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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5103 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Delta School District deficit. Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 5103

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Lea

Oral Questions

B.C. forestry. Mr. Williams –– 5105

Weldwood Mill closure. Mr. Cocke –– 5106

Mainland Sawmills. Mr. Howard –– 5106

Okanagan Lakes milfoil removal. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5107

Public Service Act (Bill 35). Committee stage.

section 5 –– 5107

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Gabelmann

section 6 –– 5111

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Hanson

section 7 –– 5111

Mr. Hanson

section 9 –– 5112

Mr. Gabelmann

section 47 –– 5112

Mr. Hanson

section 48 –– 5113

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading –– 5113

Division

Royal assent to bills –– 5114

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1985

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to ask the House to welcome my son Robert,

who is visiting the Legislature today with his friend Duschin.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Leslie,

Mr. and Mrs. Frank Downey and Rod Downey, all from Edmonton, Alberta. They are

spending their Canadian tourist dollars where they're still worth 100 cents,

and visiting the B.C. Legislature to see whether there really is a new spirit

of cooperation in B.C.

MR. PELTON: In the members' gallery this afternoon there are two

very special friends of mine from Maple Ridge, Ron and Isabel Stevenson. I would

ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: In the members' gallery this afternoon is a very

good friend of mine, the former mayor of the city of Cranbrook and

current chairman of the board of East Kootenay Community College, Ty

Colgur. I'd like the House to give him a warm welcome.

MR. VEITCH: I'd like to join with the member for Dewdney in welcoming Major Stevenson to the House.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

DELTA SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFICIT

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This refers to the matter of Delta School

District, School District 37. Some several months ago a letter was sent

to my office requesting that a deficit be permitted to occur for the

fiscal year 1984 –– I would make reference to

section 240(7) of the

School Act, which reads as follows: "No deficit of any kind shall be

incurred by a board without the approval of the minister."

I responded to that request with a letter dated June 29, 1984, which

I will file with the House. The concluding paragraph is as follows: "I

note your comment about a potential operating deficit and must remind

your board that they are not permitted to incur a deficit without prior

approval of the Ministry of Education." That letter was addressed to

Mrs. Caroline S. Porter, Chairman, Board of School Trustees, School

District No. 37, Delta, and a copy was forwarded to Mr. G.W. Moulds,

who was then and is now the superintendent of the school district.

At the beginning of this week I met in my office with the new

chairman of the school district and one additional trustee, the

superintendent of the school district, Mr. Moulds, and the MLA for

Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson). There were two officials from my ministry

and myself. The matter of the deficit was obviously of some moment. I

must advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that deficits, if ever permitted,

are only done so under the most pressing circumstances. If deficits are

allowed they provide an avenue for any school district within the

province to incur such a deficit, knowing full well that if they do it

is the responsibility of the ministry to ensure that that debt be paid;

and the only manner in which that debt can be paid is by providing an

additional imposition on the taxpayers in the district will file today

with the House a letter dated February 18, 1985, addressed to Mr. Miles

Adam, who is Secretary-Treasurer of School District No. 37 in Delta. It

is captioned: "1984 Budget Deficit." I repeat, this involves 1984. It

has nothing to do with the short fiscal year for 1985 — January to June

— nor does it have any potential problem with respect to 1985-86. We

are again referring to 1984 — I might also repeat that at this moment I

know of no other school district that will be filing a statement

wherein an unauthorized deficit has occurred. The letter reads as

follows:s

"This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February

7, 1985, requesting approval for a deficit of $635.321 for the 1984 fiscal year

in accordance with

section 240(7) of the School Act."

That was the

section to which I earlier referred.

"Had your board applied earlier for this deficit

during 1984 citing the reasons provided to Mr. K. Starling, director of

Schools Operations, the deficit would not have been approved."

That was also communicated by phone on a number of occasions, to my knowledge.

"It would appear that the board was given sufficient

prior notice of the potential deficit to have taken corrective action

to minimize or to eliminate it. Therefore, I am not prepared to approve

your request after the fact."

Again, I make reference to my letter of June 29, 1984.

"Because the board has knowingly incurred an

unapproved deficit in 1984, contrary to the provisions of the School

Act, I have no alternative but to direct as follows:

"1. The cost of the unapproved 1984 deficit will be recovered

through residential school taxes in your district in 1985.

"2. When the board was advised of the financial shortfall

early in 1984, apparently it chose not to adjust expenditures so that the deficit

would be avoided. Because the board chose to continue spending at levels not

supported by its budget, and as a result has increased school taxation through

unapproved means, the board will be directed to reduce its 1985-86 fiscal target

by a corresponding amount. This means your 1985-86 fiscal target will be $49,905,783."

The authority for so making that direction is found in the Education (Interim)

Finance Act,

section 12.

"3. The reduction in the budget will be shared equally by

the provincial and local taxpayers."

[2:15]

On page 2:

"The overall impact at the local level may" — and I

underline the word 'may' — "therefore be:

"1. Residential school taxes may have to increase approximately

$952,981. This represents a 1985 tax increase, resulting from the board's

unapproved action, of about $37 on an average home in Delta. The board and its

officials may have to develop a 1985-86 budget on the lower basis and implement

it July 1, 1985."

[ Page 5104 ]

The following points I wish to emphasize, because I believe it is

our duty to assist in every way we can with the board, although making

an error intentionally, to see whether or not we can maintain the

educational services in the community.

"It may be possible for the board to avoid or minimize either or both of these impacts. The options available appear to include:

"1. Allowing the local share of the $109 645 surplus in

the 1984 debt servicing budget to reduce the 1985 residential tax requirement

for this purpose.

"2. Allowing the 1984 surplus of $58,000 in the non-shareable

capital account to offset any 1985 or 1985-86 requirement and thereby reduce

the 1985 residential tax.

"3. Eliminating the 1985 residential tax levy of $164,274

or the 1985-86 residential tax levy of $273,790 for non-shareable capital purposes."

That is a levy, by way of explanation, which is available to all school districts and occurs now.

"4. Leasing any unused school properties and using the proceeds to increase the allowable budget target of $49,905,783.

"5. Selling any unused school properties and transferring

the local share to the non-shareable capital account."

Over the past year and a half, school districts have been encouraged

to dispose of surplus inventory. School districts have done just that,

There are a number of inventories which are not required and are in

locations within school districts which will never be used for school

purposes. Statements to that effect are made, obviously, by trustees of

school boards. In addition, in the case of Delta, properties which will

never be used, so I am advised by the board, were purchased many years

ago — one, in particular, I am so advised, was purchased many, many

years ago. The shareable portion or the allocation of the proceeds of

any disposition will favour the Delta School District substantially,

whereas the normal share right now can vary anywhere from 60 percent to

90 percent provincial and 40 percent to 10 percent local. In the case

of Delta, they would receive by far, I am told, on that particular

piece of property, the largest portion and would enlarge their

non-shareable capital account considerably. The letter continues:

"6. Charging all items of a capital nature to the non-shareable

capital account."

That's an important point which the school districts do understand.

"7. Utilizing the referendum process to increase allowable

expenditures."

I wish to repeat something and dissuade those views which may have

been expressed earlier. This imposition is not a fine levied by the

government. I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, this is not a fine

levied by the government, but a penalty incurred as a result of the

administration of the school district by the school board.

"My goal is to ensure that the board is not forced to make

alterations in its educational program during the 1984-85 school year. The required

adjustments are limited to the 1985 taxes and the 1985-86 school year. The board

and its officials should have sufficient lead time to ensure that the deficit

is properly repaid with minimum disruption to the services provided to its students."

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, our education team is away, and I ask

to reply to the minister on their behalf and on behalf of the NDP. It

was a bit difficult to follow a lot of the options that the minister

outlined, but I thank him for bringing that information to the House

where it belongs and outlining the exchange of correspondence.

Having thanked the minister, however, it is our response to take the House

back briefly to when this penalty amendment was made by the then Social Credit

cabinet minister. It became known as the McGeer amendment or the McGeer penalty.

It was our view that even though we opposed that section, we didn't think

anybody would use it. We didn't think any Minister of Education would have

the nerve to use that section.

The people of Delta have been fined for doing their duty in refusing to knuckle

under to dictatorship in this province. The government wants to punish the parents

of Delta, who merely want to educate their kids in an adequate way to meet modern

problems — to give them a modern education. This is after the government has

confiscated the commercial and the industrial tax base of Delta and every other

school district in this province. I've never seen such high-handed measures.

We haven't seen such high-handed measures in the British parliamentary system

since King John. It is an offence against the sensibilities of democratic people

in this province.

He wants them to sell their land. He wants them to use their

non-shareable capital funds. This is a good time to sell land, I take

it. Generations of accumulating this kind of nonshareable capital,

these kinds of lands and other savings of a school district because of

the way in which they have efficiently run the school district of

Delta.... The Social Credit Ministers of Education have praised the

school district of Delta over the years for their efficiency, their

responsiveness and their responsibility. This is the thanks that this

government gives to people who took restraint seriously. That's the

kind of thanks we can expect people in all school districts to get from

this government. But the minister, Mr. Speaker, wants to make it very

clear to the people of your constituency, sir, that this is not a fine;

it's merely a penalty.

May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1972 the entire budget

of the province of British Columbia was $1.7 billion. Under a period of

restraint, which has fed the deficits of this government because it has

deliberately reduced revenues, we have an accumulated deficit of $3.5

billion.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Nobody but you is laughing in this province.

Thirty years of balanced budgets in the province of British

Columbia, and along comes the financial wizard. He introduces

restraint, which feeds an accumulated deficit of $3.5 billion.

Thousands of dollars per capita have been paid in interest charges and

debt servicing because of the "grand scheme" of this government. And

what are the thanks to a school district or board that has toed the

line, that has refused to sacrifice its kids on the altar of restraint?

What are their thanks? Not a fine, but a penalty — increased taxation.

Well, I say that it is sheer hypocrisy for this government to use

that

section and to take umbrage at the school district of Delta. I am

as proud as you are, Mr. Speaker, of that school district and of that

constituency. They are good people, they

[ Page

5105 ]

are decent people, and they are about, unfortunately, to throw you out, together with that government.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to file these two documents. I should have asked earlier.

Leave granted.

MR. LEA: I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, having anticipated this particular moment,

the Chair must ask if leave is so granted under these circumstances. I would

therefore put the question: shall the member for Prince Rupert have leave to

respond to the ministerial statement?

Leave granted.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, this, of course, is not a simple

matter. Whether you agreed or disagreed with the law when it was passed

is not the question. The question is: do citizens in a democracy have

the right not to follow the law? They do. lt's called civil

disobedience. But when you willingly break the law, there is another

part to civil disobedience. Civil disobedience means that.... When you

break the law willingly and knowingly, the next part of civil

disobedience is that you take the consequence of the law.

When you take the consequence of the law, you use that as an

educational tool to teach the people about the unjustness of the law

that you have broken. That is what democracy is all about. You cannot

break the law without paying the consequence of the law, but you use

that opportunity for civil disobedience in a democratic system as an

educational tool, like Thoreau did when he refused to pay his taxes to

support a war that he disagreed with.

Mr. Speaker, when this law that is now going to be visited upon the school

district of Delta was discussed in this Legislature, I, along with the members

of the New Democratic Party — of which I was at that time a member — voted against

it, because it's an unworkable, unjust way of addressing the problem. There

is no doubt about that, because the final losers are going to be the children

of Delta. If they lose in education, part of their future is lost, and if part

of their future is lost, part of our future is lost.

Mr. Speaker, the job now of the Delta School District trustees to make their

case is to go out to their people, their constituents, and show them why they

practised civil disobedience — show them the injustice of the law and the injustice

of the financial formula visited upon them by this government. But under no

circumstances can we countenance in this a breaking of the law, whether or not

we agree with that law. That we cannot do. We are the legislators and the lawmakers.

Therefore we have to stand for the upholding of the law, but we also have to

understand that civil disobedience within a democratic system is also a part

of us and our system, and we have to respect that.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the annual return of the Estate

Administration Act listing the appropriate information up to and

including December 31, 1984.

[2:30]

Oral Questions

B.C. FORESTRY

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests. Recently the

minister said that Professor Les Reed, who is the new chair of forest

policy at the University of British Columbia, was not qualified to

discuss some forestry matters in view of his training as an economist.

I wonder if the former mints inspector would comment on the

qualifications of Professor Walters, who is the head of the UBC

research forest at this time.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Professor Walters, head of the UBC research

forest, has said recently that the forest industry in British Columbia

is dying, despite the fact that we know the cure. The issue is the

liquidation of the forests. Professor Walters said that we only weed 2

percent of our forest plantations and follow logging, and that that's

not a productive process in terms of forest management. When will the

minister table the state of the forest report, which he has had in his

hands for some time? When can we anticipate a forest silvicultural

program along the lines that both Professor Reid and Professor Walters

insist on if the economy of British Columbia is to be sustained and

improved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if Professor Walters indeed

said that the forest industry in British Columbia is dying, then I

would question his expertise and his ability to say that with any

degree of professional competence, because the forest industry in

British Columbia is not dying.

Insofar as the comments made by me about what Les Reed had said, I said that

Les Reed is not professionally competent to determine what silvicultural prescriptions

should be, I went on to say in that same statement that those matters are judgment

of professional foresters and not economists.

The answer to his last question is: in due course.

MR. WILLIAMS: Professor Walters indeed made those statements, Mr. Speaker,

in addressing the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters in the past year.

I wonder if the minister might reconsider his comments about Professor Walters'

qualifications, as well as Professor Reed's.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No. Mr. Speaker. Professor Walters is a

professional forester. I don't think he is in a very good position to

judge whether or not the forest industry of British Columbia is dying.

If in fact he said that, then he is incorrect. I'm sure that those

people who are more expert in matters of forest economics, both

provincially and internationally, would also disagree with Professor

Walters.

MR. WILLIAMS: Professor Walters has said that on our good

sites we can grow three to eight times the wood we presently grow in

British Columbia, and that that is the way we can prevent the death of

the industry — by harnessing those good forest lands.

Will the minister assure us that we will in fact be embarking on

expenditures on the scale that most of the professors say is needed,

rather than what we've heard today'?

[ Page 5106 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the new member for Vancouver

East just made a rather irrational statement. I didn't hear any

question involved. He said that Professor Walters has claimed that be

can grow three to eight times the volume of wood on the high to medium

sites of forest land in British Columbia. However, the member never

questioned at what cost that wood could be grown. Indeed, if we had an

unlimited amount of money to throw at the good lands of British

Columbia, we could grow considerably more trees on them. However, that

would restrict our expenditures in forest management to some very

limited areas of forest land in British Columbia, perhaps to the

advantage of some of the people who live in those areas where that very

high-site forest land exists.

British Columbia consists of a very large area of land, 365,000

square miles roughly, in which we have many areas of forest land of

varying degrees of productivity. It's the object of this government to

make sure that forests are productive over the entire province, and

we'll not put all of our forest management funds into very limited

areas, even though it may grow more wood. The cost of growing the wood

there, in that way, would be prohibitive and would have, in total

effect, a very negative impact on the entire economy of British

Columbia, and certainly on the economy of many areas of British

Columbia.

WELDWOOD MILL CLOSURE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, speaking of the economy of British Columbia,

I too direct a question to the Minister of Forests. Weldwood of Canada's

Timberland division in New Westminster has been forced to close because of a

lack of timber supply. That closure takes effect on June 1. Has the minister

decided how to investigate a possible source of supply for that mill in order

to prevent this closure?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member for New Westminster is incorrect when

he states that the Timberland division of that company closed because of a lack

of timber supply. The company closed that plant, first, because of a lack of

market for its products and, second, because they could produce that type of

product much more efficiently and cost-effectively at their mill in Squamish.

It had nothing to do with a lack of timber supply for that plant.

MR. COCKE: That's interesting, Mr. Speaker. I was in that

mill three weeks ago, when they closed down on an interim basis because

they didn't have a single log in the place. I was in their lunchroom

when the men got their layoffs. On that same day there was a huge ship

loaded with raw logs leaving Vancouver harbour. Will the minister

review this matter, and come to the House and suggest — other than

market, other than efficiency — that it is anything other than supply?

Everybody there believes it's supply.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: One of the local union representatives asked if

I and people from my ministry could meet with them and the company to discuss

the reasons for the shutting of that mill. I had a very extensive discussion

with the management of the company after receiving that letter. I asked him

if he would be willing to have such a meeting. He said that, by all means, there

was no problem at all in laying out — once again, in addition to the several

times they had already met with the employees — to advise them again of the

reasons for the shutting down of that mill. Once such a meeting can be arranged,

I will be doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I will say once again that the closure of the mill had

nothing to do with log supply. It had to do with economics and

marketing the products that they could produce.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again.

MR. COCKE: "Wrong again," the other side says.

Mr. Speaker, our area on the waterfront in New Westminster is thrice cursed

or more. We've just lost Lamford Cedar; I don't believe there's

been enough intercession. Now I see another 200, so that's about 400 people.

Will the minister take an interest in the lumber mills in this province? The

first minister talked about that, and I think it's about time the Minister

of Forests thought about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member. It is clearly

very argumentative.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I will wait until question period terminates.

MAINLAND SAWMILLS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Forests

a question with respect to Mainland Sawmills in Vancouver, which, it is argued,

closed down for seven days because that sawmill is unable to acquire or secure

a reliable log supply. What's the minister going to do about that and other

independent sawmills in the Vancouver area that likewise have closed down because

they can't get their hands on logs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not familiar with the

alleged log supply problems of Mainland Sawmills. However, there is a

very active log market in Vancouver through which many logs flow and

through which logs are vetted which from time to time are requested for

export approval. I'm sure the member is aware that there is a log

export advisory committee which vets the requests for log exports as

they are made, and it is required, before such exports are approved,

that the logs be offered for sale in the log market. Whenever there is

a legitimate and a reasonable offer for logs, they are not approved for

export. What happens from time to time is that people will bid for logs

at prices which may be substantially less than the actual cost of

production of those logs. When such a bid is received, we of course

cannot insist that people who have logs which they have paid for

through the harvesting process, through the cost of harvesting, be sold

at something less than the cost of harvesting. Whenever such offers are

made which are something less than the cost of harvesting, we do not

insist that they be sold at subsidized rates. Those logs, from time to

time, are approved, even though there may be an illegitimate offer to

purchase them.

I'm not saying that this is the problem with Mainland Sawmills, but this

problem has come to me a number of times, and after investigation, that has

proven to be the case. However, I would be happy if the member would like to

provide me with some details of the log supply problem,

[ Page

5107 ]

because Mainland Sawmills has never requested that

I intervene on their behalf. If the member would like to provide me

with some details, I would be very happy to look into the specifics of

that particular case.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, that's the name of the sawmill: Mainland

Sawmills. What more do you need to know'? It shut down for seven days because

they can't get their hands on a reliable, secure source of logs. It's uncomplicated.

I wonder if I could ask the minister whether his reluctance to deal

with matters of this nature — whether his disinterest in matters of

forestry and his inability to pursue with the federal government the

signing of a document relating to silvicultural questions and money

that the federal government has got in its hands waiting to give to us

— whether his inability and lack of desire to deal with those problems

is occasioned by the fact that the first minister whispered in the

Minister of Forest's ear that he's slated for another post in a cabinet

shuffle, and therefore he's lost interest in forestry.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the member for — wherever he's from — are not worthy of response.

OKANAGAN LAKES MILFOIL REMOVAL

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, with respect

to the milfoil harvesting program in the Okanagan Lakes basin. Because the Okanagan

is an area highly dependent upon its tourism industry, and because your ministry,

of course, wishes to maximize the economic spinoff to the area generated by

Expo 86, on behalf of the Okanagan tourism industry and, I might add, in the

spirit of cooperation, would the minister consider joining me in petitioning

the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) to release more funds to remove

this nuisance weed that discourages tourism and limits the use of our lakes?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the

member that I have had a great deal of correspondence with people in

the area regarding the problem he refers, to. I have consulted many

times with the Minister of Environment on the subject, and I don't need

to enjoin him or anyone else to speak to my colleague on that subject.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In clarification, I'm still not sure whether

the minister has said yes or no on that, but perhaps I can clarify on a

supplementary.

The funding levels for milfoil control have dropped from $140,000 in 1981

to $130,000 last year. The Okanagan Basin Water Board has requested funding

of $180,000 for an accelerated program of renewal, in anticipation of the tourism

spinoff in Expo 86. Would the minister, in fact, support an appeal to the Minister

of the Environment for the allocation of the $180,000 in funding?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Clearly the member is addressing his

question to the wrong minister. If he would like — if there was a

question in there — I could take it as notice, and forward it to my

colleague.

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is possibly that time again when the Chair,

regretfully, has to advise members about the rules of question period. Question

period is neither a time for debate nor a time for personal reproaching of other

members, nor is asking open-ended questions and not expecting open-ended answers

to be anything other than a standard practice. I would suggest that all members

possibly familiarize themselves with the new rules regarding question period,

which hopefully will be coming into play very shortly. I would commend that

to members.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 35.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

(continued)

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

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the changes proposed by the government in

section 5 are very fundamental to the way appointments art made into the public

service. As we pointed out in

section 2, the Provincial Secretary will have

the authority to assume the functions previously performed by an independent

agency of government, the Public Service Commission. So the hiring now will

be through the Provincial Secretary.

Now it states in this bill that appointments will be made on the basis of merit.

But the old act stated very clearly that the procedures to be followed in considering

the matters surrounding merit "... shall be subject to joint agreement

by a consultative committee composed of members, equal in number, representative

of the bargaining agent certified under the Public Service Labour Relations

Act for a particular bargaining unit...and the bargaining agent for the

government referred to in

section 3 of that Act."

Now what that language says is that the criteria for determining

merit.... It's a very important point for the public of the province to

understand that when they apply for a job with the provincial

government, whether it's in a hospital, an institution of some type, a

correctional institution, a line ministry of government and so on,

their worth in terms of that position, or the willingness of the

employer to hire them, should be based on a series of characteristics.

It was laid out in the act that merit was to be determined by

"...education, skills, knowledge, experience, years of continuous

employment in the public service and any other matters that the

commission believes are (

a) necessary or desirable, having regard to

the nature of the duties to be performed; and (

b) consistent with any

classification standard prescribed by the regulations under

Part 2." In

other words, every job requires a different weighting of merit factors.

Some don't require long seniority, because that particular skill or

training may in fact

[ Page 5108 ]

be brand-new — some technological skill that the

province requires but is not presently available within the province or

within the establishment of the public service. So seniority is not a

factor; it is the skill and the ability that is being acquired for the

public service. Others would be entirely or heavily weighted towards

seniority factors and so on — less skilled types of employment.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the notion of merit as being

mutually-agreed-upon criteria and the weighting being decided in a

consultative way with the people who do the work, with the people

experienced in the fields that are to be provided, is different than

having the government determine merit by consultation.

Now, consultation does not involve any undertaking on the part of

either side that they will reach resolution. It can be a phone call, it

can be a telegram, it can be a letter. What I am saying is that the

determination of merit in the new act is strictly a consultative

process with employee organizations involved, but not in any way

entering into a consultative process that will, by equal weighting or

equal representation, determine the process as it was attempted in the

past.

Mr. Speaker, this consultative committee, I am advised, spent many hours working

towards a resolution of a very complex problem and were very close to resolution.

But somehow the government, through this legislation, has decided to do an end-run

around that whole process. They're cutting out the people who do the job

from having some real say in what is required to perform that job. I think that's

foolish, and it's that old sort of master-slave relationship. As my colleague

the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out this morning, this bill

is essentially an extension and an expansion of management rights over the public

service. Rather than approaching it as if the people who work at all levels

and all occupational groups within the public service, whether it be lab technicians,

various kinds of specialized fields, everything from pilots to labourers to

truck drivers and so on, without taking into account their knowledge and experience

of what is required to perform a particular job satisfactorily, efficiently

and so on — without having that consultative process outlined in legislation

— the government has opted in this new bill to take a master approach, the know-it-all

approach. It might be nice to take all that power unto yourselves, but it's

backward, unproductive and not good for morale; and it really doesn't tap

the experience and knowledge that exists within the public service on the delivery

of public services in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible.

I'd like to ask the minister why he feels it is impossible or unacceptable,

from his government's point of view, to involve the various organizations,

the professionals, in a meaningful way, Surely he doesn't know himself what

the merit factors should be to hire an engineer to work in the provincial Highways

department, or a lawyer to work in the Attorney-General's ministry. Surely he

doesn't know himself what those factors, and the weighting of those factors,

should be. Why wouldn't he want to involve the representative organizations

of engineers and assessors and property adjudicators, and all those other specialized

skills and occupations? Why would he not see an ongoing process that involved

those people in the determination of merit? Why is he so afraid of it? Why is

he afraid of involving the employees in that respect?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in responding to the member, I

don't profess to have the knowledge of a classification, of the merits

of an engineer, the merits of a lawyer who might be engaged....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Some lawyers have merit, some don't. But most of them do.

We have professional people who will determine the kind of merit

required for these various positions. We have a long history of

information contained within the Public Service Commission to determine

that. The merit principle as it is applied in this legislation is

basically similar to that of the previous legislation, with the

exception that past work performance is also taken into consideration

in this legislation. I think it's a worthwhile addition to it as well.

When you look at the merit principle as it is applied here, you also

have to take into consideration

section 9, where an individual from

outside or inside government has the right of appeal if they feel that

the merit principle has not been properly applied.

On the issue of a consultative requirement — from a joint agreement, let's

say, to a consultative requirement — that has been brought about because the

joint committee has never been able to reach an agreement on any issue outstanding

vis-à-vis merit. There's been an ongoing feud. "Feud"

might be too harsh a word, but there's been an ongoing disagreement for

eight years, and they have never reached an agreement. Needless to say, the BCGEU

has been attempting to put the weighting of seniority substantially higher than

the people from the Public Service Commission feel is necessary on some positions.

As I said in the opening remarks on second reading, as a general rule we put

a 10-percent weighting for seniority.

In view of the fact that it has not worked, that it has been nothing but meetings

and no resolutions, we felt it was necessary to go to consultative agreement

rather than the joint agreement we've had in place. After eight frustrating

years, we feel we must put an end to this unnecessary problem. The nurses union

and the professional employees association joint committee have never been convened,

so in that particular field there's been no problem. But we've never

been able to reach an agreement on the merit principle with the provision that

was contained in the old Public Service Act.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, some time when the minister has

three or four hours, I'd like him to explain to us what "consultative

agreement" might mean. Think about it. Doublespeak.

[3:00]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) says it sounds a bit like Trudeau's constitutional agreements.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A little clarification, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll defer if....

[ Page

5109 ]

friends. But really, I'm saying that the

consultative process will take place. I probably shouldn't have used

the words "consultative agreement."

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, we used to have some

might have wanted to have enrolled in a few years ago when they were

available.

I have a couple of concerns with this section. The first relates to

the whole question of consultation.

Section 20 of the Public Service

Act, as the minister notes, has been in place for 20 years, and it's

not surprising that there would be major differences. I thought I saw a

shaking of the head about that statement; maybe I misinterpreted that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: About eight years.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sorry, I said the wrong....

Section 20 of

the Public Service Act has been in place since 1976. Right? That's

eight, almost nine years.

In that act the joint agreement process is set out. Everyone would understand

that reaching an agreement on those kinds of issues is difficult — there's

no question. But it seems to me that in these kinds of matters, when resolution

is impossible through bargaining, you always have options to refer it to arbitration.

I'm sure there could be some kind of third-party process brought in to reach

an agreement, I suspect that that kind of option to reach a solution could be

available; I don't know. I haven't been a party to any of those discussions,

nor have I talked to anyone on either side of the table as to what might have

gone on. I just don't know.

HON. MR. CHABOT: She has.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't know about that either, but I know I

haven't. But I do know that, in these kinds of questions, quite often a

mutually acceptable procedure to solve a dispute is to refer it to a

third party, perhaps for some kind of binding resolution. The choice

the government has made in this case is to say: "We can't agree;

therefore we're going to take all the power."

Every worker and, I think, every enlightened manager in our society knows that

the people who know the most about the workplace are the people who work in

it. Any management — private, public or whatever — which doesn't involve

workers in the management processes ends up having a poorly run business, because

the consultation and the involvement inevitably lead to a more enlightened and

more productive atmosphere in the workplace.

By taking powers unto itself that should be joint powers, the government is

in fact widening a gulf between management on one hand and its workers on the

other. That can't lead to good industrial relations; that can't lead

to the kind of productivity increases that we all would like to see, wherever

they are possible or where they may not be being reached now. When you have

poisoned relations, you have a decrease in productivity, an increase in absenteeism,

and a whole range of other industrial problems. Anyone who understands anything

about industrial relations knows that. It's a backward step to move to a

management rights clause in this question. It must be, as it was designed to

be under the old Public Service Act, a joint decision-making process. However,

enough on that point. Clearly we disagree.

The second concern I have with

section 5, Mr. Chairman, relates to subsection

(4) which has the potential — to be fair to the wording, because it says "may

direct" — to limit dramatically the ability of people in the public service

to seek promotion, either within their ministry or into another ministry, or

from one part of the province to another. I don't understand why this

section

needs to be in there. As I said in second reading, are you saying to people

in some smaller or more remote parts of this community: "No, you cannot

apply for jobs that may open up in Vancouver or in Victoria, that may be promotions,

because you are outside of the geographical area"? Why do you need that

particular power in this section? Rather than make a long speech about it, I

would like to hear what the minister's response might be, because there

may be a very good reason for subsection (4) being in the act.

I'm recognizing that he might be a minute here, so I will leave that

question with him. Restrictions potentially imposed as a result of

subsection (4) do not seem appropriate in a public service where people

like to advance.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, getting back to the joint committee.... The reason, essentially, I guess, for having removed that was the fact

that there was no ability to resolve the issue; there was no mechanism in place

to resolve the issue when there was an impasse. We felt that it was necessary

to take it away, but with the assurance, of course, that there would be ample

opportunity for the trade unions to express their views. There will be full

consultation. It's not just a matter of notification that we're going

to do this. There will be an opportunity for any of the interested parties to

discuss the issue at length. So we're giving assurances here and now that

there will be full consultation on this particular issue. There was never really

any disagreement with the procedures, which is what the act refers to.

Of course, it was the weighting that was the major problem, and the

amount of seniority that would be assigned to certain positions. I

don't know what specific kind of weighting they expected seniority to

take. I would say it would be substantial. As an old trade unionist

myself, recognizing the importance of seniority — and I know how it

kept me working from time to time, you know....

MR. HANSON: In here too.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This isn't a union in here. This is a

private club. It's a fairly select club, because many are called but

few are chosen. Now I've lost my train of thought.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think my deputy is saying that he knows what it's like.

I think if you look at

section 33 of the old act, the geographical thing is

really contained there. It says: "Notice of vacancy. Subject to the regulations,

notice of a vacancy in a position shall be published in the public places or

in the newspapers or periodicals that the commission considers proper."

Essentially, what we're doing is clarifying what was meant by

section 33

in the old act.

Interjection.

[ Page 5110 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're clarifying as well as streamlining. That's essentially what's being said here.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, like a lot of clarifications,

this one raises confusions. Is the minister serious? Unless I

misunderstood him.... Is he seriously suggesting to me that

section

5(4) is in effect replacing old

section 33 of the Public Service Act?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. GABELMANN: My God! Mr. Chairman, the new subsection, as I read it,

enables the government, through the division, to say to employees in certain

parts of this province or in certain levels of the public service or in certain

occupational groups: "No, you can't apply for a job within that particular

group elsewhere, or in another department." Maybe I'm a bit thick.

What's wrong with saying to public servants: "You can bid on every

job in the public service, and if you're qualified and the best applicant,

you've got the job"? In effect, that's what

section 33 of the existing

act allows. How the minister compares the two I don't understand, Why doesn't

this clause simply...? Why isn't it left out? But if it needs to be

in, why doesn't it say every person in the public service can apply? If

they're not qualified, they won't get the job. Let's go through

it bit by bit. Why the geographical limitations? Is this some residue of the

last contract negotiations?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. I just want to say that this legislation

is really consistent with the current practice. There is nothing inconsistent

about what's taking place now and what is reflected in this particular legislation.

It's not new. I think you have to take into consideration that in Highways,

for instance, there are 3,000 to 4,000 positions covered by this practice

— that is, geographical areas. You also have to take into consideration that

it would be very costly if entry-level positions were made available to anyone

in the entire province of British Columbia, with someone from Victoria, for

instance, applying for a Highways ministry position in Atlin or Dease Lake or

Invermere, wherever. It will be very costly. The provisions for establishing

or moving people there, the costs associated with that and the fringe benefits

that are available in conjunction with that would make it extremely costly.

Therefore we're just really clarifying

section 33 and reflecting current

practices. We spend millions of dollars now on moving people, on daily allowances

for searching for homes and so forth each and every year in the public service.

We think that this is the way we should go; we should spell out what the current

legislation is, so that we can engage people in geographic areas. It doesn't

impact on the right of a public servant exercising his seniority, for instance,

in going into a specific geographic area for a specific position; it doesn't

reflect that. We're talking essentially about entry-level positions.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the argument. I'd

like to think about it a bit more — about the entry-level issue. I understand

that. But this

section doesn't refer simply to entry-level. It refers to

vacancies or classes of vacancies within the public service. It deals with more

than just entry-level; it deals also with openings that people may want to apply

for to advance in the public service.

It seems to me that, for example, you could be a probation officer in Fort

St. John, and there may be a better position for which you are qualified working

in the jail in Nanaimo — at Brannan Lake. This

section could preclude, as I

read it, that probation officer from applying for that Brannan Lake job, Why?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I missed the question.

MR. GABELMANN: I know it's tough to listen to two of us.

As I read this — and maybe I misread it — a probation officer in

Fort St. John who wants to apply for a job in the jail at Brannan Lake

which is a more senior job and is another step up in the corrections

program could be prevented from applying for that Brannan Lake job by

this subsection.

[3:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: I guess technically that could take place,

but really that wouldn't be to the employer's advantage to have that

kind of a situation take place.

MR. GABELMANN: But here we go, Mr. Chairman. That's precisely

the problem with the legislation. It might be that that probation

officer in Fort St. John is also president of the NDP association up

there.

MR. SEGARTY: Not in Fort St. John. [Laughter.]

MR. GABELMANN: I know there aren't a lot. He might also be

our only member; I don't know. But the fact is that if that were the

case, the government could then say, about this specific vacancy at

Brannan Lake, that people from outside or people who work at probation

offices — so it appears as if it's not directed at one particular

person who they know has got the inside track on the job — cannot

apply. You have the ability, as I read it, to do that under this

legislation. When we talk about the potential for patronage — the

potential for unfairness in the system — here's an example why.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We certainly wouldn't use legislation to

deny natural justice. And if natural justice were denied, then I want

to say that an individual would have the right to appeal through the

commission.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. If the

division exercises its authority under subsection (4) and says that the

only people who can apply for jobs at Brannan Lake are probation

officers on Vancouver Island, let's say, knowing that the person who is

most likely in line for that job is from the mainland — but they don't

want that person in that job — all they then have to say is: "Vancouver

Island probation officers only need apply." I don't know what the

natural justice argument is then.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Essentially that's not different than what

takes place right now. Really, you can restrict postings to a

geographic area, and that's been an ongoing practice that's taken

place. It would pose a difficulty for that individual; I wouldn't deny

that. However, that would be entirely up to the various ministers of

government to determine whether that individual who wishes that

position is eligible and desirable. Then I guess it would be up to the

[ Page

5111 ]

ministries of government as to the mechanism and

the method in which they'll do their posting of that particular

position. But you do raise an issue which is one that has to be looked

at, I'm sure.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. GABELMANN: One of the issues I raised in second reading

that concerned me is in

section 6. It's possible that I may be

misreading the legislation. When you transfer from one job to another,

you start a new probationary period. Does that probationary period

apply only to the new job, and if you fail the probation you go back to

your old job? Is that clearly the minister's intention?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, there can be a second probationary

period going to a second job. The problem it poses is that if the

individual who has gone to a higher-level position doesn't pan out in

that position, he might have some problems with going back to the

former position, because it might have been filled by someone else. The

provisions art here to ensure that that individual will continue to be

able to be employed at least at that classification which he had before

he moved up to the new position.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not entirely sure that I've got that as

clearly as I'd like from the answer. The problem is simply that you can

be promoted to be fired, right? How do we deal with that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There will be no difference in the practice

in the future from what it is right now. I'm not aware of people being

promoted for the purpose of firing them. I'm not aware of that taking

place. On the other issue, it might not be clearly defined, but I

certainly give my assurances that anyone who moves to a

higher-classification position and is subject to a probationary period

that doesn't pan out will always have a position available in the

public service — not at the one that he's gone up to but at least at

the one that he came from.

MR. GABELMANN: The one that he previously had passed his probation for and was...?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. GABELMANN: Right. I wish the legislation was more

specific in that respect. That's just a note for future legislative

amendment, I suspect.

The second question that I have — and my colleagues may have others,

I don't know — is very brief, Mr. Chairman, because of the indulgence

that you've given us. In the case of the part-time employee having to

serve the full equivalent of six months for probation, is it necessary

that a probationary period go on for what could be several years in

some cases? I'm particularly thinking of the nurses' bargaining unit in

this case.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We want assurances that the individual has been on

probation for the full six-month period.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, what seems to be changing here under this

probation

section is that under the present Public Service Act, if a person

is assuming a new position in a probationary period and is rejected....

Of course, there's a lower standard for getting rid of somebody when they're

in a probationary period. Under

section 26 of the Public Service Act, it says:

"Where a probationary employee has been rejected by a deputy minister"

— that just means that that person has the authority to reject an employee —

"for just cause, the commission shall, after investigation, decide whether

or not the rejected employee is unsuitable for appointment to the public service

generally, or whether he should be appointed on probation to another position."

That clause is deleted entirely. As my colleague pointed out, a person could

take a promotion, enter into a new probationary period and then have that waived.

The former position that the person occupied could close in behind him or her,

and then that person could be rejected from that regular appointment and not

have any place to go back to, either at a lower level.... Does the minister

see that possibility?

In other words, a person working as a biologist 2 gets in a competition, gets

a job as a biologist 3, is into a probationary period, and it gets waived. The

person is now a regular employee, but they find that he is unsatisfactory as

a biologist 3. If he had a probationary period under the former act, that person

would be entitled to go back to a 2 if he couldn't perform the functions

of a 3. But under your proposal, if the probationary period were waived, then

clearly there's nowhere else to go. The person is terminated and out of

the service. Isn't that the way it would work?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not really. You're talking about an

individual who accepts the higher position, and your example is a

probation officer 2 moving into a probation officer 3 with a probation

period.

MR. HANSON: And if the probation period was waived, as is provided for in your bill....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, that would be the same circumstances

under which that individual would be assured of at least being able to

continue to have employment under the wage scale of a biologist 2

position — the situation you're referring to. The position might be

filled, but he'll continue to be an employee of the provincial

government as a biologist

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we have concerns around the

appointment of this commission, because we're wary of the degree of

independence that it may or may not have.

The worst-case scenario would be comprised of three or more Social

Credit campaign managers — that would be the worse-case scenario for

us. The best case would be something approximating the way the Labour

Relations Board used to be — its impartiality and its separateness from

any kind of interference.

I would like to ask a question of the minister. To what extent will

this be independent and how many do you envision? Do you envision

regional appointees, more than three?

[ Page 5112 ]

Do you envision...? Under the former legislation in the commission....

I'd also like to ask why it is not stipulated, as it is in the former act,

that the commission chairman will have the rank of deputy minister? Why don't

you want it to be of that rank'?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, the reason he hasn't been given the status

of deputy minister...as time unfolds we haven't determined yet whether

that position will be a full-time position or not, and we need that flexibility.

I can't say at this time the number of people that will be on the

Public Service Commission and whether it would have regional

representation or not. I can suggest that it will not be political. I

don't remember people in our party attacking Clay Perry when he was on

the Public Service Commission back in the NDP years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clay who?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Clay Perry. Remember him? Weren't you in the

cabinet at the time? He was IWA, and he was on the Public Service

Commission. Just because the NDP had political appointees on the Public

Service Commission doesn't suggest for a moment that Social Credit

would do the same.

So that's it.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, a question to the minister Would there be

any consultation with the various bargaining agents in providing names to be

put forward for the commission?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: Is that your definition of consultation as described earlier in the bill?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not on these circumstances.

[3:30]

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

MR. GABELMANN: On

section 9(2)(b): "the commission will have

the authority and the right to determine all matters relating to costs

on appeals." On the surface, there's some logic and sense to that, but

there is the potential for there not to be any protection for someone

who might want to appeal. For example, the commission could establish a

rule that said "all failed appellants will have to pay not only their

own costs but also the cost that the commission incurs."

I guess on this one I wouldn't ask so much for legislative amendment

but rather some kind of policy assurance from the minister that the

direction to the commission would be that this would not in any way

impede the right of an appellant to seek or to pursue an appeal.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the views expressed

by the member for North Island would be taken into consideration by the Public

Service Commission. It's an independent commission, and I'm not one

who is going to give them direction. I just want to say that I hope the concerns

you expressed will be seriously considered by the Public Service Commission.

Section 9 to 41 inclusive approved.

section 42.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my

name on the order paper. [See appendix]

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

section 43.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment standing under my name on the

order paper. [See appendix]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would read that as simply to vote against the section. The amendment reads: "by deleting

section 43."

Section 43 negatived.

Sections 44 to 46 inclusive approved.

section 47.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move that

section 47 be amended by deleting

section 47(

c) and substituting the following:

"(

c) in the definition of employee (

i) by striking out 'means

a member of the public service, as the expression "public service"

is defined in the Public Service Act ,' and substituting 'means an "employee"

as defined in the Public Service Act ,' and (ii) by striking out 'and'

at the end of paragraph (q), by adding 'and' at the end of paragraph

(

r) and by adding the following paragraph: (

s) a person employed in the division."

On the amendment.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister if

this

section refers to those presently employed in the Government

Employee Relations Bureau who will be working in the personnel division

under this bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's correct — the personnel division, which

essentially is comprised of the people who came from GERB and were amalgamated

with the Public Service Commission, and who had been exempted from union membership

because of the position they were in vis-à-vis being the negotiating

arm of the government. That's essentially what this amendment does. Because

we negotiated them out of the BCGEU in the past, we're saying that they

should continue to preserve that position because they are the negotiating arm

for the government.

Amendment approved.

Section 47 as amended approved.

[ Page

5113 ]

section 48.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the

motivation in

section 48. It says: "The Government Personnel Services

Division may...act as the bargaining agent for the government."

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's flexibility, my friend.

MR. GABELMANN: Who else might if they don't?

HON. MR. CHABOT: One never knows.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the levity, Mr. Chairman, but I take it

from the tone that this might have been in effort. But if not, is it opening

the door, perhaps, for the government to act as the bargaining agent, if it

so chooses, on its own behalf?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm getting a legal

interpretation here, you know.

MR. GABELMANN: You've probably got two.

HON. MR. CHABOT: "May" really empowers the group to do the bargaining for the government.

MR. GABELMANN: So does "shall."

HON. MR. CHABOT: I know.

Sections 48 to 58 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 35, Public Service Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 35, Public Service Act, read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 26

Waterland

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

NAYS 16

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell.

[3:45]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Might we have a short recess, Mr...?

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you were so

swift that you didn't give us an opportunity to call for a recording of

the division. May we have another opportunity, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly. Hon. members, in the traditional manner, the

division is ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: Thank you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, might we have a short recess pending the

arrival of His Honour?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bells will summon the members back to

the chamber for His Honour's attendance.

The House took recess at 3:48 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:05 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Elevating Devices Safety Act Election Amendment Act, 1984

Mental Health Amendment Act, 1985

Public Service Act

Financial Information Act

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1985

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1985

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985

Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985

Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985

[ Page 5114 ]

Transport of Dangerous Goods Act

Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985

Constitution Amendment Act, 1985

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

HON. MR. R.G. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker and members of the

Legislative Assembly, as this second session of the thirty-third

parliament comes to a close, I commend you for your continuing efforts

and determination to ease the burden of these difficult economic times.

In this chamber, as an example of the care and prudence you have

exhibited during these troubled times, you approved a budget of my

government that reflected our economic situation. You debated and

approved legislation designed to guarantee our people will be free to

practise their trades and skills without discrimination. In doing so,

you paved the way for Expo 86, the most exciting event ever staged in

British Columbia and one in which we will welcome the world to our

great province.

You are to be congratulated for your amendments to the Labour Code.

An enlightened, more democratic approach to labour-management relations

will do much to improve the atmosphere in this important sector, as we

build toward economic renewal.

The improved Human Rights Act passed by this assembly ensures that

individual rights will be fully safeguarded, and at the same time it

allows for speedy resolution of disputes through the removal of

cumbersome procedures.

You are also to be congratulated for your approval of the Residential Tenancy

Act, legislation which is appropriate to the times and which simplifies procedures

for both landlords and tenants alike.

You also adopted significant measures to ensure uninterrupted transit service in the lower mainland and Victoria.

All members are to be commended for the unanimous acceptance of the

major revisions to the standing orders of this assembly. The new

rules, the most substantive amendments to the procedures of the

Legislature in more than 50 years, will do much to ensure that this

assembly functions efficiently and in the best parliamentary tradition

as you work towards renewal for our people.

We also extend our congratulations to the new leader of Her Majesty's official

opposition in this Assembly.

My government was extremely gratified in the spring of last year

with the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that the

seabed of the Strait of Georgia between Vancouver Island and the

provincial mainland belongs to the people of British Columbia. I am

also pleased that in the past year agreements were signed between

British Columbia and the city of Seattle, between Canada and the United

States of America, and between British Columbia and our federal

government to preserve our Skagit Valley from flooding.

You will shortly be returning to this chamber to once again accept the responsibility

of leadership of our people. The major or task before you will be the careful

consideration of measures to be brought forward by my government to foster and

encourage renewal of our economy. Because my government has laid the groundwork,

this assembly is now well positioned to implement positive initiatives and policies

in order to get British Columbia back to work and restore economic vibrancy

to our private sector.

British Columbians, we have together weathered and borne the worst of times.

Together, sharing the new challenges that lie ahead, we can participate in the

better times. Within the new atmosphere of cooperation between British Columbia

and the federal government, there are solid indications that together, working

as partners, we can develop policies at the provincial and national level that

will benefit all Canadians. This can only come about if elected representatives

demonstrate the continued strength, determination and leadership required to

bring about economic activity, investment and, most importantly, new employment

opportunities for the people of our province.

That kind of leadership was exhibited earlier this year when my

first minister led a delegation of British Columbia business people on

a trade mission to the People's Republic of China. Closer ties,

expanded trade and increased exports are essential to our province's

growth and economic well-being. My ministers will continue to travel to

foreign lands to seek new customers for our products and new investment

for our province.

Hon. Members, I now relieve you of your legislative duties, and I trust the

blessing of Divine Providence will be with you as you shortly resume those responsibilities.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, Members of the Legislative

Assembly, it is His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's will and pleasure

that this Legislative Assembly be prorogued until 2 o'clock, Monday,

March 4, 1985, and this provincial Legislative Assembly is hereby

prorogued accordingly.

The House prorogued at 4:15 p.m.

[ Page

5115 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

35 The Hon. J. R. Chabot to move, in Committee of the Whole on

Bill (No. 35) intituled Public Service Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 42 ,

section 42 is deleted and the following substituted:

"42.

Section 2 (1) is amended

(

a) by repealing paragraph (b), and

(

b) in paragraph (

e) by striking out 'paragraph

(

b) or (c) ' and substituting 'paragraph (c) '."

SECTION 43 , by deleting

section 43.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright ©

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