace

democracy and the history of workers' rights in society revolves around

the issue of management rights. Gradually over the years workers have

begun to…

AN HON. MEMBER: Erode.

MR. GABELMANN: …erode the absolute rights that management

originally had in our society. And those erosions proceed apace.

Occasionally, as in times like now when we have recessions, the

erosions don't proceed as quickly, and sometimes they go back the other

way. But nevertheless there's a continuum in history about workers

beginning to get some of the rights that they feel properly belong to

them. The essential tension that exists between capital and labour

relates to management rights. What we have in

section 2 is a management

rights clause.

The government has taken powers as a manager that the typical

employer doesn't have. The typical private-sector employer does not

have the right to construct legislation so that he can design a statute

containing rights that are non-negotiable. Trade unions are able to

raise issues. They may not succeed in gaining those rights in their

collective agreement, and in many areas they don't, But what we have

here in

section 2 is the employer saying: "Some of these areas that you

might choose to negotiate on are non-negotiable." That's what the

clause says. "These. are management rights, and we as an employer are

going to use the power of the state, theoretically a neutral agency in

management-labour disputes, to protect our rights, so there cannot be a

discussion between labour and management about the appropriate sharing

of those particular rights…. Graciously the government has decided that

compensation levels are subject to negotiation, by

section 2(d). That

clause wasn't included in

section 2(d). I suspect we will go back to

the days when the government said: "These are the rates. If you don't

like them, go work somewhere else." That's what we have here; and I

think we need to understand that.

1 would argue that some of those sections — (

a) through (i) — are

appropriately determined as management rights. I would argue that they

are appropriately determined at the bargaining table, not by the power

of the state to intercede on behalf of the employer, as it's doing here

in this Legislature. These are items to be negotiated.

I don't pretend to know what workers in any of the three areas that are

organized under the PSLRA would choose to push to gain some rights. But I suspect

that in some of these sections, they would say: "No, those are properly

management, and you can have those rights. For others, we would like to negotiate

some say."

[ Page

5099 ]

For example, 2 (g): "all matters respecting discipline, suspension

and dismissal of employees." It seems to me that, unless I misread and

misunderstood — and that may be…. Maybe I misunderstand what the

intention is, but I don't think I misunderstand the language. The

language tells me that the government can issue directives, and

therefore policy, on statutorily protected rights that therefore are

non-negotiable. If the government issues directives about, say in 2

(g), matters respecting discipline…. They might have a clause that

says: on the second infraction an employee loses his job; it's

non-arbitrable, and no grievance procedure could come into play. What

would stop the government from doing that under this section?

Those are the kinds of concerns that I have when the employer writes

laws protecting its rights when in fact those matters should be open

for discussion between the employer and the employee.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just have a couple of remarks, Mr. Chairman, regarding

the question of discipline. The collective agreements we have do not state what

is appropriate discipline. Needless to say, there are grievance procedures in

place which address any discipline which might be imposed.

On the question of what is contained in the collective agreement,

that is pretty clearly spelled out in the contents of the Public

Service Labour Relations Act,

section 13. That spells out very clearly

what the contents of a collective agreement will be. Of course that's

not this legislation. Nevertheless, it's clearly spelled out. I don't

want to read all the sections that are contained in that

section 13 of

the PSLRA.

MR. GABELMANN:

Section 13 of the PSLRA says, among a lot of other things,

that subject to

section 20 of the Public Service Act…. Incidentally, that

provision remains in the PSLRA, if I read this bill properly. I don't quite

know how we can have a

section in the PSLRA referring to a

section of

an act

that doesn't exist any longer, but unless I've misread it, that seems

to be the case. That's not the argument.

The argument relates to what in fact will be the powers of the

minister by use of these directives. What are these directives? A

directive under this section, as I understand it, cannot be: "Your pay

will be so many dollars," because that is affected by the collective

bargaining. But a directive could be: "This will be the disciplinary

procedure," despite the fact that there's a clause in the collective

agreement which outlines a grievance procedure which deals with

discipline. The collective agreement may establish the step process and

final resolution by arbitration. But if a directive says that the

discipline will be dealt with in a different way, what prevails? Under

the Public Service Act currently in force there's a provision that says

the collective agreement shall prevail. That doesn't exist in this act.

I guess what I'm trying to determine is, how important are these

powers in relation to the collective agreement? What prevails? Under

this

section of the bill, can the minister make null and void certain

sections of the collective agreement?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Section 2 of the bill does not override nor expand

section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. In the issuance of directives,

there will be consultation with the parties affected, and the directives will

not be in conflict with the provisions contained in the collective agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: May I ask the minister if the consultation

that he envisages will be similar to the consultation concerning this

legislation, where less than 24 hours before its introduction packages

were delivered to the respective unions saying: "Here's what's coming

down"? Is that the kind of consultation we can expect?

HON. MR. CHABOT: As a courtesy we gave notice to the union that legislation

would be coming forward. There's been an announcement in place for about

one year that there would be an amended Public Service Act. I believe it was

contained in last year's throne speech. It might even have been mentioned in

the budget speech; I'm not particularly conversant with that but I think

there was mention there that there would be a new Public Service Act. So we

gave prior notice to the union that there would be an amendment to the Public

Service Act. The legislation was introduced on the Thursday. It wasn't brought

forward to this House, I think, until Monday. There has been consolation between

officials of my ministry, the BCGEU and other affected unions and parties to

this legislation. So there has been input, questions put and explanations given

regarding this legislation.

MR. GABELMANN ; I'm not going to pursue the consultation question.

We differ as to how consultation should take place. It seems to me….

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a message bill. You have to be careful with a message bill.

MR. GABELMANN: When I was a back-bencher over there, I heard

about message bills too, and I found the whole process a bit silly,

quite frankly. That none of us can know about these things because

they're message bills — that's not the way to make law. You make law by

making sure that the people affected by the law are fully involved in

the process. If there are differences of opinion about a certain

principle, then obviously the Crown, the cabinet, prevails; no question

about that. But there should be some process of discussion and debate.

It may well make this kind of debate much shorter, because we may learn

in that process that things don't mean what we fear they might mean.

I'm still not at all reassured about the power of these directives.

If the directives in every

section but clause (

d) are not going to

affect collective agreements, why is clause (

d) saying it's subject to

a collective agreement? The implication of that is that clause (

d) is

subject, but no other sections are subject to a collective agreement.

[11:30]

Job evaluation. Is job evaluation now to be done by Provincial

Secretary directive, or is that something — like what happens

throughout industry — that will be done jointly? Now the minister may

say, "Sure it will be done jointly," but the way the law is written he

may issue a directive saying it will be done by the employer, unless I

misunderstand what "directive" means, but I don't think I do, because

of clause (d).

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, of course that's the clause that

the union would be most interested in, because it has to do with compensation.

But really, I think you have to

[ Page 5100 ]

take into consideration that

section 2 really will not override the provisions

of the collective agreement. I think it's important to keep in mind that

the collective agreement will prevail. There's never been any intention

in this legislation or any other legislation to tamper with provisions of the

collective agreement.

A directive is not a regulation. Essentially it has the same force

as a regulation, but any directive that is put in place will be done in

consultation with the employees' representatives. So I think we have to

take that into consideration — the fact that there will be consultation

with the parties before a directive is issued.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, just pursuing that line of investigation initiated

by the member for North Island, traditionally there have been a few things in

government service that have not been subject to negotiations. One is the establishment;

in other words, the number of people working for the government. The establishment

refers to the various structures of government, the number of individuals, the

regular positions and so on. That is not negotiable.

The merit principle, the application of merit, is not negotiable.

Traditionally the criteria upon which merit is applied is negotiable.

In other words, there is discussion and negotiation on education, work

experience, qualifications and so on.

What we see in

section 2 is that the government is removing from negotiation

— from the right to negotiate — a series of dimensions of work life. That's

what it is, isn't it? In other words, it's not overriding the collective

agreements that are in place at the moment, but when those contracts with 50,000

public sector workers, whether they work in institutions like Riverview, Woodlands,

Glendale or so on, or in the line ministries, or in the Crown corporations —

because there are a lot of consequential amendments at the back which refer

to many other areas such as the ombudsman, the Petroleum Corporation and all

of those agencies of government…. What the government is saying is that

no longer will the bargaining agents or the employees have any say in the following

things: no say whatsoever when the contract expires, because we know that they're

also going to be bringing in changes to the Public Service Labour Relations

Act.

So you have to see them both together. What they're going to be

saying, effective at the termination of the collective agreement, is

that the union will have no say at all in the negotiation of the

criteria for determining merit. They'll consult: that can mean a phone

call, that can mean a letter, that can mean talking on television to

them. That's the way consultation is and has been. There wasn't any

great lead consultation up to this bill. I don't think that the

employee organizations had more than 24 hours' notice that it was

coming into this House. That's consultation. So I think we should bear

that in mind. When the minister mentions consultation, that's what that

means.

Now when the contracts expire, whenever it is — September 30 or October 31,

I can't recall which — only (

d) will be negotiable. Matters respecting health

and safety will be determined by a directive from the minister. Matters referring

to discipline, suspension and dismissal will be directed by the minister, so

this new body that will negotiate on behalf of the government will sit there

on the table with a stack of directives, and every time the nurses, the professionals

or the BCGEU say, "We have a concern around health and safety, and we want

to discuss this matter," the bargaining group will hold up the directive

saying it is already covered by this directive and it is not negotiable — right

or wrong?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member reads into

the legislation a lot of things that aren't contained within it. I

indicated a little earlier…. I know that the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann) doesn't like this business of saying it's a message

bill, but we gave you notice. Whether we would have given notice a week

before or a day before didn't really matter. Because of the fact that

it was a message bill, we didn't have the opportunity to have the thing

vetted prior to its introduction.

But I know that my officials and my ministry have had consultation, since the

introduction of the bill, with various parties. I know for a fact that the length

and the amount of consultation they have might have been less than what the

member from Victoria had with the BCGEU, but he has a particular pecuniary interest

there, I guess.

I remember when a former Provincial Secretary — in 1974, I believe it was —

signed a collective agreement in his office with Mr. Fryer of the BCGEU. Essentially,

the approach taken by the government and the minister of the day was, "Your

wish is my command," and virtually everything that the union requested

was written into the collective agreement in 1974. We think that those issues

should be bargained, that it shouldn't be a love-in between the employer

and the employee, a complete abdication of responsibility on the part of the

employer. And that's exactly what took place in 1974. It was a love-in!

Your wish is my command! That's what the former Provincial Secretary said

in 1974.

I think you have to take into consideration that this legislation goes beyond

the realm of the BCGEU. It applies to other people working for the provincial

government: excludeds, and other union members as well. It also applies, if

you read the legislation, to people who aren't even working for the provincial

government at this time. So it goes beyond the realm of BCGEU concerns. We have

to have some fairness, some balance in the legislation, and address all the

various parties who wish to work for the provincial government.

1 think that the member suggests that…. He just does not listen. He

has a point of view to express. I don't know where he acquired that

point of view, or who embedded that in his mind. Nevertheless, he's

unwilling to accept the words that I utter in this House. He just

closes his mind completely. But he does open his mind sometimes, and

listens to some people sometimes. But for some unknown reason he just

will not accept at face value the statements that I make in this House.

They're on record. They're statements that I have to live with. You

must have a little bit more respect for statements that are uttered in

this House by a minister of the Crown.

1 said that this particular

section does not override or expand

section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. I think it's

necessary to put on the record what the contents of the collective

agreement can entail.

Section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations

Act says:

"Every collective agreement shall include all matters affecting

wages or salary, hours of work and other working conditions, except (

a) the

principle of merit and its application in the appointment and pro motion of

employees, subject to

section 20 of the Public Service Act; (

b) all matters

included under the Pension (Public Service) Act; (

c) the organization,

[ Page

5101 ]

establishment and administration of the ministries and branches

of the government, except the effect of reductions in establishment of employees,

which shall be negotiated by the parties; (

d) the application of the system

of classification of positions or job evaluation under the Public Service Act

and regulations, and (

e) the procedures and methods of training or retraining

all employees not affected by

section 18, other than training programs administered

with a branch or ministry that apply to one occupational group only."

So those are the contents and those are the issues that can be addressed within the realm of the collective agreement.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act also says, talking about

other acts under

section 26: "Unless otherwise provided in this act,

the Labour Code applies, but, where this act is contrary to, in

conflict with or inconsistent with that or any other act, this act

prevails." So if there are any inconsistencies in the Public Service

Act — and I doubt there are any — the Public Service Labour Relations

Act shall apply. They're fully protected. Get on the phone and tell

them.

[11:45]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, that minister dances very well, but

he wants to dance around the fundamental issue of the thing. We know

that the Public Service Labour Relations Act is going to be amended.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has

already said that it's going to be amended. The minister stated that

some time ago.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's news to me.

MR. HANSON: Okay. But let's look at this scenario.

Section 13

of the PSLRA, let's say, is amended to say that

section 2 of the Public

Service Act applies. Let's just say, for example, that

section 13 and

section 26 of the PSLRA are amended in the next session to delete those

matters and make

section 2 of the Public Service Act apply.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's wild speculation.

MR. HANSON: I want to ask, and I want you to state before the

members of this House, whether in your view these

section 2 matters

that do not have, as does subsection (d), the clause "subject to any

applicable provisions of a collective agreement" are negotiable items

for present and subsequent negotiations.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not all of them, Mr. Chairman, because some of them

are not negotiable under the provisions of PSLRA. But we're certainly prepared

to consult and negotiate on those that are not negotiable under the provisions

of PSLRA,

section 13. We're prepared to consult before any changes are made

— full consultation before the provisions of a directive are put in place.

MR. HANSON: What the minister is essentially saying is that only (

d) will be subject to negotiation; that health and safety matters, training and

other aspects of work life which formerly were the subject of negotiation contained

in clauses of the collective agreements, and where provisions of the Public

Service Labour Relations Act don't preclude them from bargaining….

What this minister has done is to outline the categories where he's going

to issue directives. He's identified (

d) as the only area where collective bargaining will apply.

He will subsequently amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act to make all

matters affecting bargaining conditional upon clause 2; then he will have assumed

all authority other than negotiations for wages and hours, and that will be

about it. Health and safety matters, training, job evaluation and any other

matters respecting discipline and grievances and so on will be removed from

collective bargaining.

Are you prepared to state that that is unequivocally not the case?

MR. DAVIS: The hon. member for Victoria is saying that only in respect

to subclause (

d) are the management powers of the government — the Provincial

Secretary in his role as head of the personnel department of government — subject

to any applicable provisions of a collective agreement. If I glance through

the bill I see that there is a directive to consult with the representatives

of employees in the matter of the determination of merit; and subsequently in

clause 15 — if I can mention it — dismissal and suspension of employees is spelled

out as subject to existing collective agreements.

MR. HANSON: Existing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Victoria has a

wild imagination. When he first sees something that is beyond what's

written in the act, he sees some ulterior motive. He sees shenanigans

taking place. It's all very clearly spelled out here,

MR. HANSON: I've been your critic far too long. Belle Ede told me all about you.

HON. MR. CHABOT: One of my good constituents— and I

have lots of good constituents. They're all good people, whether they

vote for me or not.

What the member fails to understand is that what is subject to negotiation

today will be negotiable tomorrow. There has been no change in that respect.

Items that are subject to negotiation will continue to be subject to negotiation.

I don't know if I have to repeat it one more time. There is no change in that

respect. Items that are not presently subject to negotiation will be addressed

by directive. Under those circumstances we've broadened our sense of responsibility

of communications with the affected parties and we will consult with them. What

more can you expect?

MR. GABELMANN: Quite a bit, Mr. Chairman.

May I ask the minister if

section 13 of the Public Service Labour

Relations Act fairly portrays current and expected future government

policy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty responding

to what future government policy will be; future government policy will

be revealed in the fullness of time.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I should have split the question. Does

section 13 of the PSLRA at this time reflect not only government policy but

the minister's opinion of what government policies should be?

[ Page 5102 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we're into the Public Service

Regulations Act now in

section 13. We're really not debating that, but

essentially….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's relevant.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I guess it's relevant to this legislation. Absolutely, it reflects current government policy. That's what it does.

MR. HANSON: I want to ask a question about these directives.

Does he have any directives that he could table in the House, so we

could get an idea of what they might look like?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. But those directives will be made

available to the public. They will not be in secret rooms, back rooms, or any

other kinds of rooms. They will be public documents, and they will see the light

of day.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, let's just say for argument that

one of the directives that the minister developed with his assistants

was a totally haywire directive. Does he see his directives going to

the commission to be examined? In other words, is a directive going to

be appealable to the Public Service Commission? When you say that the

function of the new commission will be appeals, will one of his

directives be appealable if it is haywire?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, it will not go to the…. It's not their responsibility

to attempt to change what is essentially government policy. The contents of

the directive will be made available to the trade unions before it has been

implemented. They will have the opportunity of expressing their point of view.

Directives — that's what is nice about directives — are more easily changed

their regulations, even though they have the same force as the regulation. If

they are deemed to be imperfect, and they don't respond to the needs of

the day, then they can be amended. And they would only be amended after consultation

took place.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the minister are the

basis for our concern that those directives can be so fluid, so

political. They can demarcate posting areas….

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: They can; it's stated in the bill, They can determine

that only individuals living in a certain part of the province can apply for

a position. It's subject to political abuse, because whether you believe

yourself to be a politician or not, you're a politician. You're not

an administrator; you're a politician.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright ©

1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, BC, Canada