1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd

Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2611

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Review of budget proposals. Mr. Stupich –– 2611

PVI carpentry instructors. Mr. Rose –– 2612

Revenue-sharing grants. Mr. Blencoe –– 2612

Long-term care for children. Mr. Barnes –– 2612

Native court workers. Ms. Brown –– 2612

Paycheque deductions to Solidarity. Mr. Reynolds –– 2613

Pre-election advertising. Mr. Hanson –– 2613

Economy of B.C. Hon. Mr. Hewitt replies –– 2613

Employment Development Act (Bill 16). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 2614

Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 14).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Curtis)

section 2 –– 2615

Mr. Davis

Division

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 15).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On

section as amended –– 2615

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Sanford

Mr. D'Arcy

Division

section 2 –– 2618

Mr. Stupich

Division

section 4 –– 2618

Mr. Stupich

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Skelly

Division

section 6 2621

Mrs. Wallace

section 7 –– 2622

Mr. Stupich

Division

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On the amendment to

Section I –– 2622

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Division

Appendix –– 2632

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1983

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it was with a considerable

degree of sadness that we learned on Saturday of the death of Colonel

The Hon. John Robert Nicholson, who served as British Columbia's

Lieutenant-Governor from July 1968 to February 1973. During the Second

World War Mr. Nicholson served with the British Columbia Regiment, the

Second Battalion, attaining the rank of colonel, and following the war

he was awarded the Order of the British Empire for service on behalf of

the Canadian government in Burma. After a distinguished career in the

legal profession and as a business executive, he was elected as member

of Parliament in 1962 and again in 1963 and 1965. During his service to

his country in the House of Commons he held the portfolios of forestry,

Postmaster-General, Citizenship and Immigration, and Labour.

Mr. Speaker, it would be greatly appreciated if you would express

the heartfelt sympathy of the House and the utmost regret to his family

and friends.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to join in the words

that have been spoken by the House Leader. J.R. Nicholson also happened

to be a family friend, although there was a difference in politics at

the lower levels within the family. He had a distinguished public

career, and when he was in Government House he was always very

agreeable and obliging to all the members of the Legislature and the

public. He will be sorely missed.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of the House, and with the agreement

of the House, the appropriate message will be sent.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this

afternoon are my caucus secretary, Joy De Casseres, and her sister,

Mrs. Faith Buckley, who is visiting Victoria from Halifax, Yorkshire,

England, and I would appreciate the House making her welcome, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two

people who dedicate their lives to helping those who are in need. I

speak of May Gutteridge of Vancouver and her assistant, Robert White.

All members of the House will know of the remarkable reputation of Mrs.

Gutteridge, who has given so much of herself in dedication to others.

She has earned the Order of Canada for her work, and has been an

inspiration to all those who serve in social services. I'd like the

House to welcome both Mrs. Gutteridge and Robert White today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a

very special visitor to Victoria — my wife, who is visiting from

Kamloops. I would like the House to make her very welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to introduce three people

in the gallery today from the Canadian Jewish Congress: Mr. Irvine

Epstein, national vice-president of the congress; Mr. Mark Silverberg;

and Mr. Richard Israels. Would the House make them welcome, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Visiting us also in the galleries today is

Mr. H. Stewart Hay, who is the designated minister counsellor to the

Canadian Embassy in Peking. I think we would like to wish him the very

best in his new posting.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF BUDGET PROPOSALS

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of Finance. The month

of August was the first full month following introduction of the

1983-84 budget. In view of the fact that 10,000 jobs were lost to the

B.C. economy during the month of August and 27,000 jobs were lost in

September, for a total of 37,000 lost jobs since the budget was

introduced, has the minister decided to conduct a comprehensive review

of his budget proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to the question is no. However, I

would like to observe that the unemployment rate is, as the member

knows, simply one measurement of a provincial or a national economy.

While I can't anticipate what the results may be, we have just closed

the second quarter of this fiscal year, and I will be reporting to the

people of British Columbia in about four weeks on the results of that

quarter — as is the practice introduced by this government in terms of

quarterly report — showing economic growth, receipts, level of

expenditure: a general overview of the entire situation with respect to

the provincial economy.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I was looking not just for a report

of the situation, but whether the minister has any idea about changing

plans. To follow that up, if 37,000 lost jobs in a period of two months

is not enough, just how many lost jobs would it take for the minister

to realize that there is something wrong with his budget proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the member, being an objective

individual in this province, would also admit that a significant number

of jobs were created in the period January to July-August 1983.

MR. STUPICH: The figures show there was a month-by month

improvement from January until July inclusive. It was after the July

budget was introduced, in August and September, that the figures turned

in the opposite direction, which would seem to indicate that it is a

result of his budget proposals. Once again, just how many lost jobs

does it take for him to realize that his budget and its budgetary

proposals are wrong for B.C. at this time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that isn't what I

said in answer to the earlier question. Every person who is seeking

work in British Columbia today and unable to find it is of concern to

this government. We have made that point repeatedly. The suggestion

that I am waiting for a particular level to be reached — or hopefully

not reached — in terms of unemployment in the province suggests that I

am indifferent to the levels which have occurred over the past good

many months. To specifically answer the member's question, nothing

which I have seen and no report which I have received suggests that the

budget introduced on July 7 of this year should be restructured in the

course of this fiscal year.

[ Page 2612

[2:15]

PVI CARPENTRY INSTRUCTORS

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Education. Last week I received a petition from the students of the

TRAC program of PVI. I am told that the minister also received the same

petition. This petition was protesting the firing of two carpentry

instructors without cause and without regard to seniority. I wonder if

the Minister of Education has investigated this allegation. If so, has

he decided to take action to reinstate the instructors or some other

form of action?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I would have to

advise the member that I have not received a petition and I have had no

evidence brought to me to date with respect to the two carpentry

instructors — who, in fact, have lost their employment for whatever

reason. I would have to take the question as notice and report back at

the earliest opportunity.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would accept

the petition that has come to my office. Upon receipt of that, would he

launch his investigation, look into it, and report back to the House?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to

accept the material. It would be one of the few times, as a matter of

fact, that a member opposite has brought forth the evidence upon which

his question is based. I'd be glad to receive it and follow through.

REVENUE-SHARING GRANTS

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Municipal Affairs. Despite earlier assurances that revenue-sharing

grants will be maintained at last year's level, the minister has now

admitted that unconditional grants will be cut approximately 15

percent. Can the minister confirm that revenue-sharing grants will be

cut by $30 million, and that this is made necessary by the dismantling

of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I won't even comment on the

latter part of the question, it's so ridiculous. However, I think that

if that member, and again I'm repeating myself, because he seems to

have difficulty in doing his research.... It was indicated that I would

attempt to maintain the unconditional portion of the revenue-sharing

within 15 percent of what it was last year. That, of course, has not

been decided yet, and it won't be until the exact figures are received,

at which time I will give a firm figure.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the minister at UBCM made it quite

clear that there will be virtually no cuts in unconditional grants, and

now we have the announcement of 15 percent minimum. Has the government

decided the municipalities shall bear the cost of political decisions

by the Social Credit government to hamstring resource revenue

collection by the provincial government?

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

LONG-TERM CARE FOR CHILDREN

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Human

Resources. The minister has refused to allow a disabled 13-year-old to

leave the Queen Alexandra Hospital into the care of a Victoria couple.

I'd like to ask the minister if she would advise whether this decision

reflects a preference of the management of the Ministry of Human

Resources to maintain patients in a $166-per-day health facility funded

by the Health ministry rather than in the care of a family at the cost

of $53 per day.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, at no time does the Ministry

of Human Resources make judgments on the basis of the dollars charged

for a patient or a client in a facility, be it a foster-care home or an

institution. The member's question refers, I take it, to a specific

case, and I would like to take the question as notice, if he'd be kind

enough to give me the name. I assume he'll do that by note.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the minister if

she has received an application by the couple to assist in having the

youngster, but I understand from her remarks that she hasn't. I'd be

glad to supply the minister with those names.

I would like to ask the minister when she will be tabling the

interministerial study on services to severely disabled, handicapped

children and adolescents, which was a study completed in mid –– 1981 ––

I believe that may have been to the Minister of Health, although it was

an interministerial study.

MR. SPEAKER: The question itself suggests future activity,

hon. member. The question could, however, be restated.

MR. BARNES: Has she either tabled or decided to table? We can

find no evidence that it has been tabled.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will take the question as notice.

NATIVE COURT WORKERS

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Attorney-General, and it has

to do with the 5 percent reduction in funding to the native court

workers contrary to earlier assurances given to them. In view of the

fact that this program is cost-shared with the federal government and

they have already come up with their third of the money, is the

minister now willing to reconsider the budget cuts announced in this

area?

HON. MR. SMITH: The funding that was cut was cut close to the

least of any of the bodies that provide direct legal services under

contract. Organizations that are directly involved in providing these

services were cut anywhere up to 10 percent. The native court workers

received a 5 percent cut. This was done after a great deal of careful

consideration to try to minimize the impact on the organization and to

assist that organization in operating with that lesser amount of money.

My ministry officials have worked with them, but there is absolutely no

intention of altering that grant or restoring that funding. I am very

pleased that they were able to receive 95 percent of what they received

last year; in fact, they did very well.

[ Page 2613

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister is aware that last year,

for example, the native court worker program assisted 5,000 clients

through the courts. Has he been advised, as I have been, that as a

direct result of the cuts in legal aid the workload is increasing?

HON. MR. SMITH: The workload of all the organizations that

were funded is increasing, and we were aware of that, yes.

MS. BROWN: In view of the fact that the minister is aware

that the workload is increasing, can he tell me what provisions, if

any, have been made to assist the native court workers in the very

special job which they are doing for members of the native community?

HON. MR. SMITH: Some years ago when that program was

separately funded, recognition was made of the importance of native

court workers, and that recognition is still confirmed. But like all

bodies that are receiving support from the government, in all branches

of government everyone is operating with no more dollars, and many with

fewer. Many in the public service, and many who are working for

organizations receiving funding, are doing more work and putting in

much longer hours, with fewer operating dollars to go around. Perhaps

it's not always what would be wanted, but that's the way of life.

People are making sacrifices; they're getting on and doing a good job

with fewer dollars.

PAYCHEQUE DEDUCTIONS TO SOLIDARITY

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

On the weekend I was approached by a number of security guards at B.C.

Place who are constituents of mine, and was advised that $5 has been

deducted from their paycheques without their permission, to be donated

to the Solidarity union. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour how

these employees can go about getting back the $5 that's been taken

without their permission, and whether the practice is an acceptable one

in a free and democratic society.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if

the member would advise me, perhaps following question period, exactly

which people are involved. I have had some indication myself that the

service employees' union — I would imagine it's the same union — has

asked the employers — or ordered the employers, rather — to check off

$5 from each employee's paycheque for Solidarity. While I believe it is

a bit unusual that a checkoff is actually requested for a political

organization, it is within the rules of the legislation available at

the present time. The only advice I could offer, as Minister of Labour,

would be that the employees deal with their union. Certainly, if enough

employees are concerned they have ways within the law to deal with the

union.

PRE-ELECTION ADVERTISING

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Provincial Secretary. I filed written questions with the Clerk's

office three and a half months ago with respect to pre-election

expenses for television advertising paid for by the taxpayers of the

province. Has the Provincial Secretary decided to table the costs of

all pre-election advertising?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's a rather unusual

question — a written question to be answered verbally.

It's a written question on the order paper and now he's asking for a

verbal response. I have some difficulty determining how he wants me to

reply to the question. If I answer the question now verbally, would he

then expect a response on the order paper as well? I'll have to check

some of the answers that might have flowed forward from the ministry.

That question has been put to the ministry to determine precisely the

dollar figure involved. I'll check. Maybe I have that answer in my

office. If I have the answer in my office, I make a commitment to you,

my friend, that I'll bring the answer back tomorrow.

ECONOMY OF B.C.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd just like to respond to a question I

took as notice last week. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) wanted

to know what other reports I had available to me that indicated that

B.C.'s economy was going to outstrip the rest of Canada in the coming

year. I could refer him to the Conference Board of Canada. I can, of

course, refer him to the Royal Bank of Canada, which he was aware of. I

can refer him to the Bank of Nova Scotia report on business, and to the

Province's business report, indicating that B.C.'s business climate is

warming up. In responding to the question, I'd be pleased to send these

to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Friday last, the hon. member

for Skeena raised as a matter of privilege an allegation that the hon.

Leader of the Opposition has been impeded and obstructed in his duties,

contrary to long-established usages and customs of parliament. In

support of this allegation the hon. member has cited standing orders 1,

19 and 20, as well as excerpts from Parliamentary

Practice in British Columbia,

including references from the fourth edition of Beauchesne and the

eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May. The hon. member concludes his

recitation of the rules relating to the power to punish disorder with

two submissions: (1) "the ancient usages of parliament have been

codified with our standing orders," and (2) "any remedy is within our

own power."

The Chair completely agrees with the second submission that the

remedy, i.e., the punishment of disorder, is within our own power.

However, the first submission — that the ancient usages have been

codified in our standing orders — is clearly contrary to the hon.

member's own citation from Sir Erskine May, which states, under the

heading "Dual source of modern powers to punish disorder," that "the

power to punish disorder is regulated partly by practice and partly by

standing order." Furthermore, the hon. member for Skeena's citation

from Sir Erskine May in support of his matter of privilege clearly

states, under the heading "Disciplinary powers of Speaker under ancient

usage," as follows: "...it is still open to the House to proceed

against a member according to ancient usage in preference to relying

upon the powers conferred by standing order." Without doubt, then, as

at Westminster, our rules and procedures are an amalgam of customs,

usages and Speakers' decisions as recorded in the Journals of

the House, and some codification of rules known as standing orders. In

the result, the authorities which have been advanced to the Chair do

not merely fail to support the basic proposition advanced by the hon.

member, but they are in direct contradiction thereto. This being the

case, the Chair is bound to conclude that there is no foundation

established for a matter of privilege.

[ Page 2614

[2:30]

I should also note that the hon. member, in his submission, raises

the question of whether or not the standing orders of the House of

Commons of the United Kingdom may properly be applied in this House

pursuant to our standing order 1, last adopted on February 20, 1930,

which refers us to the "usages and customs" of Westminster as far as

they may be applicable to this House. Custom, by definition, means

habitual or usual practice. It may well be that there was never any

intention that a standing order of Westminster newly adopted from time

to time would necessarily be applicable to this House. But it is a fact

that the Westminster standing order providing for sessional suspension

was adopted many years ago and the use thereof must now of necessity

have become the usual practice or "custom" of that House, and

therefore, under our standing order 1, qualifies as being applicable to

our House.

On the other hand, if one still insists that the Westminster rule as

to sessional suspension is not applicable per se to this House, then we

have a complete void, as our own standing orders do not specifically

provide for the consequences of a forcible ejection from the House

after the repeated refusal, of a member to leave after repeated

direction from the Chair. If such a void did then exist — although, for

the reasons stated, the Chair is of the opinion it did not — the Chair

made a ruling of the first instance, and that ruling was supported by

the House. It must further be noted that in the 112-year history of

this Legislature, no member, no matter how aggrieved he may have felt,

has conducted himself in the manner recently witnessed by this House

with the attendant result of forcible ejection.

In view of the gravity of the events of Wednesday last, however, the

Chair cannot conclude the matter without some further comment on the

specifics of those events. This Legislature and the institution of

parliament belong to the people of the province, and we the members are

merely its custodians. It is therefore imperative that there be a

response to any perverted and distorted version which may have been

presented to the public.at large in relation to the ejection of the

hon. Leader of the Opposition. The record will show that over the

preceding week the Chair had repeatedly and consistently taken the

position that when the Chair declines to put a motion pursuant to

standing order 44 the Chair exercises a power conferred upon it, but in

doing so makes no ruling, as is also the case of exercising a power,

pursuant to standing order 45A(3), when the Speaker interrupts the

proceedings and puts the question.

Prior to his expulsion, the hon. Leader of the Opposition not only

ignored the numerous previous statements from the Chair in explanation

of standing order 44, but repeatedly and persistently sought to impose

his own will, despite all efforts of the Chair to bring him to order.

The consequences of disregarding the authority of the Chair, and

thereby offending the dignity of the House, are well known to all hon.

members and need not be repeated here. Furthermore, and of crucial

significance, is the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was

well aware, having been specifically informed by the Chair on earlier

occasions when he, the Leader of the Opposition, was personally

involved, that failure to voluntarily leave the chamber would result in

a sessional suspension if force was needed to bring about compliance.

He cannot now be heard to complain, and it cannot be appropriately

claimed on his behalf, that he is unable to perform his duties in the

House when he, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, with full knowledge

of the consequences, brought upon himself the manner of his removal

from the chamber.

In these circumstances, the transgressor cannot, by any

interpretation of the law of parliament, be magically transformed into

the aggrieved party. The injured body is parliament itself.

Hon. members, on the date of my election to the high office of

Speaker, and in accordance with the long-established tradition, I

announced that I was a servant of this House. In keeping with that

tradition, I now invite both House Leaders to attend the Speaker's

chambers, should it be their desire to avail themselves of this office

for further discussion purposes. I now so invite such a move.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

Bill 16, Employment Development Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

GASOLINE (COLOURED)

TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[2:45]

section 1.

[ Page 2615

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section I as amended approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman I spoke in second reading against

this bill, and basically my opposition was related to this clause. My

argument was that the tax which will now be imposed is far too high. It

will drive business out of the province and add to the numbers of

unemployed in the province. I would like to see this

section modified

to the extent that the tax would be reduced by approximately

two-thirds. Therefore I would propose a change in the complex formula

appearing in clause 2 near the bottom of the page, and I would change

the figure "21.28" to the figure "7.0."

I wasn't aware that this bill would come up as quickly this

afternoon, and therefore I don't have a written amendment. I realize

that the weight of the government is behind the bill. I would, however,

like to see a vote held so that my opposition to the bill in its

present form can be fully expressed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As you stated yourself, the Chair cannot accept

the amendment unless it is presented in writing.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 40

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Kempf

Mowat

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Ree

Gabelmann

Sanford

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Macdonald

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Reynolds

Reid

Parks

NAYS — 1

Davis

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

in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move amendment 2.1 standing under my name

on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

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

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

Bill 14, Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated in second

reading that his ministry had done studies on the effect of various

measures proposed in this legislation. I wonder if he could tell us,

particularly with respect to the change in the tax on the sale of

automobiles, if any work or studies were done indicating that this

would not have a bad effect on the sale of smaller automobiles as

opposed to larger ones.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed this pretty

carefully. I can't offer the member or the committee detailed

statistics with respect to this particular measure. I think the tax

gain to the province is going to be pretty much of a wash. However,

there was some criticism — considerable criticism, as a matter of fact

— and some confusion in the community at large when I introduced the

variable rate earlier. I did so at that time as a conservation measure,

and in an attempt to assist those who purchase smaller automobiles.

There are perhaps those in this room today who would know more about

this than I — someone on the other side might say that almost anybody

would know more about this than I — but the fact of the matter is that

smaller automobile engines do not necessarily mean a lower-priced

automobile. Therefore that which we were attempting to do pleased some

dealers and some consumers, but it angered some consumers and caused

difficulty for some automobile dealers. Most of the concern expressed

came from consumers. As I say, I think the key point is that smaller —

as defined under the previous act

[ Page 2616

— is not necessarily less expensive. It was for

that reason that I decided, after considerable review within the

ministry — this is not a matter discussed with the executive council or

with caucus; it was a tax matter to be decided with the two or three

officials who assisted me in this matter — that we would return to the

straight rate.

[3:00]

MR. STUPICH: At the time we went to this variable rate for

autos I wasn't under the impression that we were trying to persuade

people to buy less expensive automobiles; rather, that we were

introducing this as a measure of energy conservation. Although we seem

to have a glut of petroleum products at the present time, in the longer

run it is still important that people have this idea of energy

conservation fixed in their minds. It's not something that comes and

goes with the changing economic conditions, but more and more people

should be concerned about the depletion of this depleting resource. If

it were a sound measure from the point of view of impressing upon

people the need to conserve, particularly nonrenewable types of energy,

then what were the arguments within his ministry that persuaded him to

change it? Does he feel it's not important any longer to persuade

people to conserve energy? I am just wondering what the arguments were.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I attempted to enumerate these for the

member for Nanaimo in my last remarks. Yes, conservation was certainly

one of the major factors under review at the time of the introduction

of the variable rate. But again, experience insofar as the ministry and

my office were concerned indicated that a number of people had some

problems with it. Perhaps they liked a particular model automobile

which was just above the cutoff point for one of the percentages to be

applied. Conservation remains important, and I would not want to stand

in front of this committee and say it is no longer important. The fact

is that quite apart from conservation the other aspect, which I think I

spoke on at the time of the introduction of the variable rate, was to

assist those purchasing "smaller-engined automobiles."

MR. STUPICH: The argument that some people want to buy

automobiles that are a little more expensive than the benchmark at

which the rate changed could also be applied to meals. There are some

people who would like to have meals that cost more than $7, as opposed

to those who, while they might like them, can only afford meals that

are less than $7. I think that particular argument is really not worth

very much. It was introduced as a sound energy conservation measure,

and in my opinion it is a shame that it is being abandoned. That was

the most important argument, and the only one that really had any

influence on me: that is, that it was a conservation measure. I believe

we are soon going to reach the day — I hope we are — when once again

there will be a lot more consideration paid by the government, whoever

is the government of the day, to this idea of energy conservation. It

should be a continuing education program. The idea of hitting people

with a higher tax if they are going to be wasteful of energy.... And I

am one of them; I drive a heavy car. I think I shouldn't be, from the

point of view of energy conservation, but I am willing to pay that

price, to pay that penalty, and I am conscious of it every time I fill

up.

I am opposed to that aspect of this particular section. Others may

want to say something about it.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I share the concerns of the member

for Nanaimo. When this measure was first introduced, although at the

time I think the minister did mention smaller engines, the point was

mentioned in relation to energy conservation in those motor vehicles.

Granted, at the time liquid fuels appeared to be in short supply and

now there is apparently a glut. But that should be irrelevant to this

measure. Even though there appears to be a glut of liquid fuels on the

market it doesn't seem to have had much effect on the price of gasoline

or of diesel at the pumps, which continues to go up regardless of the

price of these fuels worldwide. I am concerned that the minister is

doing away with this measure at this time because there is another

distinct advantage to encouraging people to buy smaller, more

energy-efficient cars. Most of the oil companies in this country are

controlled outside of the country, and that money goes outside of the

country;

whereas if you buy smaller quantities of fuel and use it more

efficiently, use it in energy-efficient cars, then you have disposable

income remaining which can be spent in your community to create jobs

and improve the economic well-being of that community.

It seems to me that this measure brought in now by the minister is

counterproductive. If there was a problem around the definition within

this

section of a smaller motor vehicle, or of a motor vehicle with a

smaller engine, then the minister should have defined energy-efficient

vehicles with more precision. The minister is capable of doing that

because the information is provided by the federal Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, which every year provides a

schedule of

energy-efficient motor vehicles. The minister could have established

his cutoff points based on that schedule. I think it's regrettable that

the minister has now equalized the tax rates on cars which are energy

efficient and those which are inefficient. We should be encouraging the

manufacture in Canada of energy-efficient vehicles, and one way to do

that is to encourage consumers to give a preference to those vehicles.

I think it is regrettable that this

section is being changed at this

time, although perhaps energy-efficient vehicles could have been

defined with more precision.

MS. SANFORD: I am really concerned as well that the minister

has decided to make this change. It seems to me that energy

conservation is far too important a concern to be set aside simply

because you need more money in this fiscal year. I think it's a serious

mistake to make that kind of a change and set aside that whole concept,

which is the concept that the minister argued at the time he introduced

this variable tax rate on the sale of automobiles. If the minister

wants more money — if that is the object — then let people like the MLA

for Nanaimo, who likes to drive a very big automobile, pay an even

higher sales tax. Let those people who prefer huge automobiles and want

to continue utilizing a vehicle of that size pay an even higher

percentage of the tax. Then you wouldn't have to do away with the

smaller vehicles. I think it is a mistake.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I am a bit hesitant, because up to

now I have been talking about 1(

c) and I want to go on to one of the

other subsections. Perhaps other members want to continue with l(

c) for

a while.

MR. D'ARCY: I am not going to belabour this point, Mr.

Chairman, but I think it is an important change. I would like to

question the minister, with all respect. If I heard him

[ Page 2617

correctly, he said that consumers objected to the

statute as it was prior to July 7, and I find that argument somewhat

specious. I really cannot imagine any consumer or dealer in the

province arguing for a tax increase, and universally for all sales of

all cars the change we are discussing here results in a tax increase.

Of course some consumers would be — if I could use the term — jealous

in that they may be paying 6 percent while their neighbour pays 4 or 2,

and would argue for an evening out of the tax rather than a

differentiation; but surely nobody would be arguing for an increase, in

the case of from 2 to 7 percent, of 350 percent. If the minister

wanted, because of that, to even things out, he at least could have

accommodated those claims.

The other point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is one that I think

has been made in second reading. When these tax incentives for the

public to buy more efficiently powered motor vehicles were brought in,

by and large by the major suppliers of that consumer market in this

province were foreign countries; imported cars supplied that market.

The Canadian automobile manufacturing industry was not catering to that

market. Now we find that the Canadian industry has retooled and

modified, and is supplying the fuel-efficient market. Just when they

begin to compete in an effective way the minister comes along and

removes the tax break. While I realize that automobile manufacturing is

not a major factor in the B.C. economy it certainly is important to our

nation as a whole, and sometimes we have to think of our nation as a

whole. I would like the minister to make some further comments on these

points, because what we are really talking about is a straight

across-the-board tax increase. There is no way to disguise it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Since budget day I have received virtually

no comment, negative or positive, with respect to returning to the

single tax rate for automobiles,

whereas at the time we went to the

variable rate — which members will recall was lower in the initial

instance — I received a great deal of negative comment. I'm sure

members will have looked at the Social Service Tax Act prior to budget

day. I have in front of me the copy which was consolidated, for

convenience, as of October 15 last. When you take a very basic idea,

such as small automobiles at X-rate, medium at Y-rate and larger at

Z-rate, it seems very straightforward — until you start identifying it

in terms that can be interpreted by those who would administer the

statute and those who must deal with the rate of tax.

The member for Alberni spoke about Transport Canada. Of course, he

would know that we had to relate it — I'm speaking of

section 2 of the

Social Services Tax Act before it is to be amended by this

section — to

a fuel consumption rating of 8.5 litres, or less, per 100 kilometres: 6

percent between 8.5 litres per 100 kilometres, but less than 11.3

litres per 100 kilometres, or 8 percent. As I say, there was

significant negative comment, and it continued — not at the same

volume, but it did continue on and off — with respect to the

complication and with respect to people in the market for a new car.

It should also be observed that this never dealt with used vehicles

because the Transport Canada rating would be extremely difficult to

apply; it dealt with new vehicles. We have returned to the general

sales tax rate. I'm not suggesting to the committee that I foresee a

change in that general sales tax rate, but as with all other goods,

durables or whatever, purchased under this social service tax, that

rate will rise and fall as circumstances dictate. Therefore I describe

it a well-intentioned effort, but one which caused considerable

complications. It is for that reason that we're returning to the

across-the-board rate.

[3:15]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, until now we have been talking

about the variable rate with respect to automobiles. I'll concede the

minister's argument to the effect that there were complaints about the

variable rate and that there have been none at all about the average

increase by doing away with the lower rates. I've had no complaints

about the variable rate — very few, at least — and certainly none about

the increase; nevertheless, I am dedicated to the idea of the

preservation of energy and of encouraging people. I haven't had any

complaints about the 25 increase in tobacco tax either. It's a way of

raising revenue, and of course that's one of the things the minister

has in mind. However, I am opposed to this particular part of

section

1. If anything, I would go the way of the hon. member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford): that is, to increase the difference until people start

realizing that they should be paying for using more energy.

A couple of places in this

section refer to the increase in the rate

from 6 to 7 percent. Again the minister indicated that there are

studies to support this, and that it would not have a bad effect on the

economy. I recall that in 1978, when the government reduced the sales

tax by a couple of points with a considerable amount of assistance from

the federal government, it was done then as a way of improving our

economic performance as a nation, province by province. Certainly we

need some improvement right now. I wonder what arguments were used to

persuade the minister — with our economic performance being what it is

right now; on the upgrade — that this was the time to introduce a

general increase in the rate of the sales tax.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to that portion of the

section

before us which deals with the general tax rate, I think I indicated at

the conclusion of second reading that, faced with a projected deficit

in the neighbourhood of $1.6 billion — a little less if we're lucky — I

had to access a variety of revenue sources without hitting any

particular aspect of the public in such a way as to cause very real

difficulties. Therefore I believe that at the conclusion of second

reading, if not in a question or in dealing with the news media, I

indicated — and I can indicate now, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly — that

for a while I had considered an increase from 6 to 8 percent. But the

impact that would have had on the provincial economy would, I think,

have been quite serious. There were, therefore, two or three options to

me. I believe I'm not straying from the section, since we're speaking

about the general rate increase.

One of the options, quite clearly, would have been to significantly

reduce, if not almost altogether eliminate, the very extensive list of

exemptions from the sales tax in British Columbia. I was loath to do

that, extremely reluctant to do that, in terms of the agricultural

industry and the fishing industry, in terms of many essentials which

individuals purchase, and these essentials are well stated in all the

documentation issued by the consumer tax branch. Recognizing the value

of one sales tax percentage point, I reluctantly concluded that I

wanted to — indeed I had to — increase the rate from 6 to 7 percent. I

don't make the comment lightly, Mr. Chairman, but a number of people in

the days following the

[ Page 2618

budget indicated that they somehow had expected an

increase; and a number of them had expected an increase from 6 to 8

percent. As I said, that was carefully considered and rejected.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I suppose,

the opposition is opposed to the part of this

section dealing with the

abandoning of the variable rate for automobiles. We are opposed to a

general increase in the sales tax, particularly at this time. We were

convinced by the arguments used by this minister's predecessor in 1978,

when he argued successfully that it was necessary, from the point of

view of economic performance, to reduce the sales tax. We agreed with

that argument at that time, and we feel that would be the right

approach to take today. For those reasons, we're going to vote against

this section.

Section 1 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS 8

Macdonald

Stupich

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Wallace

Mitchell

section 2.

MR. STUPICH: Once again, this

section deals at least in part

with an increase in the rate of tax. Our arguments are the same as they

were on

Section 1 with respect to an increase in taxes at this time, so

we'll vote against

section 2 as well.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 6

Macdonald

Stupich

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Wallace

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

in the Journals of the House.

[3:30]

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. STUPICH: The minister may have commented to some extent

on this in second reading more than I heard — I don't know. This is a

departure. We are now moving into a new area — two new areas, actually:

a charge on meals is new in the last 12 or 15 years at least. Again, I

wonder what reports or studies were done to persuade the minister that

imposing a sales tax on restaurant meals and also on long-distance

telephone calls was the right way to go at this time. What rationale is

there for this, apart from raising money?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think I heard the member for

Nanaimo say, just as he took his seat: "apart from raising money."

Well, that certainly was fundamental to the consideration. I hope the

member will hear me out, as he nearly always does — always does, I

should say.

Prepared meals and long-distance telephone calls are now taxed in

most other provinces and in many states. In fact, I'm informed that

prepared meals are taxed in all provinces except Alberta and

Saskatchewn, and long-distance telephone calls are taxed in all

provinces except Alberta. I will probably be ruled out of order by the

Chair, but from what I hear and read it may not be too long before some

tax changes will occur in the province next door.

As I indicated in the previous section, in considering the serious

effect that increasing the sales tax general rate from 6 percent to 8

percent might have, and therefore deciding on 7 percent, I saw these as

two other opportunities for revenue, still giving the consumer an

element of choice. I appreciate that in some areas the long-distance

telephone call is a necessity, but there is an option open to

individuals in many instances. I recognize that it is a business

expense — the long-distance telephone must be used — and of course it

is again worth noting that this tax exists in most other jurisdictions

in North America, and certainly in Europe, insofar as I am informed.

The entry level for the tax on prepared meals has been discussed at

length. That is not to say that it should not be discussed again in

this

Section in committee. In introducing the level I was very

cognizant of the fact that there are those individuals who must, of

necessity, for family, business or work reasons, or whatever, eat meals

other than at home. That's why the decision was made with respect to

$7. The lunch which I had today, which is typical of lunches which most

people would eat, was well under that level and therefore not taxable.

MR. MACDONALD: I have to eat twice at night now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That member is definitely not in his seat. I

falsely accused the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) of

not being in his seat earlier, but I know that member is not in his

seat.

[ Page 2619

To the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), through you, Mr. Speaker, I

examined the limited options open to me, again bearing in mind the need

for significant exemptions in medications and a variety of personal and

tangible property, in terms of food products which we purchase for

preparation and consumption at home, and that is why I accessed these

two, which had been exempt for quite some time.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the $7 figure, the

minister anticipated me to some extent, although I wonder again if

Ontario went all the way. Did they?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister considered that. He did

say that some people are obliged to eat lunches away from home, and he

was trying to provide for those by setting the figure at $7. I have to

ask again.... I did this in second reading but I don't think the

minister really commented on it, He did with respect to the first

section.

The exemptions, I believe, are there to reduce the regressivity of

the tax — if that is the proper word. I wonder whether it's the best

direction to go or whether it would be better to be eliminating more

exemptions. What I'm wondering is whether any study has been done of

this. How effective is this means of reducing the regressivity, and

would it be better to get rid of more exemptions and establish some

credit system for the people? The minister said he ate a lunch for less

than $7. He can well afford to pay the sales tax on whatever he paid

for his lunch, but there are people out there who are eating meals

costing more than $7, in certain circumstances, who find it difficult

to pay for that meal. I question this whole way of handling it. Why

didn't we go all the way if we're going to go at all, and why $7 in

particular? Did the minister have any input from the Ministry of

Tourism as to what effect it might have to introduce it right when the

tourist season was just getting rolling on July 7?

HON MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if I can stay within the limits

of the section, no, I did not consult with the Ministry of Tourism.

Indeed, I think our parliamentary practice prevents that from

occurring. Nor could I consult with the Restaurant Association in the

province; nor could I consult with anyone else with respect to a tax

measure. I think there would have been quite appropriate howls for my

resignation, more so than usual, if I had consulted with anyone. As the

member well knows, Mr. Chairman, having served in this House for a good

number of years, I could not allude in any way to a tax on restaurant

meals, even if we had not yet decided on the level. That would have

signalled a future tax move, and so that option was not open to me.

There are times when I wish it were, and I think there are others in

the country who feel that way. That kind of consultation would be of

assistance in some instances, but tradition or practice, call it what

one will, precludes that.

The member speaks with respect to the restaurant meals. Yes, I can

afford to pay tax on a lunch. It happens that I eat a very light lunch,

Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. But we wanted to avoid virtually

all breakfasts, most lunches and all take-out meals, and we certainly

wanted to avoid the modest evening meal which some people on shiftwork

or in the course of travelling would have to consume away from their

own homes. I think the $7 level, while it was the subject of

considerable criticism initially, is becoming accepted. I've seen a few

"Curtis Specials" at $6.99, and I understand....

MR. SKELLY: Ptomaine specials.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Ptomaine specials! Surely the member for

Alberni doesn't accuse the restaurant industry of serving poor food in

this province? I'm not aware of it.

MR. MACDONALD: They're very good. I had two of them the other

night.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, seriously, I would commend to

the member for Nanaimo and to others, as I have done previously, an

examination of the flat tax from zero, 10 cents or 50 cents, whatever

it may be. Ontario did move to that last year, and I think that the

problems have been quite significant. Most places where one eats away

from one's home which charge $7 or more are already registered with the

consumer taxation branch for the dispensing of alcoholic beverages. As

they are already registered, it was not a great difficulty for them.

One can imagine the confusion that could have been caused with the

introduction of a tax to the thousands of outlets which are not

registered with the consumer taxation branch — the corner cafe,

whatever it may be, which does not even dispense beer or wine. I don't

think it's necessary, in terms of revenue, and I trust that events will

prove me correct, to have a tax levied when one goes to a coffee shop

and has a cup of coffee, or when one goes to a comer cafe and has a

grilled cheese sandwich. I earnestly hope we don't come to that point

in terms of the need for revenue. The $7 was very carefully considered.

The Restaurant Association was initially vehemently opposed, but

officials in the ministry and I have had meetings with the Restaurant

Association in the interval, and I believe that there is a gradual

understanding of the fairness of that $7 level.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, people do get accustomed to paying

almost any tax, I suppose, and the heat cools off. It's another tax

increase which was imposed at the wrong time in our economy. It was

imposed near the beginning of our tourist season. Apart from that, the

whole thing is based on the premise that the minister forecast our

deficit for this fiscal period will be $1.6 billion. I don't accept

that premise for a start, and I'm opposed to a tax increase at this

time. I'm against this section.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not going to recanvass material covered by

the member for Nanaimo on

section 4, but what has not been discussed,

certainly not at any length, regarding this particular tax is the

effect on the employees in the restaurant business, who are largely

non-unionized and depend for a great proportion of their income on tips

and gratuities. The experience of a great many employees whom I have

talked to within the restaurant industry has been that a tremendous

number of restaurant consumers, because times are tight and people are

working their personal budgets with a pretty sharp pencil, simply take

it out of what normally would have been a tip or gratuity. Therefore

this tax directly reduces the disposable income of employees within the

industry, apart from whether or not it has had a depressing effect on

restaurant sales, particularly sales of food in excess of $7. That is

the question which I suppose we can all have our own subjective

arguments for. In my view it has had a depressing effect on

[ Page 2620

the sales of restaurant meals in excess of $7. As

we have commented before in second reading — I won't go over it again —

one of our fastest-growing industries in terms of employment in this

province has been or was, before the economic downturn, the restaurant

industry. I would like to have the minister's comments on that.

For the moment I am simply going to move an amendment that

section 4

be amended to delete subsection (a), which is the

section referring to

imposing a tax on the restaurant industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will advise on the amendment in a

moment if the member will just go ahead, please.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, quite clearly, in my view, a

restaurant tax at this time will have a depressing effect on economic

recovery in British Columbia. It will also discourage the tourist

industry as we approach Expo 86. I think the public of British Columbia

appreciate that the ministry that the minister is responsible for has a

major investment in terms of public funds. Certainly substantial

borrowings have been authorized through his ministry for that purpose.

As members of this assembly — or, to be precise, as part of this

committee — we certainly do not want to do anything which is going to

have any restricting effect on the restaurant industry and the tourist

industry in general. We do not want to impede in any way this

province's ability to generate much economic activity, much velocity

out there with the money supply within the province of British Columbia.

Certainly I speak in favour of the amendment. I hope the minister

will consider it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been advised that inasmuch as the

amendment affects Crown revenues, by virtue of that alone, it is out of

order. There will be no more discussion on the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, I must

challenge your ruling on whether or not the amendment is in order.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

[3:45]

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Campbell

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Macdonald

Stupich

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I want to be on record as opposing

this section. We're dealing here with a very competitive industry. Many

people who go into the restaurant industry go in with very few

resources. It's one of those types of business which fail in large

numbers in the province of B.C., according to its own association and

its representative, Don Bellamy.

Also, it's one of the industries that's heavily reliant on the

tourist industry and must be extremely competitive when we're talking

about a difference in value between the Canadian and U.S. dollars of 19

cents. By imposing a tax on meals of 7 percent, we're reducing the

difference in price between American and Canadian meals. Americans are

already competitive, even when their dollar is worth more. What we

should be doing is improving the ability of the restaurant trade to

compete for tourist dollars. To add taxes upon taxes, as this

government is doing, eliminates the competitive edge which would keep

Canadians travelling in Canada and which would attract Americans to

this country. Again, it takes away tourist dollars.

It also takes away disposable consumer dollars — job creating

dollars — from small communities and transfers those dollars down to

Victoria, where they are obviously less efficiently spent.

The minister has indicated in previous sections of the bill that

studies had been done to determine the tax impacts of the sales tax at

various rates and on various commodities. He indicated that for some

reason he couldn't consult with the Ministry of Tourism. I don't think

that's really an argument. In previous budget papers, the ministry

indicated what the various tax expenditures were involved in social

services tax exemptions. They indicated how much money the government

had forgone by not levying social services taxes against various retail

items. The public is aware, the ministry is aware, and the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is obviously aware of what those

expenditures involve. I am sure that it would not be considered a

breach of the minister's responsibility for secrecy to discuss with

various ministers what the options are for raising provincial revenues.

However, it would be difficult to discuss it in specific instances

where the minister is preparing a budget. Surely the Ministry of

Finance, with its capability to do these kinds of studies, could have

consulted with the Ministry of Tourism to find out what the detailed

impact would be of taxing restaurant meals, especially on the tourist

industry, and the competitiveness of that industry between ourselves

and the United States.

Again, I think it's unfortunate that this tax is being imposed in

this way, and I certainly intend to vote against it.

MR. DAVIS: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

[ Page 2621

Leave granted.

MR. DAVIS: In the gallery this afternoon we have a prominent

citizen, Mr. David Craig, of North Vancouver, who is a former trustee

and highly valued adviser. I would like the House to make him welcome.

[4:00]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go a little

further than did the hon. member on this question of advice. The

minister said that it's a matter of precedent and practice, I believe,

that he can't go outside of his ministry for advice. He can't even talk

to his colleague the Minister of Tourism. I would like to suggest to

the minister that he re-examine this whole question.

It would seem to me that there must be quite a number of people

involved in the preparation of the budget, certainly in the final

stages, and in the printing of the legislation. There must have been

quite a number of people who knew, prior to July 7, that there was

going to be an increase in the sales tax. In the 112-year history of

the province, I've never known of one example of anyone being accused

of breaking a trust with respect to a budget measure. It may have

happened and I've forgotten about it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm talking about the province of British

Columbia right now.

It would seem to me that if the minister really believes that he

could do a greater service to the public and the community by

discussing in advance, with someone other than the people immediately

involved with it, then he should feel that he can do that by swearing

the appropriate people to secrecy. He can also go too far in that

direction, I would think. I believe that one of the problems with the

infamous 1981 MacEachen budget was that most of the advice came from

outsiders rather than insiders, so they don't always know better. I

quite firmly believe that there are times when even the Minister of

Finance, with respect to budgetary measures, should abandon this old

concept that to discuss the matter with outsiders is not the proper

thing to do. If he believes it's in the interests of the people of the

community, and if he can serve the people better as Minister of Finance

by so doing, then I think he should re-examine his position in that

respect and act accordingly.

I'm opposed to

section 4, of course, because it is an increase in

tax and it's the wrong time for it.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

Campbell

Strachan

Reynolds

Reid

Parks

Ree

Veitch

NAYS — 9

Macdonald

Stupich

Lauk

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

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

in the Journals of the House.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is the

section that deals

with the regulations. I have a question for the minister as to whether

or not he is proposing changes in the method of collection of tax. This

question is prompted by a letter which I received, as did the minister,

I believe. It used to be that people who had sales under a certain

amount were only required to submit the tax every three months, I

believe it was. Now, apparently, this has been changed and they are

requested to send this in every month. I'm wondering whether or not

this is a new regulation that has been written in connection with the

particular piece of legislation and, if so, what the thinking behind

this is. It does create a lot of extra paperwork for the same fee. I

think they get $10 every time they submit. They are being required to

do this.... I'm not sure that I have this right. Perhaps they are going

to be changed from one month to every three months, because I know

they're going to get much less return for doing the same amount of

work. I don't have the piece of paper in front of me right now, but I

think the minister is now familiar with this and perhaps he could just

fill us in as to what it is that he is proposing to do, and what the

thinking behind it is.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the regulations referred to in

section 6 are simply those relative to the tax changes. What the member

has raised is largely administrative, and has been undertaken.... We

want to make it as easy as we can for those who remit the tax, because

from the government's point of view we are also involved in a fair

amount of paperwork as well. I believe we've had correspondence on the

instance to which she refers, but I would be happy to deal with her in

that regard at any time convenient to her.

MRS. WALLACE: I take it that the minister is saying that this

is not covered by regulation and that it is an administrative thing.

What is the authority, then, if it's not covered by regulation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, my point was that it is not in

this regulation.

MRS. WALLACE: So there's been no change.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This regulation deals only with the

regulations necessary with respect to the changes that apply in this

bill. I don't think I can discuss all sales tax regulations with the

member, as much as I would like to, when we just have regulations which

deal with this particular bill.

Section 6 approved.

[ Page 2622

section 7.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I did raise this earlier with the

minister, and I don't think he commented on it. I question again why an

increase in sales tax has to be retroactive. I'm opposed to retroactive

legislation as a general principle, and to retroactive tax increases in

particular. I note in the news, in the last 24 hours or so, that people

in Israel are expecting the price of almost everything that they buy to

go up substantially in the next short while, and it has started a

spending spree in that state. It would seem to me that if the

implementation of this particular legislation had been postponed — as

was done, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, some 35 years ago, when the

legislation was first introduced in March, and not put into effect

until July 1 - there would have been a spending spree in anticipation

of it. I think if there's anything we need in the community right now

it's something to building consumer confidence. If people did go out

and spend a lot of money in anticipation that the rate of sales tax was

going to increase, I think there wouldn't be the fall-off immediately

afterwards, and it could do nothing but good for the economy.

If the minister commented on the impossibility of telegraphing his

punch with respect to this particular tax increase, I missed it, and I

apologize.

[4:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think I did deal with this,

but if not I'll try to recap briefly. The tax holiday which comes to

mind most readily is with respect to automobiles in Ontario. I have

received mixed messages on it. Yes, it did accelerate the sale of

automobiles, but then at the end of the holiday they fell off quite

badly. I'm sorry I don't have statistics with respect to that.

I am aware of what has occurred in the State of Israel in the last

couple of days, but I think that the telegraphing of the punch is

ultimately disruptive.

MR. STUPICH: That's an extreme situation, though.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is an extreme situation, I admit.

Insofar as this Legislature is concerned this tax is now

retroactive, but the bill was introduced on budget day, and said: "As

of tonight the tax rates are changed. These items are taxable, and so

on." It works both ways, when a tax is reduced or increased.

If members on both sides permit, I would enjoy discussing during my

estimates the whole question of consultation and the triggering of tax

dates. I would be more comfortable discussing it in estimates than in

this particular section. I hear one or two of my colleagues behind me

saying aye.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think they're saying aye with

respect to something quite different.

But I think it's not whether the members would allow that but

whether the Chairman will allow it when we get to the minister's

estimates. Let's try it at that time and see how we get along.

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Kempf

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Ree

Reid

Davis

Reynolds

NAYS — 7

Stupich

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

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

in the Journals of the House.

Title approved.

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

report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 15, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

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

section 1.

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

under my name on the order paper. [See appendix. I

On the amendment.

MR. HANSON: I propose an amendment to the minister's

amendment, to strike out the words, "includes layoff, " and substitute:

" means to dismiss from employment with just cause."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Since the subamendment is beyond the scope of

the amendment, the Chair has to rule it out of order.

MR. HANSON: That is your ruling, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct.

[ Page 2623

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you what the grounds are

for ruling it out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just said what it was. It is beyond the scope

of the amendment as presented by the minister, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Does that mean that if this amendment as

proposed by the minister is accepted it is then open to amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no problem with a member's moving a

subamendment. It is just that in this particular case the subamendment

goes beyond the scope of the amendment as presented by the minister. If

the hon. member would like to present a subamendment in a different

fashion, the Chair will consider that.

MS. SANFORD: I fail to understand the reasoning that you have

advanced. I have to admit that I don't understand your reluctance to

accept this, because it appears to me that it clarifies the amendment

moved by the minister rather than going beyond the scope of that

amendment. I cannot accept your decision, and I challenge it.

[4:30]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Campbell

Chabot

McCarthy

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 7

Lauk

Sanford

D'Arcy

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

Blencoe

MR. REE: On a point of order, I believe the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) did not stand for the division either way, and

he's on the division list.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. Hearing the reading of

the list, I note that Mr. Clerk indicates that the second member for

Victoria voted nay. Is that correct?

MR. BLENCOE: That's correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member affirms that. His vote will

be recorded as voting against sustaining the Chair.

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

MR. HANSON: I have a subamendment to

section 1, the

definition section, adding the following definition: "'Lay off' is a

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

work required to be done by the employer." That is the language out of

the existing collective agreement, and I so move.

Mr. Chairman, I need a clarification. At the moment we have the

amendments moved by the minister. Is my subamendment not in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not until after the minister's amendment has

been passed.

MR. HANSON: The minister has moved an amendment to add the

following definition: that "'terminate' includes 'lay off.' " Mr.

Chairman, we oppose that. We oppose it because public sector workers

are being singled out for treatment that is not found, contrary to

their arguments, in the private sector. There are layoffs in the

private sector; there are terminations in the private sector.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is a

very serious piece of business. The future of many public servants in

this area and across this province is in jeopardy. I really think it

would be incumbent upon the government members to listen clearly to

what this first member for Victoria has to say, and perhaps you could

ask the government members to stop interjecting and let him make his

case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of order, but the point is

well taken.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, if the second member for

Victoria can make those points of order and get them on the record, we

could also say that he was sleeping through the last vote and that is

why he didn't stand up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That also is not a point of order, hon. member.

This House will come to order.

MR. HANSON: Within the collective agreements that are

affected by this legislation, in all instances there are layoff and

recall clauses. I would like to read to you, to convince the minister

of the folly of his amendment,

article 13.01 — "Layoff and recall" — of

the current BCGEU agreement: "Layoff. In the event of layoff resulting

from a decrease in the amount of work to be done, the following shall

apply: (1) auxiliary employees...." For your information, Mr. Chairman,

an auxiliary employee is one who does not occupy an established

position in government; in other words, they are the as-and-when type

of employees but do have their seniority counted as a credit to their

employment. Many auxiliary employees can have 10 or 15 years' service,

but have never been successful in getting a regular position or in

applying for one or whatever. The point I'm trying to make to the

minister is that layoff is a well-understood term in industrial

relations which relates to the seasonal fluctuations through

as-and-when conditions that all employers experience; in other words,

from time to time the work requirement is greater. Therefore layoff and

recall occur in the public sector as they do in the private sector.

[ Page 2624

In the public sector, this government is singling out the people who

are working in

schedule 1 and also at the

schedule in the back of this

act, which covers 250,000 families in this province. To separate them

from the classification of having layoff protection according to

seniority.... A layoff is a termination. That is unjust, Mr. Chairman.

I testify to you that the amendments and various regulations that have

been appearing, both in this House, and in the corridors and in press

gallery meetings, are a sham. They try to confuse and obfuscate, try to

separate public sector employment from private sector employment. The

notion that is attempted to be perpetrated on the public by the

government is that somehow private sector workers are not enjoying the

same kind of protection and rights that public sector workers are. That

is false.

[4:45]

Mr. Chairman, as I have pointed out in earlier discussions and I'm

not going to get into anything that would be appropriate under second

reading — the specifics of layoff and recall and the language proposed

here, which makes a layoff notice a termination notice.... Public

sector employees, even within the bargaining unit, which is one group

directly under the employ of the provincial government.... They are

only one of 20 different agencies of government affected by this bill.

There is some protection in the bargaining unit for those with over

three years' service. However, they can be fired with just cause. If

they are not doing their job properly, and it's properly documented,

they can be terminated. If they are unhappy, they can then proceed....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the

member for Victoria is really making his case on the wrong

section of

this legislation. If he wants to discuss the question of termination of

employees, he should be discussing the issue on

section 2, not in the

interpretation section.

Interpretation just defines what the act

essentially does.

It strikes me that he is attempting to make a case to frustrate our

ability to get the legislation through the House by attempting to

harass and delay each and every

section of the act. The case that he is

making now is precisely out of order under this particular section.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't

think the minister's left hand knows what his right hand is doing. He's

brought in an amendment which reads....

He's going to add a definition that makes "terminate" mean "lay

off." I don't know what date he brought that in — it was a couple of

days ago — but I have in my hand some draft Public Sector Restraint Act

regulations with tomorrow's date. Do you know what he talks about here

in the

preamble? He talks about layoff and recall rights. Then he gets

over into the general part and talks about implementation of

terminations. He talks about terminations or layoffs. If he is dealing

with

interpretation and telling us that a termination means a layoff,

then why is he referring to both termination or layoffs when he

discusses the problem in regulations? He goes on to compensation. It's

interesting....

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

compensation really has nothing to do with this particular

section of

the act. She apparently wants to read the compensation package and the

regulations that were brought down this afternoon. Essentially, in the

amendment to

section 1, which is the

interpretation

section of the act,

the government is saying that we should have the flexibility to use

either: termination or layoff. We're not attempting to suggest that one

means the other, and the other means the other. We're just saying that

that flexibility is what we require, and that's why the word "layoff"

was added to the

interpretation section. It doesn't mean anything more

than that. I think all they have to do is look at a dictionary to come

to an

interpretation of what "terminate" really means. You can also

look at a dictionary and come to a conclusion about what "lay off"

means. I don't think it's fuzzy, ambiguous or an attempt to deceive or

mislead. It's a very simple, clear-cut amendment that's been put to the

interpretation section,

section 1. If you want to discuss all the many

other issues and sections in this bill — there are ten sections.... If

you want to discuss the appropriate

section you will have an

opportunity to do so. Don't attempt to discuss something under a

section that's out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair should point out that the minister

rose on a point of order, but what in fact the minister did was to

respond to the questions that were being put by the hon. member. We are

speaking to

Section 1 dealing with

definitions within the bill, and

with the amendment. I think the Chair appreciates what the member is

saying, but could the member speak directly to this particular

definition.

MRS. WALLACE: The definition we're talking about is:

"terminate' includes lay off." I am suggesting that if "terminate"

includes " lay off," then we do not need to talk about terminations or

layoffs, or to differentiate between them as the minister has done in

his regulations. If terminate means lay off, then terminate means lay

off, you can't have it both ways. You can't have terminate and lay off

the same thing, and then differentiate between them and how you're

going to treat them when you come to drafting regulations. I think the

minister should reconsider this particular amendment if he's going to

have the kind of regulations that he's proposing. What he is saying

here is that terminate and lay off are identical; I'm saying that his

other actions do not indicate that he really thinks that. The issues he

is raising under other sections of this act are not in line with what

he is saying in this amendment. If a termination is a layoff, if they

are identical things, then you don't....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, no, I'm not saying that.

MRS. WALLACE: Then why are you saying it means the same thing?

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're talking about the regulations now.

MRS. WALLACE: No, no. I'm talking about this amendment that

says, "'terminate' includes lay off," that says "terminate" and

"layoff" are synonymous. That's what you're saying in this amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, no.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, if you're not saying that, then my

are going to be a great many problems before the

[ Page 2625

courts in interpreting whether or not this does

mean that a layoff and a termination are the same thing. Certainly

that's what the intent of it appears to be. If a termination includes a

layoff, then when you're laid off you are terminated. Is that correct

or isn't it? Is that what this is saying? I'd like the minister to tell

us whether he really means that if you are laid off you're terminated,

Is that the same thing, Mr. Minister, or are they different things?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, they're different things.

MRS. WALLACE: How? If you're saying that termination includes

layoff....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member just has to

read that sentence very carefully — not carefully, really, but with a

little bit of thought. There are only three words. It doesn't say

"termination means layoff." It doesn't say "termination is the same as

layoff." It says "'terminate' includes lay off." Essentially it means

that terminations can be applicable. It gives the government the

flexibility of using layoff too. Would you prefer that the government

used only the word "terminate," or do you want us to have the

flexibility of using them both, either the flexibility of using

termination, or the flexibility of using layoff? It gives the

government some flexibility. That's all it does. That's what we're

saying. We don't say "'terminate' means lay off," we say "'terminate'

includes lay off." Maybe you had better call in a lawyer to give you

some advice.

MS. SANFORD: The minister is telling us that he has been

getting such flak since the introduction of this bill that we now have

a cosmetic amendment to say that termination can also include layoff.

But it doesn't change anything, Mr. Chairman, because this government

will go right ahead and terminate as they have been doing all along.

They will continue to do exactly as they see fit under this....

MR. KEMPF: Order.

MS. SANFORD: What do you mean, "order"?

MR. KEMPF: I mean you're not speaking to the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Of course I'm speaking to the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, please address the Chair. The

scope of this debate, hon. members, is very limited, as you will

appreciate. It is limited really to four words and what they mean.

While there certainly is room, and some examples can be brought

forward, it will be difficult for members to speak specifically to this

very limited item.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that this is a cosmetic

addition to a bill which is still completely unacceptable. It will

allow the government, even with this "includes lay off" provision, to

terminate based on a philosophy, based on idealism, based on a

right-wing extremism which wants to eliminate....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: This is exactly what it's doing, Mr. Chairman.

They have introduced this phrase "includes lay off" in the vain hope

that it's going to make termination more palatable, more acceptable to

the general public. They don't intend to make any changes. They have

already gone ahead with these terminations, and now at this late date

they bring in this amendment to try to convince the public that they're

doing something that is logical and acceptable, the usual kind of

approach in labour-management relations. That's what they are trying to

do under this amendment, but the terminations have already taken place.

So this layoff that they're adding here is simply cosmetic. They are

trying to convince the public that they are close to the private sector

in terms of labour-management negotiations and labour-management

relations. That's what they are trying to do, but they will continue to

fire at will, as they have done for these past months. There is nothing

here to make them consider just cause at all. They can still terminate

in the same way as before. It is a cosmetic addition, and that is all

it is, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman,

section 1 is a very important

section and defines forever and a day how this bill applies and whom it

applies to. You mentioned three words. Those are very important words,

because they outline the history of the development of how the

government got into the legal jam that it's in, and I want to clarify

that.

The word "layoff" has a certain definition in arbitral law. Layoff

means a cessation of employment as the result of a reduction in the

amount of work required to be done by the employer. It is a provision

of the collective agreement. The courts or an arbitration board or the

Labour Relations Boards would say, in looking at the terminations, are

these layoffs as they may have been noted in the notices. They are not

layoffs because they have not followed the provisions of the collective

agreement for layoffs. I don't know whether all of the contracts

covering all of the different schedules in the act have the same

language, but this one says that in the event of layoff resulting from

a decrease in the amount of work to be done, the following shall apply.

Auxiliary employees have been terminated, but auxiliary employees to be

laid off "shall be laid off, in reverse order of seniority, prior to

regular employees." That's what the contract says. The second one is:

"Regular employees with less than three (3) years' service seniority

shall be laid off in reverse order of seniority." The third: "The

provisions of this clause may not apply to an employee on completing an

apprenticeship program." That is a different status.

Mr. Chairman, I have been very specific about the definition of

layoff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand, hon. member. I was just going to

suggest to you that the specific things you have referred to in the

last moment or two would be much better under another

section of this

same bill which will be coming forward. As I said before, the scope of

our debate is very limited. It relates to termination including layoff,

and if you could confine your remarks to that a little more closely it

would be appreciated.

[ Page 2626

[5:00]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am focusing debate on

this particular matter is for precisely the same arguments that you

have put forward. Those three words are fundamental, and I am sure that

at some point tomes will be written about those three words and their

impact on labour jurisprudence in this province. A termination is

different from a layoff; a termination has to be for just cause. That

is why this bill before us overrides the Labour Code and the Public

Service Labour Relations Act. It overrides that protection that all

working people under those pieces of legislation are afforded, because

the government appears to want to define termination and layoff

differently.

A termination follows a certain process of documentation, warnings,

escalation in terms of the employee's lack of ability to recognize the

counsel that he or she is getting from the employer. Let's just say,

for example, it is poor attendance. If an employee is terminated for

poor attendance without proper documentation and without the necessary

procedures flowing from that, then the arbitration board may find that

the employer didn't fulfill his necessary obligations and the person

may be reinstated.

The amendment that the minister has introduced is mixing two very

important notions of the workplace. One is layoff, which is a reduction

of the work to be performed. There are provisions of the collective

agreement to take into account the requirements of the employer to meet

those conditions. Termination is firing for just cause. A termination

must be the ultimate decision by a court or by an arbitration board or

by an arbitrator....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the member persists in

talking about the collective agreement, arbitration boards, and

attempting to define the collective agreement as it relates to

auxiliaries on the layoff and recall provision in the collective

agreement. That isn't what this amendment is all about. All this reads

is: "'terminate' includes lay off." I guess the only argument that the

member could put up if he doesn't like the addition of the words "lay

off".....

Maybe he is in favour of strict terminations. What we are saying is

that the government requires flexibility to use either termination or

layoff, and we are saying that termination includes layoff. That is all

we are saying. We are not saying that we are going to look at the

provisions of the collective agreement, we are going to go through

arbitration cases, judicial review and all those things. All we are

saying is that we want to have that flexibility of using the mechanism

of layoff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. We are on an

amendment to

section 1, an

interpretation section, and all debate must

be strictly relevant to the amendment before us, which is a simple

change in

interpretation. I am sure the members are aware of that. As

the Chair has mentioned previously, the member might be anticipating

debate on a following section. To the amendment as contained on the

order paper.

MR. HANSON: There are four words here: "'terminate' includes

lay off." Mr. Chairman, "terminate" is a well understood and properly

defined term, according to labour law. It can only be done according to

just causes of dismissal. The provisions of this act call for

overriding the notions of just cause for dismissal in the Labour Code

and the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I think by examining

the act one can come to the conclusion that the member is arguing a

section other than this section, because what constitutes cause for

termination is spelled out further on in the act. I don't know why you

persist in putting your cause forward on the wrong

section of the act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I have to accept the point of order

as explained by the Provincial Secretary, since I do see a further

section that does include termination. We are dealing now with an

amendment which is solely an

interpretation amendment. If we could

debate that amendment before us the committee will be well served.

MR. HANSON: This is a fundamental and very vital part of this

government's bill. It is crucial that we debate it, and I am focused on

the debate. Those four words will go down in arbitration history in

this province. People will be writing large volumes about it. I would

ask your openness in understanding that we do want to debate this

question. Under organized private sector workers there are two key

points; collective agreements provide that terminations must be for

just cause. What the government is doing is extending the termination

to those employees who are laid off because of seasonal fluctuations.

Mr. Chairman, layoff is a concept in the collective agreement for

seasonal fluctuations of employment — according to seniority. The

government, in these four words, wants to have "termination" and "lay

off" synonymous. In other words, following this line of reasoning, a

person who is laid off is terminated, according to the government, for

cause. A layoff is not a termination for cause. A layoff is a reduction

of work to be carried out by the employer, with an agreed upon process

for reducing the service. "Terminate," according to the Labour Code and

all other legal documents, means that the firing or termination is for

cause, not a reduction of work to be carried out by the employer.

There are approved procedures to see if justice has been done, and

whether the employee is in fact at fault. There is a due process when

looking at termination. Layoffs occur on the basis of seniority. There

is a specified process provided in the collective agreements.

Termination can only be for just cause. Termination and dismissal are

the same.

Do you mean that persons working part-time at the liquor store or in

the Glendale laundry are going to have a blemish on their personnel

records for the rest of their lives because they were laid off, fired

or terminated by the provincial government? The assumption by any

private sector employer will be that they were fired for cause: because

they were poor, delinquent or negligent employees. Those who go to an

employer in the private sector and say they've been terminated by the

provincial government are going to carry with them a blemish on their

personnel record. That is one of the many reasons why we oppose this

amendment. The amendment is that "layoff" and "termination" are the

same. They are not. Terminations are done for dismissal with just

cause. Layoffs are a reduction or cessation of work to be carried out

by an employer.

We speak against the amendment. It is fundamental to this bill. The

reason the government has introduced it is that they have apparently

run into a legal snag where they may be

[ Page 2627

in difficulties, because the so-called layoff

notices are contrary to the collective agreements which are in effect.

They have to issue them as termination notices, and then, after the

passage of the bill, retroactively justify that they had some cause for

the termination. They don't have cause.

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

member consistently makes reference to the following section, which

deals with the termination of employees and cause. I think that would

be a more appropriate

section for the discussion which he's pursuing at

this time. What we're talking about here are four little words:

"'terminate' includes lay off." It gives the government the flexibility

of either utilizing "layoff" or "termination." We are not going to go

into the business of arbitration and termination with just cause, as he

does, because that's all in the next section, in other parts of the

bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the cautions of the minister accepted,

would the first member for Victoria proceed and be strictly relevant,

please.

MR. LAUK: The point that the first member for Victoria is

trying to make is not being completely understood by the minister, and

therefore I would suggest it should not be accepted from the minister

by the Chair.

The amendment being debated that "terminate" will include "lay

off"....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member wish to participate in debate?

MR. LAUK: No, I'm on the point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're getting into argument now.

MR. LAUK: No, the point is that the remarks made by the

member for Victoria are relevant to the amendment that "'terminate'

includes lay off." They're contradictory in common and legal usage, so

that's why he's questioning it. He's trying to point out to this

committee that they're contradictory. You're going to create problems,

first of all in an understanding of those employees who are terminated

or laid off, or whatever, and you're also going to create problems in

judicial

interpretation, as these matters are dealt with by the courts,

as they invariably will be.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver

Centre expressed my point very clearly for me. I'm trying to

communicate to the minister that termination and layoff are two very

well agreed upon and fully defined notions of labour law.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They're separate and distinct.

MR. HANSON: They're not separate and distinct at all, Mr.

Minister. He's moving them together so that....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, argument has

been made back and forth as to the relevance or irrelevance of the

debate that's going on. Even if the debate as put forward by the first

member for Victoria were relevant, and I don't believe it is, the

debate is now repetitious, because what I have heard the member just

say I've heard three times in the last half hour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, that point is also well taken, and

we must remind ourselves of standing order 43, and the fact that we can

offend the rules by being tedious and repetitious. But I'm sure the

first member for Victoria can explain his point, and perhaps we can

carry on relevant debate.

MR. LAUK: How would the member know that a point has been

made more than once?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must accept an hon. member's

submission.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think it's very important and

relevant to the four words before us — "'termination' includes lay off"

— that a firing and a layoff are the same. Under the current language

of the contracts before the government, signed by the government, at

the back of the little books it says: "Article 10: Dismissal,

suspension and discipline." That's the language we're referring to.

"Burden of proof. In all cases of discipline the burden of just cause

shall rest with the employer...."

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

terminations and the provisions of a collective agreement are contained

section 2, not

section 1, of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will point out that the hon. member appears

to be making an argument for

interpretation, so I will accept his

argument. But I will also remind the hon. member that the point of

order raised by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is also relevant.

Once that argument has been made we cannot continue it to the point

where it becomes tedious. As the member's argument relates to

interpretation, that is acceptable.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I would feel that I could give a

more coherent statement and argument if I could get more than one

sentence out without an interruption from that side of the House. It is

very difficult to argue and debate a case when you have silly

interjections coming from the defence over there, who will be sitting

in the chair shortly and probably moving closure against us.

[5:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rule on points of order, and the

member will relate his remarks to the

section of the amendment before

us.

MR. HANSON: We have two elements that are like fire and

water. Termination and layoff are two different things. When you're

fired you're fired for just cause, and you have an appeal procedure.

When you're laid off, the employer doesn't have as much work to be

performed, and he lays you off in reverse order of seniority and brings

you back according to seniority. I want to read the portion that refers

to termination in the existing agreement. It says that the sole burden

of proof rests with the employer. It says that when a person is

dismissed a minister or deputy minister dismisses, not Joe Bloggs down

here above the working level.

[ Page 2628

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the definition, please.

MR. HANSON: "A minister or deputy minister may dismiss" —

after they get their recommendation and reasoning up from the

supervisory level — "any employee for just cause. Notice of dismissal

shall be in writing, and shall set forth the reasons for dismissal."

Not that you worked for the government — that's not the reason for

termination that we have in Bill 3 — or that you happen to have the

misfortune of having the government as your employer. If you drive a

bus or work for a municipal police force or fire department....

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the

interpretation, please.

MR. HANSON: So that's for dismissal....

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

member is reading from the master agreement of the B.C. Government

Employees' Union,

article 10, which deals with dismissal, suspension

and discipline. I want to suggest that this particular

section of the

act doesn't pertain to this particular part of the collective

agreement. This kind of disciplinary action — dismissals and

suspensions — will continue to be in place, despite the fact that this

act will address other terminations. These dismissals really have

nothing to do with the terminations we're addressing here. You're

attempting to mix water and fire. They don't go together. I don't know

how you can make your case, because people can be dismissed, suspended

or disciplined for just cause at this time, not for the purpose that is

clearly defined in this legislation.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the minister raises a point of

order and is avoiding the very point that the hon. first member for

Victoria is trying to point out to him. He's trying to extricate the

minister from his own folly. The thing is that the whole of

jurisprudence has a certain definition for termination which does not

include, and never has included, layoff, because a layoff is

technically that. Technically, at law, you are still employed.

Termination has been judicially considered and found to be termination,

dismissal with or without just cause, and that is usually decided in

the court or in arbitration. By making the amendment, he's throwing

confusion into the whole jurisprudence around dismissal, termination

and layoff, and that's the point that the member for Victoria is trying

to make. So it's most relevant that he reads these sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point, though, made by the second member

for Vancouver Centre is very good with respect to the

section 1tself,

if the member were in debate.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think he was trying to point out

that the amendment itself is probably out of order because the two just

don't belong together at all. Termination and layoff are so separate

that you can't include one under the other, and my learned colleague

was pointing that out.

I am still concerned about what has happened to the employees who

have already been terminated now that we have this new proposed

definition which includes layoff. Does it mean that those people who

have already been terminated will now be rehired in case they might fit

in under the government's layoff provisions as included in this

particular definition? It seems to me that the government acted,

shortly after July 7, and terminated a lot of the employees. Remember,

they chased them down in various parts of the province in order to find

them so that they could tell them they were terminated, and they had to

turn in their keys....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MS. SANFORD: Under this definition, which we question, Mr.

Chairman, "terminate" includes "lay off." That has been a second

thought on the part of the Provincial Secretary; he didn't think about

that initially. He's only thought about it within this last week,

because that's when the definition appeared.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not correct.

MS. SANFORD: Well, it didn't appear on the order paper before

then. I don't know when the minister thought about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must advise you now that I

believe you are offending the rule of anticipation. If the amendment

passes and the

section as amended passes, then your debate will be most

relevant when we discuss

section 2, but it would not be relevant under

this amendment or this first

section dealing with

interpretation.

MS. SANFORD: All right. I want to know what his

interpretation of the words "lay off" is as included in this

interpretation section, because if it means that people will now be

"laid off" according to the provisions of the collective agreement,

then I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that many of those people who have

already been terminated will have to be re-employed. So his

interpretation of these words "lay off" — if in fact it's anything more

than cosmetic, which I am beginning to think — surely must apply to

some of those people who have already been terminated. How many people

are going to be rehired so that they can be laid off according to the

provisions of the collective agreement? How many people does the

minister envision will qualify in the future under the proper layoff

provisions rather than under termination? Thirdly, does layoff,

according to the minister's definition within this particular section,

mean layoff according to the collective agreement that's now in

existence? I wonder if the minister would clarify some of those points

for us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, before recognizing the minister, I

must once again stress that your debate would be most relevant, and is

relevant, to another section. You are now discussing application, but

what we are discussing under this amendment and this

section is

interpretation. There is a distinct difference. I don't want to be

difficult about this, hon. members, but, really, we must be strictly

relevant during debate in committee. I would ask the members, if they

have further debate on the amendment before us now to

section 1, that

they make that debate relevant to

Section I and not to other sections

that we are not prepared to address at this point.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that before we can

vote on this amendment that is proposed by the minister, it must be

made clear to us what he interprets the words "lay off" to mean. I

asked some very specific questions about this. Under this section,

which is

definitions, I

[ Page 2629

want to know what his definition is. Does layoff

mean layoff according to the collective agreement that's now in

existence? Does he have some other

interpretation of layoff? How many

people does he anticipate will fall under the layoff category rather

than the termination category? Four specific questions. The other....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Wrong section.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, come on. We have to know what the minister

means by layoff before we can be expected to vote on it. I think that

that's a very simple request that the minister should be able to comply

with. What does he mean by layoff? Is it layoff as is currently laid

out in the master agreement which is still in effect? I can ask that

again if the minister didn't hear. Is that what the minister means by

layoff?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, on the question of

layoff and termination, I think for the benefit of the people over

there, who probably haven't read the Employment Standards Act, there is

an

interpretation of "terminate." "'Terminate' includes (

a) layoff of

an employee from employment, other than temporary layoff, or (

b) alteration of a condition of employment that the board declares to be a

termination of an employee's employment, but does not include the

discharge of an employee for just cause." So that's your definition of

layoff.

MS. SANFORD: The minister failed to indicate to us whether or

not he would follow the provisions of the collective agreement when

he's laying off under this new

section that he's introducing here. I

think the only thing that we can assume from his answer is that he has

no intention of paying any attention whatsoever to what has been

negotiated and is currently in effect under the master agreement with

the BCGEU.

The next question, Mr. Chairman. How many people does the minister

anticipate — because they have announced that they're going to lay off

or terminate X number of people — would fall under the category of

layoff as defined in the Employment Standards Act, not in the master

agreement?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Wrong section.

MS. SANFORD: No, it is not. I want to know what his

definition of layoff is. Is it cosmetic, or do they actually intend to

follow some sort of layoff provisions even though they're not the

provisions contained in the collective agreement? How many people,

under this definition of layoff.... The minister has read to us that

it's the definition of layoff included in the Employment Standards Act.

How many of the people the government intends to terminate, lay off,

fire, get rid of or do away with will fit under this definition of

layoff?

HON. MR. CHABOT: My response to that is, read

section 2 of

the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I have to stress, hon. members, that

the minister's point is well taken; we are anticipating a future

section. We are on the

interpretation

section now.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister refers me to

section

2, but there are no numbers in

section 2 that tell me how many he

intends to lay off under this provision that's given there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My response to that is that's the

appropriate

section to ask that particular question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The minister would not

be allowed to reply to a question that would be more specifically and

better addressed under

section 2.

MS. SANFORD: We have seen terminations take place. I am

wondering whether or not any of those people who have already been

terminated would qualify under the new layoff definition. Are they all

to expect that they are terminated forever or that they might be

rehired so that they could be laid off under the minister's definition

of this term "layoff"? Or are those people not at all to be considered

under this new definition? As I say, we have seen it only in the last

week, and it was certainly not part of the minister's thinking when he

initially introduced this bill, or I would assume he would have

included it at that time. Could we have the minister answer that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, those questions are more

appropriately answered under

section 2 rather than under

section 1, the

interpretation

section of the bill. It's nonsense. We can't have the

full debate on this bill under the

interpretation section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is extremely well taken....

MS. SANFORD: We're just trying to find out the meaning of

layoff. What do you mean by it?

[5:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair notes that subsequent

sections of this bill do include the word "terminate." They will now,

once the amendment is passed, include the words "lay off." Therefore

debate regarding the application of these

interpretations will be most

appropriate not in this amendment but in subsequent sections and

subsequent amendments, and any further discussion with respect to

application would be offending the rule of anticipation. To the

amendment, please.

MR. HANSON: Speaking specifically to the

interpretation of

the four words "'terminate' includes lay off," I would like to separate

those notions for you. The problem we have before us is that from now

on 250,000 families in this province that are subject to layoff at B.C.

Hydro or the provincial government or....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Wrong section.

MR. HANSON: Let me finish my line of thinking and you'll get

the....

Mr. Chairman, the public employees laid off will be terminated. A

termination in the perception of everyone in the community and every

future employer will be for just cause. Now let me tell you what just

cause means. The classic definition of just cause as set out in Regina

v. Arthurs, 1967,

[ Page 2630

62 DLR, second edition, 342, Ontario Court of

Appeal, states the following....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are now anticipating debate. We

are in an

interpretation section. The Chair has ruled on this many

times and the Chair has heard many arguments which are now becoming

tedious and repetitious. I must ask all hon. members to be specific to

the amendment before the committee, which is simply an

interpretation

amendment, not an application amendment.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this is not

simply an

interpretation amendment. This is fundamental of the

application of this bill in this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Application is covered under subsequent

sections. Please don't argue with the Chair.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, again with all due respect, when an

amendment is added to the

interpretation section, and we are unable to

put forward our views on the merit or demerit of that particular

amendment, then we are remiss in our duties. I argue that to terminate

means the following, according to arbitral law: if an employee has been

guilty — this termination applies to layoff; a laid-off employee — of

serious misconduct.... Imagine getting a layoff notice, and this is

what you're charged with. If an employee has been guilty of....

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

is trying to give us a definition of cause for termination.

Section

2(

l) gives the definition of cause for termination under this

legislation. It shouldn't be debated under the

interpretation section,

section 1. Also, I've given an

interpretation of "'terminate' includes

lay off."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, the Chair must remind all hon.

members that debate now is becoming quite repetitious, and we are

really offending the anticipation rule. We must speak strictly to the

amendment. I really think that the Chair has offered an awful lot of

latitude. Unless the member can advance new arguments, I will call the

question on the amendment. Can the member advance new arguments with

respect to and strictly relevant to this amendment?

MR. HANSON: Terminate does not mean layoff; it does not

include layoff. Termination means that an employee has been guilty of

serious misconduct, habitual neglect of duty, incompetence or conduct

incompatible with duties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order. You're straying now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to raise the point of order

again, I don't think, Mr. Chairman — I would hope I wouldn't have to.

But now the member, again, is continuing to give us what cause for

termination or dismissal or discipline, or something like that.... He

is giving us the

interpretation which he sees in the collective

agreement, or elsewhere. This legislation in the next

section talks

about cause for termination, and if he wants to put his own argument

forward as to the reason why

section 2 is inappropriate, I'm prepared

to listen. But I can't see any point in listening under the

interpretation

section of this act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, that point of order is well

taken. The committee must be advised that we have really been allowed

an awful lot of latitude with respect to this very fine definition of

an

interpretation

section and an amendment to that

interpretation

section. Further, the arguments that the member is now advancing would

be far more appropriate during debate on a

section that is not yet

before us. With that said, I can't allow much more but to ask the first

member for Victoria to summarize his concern.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the amendment put forward by the

minister appears to be ill-conceived, poorly drafted, contradictory and

probably out of order. Because when you have one item that negates the

other in the same definition we're pointing out to the minister that it

doesn't hold up through any logical argument or rational approach. You

can't have terminate and layoff in the same definition. They are not

the same.

What I'm saying is that termination, if it's applied to layoff, will

mean that a person who is laid off will be encumbered the rest of their

career with a mark on their personnel file that they have been fired

for cause, because of serious misconduct, habitual neglect of duty,

incompetence, conduct incompatible with duties or prejudicial to the

employer's business, or if he has been guilty of wilful disobedience to

the employer's orders in a matter of substance the law recognizes the

employer's rights summarily to dismiss the delinquent employee. That's

what termination means; that's not layoff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the member is becoming quite repetitious

and is also speaking to another section, because that argument has been

stated.

MR. LAUK: It has not been advanced.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the records will show that it has. Can

the member summarize, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, "terminate" means one thing in law,

in the courts, in arbitration, to a shop steward and to a working

person. "Terminate" does not mean "lay off." When you include them

both, you put the laid-off worker at risk of having his career record

blackened and, in the minds of the public and future employers, of

being guilty of serious misconduct. There are ten items that any

arbitrator will look at in a termination: serious insolence,

cumulative....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have extended as much latitude

and scope as we can to this amendment. I would like to hear new

arguments, if there are any; if not, I would like to ask if the

amendment shall pass.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in this House we deal in

precedents very often, and the government has indicated that the intent

of what they are doing is to bring the public service in line with the

private sector. The minister seems to think that we're just being

facetious about this, but we're genuinely concerned at the departure

that's being taken from legal parlance here, in terms of labour law, in

combining layoff and termination. I would just like the minister to

think for a moment of a case in the private sector, in my own

constituency, where we had a layoff as a result of a shortage of work.

The layoff....

[ Page 2631

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members....

MRS. WALLACE: I'm trying to point out what happened there,

and the difference between the concepts of layoff and termination is

the thing that I'm trying to get across to the minister. I'm trying to

get him to reconsider the correctness of combining these two things in

one definition.

In this particular instance we had a layoff because of shortage of

work, and 600 employees were laid off. That was a....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the

member for Cowichan-Malahat wants to make the particular argument of

termination versus layoff, she can make it in

section 2, because that

section addresses the question of termination and what causes for

termination are. This

interpretation

Section is essentially the same as

the termination definition in the Employment Standards Act, and it

reads this way: "'Terminate' includes (

a) layoff of an employee from

employment, other than temporary