1984 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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4797 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Labour Code Amendment Act (Bill 28). Committee stage

section 15 –– 4797

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

section 16 –– 4798

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Michael

Third reading –– 4803

Division

Education Statutes (Fiscal Year) Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 27). Committee stage

On

Section I –– 4803

Mr. Rose

section 16 –– 4804

Mr. Rose

Ms. Sanford

section 17 –– 4806

Mr. Rose

Hydro and Power Authority (Land Transfer) Act, 1984 (Bill 25). Committee stage

On

Section I –– 4806

Mrs. Wallace

Third reading –– 4807

Hospitals Amalgamation Act (Bill 26). Committee stage

Third reading –– 4807

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 29). Committee stage

On

Section I –– 4807

Mr. Cocke

section 2 –– 4807

Mrs. Dailly

section 5 –– 4807

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Appendix –– 4809

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to bills, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 28.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 15.

MR. GABELMANN: My main concern on

section 15 is really a

question. I am curious as to why 83(3) was amended to include the

affiliation idea. Why wasn't it made 83(4)? Why has the health and

safety issue in the Code, which is 83(3) at the present time...?

What 83(3) says at the present time is that

an act or omission by a

trade union or by the employees shall not constitute a strike where it

is required for the safety or health of those employees. What the 83(3)

amendment does is to add the affiliation clause as not constituting a

strike except where 73(

l) is applied. The problem as I see it — and

maybe I'm misreading it — is that in 73(

l) reference is made to 83(3)

in its entirety. On a construction project which has been declared an

economic development project, a health or safety issue could develop

which transcends the development project. The right to strike under

83(3) is taken away between developments, from one development project

to the next; and the desire of the government — apart from what we

think about what you're doing — appears to be to make sure that the

affiliation clause wouldn't shut down the neighbouring economic

development project on that same greater site. But the way I read the

amendments, what you've done is to also preclude the right to strike

over the right to not work, or to not show up to work, over a question

of health or safety. It could be that the health or safety question

transcends more than one site. If, for example, it were an air quality

problem, it could simply have been handled by making this amendment

83(4) and referring, in 73(l), to 83(4) rather than to 83(3). Why have

you integrated the health and safety issue into 73(1) ?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm being slow to warm up now, because I don't

think I'm reading correctly what you're saying. Are you saying we should

have had a separate 83(4)? The amendment to

section 83(3) deals only with

non-affiliation clauses, not with health and safety. This is a positive amendment

in terms of what we're doing. What we intend to do in 73, as I said yesterday

afternoon, is simply to ensure that any economic development project is in a

mixed site. In terms of 83(3), which refers to non-affiliation clauses, those

non-affiliation clauses are protected on the site where the unionized contractor

is working. They can't be transferred across the project to other projects,

but we wanted to ensure that a worker, no matter where he is, can still down

tools for those important health and safety reasons, and that's what we've

done.

MR. GABELMANN: It may well be what has been done. One of us

is slow to pick this up, and it may be me. Let me come out in another

direction. When you refer to 83(3) in respect of 73(l), you're

referring to both the affiliation clause and health and safety, because

the new 83(3) includes both issues; 83(3) is amended to now read what's

in the Code plus what's in the amendment. That's where we should start.

We should make sure that we agree about that before we go any further.

Am I right in saying that the new

section 83(3), as amended, will now

refer to both the health and safety issues and the affiliation issue?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, what we've done is just ensure that

despite the fact that the non-affiliation clauses are restricted to

that project within an economic development project, the opportunity

for the workers to express their dissatisfaction with health or safety

is not denied.

MR. GABELMANN: I think we might make more haste if we back

up. Let's just deal with the first issue first.

Section 83(3) as

amended will include references to both health and safety and

affiliation clauses. Right? We agree on that, I think.

Within an economic development project that is so named, or any

construction project that hasn't been designated an economic

development project, the right to down tools over health and safety

questions and over the affiliation clause is there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: "Or, " not "and."

MR. GABELMANN: The fact is that you could down tools over the

question of health and safety; you can also down tools over the

question of the affiliation clause if no economic project has been

designated and if it is within the particular designation, but you

can't cross over into the next designated area.

My concern is that 73(

l) refers to the entire

section 83(3), thus, I

think, denying the right of workers in a neighbouring economic

development project to down tools over a health and safety question

that may transcend several of the projects. I wonder if that was your

intent. Is that what it means? That's how it reads. Is that what it

really does mean? I think there's been a drafting error. I think you

simply mean, in fact, to have a

section 83(4) — that this new

section

should be an independent subsection within

section 83.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't agree. The

words are "where it is required for the safety or health of those

employees or where it is permitted." So there are two separate intents

in that section. What will very likely happen is that there will be a

number of individual projects on Expo, because by having it on a mixed

site, Expo will have to be considered as a number of projects. We go

back again to the famous Tasmania pavilion. I would say that if that

were an economic development project, and, for instance, there was a

union contractor involved who had in his collective agreement a

non-affiliation clause, that non-affiliation clause would be honoured

on that project but nowhere

[ Page 4798 ]

else. The same would be true of a health-and-safety

issue; it would be honoured on that project. If that group, whether

union or non-union.... They're only covered under the Code if they have

a collective agreement in place anyway. If that group of employees had

a safety worry and felt sufficiently about that safety problem that

they wished to down their tools, they would be able to do it where that

condition existed. I don't think that's any different from what's

currently in place in the Code, where it says: "An act or omission or

by a trade union or by the employees shall not constitute a strike

where it is required for the safety or health of those employees." I

don't think there's anything different here, Mr. Chairman,

[10:15]

MR. GABELMANN: I think we're getting somewhere in terms of

the understanding of the section. My point is: what happens if the

Tasmanian pavilion and the New Zealand pavilion are side by side and

are designated separate economic projects; therefore the affiliation

clause in the Tasmanian pavilion won't allow the New Zealand pavilion

to be shut down.... I understand that. What happens if there's a health

or safety factor that applies to both of them at the same time? Each of

them could shut down separately within the.... What happens if the

health and safety hazard is caused at one pavilion but affects the

other? Would the workers at the other still have the right to down

tools even though the health and safety issue is caused at the next

site?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can't think of something except that

maybe they were building something over the roof of a building, or

something like that. Should it happen, I would expect to see somebody

before the Labour Relations Board for some kind of declaration on a

matter like that. Conceivably that could happen, I'm sure, providing it

could be proved that there was a legitimate safety issue involved.

MRS. WALLACE: I have just a very quick question. Subsections

83(

l) and (2) relate to the employer. They're separate; they don't make

(2) an addition so they both relate to the employer. Why is the

minister including these both under the one?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What's wrong with it?

MRS. WALLACE: Just for the sake of consistency, it seems that

it would be better to number it (1), (2), (3) and (4) rather than to

throw all things relative to the employee into number (3) and leave

(1) and (2) separated relative to the employer. Each specific thing is

numbered. Why the decision? I guess I'm thinking there must be a reason

for wanting to lump it together, or else it would be separated.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, we had many

sleepless nights over this one, wondering whether we should put in

another figure, number (4). It doesn't make any difference. All you'd

have is another number. The act is very clear. I don't know what the

big deal is.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

MR. GABELMANN:

Section 16, Mr. Chairman, is the picketing

section, one that — in my view at least — is fuzzy in terms of its

implications. I guess I'll start this by asking some questions. First,

doesn't the wording in fact outlaw primary picketing in some cases? If

the IWA was on strike at MacMillan Bloedel in the forest industry, my

reading of this is that the secondary picketing at the pulp mills would

have to be approved by the Labour Relations Board. Is picketing at the

MacMillan Bloedel headquarters primary or secondary picketing?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Are you waiting for that now?

MR. GABELMANN: I asked you a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continue, please.

MR. GABELMANN: I guess I'll have to continue if the minister won't answer that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, no, I'll answer it. I just wasn't sure that....

No, I don't think that does limit picketing at the headquarters.

It's the same employer and the same business; it's an extension of the

primary site. If, for instance, MacMillan Bloedel had their head

offices in a shopping centre, they'd probably have to limit their

picketing to where that office was, but it wouldn't stop those pickets

from happening.

MR. GABELMANN: May I ask another technical question? If a

pulp mill is on a legal strike, and there's a legal picket line in

place around the pulp mill and everything is fine in terms of the law,

and there's a construction project within that pulp mill, is the

picketing of that construction project within that pulp mill primary or

secondary?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be a

matter for the conscience of the people who were working on the

construction site as to whether they wanted to cross picket lines.

Second, it would be up to the employer to go to the board, I guess,

under common site or some area like that and apply, should those people

decide that they won't cross picket lines. I don't think there would be

anything different then than now. That's generally what would happen.

The employees — if they were union employees — obviously wouldn't cross

the picket line, and so the employer would go to the Labour Relations

Board and ask for some kind of a declaration, and they would have to

look at it. Certainly it could be classed legal, I would think.

MR. GABELMANN: I raise that question because some lawyers

have suggested to me that there is some very real doubt about what does

constitute primary picketing, particularly in the example I used of the

pulp mill. Clearly the workers on the construction project are not

producing pulp, paper or whatever. I think there is at least some

ambiguity.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't think the situation will change,

Mr. Chairman. It still would come down to whether the board would make

a ruling. I'm just reminded that on several occasions, such as the one

you describe, in the past the board has, first of all, attempted to

determine whether it was a separate site and if there was a way of

gaining

[ Page 4799 ]

access without crossing picket lines. If the work

was unrelated to the manufacture of pulp, then they would create some

kind of a portal where there could be separate access maintained, and

the work could continue. But if the board could determine no way of

gaining that separate access.... The board has always and always will,

I'm sure, respect the right of the union member not to cross a legal

picket line.

MR. GABELMANN: If in fact it's a legal picket line around the project. I guess that's the question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, not if it's the primary site. It would be....

MR. GABELMANN: I hope I hear the minister saying that primary

sites include the primary site. I guess my concern is that it may be

that the primary site is in fact more narrowly defined as a result of

these amendments. Be that as it may, it's a question that will be

determined when the first application is made to the LRB. I hope, when

the LRB has the hearing and writes its report, that it takes into

account the debate that happened here, and that there doesn't appear to

be any intention of....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll send them a copy of Hansard .

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sure they'll have one, just like the four federal ministers no doubt had access to the entire Hansard of that debate.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns of a technical nature which

I'm going to leave now, but my major concern about this picketing

section is that while it meets some legitimate concerns about the

widespread use of secondary picketing, which on occasion has not been

well handled internally by the labour movement — I acknowledge that — I

think that unfortunately sometimes people bring on repressive

legislation, and to a certain extent we saw that in this case.

But be that as it may, this legislation goes beyond the concerns

that were expressed by many people as a result of the recent forest

industry picketing. What it does is to say to a small union that is

attempting to successfully conclude a labour dispute: "In order to

prevent your employer from continuing to circumvent the strike, as

employers often do in the small sector, you are going to have to first

of all go to the labour board to get authority for secondary picketing

in each and every instance where you want to apply that secondary

picketing." So in the classic case of a load of widgets coming out of a

struck plant, or an allied plant, which might well be legitimately

declared to be a target for secondary picketing by the labour board,

the truck will be long gone before the picket line is approved.

That may be the government's intention. This may be what you want to

help the employer on his side of the strike, but that's what happens.

The effect of it is that you can't exert maximum economic pressure,

which is what strikes and lockouts are all about. The more economic

pressure you can exert, the quicker the resolution is achieved. If the

union can't exert economic pressure on the employer in that case

because the employer can continue, one way or another, to produce the

goods, you have the inevitable result of lengthened labour disputes and

more frequent unresolved labour disputes. We have some labour disputes

that are 15 years old and haven't been resolved and never will be —

Dominion Motors and many more. The retail wholesale union, which is the

union I belonged to for some years, is the one that particularly will

be affected because they're actively involved in organizing and in

representing small employers. Without the ability to quickly put up a

picket line, the employers will have it all over them. I think that in

this

section that's the major problem. If you're attempting to deal

with pulp workers expanding their picket line to include forestry

operations or sawmills, that's one thing. But in effect you're saying

to small unions that you're taking away whatever economic power they

have, which they have largely — not exclusively — through their ability

to put up a picket line in a hurry and to move it around. That's now

gone without prior approval.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, we made a similar

amendment, as the former Minister of Labour reminds me, to allied

picketing, and it's working quite well.

We've got a bit of a philosophical difference here, and I think it's

come up earlier as well. What the member says might be great industrial

relations theory to be taught at labour schools or other places, but

what we're saying is that you should have the right to exert that

economic pressure on anybody, hurt them as much as you want in order to

bring pressure on someone who is the primary target. It doesn't matter

whether those people have any interest in the affair. You should be

able to shut them down for three days — and they're probably small

employers too, if it is a small employer situation — without impunity.

I just don't agree with that. I don't think you should be able to use

other people as a club to bring someone else in line.

One of my advisers has a sort of a parable about a hockey game. As

long as the players confine their fights to the ice, perhaps it can be

tolerated in some way, but as soon as they go out and start bashing the

fans, then somebody else had better step in. Really, I guess in many

ways that's what we're saying. I don't believe that you should have an

unlimited club to use on innocent parties in a labour dispute. There

may be times when that economic pressure can legitimately be used, but

surely there's nothing wrong with having permission to use it first.

That's the position we take.

MR. GABELMANN: Let's continue the hockey game analogy, Mr.

Chairman. If Dave Langevin takes on Wayne Gretzky, under these rules

Dave Semenko has to get prior approval from the referee to intervene on

Gretzky's behalf. In the hockey game now, normally Semenko will go in

and beat up Langevin.

MR. MICHAEL: That would sure make for a cleaner game.

MR. GABELMANN: It sure wouldn't; that would be the problem.

Then we would get into the European style of hockey where they kick

each other and use the stick and do all kinds of dirty, illegal things.

Right?

The minister's analogy about the fans is not appropriate. What he's

saying to Dave Semenko is: "You get prior approval from the referee to

go in and beat up Dave Langevin.

[10:30]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They don't have fights in baseball.

[ Page 4800 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Well, you started the hockey analogy; I just

wanted to continue it. It's a serious matter. Levity is fine, and my

colleagues think I'm never humorous or light enough. It is a serious

matter, though, Mr. Chairman, and one that I know again tilts the

balance overwhelmingly against the unions in the collective bargaining

process and in their attempts to resolve disputes. We shouldn't be

surprised at the kind of response you saw yesterday in Vancouver, when

Code amendments include at least three or four really serious matters

upsetting the balance. I'm not arguing that the status quo is perfect,

but this requirement for prior approval....

I said yesterday that I don't like predicting, because sometimes you

predict and then it comes true, but I think I know enough about the

business to know that that prior approval will be violated, and it will

be violated by necessity. There is no point in going for approval to

stop a truck from delivering some goods that end up breaking your

strike if, by the time you get the approval, the truck has finished its

delivery. So what people will inevitably do is picket that place

without approval, and that's not what we want in a labour code. We want

there to be a code that applies fairly and is perceived to apply

fairly, and not an invitation to break the law. For the most part

people don't want to be lawbreakers, trade unionists don't want to be

lawbreakers, but the government is saying: "We are going to force you

to be lawbreakers." The alternative is that you can't prosecute your

strike with the same effect that the employer is able to prosecute the

lockout.

So while these sections deal with the political problem that is

perceived by the government, they go that extra step, which in my view

is totally wrong. Time will demonstrate the validity of our respective

positions. There is no doubt at all in my mind that time will

demonstrate that that particular aspect will have to be reversed.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the member for

North Island. I happen to have been involved as an innocent bystander

in a secondary-picketing circumstance that I thought was completely and

totally offensive to me and the other several hundred people who were

there as well, one involving a large union and a large corporation

fighting each other on somebody else's territory. As I said earlier, I

really think that labour disputes involving unions and management

should be restricted to those people who are directly involved, and not

involve anybody else. I would support this

section wholeheartedly,

because I feel that whether the unions and the companies are large or

small, they are probably of equal strength in almost every circumstance

and can quite adequately solve their problems without involving

innocent parties.

MS. BROWN: I just want to set the record straight when that

member talks about union and management being of equal strength. This

province has a history, going back many years, that there has not been

equal strength. I can think of Sandringham Hospital, where those 28

women were up against a large private hospital corporation for years.

Certainly they were almost beaten into the ground until legislation was

introduced in terms of ensuring their first contract. Windermere

hospital, the cancer clinic, all the hospital unions. When you talk

about inequality between union and management, the unions involved are

mostly women workers. They're usually in weak unions up against very

powerful employers, and usually they lose their strikes. Secondary

picketing is one thing that I know certainly has been used in the past

by a number of them, and one that they would be able to continue using.

If it were simply a matter of equals up against each other, we wouldn't

need the Code, quite frankly, but that's not the way it happens.

I've refrained from participating in this debate because I thought

that our critic was articulating our position very competently. But

when the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), who is the

expert on the meaning of words, interjects this new concept of

management and union being two equals locked in mortal combat with each

other, I just have to say that that is not the fact at all. That has

not been the experience with women in the restaurant industry, in the

banks, in the department stores and in the hospital industry, which is

the reason why they're not organized today. The bank workers are still

not organized. The department stores — the same thing. Most women in

the restaurant unions, many of whom are immigrants, and running into

language difficulties and this kind of thing, can't fight the employer;

they're too weak. This is the reason they needed a strong Labour Code.

This is why we were upset about the certification

section — which I'm

not going to reflect on because it's gone — and the decertification

section. Certainly secondary picketing for those unions that did exist

was one tool they could use that was very vital to them. I think it's

unfortunate that the bill, when it is passed, is going to really weaken

an already weak group of workers who needed the protection that a good

Labour Code could have given them.

MRS. WALLACE: I've been listening very carefully to the

debate and the questions my colleague has been asking relative to what

does constitute secondary picketing. I thought I understood this

section, quite frankly, but as I listen to the minister's answers I'm

not sure. So I want to pose about three sets of examples, and get the

minister's response: either yes, that's secondary picketing and would

require all this, or no, it isn't. Let's assume there are two sawmills,

both making the same product, both owned by the same company and both

organized by the same trade union. A problem arises in one. Is it

secondary picketing if that same union pickets another operation owned

and operated by the same employer? Would that require going through

this process and getting permission? What's the answer on that?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member is saying that they're

covered by the same collective agreement. There is only one collective

agreement, so they are one unit.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I said they were represented by the same trade union, not necessarily the same agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll put that same question in a different

way, Mr. Chairman. Let's assume there's a restaurant chain with ten

restaurants. One of them is organized and certified. Collective

bargaining takes place, it breaks down, and they go on strike. A picket

line goes up around that restaurant that has been organized. That's

primary picketing — no question. That's legal — no problems. That

restaurant chain continues to derive 90 percent of its income from the

other nine restaurants, because they're still working. The employees

suffer 100 percent loss of income; the employer suffers 10 percent

loss. The union recognizes that the employer can go for a long time

with 90 percent of its revenue — or more, because some of its customers

will probably go to

[ Page

4801 ]

the next restaurant, and it will probably continue

with 95 percent of its income. So the union workers, who are suffering

100 percent penalty, decide they want to expand their picketing in

order to try to resolve the dispute by bringing the employer back to

the bargaining table, which the employer won't want to go to because

there is no economic pressure on him, so the union expands its picket

line by going to the other restaurants. That's secondary picketing,

under these

definitions, and can be refused. So too could a boycott

campaign. Anyone participating in or advocating a boycott of those

other nine restaurants — as I read the changes in their cumulative

effect — is also required to go and get approval before instituting

that economic boycott.

So the government is saying by these amendments that the workers in

that certified restaurant have no economic power. That's what's at the

heart of this section. The way to resolve that dispute at that first

certified restaurant is to put an equal amount of economic pressure on

the employer as exists on the employee. Unless the union has the right

to go and picket those other places, they won't have that power.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's right, and I think it should be.

Why should a group of employees, who have a collective agreement in

place, be able to put another group of employees, who have chosen not

to belong to a union, out of work? Why should they have that right,

unless the test of the act is met? The test of the Act is quite clear:

if it can be proved that the employer is carrying on the primary

functions of his business at another site, then that can be ruled by

the board — not by the government or by anybody else — to be a

secondary site and can be legally picketed.

There is a classic example. Many MLAs in this House receive all

kinds of correspondence from a company called Malkin and Pinton. Nine

unionized employees in their Prince George operation were on a legal

strike and put another 275 non-union employees in sites all over the

lower mainland effectively out of work by putting up picket lines

around those firms where there was no collective agreement in place.

The member thinks that's okay, and they should be allowed to do that. I

say it's time somebody started to protect the public interest in this

province, and I believe that that's what this

section does.

MR. GABELMANN: It does that, sure, but it also denies the right of the

employees on strike or the locked-out employees to successfully conclude their

negotiations, especially when it's the first contract. Under these rules,

a campaign for example, at the present time against Canadian Tire in Victoria

would not be legal. If I were to stand outside the Canadian Tire store in Victoria

handing out leaflets urging people not to shop at that store because of the

strike at Prince George, I wouldn't have that right under these....

The public still has the right to cross that picket line when the struck operation

is continuing to work. For the most part this affects that kind of situation

where there may well be a picket line put up around a non-union — as I cited

earlier — restaurant or Canadian Tire store. The public still has the right if

they so choose. Jack London had a nice description for people who do it, but

if they want to go across the picket line they can. The public right isn't

affected. The rights of those struck employees sure are. You say to people in

a first contract situation in those areas: "You may as well forget even

bothering to organize." You can never successfully conclude a first collective

agreement unless one is imposed under

section 70 of the Code, and when does

that ever happen? Should it happen is another question, but when does it ever

happen?

[10:45]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We're obviously not going to agree on

this

section and what it does. I accept that the member has some very

earnestly held opinions on it, and I don't share them.

On the matter of whether or not a person could counsel an economic

boycott, that's covered under

section 84 of the Code, dealing with

information. It is quite clear that anybody at any time, as long as

what they do is not constituted as picketing under the act, can hand

out pamphlets and can advise people. Picketing only restricts the site.

They can hand out pamphlets saying: "Don't eat Canadian tires," or

whatever, and that would be quite legitimate, in my opinion. They could

have someone standing there saying: "Everyone who works in here is a

scab." I would consider that to be legal under the Code.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't think there is any doubt that I could

hand out a pamphlet here to every member saying: "Don't shop at

Canadian Tire." There's no problem about that. But I'm not sure any

longer that I can stand outside the front door of the Canadian Tire

store in Victoria with a sign on my back saying: "Canadian Tire on

strike," and hand out literature urging people not to....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Any place, any time.

MR. GABELMANN: We'll see how the picketing

section is

interpreted. I have some grave concerns about that. When is an

information line a picket line? This is a gray area. I think this

amended wording leads to a situation where that kind of thing will be

what has been perceived to be an information line or an economic

boycott.

Section 84 will no longer have the same impact as a result of

the changes to 85. We've made the case.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Don't forget that an employer can go to

the board at any time over any matter, I'm sure, and ask for the earth.

The board may decide that it's not a matter that they should hear, or

that the employer is mistreating the board. There's always that

opportunity. It's the board that will make the

interpretations, and

they'll have to interpret from the words they've got in the

legislation. I'm sure that they'll continue to look at past practice as

well as it relates to the new words. That can happen. Any employer can

go at any time to the board and say that they don't like what is

happening in terms of an informational picket line, and then the board

has the duty to make a judgment on whatever it is that is before it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask again for some

clarification about this. I use the example of the dispute that took

place at the Windermere private hospital when the nurses' aides were

trying to negotiate their first contract; as the minister knows, it

took them about four years to do it. The Windermere hospital is a part

of a series of 24 long-term care facilities right across the United

States and Canada which is owned and operated by Trizec, whose main

function is real estate. Trizec is a billion-dollar Ontario real estate

development company; it's the second largest in Canada. Running

[ Page 4802 ]

private hospitals and long-term care facilities is

not their primary job. For example, in British Columbia they own the

Lougheed Mall and the Brentwood Mall. Could those nurses' aides, under

this legislation as it is now, put a picket line around the Brentwood

Mall or the Lougheed Mall? Even though they were negotiating a first

contract at a private hospital, a long-term care facility, the primary

job of the owners of that hospital is not running long-term care

facilities; it is real estate. Would that still be considered primary

or secondary picketing, bearing in mind that the owners are running the

long-term care facility as a secondary job?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if you allowed that you

would have chaos — industrial chaos and economic chaos. There are lots

of people who own lots of different businesses. If the kind of thing

that the member is suggesting was allowed, you would have no way of

managing the system.

MS. BROWN: It says the "primary place of business." The

primary place of business is not the hospital. The hospital is just a

little something that they have on the side. Their primary office is

located in one of those malls.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the employer is the person whose name appears on the collective agreement. That's who the dispute is with.

MS. BROWN: And that disputed employee is an employer of

Trizec Corp. and running a hospital is not their primary function. As

this act is written now, they presumably could put up a picket line

around Brentwood Mall or Lougheed Mall, which is where they have their

office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if the company had its

head office at Lougheed Mall — I've already answered the question of

the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — yes, that head office

could be picketed.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It has been the past practice of the

board that the mall cannot be picketed, but the head office of the

company can be picketed.

A prime example is the liquor stores. When BCGEU employees went on

strike and the liquor stores were closed down, picket lines were set up

around many malls in British Columbia effectively closing down the

entire mall — Safeway, shoe store, the whole thing. The board ruled

under current provisions of the Code that that was not allowed. Only

the area in which the dispute was held could be picketed, and so the

liquor store could be picketed. What you're saying, though, is that if

the head office is there, yes, the head office can be picketed.

MS. BROWN: Presumably, Mr. Chairman, because they own the

malls, they could apply to the Labour Relations Board for permission to

picket all of the malls. They own the malls; they built them, they're

theirs. They don't just own the head office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, they can apply, if they want, but

I would be very surprised if the board allowed the picketing under the current

provisions or the new provisions of the Code. Take the steelworkers of Trail,

who have a contract dispute with Cominco. Should they be allowed to shut down

the CPR transcontinental railway? Should they be able to shut down the Canada

Place development because Marathon Realty has been involved in it? You just

can't allow that kind of chaos to exist in the community. You've got

to narrow it in some ways. I'm sure the board would say that that's

not allowed under any circumstances, whether under the new

section or the old

one.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Minister, I suppose the best way to describe

this question is to give a bit of background or perhaps develop a

scenario. Suppose the office workers' union was bargaining with the IWA

regional council, and one of their demands was the abolition of company

unions — they didn't like the idea that some local unions in B.C. had

stenographers who were members of the IWA — and the office workers

said: "Look, we want to abolish company unions. We insist that all

employees in local unions who are stenographers belong to the Office

and Technical Employees' Union." Suppose that developed into a strike

at the regional council level in Vancouver, which is owned and

controlled by the 16 local unions. Would this legislation permit those

girls and guys in Vancouver to go out to the 16 local unions, the ones

that require their stenographers to become members of the IWA, and

picket those local union offices without the permission of the board?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't really

know. It would be up to the board to put the test. The test is in the

act. The test is simply whether or not the primary employer is having

work carried on at a secondary site which is essential for the

operation of his business. If that test could be proven, I would assume

that secondary picketing would be allowed; if the test couldn't be

proven, then it wouldn't.

Sections 16 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

[11:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Brummet

Waterland

Ree

Segarty

Reid

Reynolds

[ Page

4803 ]

NAYS — 15

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Mitchell

Wallace

Lockstead

Hanson

Brown

D'Arcy

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 28, Labour Code Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 24

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Brummet

Waterland

Ree

Segarty

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 16

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Mitchell

Wallace

Lockstead

Hanson

Brown

D'Arcy

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House,

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION STATUTES (FISCAL YEAR)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. ROSE: I think this bill amounts more or less to a

housekeeping arrangement or rearrangement. I have some reservations

about it, but I indicated earlier in second reading that I didn't have

any deep or profound ones. But I would like the opportunity to make

some general remarks about the bill. I'd like some advice on the proper

stage at which to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you continue, please.

MR. ROSE: I would just like to say a few things about the

bill. First of all, I agree with the minister that it's a long overdue

reform and that it's been welcomed, especially by the school boards. It

will allow them to strike a budget now for the entire school year,

because it makes the fiscal year consonant with the school year. I

think that's a welcome change.

Some of the amendments that are coming up, though, I think, instead

of simplifying things for some people, especially the school teachers

in their bargaining, will tend to make it a little bit more difficult

for them. I would like to give some examples of that. Of course, I and

my party don't believe in the compulsory arbitration principle. We

never have. We've accepted it. It's been in there for at least 20

years. We know that, but we don't like it very much. We feel that there

should be full collective bargaining for teachers — with a legitimate

timetable, though, for compulsory arbitration, should there be a

breakdown. What we've got here now is a legislated timetable for

reaching a settlement. So the problem is that there is often little

incentive — for either the teachers, in some cases, or the boards — to

settle by collective bargaining.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I was invited to proceed under this sort of

umbrella — we'll call it the title. It doesn't particularly matter to

me. But I want to make these remarks. When we come to the places where

we're amending — I understand the minister is going to introduce some

amendments — I can be more particular and less general at that stage.

But I would like to say some general things here.

I think we should probably look into greater opportunities to

establish these salary arrangements by collective bargaining. With the

budget now being imposed by the central authority, I don't know what

bargaining can take place, anyway. Certainly not very much in the way

of salary bargaining, unless you're bargaining your way down instead of

bargaining your way up.

So that's one point I would like to make. The other thing is that

there's still no protection for school boards against an arbitrary cut

or an arbitrary decision inflicted upon the boards or the school

districts by a minister, such as when this minister's predecessor

marched in with the interim financing act in the middle of the year. We

know we're on a three-year plan now — steadily down for three years,

but we're aware of that.

The other thing is that — we can get to this in greater detail a

little later on — the salary settlements.... The amendments now

contemplated tend to lock the budget some six weeks perhaps in advance

of when the arbitration process ends. At the moment, settlements are

handed down January 1 and budgets are finalized February 15. In this

case, it's going to be the reverse. In other words, you finalize your

budget and then arrange your salary settlements some six weeks later.

That doesn't make much sense to me or to us. What happens is that you

put the cart before the horse. Once you've settled your budget, how

then can you arrange for anything sort of elastic in your salary

settlements? If you do get a salary settlement that perhaps is less

than those anticipated in the budget, what do you do with the surplus?

Are you going to be criticized for being poor budgeters because you've

got a huge surplus? It doesn't matter when you start to bargain. It's

when you stop bargaining that counts; because once that budget is

frozen there's very little room for bargaining.

[ Page 4804 ]

Those are my general remarks. When we get to the various sections perhaps I'll have a bit more to say.

[11:15]

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 15 there's an amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

section 16.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I think we're going through

this pretty rapidly; a person has to be pretty fast on his feet in

order to follow all this. It might be suggested that maybe I should

have read it more carefully earlier, but when the minister brings in an

amendment, the House would welcome an opportunity to hear him explain

the nature of and reason for his amendment. I don't think he needs to

lapse into a soliloquy or to filibuster his own bill, but I would like

the minister to assure the House that he actually knows what's in these

amendments, and to explain them to us.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: All of the amendments that we are involved

with now are to do with a few dates. What happened is that after we

introduced the bill, the school trustees and teachers expressed a

concern with respect to notice to arbitrate, to when they went into

conciliation and into arbitration, and to when the final arbitration

report must be submitted. What we have done, at the request of the

contacts through the BCTF who made this request, and through the BCSTA

who also made it, is to advance the dates. The real reason coming from

them was that they would like, if at all possible, to conclude

arbitration while the teachers are still teaching; in other words,

before the school year concludes. That's the reason why the date, for

example, of.... They must go to arbitration on May 1 if they cannot

secure an agreement. The arbitration award must be made on May 31 and

reported June 7.

One of the comments made by the member for Coquitlam-Moody is that

the negotiations are collapsed from six to four weeks. It must be

remembered that as the act is presently written negotiations for

arbitration go from November 15 to December 31, but in there we have a

two-week period for the Christmas holiday. So they said, "All right, if

that be the case we would like it collapsed at the other end," and

that's exactly what we're doing — from May 1 to May 31. That resolves

that problem. I understand, through their communications with me as

well as with the ministry, that they are most satisfied with the

proposed amendment.

Yes, it is true with respect to budgets having to be filed on March

15 with the Ministry of Education, but the validating bylaw passed by

the school board is on May 1. All local teachers' associations and

school districts have the opportunity to negotiate their agreement

prior to either serving notice of arbitration or going to conciliation

or arbitration. The date of May 1 is very important, because at that

time the board must validate its budget, which is to be approved by the

ministry after being submitted on March 15. In every school budget in

all 75 districts there is always some give and take on the budget which

is submitted on the 15th. Hence that period of time from March 15 until

it goes back to the board. That is the basic reason why there was a

change.

MR. ROSE: I'd like the minister to clarify that and amplify

it. Is he saying to us that the budgets are really not finalized on the

date suggested, March 15, but could be subject to amendment after that,

should negotiations continue for either the support staff or the

teaching staff?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Right now it is not any different. The

budgets must be submitted on February 15; they are not validated by

bylaw in the school district until some time — I can't call the exact

date, but it's some weeks later — before the school board passes the

bylaw adopting the budget. This is exactly the same, only the dates are

somewhat changed. The reason for the dates being changed is to

accommodate dovetailing the fiscal year with the school year.

MR. ROSE: I don't have any problem with that, Mr. Chairman.

That's fine; I don't object to that at all. What I'm objecting to is

what I tried to outline earlier, and that is that at present

settlements are handed down on January 1, and budgets are finalized on

February 15. Right? That's what we have now. You brought in an

amendment — actually two; you've amended your amendment — but right now

we have a situation in which the budgets have to be finalized March 15,

and yet the salary settlements are not finalized until May 31, or,

under some conditions, even June 7. The objection that has been

expressed by some people, including legislative representatives of the

school teachers — the BCTF — is that you've taken away the incentive of

the employer to make a settlement, because he can finalize his budget

and then some six weeks later, when the salary negotiations are

legislatively required to come to an end, they can say: "Well, we're

sorry, we don't have any money." So we'll work on Mr. Peck's

ability-to-pay principle, and he has ruled in favour of the public

employer on the-ability-to-pay argument, which a lot of people disagree

with. But that is the major concern. If the minister can assure the

House that the March 15 budget deadline is sufficiently elastic — and

he can talk about validating as much as he likes — to permit an

adjusted budget as a result of a salary settlement, then the objections

would be met.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the local

teachers' association and school board have an opportunity to

voluntarily enter into an agreement, if they so wish, at any time

during the year, and certainly before March 15. I think there is some

realism with respect to bargaining, because prior to this the salaries

would be negotiated, and whatever they were, they would be picked up by

the school district. Mind you, it would have to go through the CSP

commissioner. It seems to me there is an incentive for both

[ Page 4805 ]

parties to resolve their differences, because under

compulsory arbitration the employer has no idea of what's coming down

the pike and neither does the employee. So as far as incentive is

concerned, I think it cuts both ways, and it's in their interest to try

to at least bargain within the scope of the funding which is pretty

well available to the school district.

One of these years school districts will have access to the

residential property base as a line of revenue; but under the sunset

provision that doesn't occur until after 1986. It depends on the board.

Recognizing that the board has some degree of autonomy — although a bit

eroded under the present financial arrangement — boards will obviously,

like all employers, make provision for any increase, if they have the

ability to pay that increase. That's not unheard of, and I think the

same thing applies here. If, in fact, a budget or an arbitrated award

comes down — let's say, on June 7; they've gone right to the end — and

that arbitrated award makes a demand upon the budget which exceeds the

budget validated on May 1, I think both the employer and the employees,

the school board and the teachers, then know that there are going to be

certain cuts required. There's nothing wrong with them being aware of

what the impact of a settlement will be if it is in excess of what the

board has available to it to meet its obligations for the fiscal year.

As for elasticity after March 15, with every district there are

problems which will come up. The object of this game, and the reason

for March 15 — for that next six weeks — is to make sure that

everything is covered. Some things may not be covered, but that

relationship is the same between any employer and employees. I think

there are other factors that come into play.

MR. ROSE: I think I heard the minister say that the budgets

would be determined by March 15 and would be validated May 1, yet the

arbitration settlements need not be concluded until May 31, one month

later, or, under some conditions, by the chairman of the arbitration

commission by June 7. So here we have four weeks after a validated

budget in which bargaining or arbitration presumably can take place. It

is our contention that this shifts the balance in favour of the

employer. The employer can simply say: "I'm sorry, we finalized our

budget on March 15. We validated it on May 1" — according to the

minister. What are we doing piddling around until May 31? The game is

over. As for the business of it being permissive, certainly we could

start to bargain earlier. But I think that anyone who has had anything

to do with negotiations knows that they tend to drag on and on. In some

industries work goes on for years without a settlement. I think that

the pulp industry was an example, That is the big objection that we

have to these dates: not that you shift the fiscal framework but that

you shift the balance in favour of the employer by finalizing a budget,

then the employer turns around and says "I'm sorry, guys, we haven't

got any money, and we don't have the ability to pay." So what on earth

is that extra month doing in there anyway? What is it for?

[11:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With all due respect, I'd like to point

out that the incentive on behalf of the employer to enter into an

acceptable contract with the teachers is always there. I'll tell you

what happens. The school board has an operation to run. It's got

students to serve. It must provide for what it thinks is going to be an

acceptable arrangement. If it doesn't it goes right into the lap of the

arbitrator, because if the award comes down and then is approved by the

compensation stabilization office, the school district is perhaps going

to have some difficulty in serving the students, because they are not

going to have enough money for everything they want. It's in the

interests of the school district as an employer to attempt to work out

some arrangement. That is not unheard of. Not only that, but I don't

think it tips the balance at all. It seems to me it makes it equal,

because what is happening in here is that the employee knows the

limitations of the board — for whatever reason those limitations are. I

might also add in conclusion that this amendment was agreed to and the

information passed on to me by the BCTF as well as the BCSTA when I

talked to them.

MR. ROSE: The minister knows about these things in an

abstract way because of his experience as a former Minister of Labour

and also a lawyer. But I lived through these things. I lived in the

sunny Okanagan where they felt it was worth at least $1,000 a year less

— off your salary — for the sunshine. In the years that I worked in

Oliver and later in Kelowna — I'm not sure about Oliver — it seemed to

me that we went to arbitration nearly every year. I don't see how, if

it was such a great advantage for the boards to settle early, somehow

the Kelowna board missed this opportunity and didn't understand what

the minister is telling us. I lived through very bitter times in which

there was a strong disagreement on salary matters between the board and

the teachers. Because we were in the Okanagan, anywhere up to $1,000 a

year less.... They were paid less in those days; I suppose the maximum

then would have been $5,000 or $6,000. That's the way they operated. It

cost us money because we had to hire lawyers, it cost them money, but

it went to arbitration every year. I don't see how that's different. I

don't see how, if the boards didn't want to pay that money then, this

has changed anything, and now it's going to be to their advantage to

settle earlier. They even went so far in those days.... One of their

little stunts was to publish the name of every teacher and their

salaries in the newspaper as part of their bargaining ploy. They lost

about 50 percent of their teachers that year, including me, but it

seemed that they felt it was worth it. I cite this as a horror story

but also as an example of where it was no advantage, apparently, for

boards to settle soon.

MS. SANFORD: I have a quick question for the minister related

to the period for conciliation, which I understand was four weeks under

the old bill and is still four weeks. Is that correct? Okay. I wonder

why the minister has decided to retain that four-week period. Is there

evidence that the conciliation procedures are effective during that

four-week period? After the first two weeks, are there any more

conciliations? If so, why is it necessary to retain the four weeks

rather than shortening that period of time? What are the advantages of

keeping it at four?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member raises a valid

point. Practice in the past would indicate that the appointment of

conciliators is really an exercise, and nothing more than that. It's

unfortunate, because it seems to me that as a result of these changes

it may have a new thrust. The inherent value within the appointment of

a conciliator may now bear some fruit. That's all I'm getting at. It's

something that there was never any strong representation made to me

about. If it's not broken, they seem to feel in the field, don't fix

it. That was the general feeling I had. I

[ Page 4806 ]

concede to the member's point that conciliation in

the past is an exercise which has not been that great. It may, however,

have some value now. One of the views expressed by the BCTF, as relayed

to me, was that they try to close their negotiations and come to a

settlement before the school year ends, and that maybe they would take

full advantage now of the conciliation opportunity.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

section 17.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I take it that the minister, after we agreed that

he would explain the amendments, feels that he did that, in answer to

my colleague's question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If there's some concern on this.... If you

look under

section 17, it was the appointing of a conciliator. So it

was covered, and I didn't think there was....

MR. ROSE: That's what I said. I assumed that that was the case.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

section 18.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

section 19.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Sections 20 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, the committee on Bill 27 rises and reports the bill complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I beg to move that the bill, with leave, be now read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question would be: when shall the bill be reported as amended?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With leave, now.

MR. HOWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I don't think you

need leave to make the report. The only requirement for leave would be

to give the bill third reading now, and I think that such a complex set

of amendments would take some time to look at in conjunction with the

bill as it originally stood. Perhaps leave should not be given in that

circumstance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave would be required because the House

cannot normally consider the bill until it is reprinted, and there are

amendments. So the question is: when shall the bill be considered as

reported?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With leave, now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

MR. HOWARD: This is for reporting it, but not for third reading?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HOWARD: No problem.

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The next sitting....

MS. SANFORD: After today!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

(LAND TRANSFER) ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

[ Page 4807 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, does the acting Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who is responsible for B.C.

Hydro, know whether or not this land has yet been rezoned from

industrial to residential?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As far as I know it has not, yet. I'll certainly check that to make sure, but I referred back to the notes in Hansard from the minister, and I have no other indication from any of the other notes.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, my understanding was that it had, at the time I asked the question, and he said no, it hadn't.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be reported complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair

Bill 25, Hydro and Power Authority (Land Transfer) Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

HOSPITALS AMALGAMATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[11:45]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Hospitals Amalgamation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. COCKE: I note that doctors of chiropractic are now being

allowed to use a series of "doctor": doctor of chiropractic or

chiropractic doctor or.... However, it excludes the right for them to

use just straight "doctor." Incidentally, I'm not opposed to their not

being allowed to use the direct title "doctor" without the

modification. I'm wondering, what is the genesis of this particular

amendment to the Chiropractors Act?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It is the opinion of the government and

myself that those people who have qualified academically in the health

sciences field, where the degree is that of doctor of their specialty,

should be in the position of using that title in conjunction with their

specialty. At the present time it is specifically prohibited by the

Medical Practitioners Act, and in my opinion there were a couple of

pretty silly court cases over this where a couple of chiropractors in

the province were charged for using the title "doctor": Doctor

So-and-so, Chiropractor. They were successful in their actions simply

because the other legislation prohibited it. We have been requested by

the chiropractors' association and by other professional associations

to permit them to use the same title as is common across Canada and in

most of the United States. I think it is quite proper that a person who

qualifies for the degree should be able to make use of the title

"Doctor" with reference to their specialty. I think it's been long in

coming, and I think it's quite proper that it's before us now.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MRS. DAILLY:

Section 2 is the Health Emergency Act section,

and it seems pretty clear that it's going to delete the requirement

that the Emergency Health Services Commission annual report be reported

to this Legislature. I just wanted to express a concern to the minister

and ask why he's doing this. We have a concern that once you start

removing the reporting of a commission or body to this Legislature,

it's removing some of the independence of that particular body.

Autonomous power is now given to the Minister of Health for the

reporting. Why we perhaps sound a little paranoiac about this is

because we recall that the same procedure took place with the Alcohol

and Drug Commission. One of the first steps was to remove its reporting

to the Legislature, and following that came the demise of the Alcohol

and Drug Commission. I am wondering why this was done.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The specific reason is that the Emergency

Health Services Commission's report is included within the Ministry of

Health report now, and we intend to continue including it within the

report rather than have an independent report submitted to the House.

It is included within the annual report of the Ministry of Health as

part of the Ministry of Health report. This amendment would no longer

make it necessary for a separate report to be tabled in the House. It

will be included in the ministry's report.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

[ Page 4808 ]

MRS. DAILLY: We welcome this change. In fact I know that

members on this side of the House spoke at the time that the last

change was made that we did not feel it was complete enough. Of course,

now we have it improved so that either spouse can apply to change their

surname as long as the applicant spouse gives consent. This is

something which I know was given considerable attention by members on

this side of the House. Previously, married women could only change

their surname to their maiden name with the spouse's consent; this

allows either spouse to have individual choice in their surname. It

still remains, however, that one must first obtain the permission of

the spouse. I suppose the next thing we want to discuss with the

minister is, why does either spouse have to have permission? Also, if a

married man registers a change of surname, automatically the change is

also made for his wife unless she has elected for a change of surname

herself; yet a wife's change of surname doesn't automatically change

the husband's surname. This is a paternalistic attitude, and it should

be deleted so that changes in the surname apply only to the individual

applying for the name.

I know there are others who want to comment on this, particularly

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who spoke on this whole

matter at some length when it came up before. But before she takes her

place, I have one other question for the minister.

This is about a child. I notice there is no change at all in the

rights to change a child's name. There could, I suppose, be a case

where a parent wished to have an unlimited right in giving a child a

name. Perhaps a mother might want to give the grandfather's or

grandmother's surname. Perhaps the minister has had representations on

this; I don't know. Frankly, I just recently had it presented it to me,

so I must admit that I haven't given it a great deal of thought. I

wonder if the minister sees any advantage to giving this opportunity to

a child as well. Maybe we could have a discussion on that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd be very pleased to

receive any submissions from any member or interested parties with

respect to future modification of the Change of Name Act, and have the

opportunity of discussing it to see whether it is a practical

suggestion.

I would think, Mr. Chairman, the director of vital statistics and

the persons responsible for this probably received every conceivable

form of request with respect to names, modification of names, and so

on. I think the director of vital statistics and the government have

some responsibility to try to establish an orderly method of

identifying people by name and keeping such records as may be

necessary. We really have had virtually every request one could think

of with respect to modifying names.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendments which have been put

forward today are a significant advancement in what has been considered

to be an inequitable situation with respect to the names. The amendment

may not resolve all of the problems or all of the considerations, but I

believe it's an important advancement, at least from what was

previously there. I'm quite prepared to look at any future

modifications which may be needed to resolve some of the identifiable

inequities which in the minds of some could still be there. I think by

today's amendment we have indicated that we are quite prepared to

listen to and accept responsible arguments which have been put forward.

So we can always continue to modify, once the case is made.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I too want to say how pleased I am

at this decision to open this piece of legislation and modify it once

again. The struggle to get the Change of Name Act brought into the

twenty-first century actually started in 1972, so you can see how

slowly the wheels of justice do grind. We're getting there, but we're

still — as my colleague for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) pointed out —

not quite there yet.

For example, on April 30 I received a letter from a woman who wanted

to use her surname as well as her husband's surname, and I'm wondering

if the minister could tell me whether under this

section that is now

possible. She didn't want to hyphenate it; she just wanted to have two

surnames. I want to know whether that is possible now.

I realize that I'm going on to

section 6 when I mention that I too

am surprised about the decision not to permit a woman to change her

surname without first getting the permission of her husband. I want to

say that this is incredibly difficult. I have mail going back to 1979

from women who have been separated for a long period of time but are

not divorced and would like to use another name. They find that they

have to either get permission or.... I notice

section 5, which said it

had to be put in the Gazette ,

has gone, and I'm really pleased about that. That's no longer

necessary. But maybe the minister could explain why it's still

necessary to get the permission of a husband you're no longer living

with — or have lived with for a while — to change your name.

The other thing was the question my colleague raised about naming the children, which I think we can make some submissions to.

Does it still cost $80 if you want to file a change of name? I don't know whether that's still in effect or not.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the cost of advertising; it has to be put into the Gazette.

MS; BROWN: Okay. But now that you no longer have to use the Gazette ,

I'm wondering whether it's still going to cost $80 to have it done. Can

the name a woman places on a marriage certificate at the time of her

marriage still be any name she chooses to use? Has that been affected

in any way by this act? If the minister would answer those two

questions, I will close by once again saying that I really appreciate

that this 12-year battle seems to be finally drawing to a close.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't know whether the $80 still applies; I would have to check that out.

My understanding is that a woman upon getting married can use

whatever legal name she may have and retain that. That doesn't modify

that, provided it's her legal name.

The other question the member asked.... Again, I would have to speak

to our director of vital statistics with respect to the need for

permission, to see if there is some legal reason for that. I don't

think it is meant to be paternalistic, but I will get an explanation

for it.

I would say to the members that I am quite interested in the area of

vital statistics, particularly with reference to names and so on, and I

would be most pleased to have any submissions come forward, to speak

with the director to get his opinion, and to do a reasonable search

across the country to see who else has been making modifications,

because we do believe there should be some consistency. We are quite

prepared to at least advance to the twentieth century, if not the

twenty-first.

[ Page 4809 ]

[12:00]

MS. BROWN: Just very quickly, to the minister: I would like

to recommend both Manitoba and Ontario, which have recently dealt with

their acts, and Ontario, specifically, as affecting the naming of

children and single parents' right to name their children.

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 12:01 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

27 The Hon. J. H. Heinrich to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 27) intituled Education Statutes (Fiscal Year) Amendment Act, 1984 to amend as follows:

SECTION 15, by deleting the proposed

section 15 and substituting the following:

"15.

Section 133 is amended

" (

a) in subsection (1) by striking out 'August 15' and substituting 'February 1', and

" (

b) in subsection (3) by striking out 'September 25' and substituting 'March 5'. "

SECTION 16, by deleting the proposed paragraphs (b), (c), (

d) and (

e) of

section 16 and substituting the following:

"(

b) by adding the following subsection:

"

(1.1) Where an agreement between a board and an association is due

to expire

(

a) during the transitional period of January 1, 1985 to June

30, 1985, or

(

b) in any fiscal year commencing with the fiscal year 1985/86,

the board or an association may

(

c) in respect of the agreement that expires during the transitional

period, on or before March 1, 1985, or

(

d) in respect of an agreement that expires in the 1985/86 fiscal

year or any subsequent fiscal year, on or before March I of the fiscal year

that the agreement expires,

serve the other with a written notice of its desire

to negotiate or continue an agreement respecting salaries and bonuses or salary

and bonus schedules for the next fiscal year or for the next fiscal year and

one or more subsequent fiscal years.,

"(

c) in subsection (2) by striking out 'September 30' and substituting 'March 10',

"(

d) in subsection (3) by striking out 'subsection

(1),' and substituting 'subsection (1) or (1. I), and

"(

e) in subsection (4) by striking out 'October 14' and substituting 'March 30'."

SECTION 17, by deleting the proposed

section 17 and substituting the following:

"17.

Section 135 (1) is amended by striking out 'October 15' and substituting 'March 31'. "

SECTION 18 , by deleting the proposed

section 18 and substituting the following:

"18.

Section 136 is amended

"(

a) in subsection (1) by striking out 'November 15, ' and substituting 'May 1,',

"(

b) in subsection (3) (

a) by striking out 'November 22,' and substituting 'May 8, ', and

"(

c) in subsection (3) (

b) by striking out 'December

7, ' and substituting 'May 15, '."

[ Page

4810 ]

SECTION 19, by deleting the proposed

section 19 and substituting the following:

"19.

Section 137 is amended

"(

a) in subsection (1) by striking out 'January 1, ' and substituting 'May 31, ', and

"(

b) in subsection (2) by striking out 'before January

1, the chairman alone shall make an award on or before January 5 of the following

year,' and substituting 'before May 31, the chairman shall make an

award on or before June 7 of that year,'."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada