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 )

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2729

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Review of budget proposals. Mr. Stupich –– 2729

Minister's receipt of cougar skin. Mr. Cocke –– 2729

Colony Farm. Ms. Sanford –– 2730

Funding of universities. Mr. Nicolson –– 2730

Cassiar Packing payments to fishermen. Mr. D'Arcy –– 2730

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

(Hon. Mr. Chabot)

section 7 –– 2731

Mr. D'Arcy

Division

On the amendment to

section 7 –– 2732

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Gabelmann

Division

On the amendment to

section 7.2 –– 2734

Mr. Macdonald

Division

section 9 –– 2735

Mr. Passarell

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Mitchell

Division

On the title –– 2737

Division

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill

11). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Section 1 –– 2737

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Reynolds

Division

section 2 –– 2747

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Lauk

Appendix –– 2750

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that every

afternoon we are privileged to have members of the clergy come to give

prayers in our House, and today we are again privileged to have someone

visiting the Legislature who will be meeting with some of our members

later in the day. I would ask the House to give a very special welcome

to Mrs. Kathy Kehler, who is Canadian director of the Campus Crusade

for Christ of Canada.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Sean

Boulger, who is a student this year at Malaspina College and a

constituent from the Parksville area. I would like the House to make

him welcome.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF BUDGET PROPOSALS

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

Finance. Yesterday I raised some questions about unemployment. A new

study of unemployment during the recession, prepared by Midland Doherty

Ltd., shows that the B.C. economy lost 99,000 jobs during the economic

downturn but has gained only 20,000 back during the upturn. The net

loss of 79,000 is the worst in the country. Has the minister now

decided to reconsider his budget proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

question. Inasmuch as we discussed this yesterday, nothing has occurred

in the interval which would suggest that a change in the policy of the

government should be considered at this point. I stand by the answer

that I gave yesterday.

I also have some difficulty in answering the question fully without

reflecting on votes such as the Employment Development Act, which was

dealt with by this House very recently, and referring to other

initiatives which have been taken and to which I referred yesterday —

that is, the number of jobs which were created largely in the private

sector in the first six to eight months of the 1983 calendar year.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that we change

any of the existing programs, but I'm wondering whether the minister

has considered additional ones, in light of the fact that the situation

is even worse than what I told him about yesterday. The Midland Doherty

study shows that the net job loss in B.C. is 32 percent greater than

that of the next-highest net job loser, the province of Ontario. Does

the minister have any explanation as to why B.C.'s performance over the

last two years has been that much worse than any other province in

Canada, other than that we're the only one with a Social Credit

administration?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, hon.

member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, he was doing quite well until

the last few moments, which suggest that the question is somewhat

argumentative.

My colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) adequately demonstrated yesterday that there are a variety

of forecasts, reports and reviews which must be considered when one is

discussing the economy of a province, a region or a nation. In his two

questions today, the member has referred to one specific document. I

don't refute it out of hand; nonetheless, again my colleague reported

on a number of reviews and studies which have been undertaken by

prestigious organizations in this country indicating that, indeed,

British Columbia is on the road to recovery.

MR. STUPICH: Well, as I recall, yesterday the minister

referred to one particular document: the Royal Bank Trendicator .

We're still faced with the fact that in the province of British

Columbia, we have the highest net job loss in the whole country and the

highest rate of personal and business bankruptcies. It would seem to me

that the minister should have given some consideration to this and

should at this point be able to tell us about some plans to alleviate

the situation in B.C.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will attempt to keep it brief and to the

point; I think there was a question there, Mr. Speaker. We are now

approaching mid-October. As members of this House will know, the budget

which has been debated and legislation flowing from the budget still

before us were developed in the environment of the most serious

recession in 50 years. That framework was appropriate as we moved

toward the development of the budget. I suggest through you, Mr.

Speaker. to the member and to other hon. members that it is still

appropriate just a few months later. To reiterate, nothing has come to

me, nothing has been put in front of me, no discussions have been held

which suggest that the budget, which was very carefully prepared for

July 7 of this year, should be restructured or that there should be a

second budget in the course of this fiscal year. Indeed, we are moving

close, relatively speaking, to the next budget for the fiscal year

1984-85.

[2:15]

MINISTER'S RECEIPT OF COUGAR SKIN

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

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Will the

minister confirm that he flew to Penticton on Friday, September 30, to

receive a trophy: the skin of a cougar?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Not quite. I was in Kimberley and on my way

to Vancouver. I stopped at the request of my former staff of the

Ministry of Environment, who had invited me to come. They presented me

with, yes, the skin of a cougar, which is in my office in Vancouver.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister confirm that the cost to the

public of landing a jet and moving around in a jet is considerable in a

time of restraint?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, I would to this extent, but we were

doing the flight anyway. As a matter of fact we were flying over

Penticton, and I was able to offer the courtesy of a

[ Page 2730

ride to Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, who also came on that plane. I presume

that is the next question you are going to ask....

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't know about that.

HON. MR. ROGERS: He was stuck in Penticton and he had an

appointment in Victoria. I offered him a ride as a guest of the

government, and he did return with me. I think his service to the

province is worthwhile. I don't know what it costs to bring a Citation

from about 18,000 feet down to land. There are no landing fees in

Penticton. We're probably looking at about 300 pounds of fuel. At 7.6

pounds to the gallon, you can figure it out; it's not that expensive.

COLONY FARM

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Provincial Secretary, now that he has returned. Will the minister

advise the House whether officials of the B.C. Buildings Corporation

are making preparations for the sale of the land known as Colony Farm,

in the municipality of Coquitlam?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question

as notice and get the information to bring back to the member at the

very earliest opportunity.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering whether or not the minister has

held any discussions with officials within the B.C. Buildings

Corporation, or officials within his own ministry, regarding the

criteria for establishing a purchase price for Colony Farm.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

FUNDING OF UNIVERSITIES

MR. NICOLSON: A question to the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications, Mr. Speaker. The province's universities

have celebrated Universities Week by declaring that a state of siege

exists between the Social Credit government and the university

community. Has the minister decided to sue for peace with the

university community, in recognition of the importance that the

universities assume in this age where we are striving toward economic

recovery?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question of

the member must have been some figment of his imagination. The

universities in British Columbia are among the most generously treated

in the world. The great security and freedom of our universities

depends upon that generous and consistent financial support. May I say

that with the economy bouncing back in British Columbia as a result of

the policies of the Social Credit government, the universities will be

even better off in the future than they are today. This is a recorded

message from the minister of industrial development.

MR. NICOLSON: A new question to the same minister. B.C. ranks

ninth out of ten — that is, at the bottom — in terms of government

grants to universities. Has the minister decided to draw this

information to the attention of the government in hopes that the

government will realize the importance of our universities to recovery

and to a technological society?

HON. MR. McGEER: Over the years, since this government has

been in power, our universities in British Columbia have enjoyed the

most favourable treatment in the nation. Canada as a country has put

more of its public resources behind universities than any country in

the world, so that our universities have been fortunate indeed in the

degree of public support that they've had over the years. As our

economy recovers over the long haul, our universities will maintain

that preeminence, but everyone needs to understand — especially the

members opposite — that we cannot borrow our way into prosperity, and

the universities, like everyone else during a time of fiscal restraint,

will need to manage and marshal the dollars that the taxpayers can

afford to spend until the economic storm in the world has passed.

CASSIAR PACKING

PAYMENTS TO FISHERMEN

MR. D'ARCY: A question to my friend the member for North

Peace River. We're back on Cassiar Packing, and in his capacity as

minister responsible for fisheries we've discussed this before in

question period. The minister is very well aware that this company is

in receivership with Coopers and Lybrand, courtesy of the Royal Bank of

Canada, and that the receiver has made a commitment to pay fishermen

who delivered before the bankruptcy 20 cents on the dollar, only if

they continued to deliver after the takeover. The question to the

minister is: has he made representations to the receiver, Coopers and

Lybrand, that all fishermen should be paid in full by the company for

fish delivered prior to the takeover?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The short answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D'ARCY: Some crewmen have been forced by their vessel

owners to deliver their fish to other buyers because of the failure of

and receivership of Cassiar Packing, and these crewmen will not even be

paid, then, 20 cents on the dollar for fish delivered in good faith

prior to the receivership. Has the minister decided to take any action

regarding those who will receive zero under the present policy of

Coopers and Lybrand and the Royal Bank?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I had reported earlier to the

House, when this question was raised, that the receiver had guaranteed

20 cents on the dollar, only on the condition that they continued to

deliver there. We are investigating it at this time.

MR. D'ARCY: If the minister becomes satisfied that the people

involved here, who delivered fish according to a contract which they

had signed in good faith, are not going to receive 20 cents on the

dollar — those who are not continuing deliveries due to their

employer's decision are getting zero cents on the dollar — will the

minister consider making any legislative changes to protect fishermen

who deliver fish in good faith in future situations?

[ Page 2731

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I haven't considered legislation at

this time. One of the difficulties, of course, is stepping in and

getting involved in financial arrangements that are made between

lenders and borrowers.

MR. D'ARCY: Similar situations occurred recently on the east

coast in Newfoundland, and a joint agreement in operation between the

federal and provincial governments has resulted in substantial

compensation being paid to fishermen involved in situations like this.

Has the minister made any representation to his federal counterparts to

see if similar arrangements could possibly be made for fishermen who

find themselves in the same situation in British Columbia? After all,

if a policy is good enough for Newfoundland and the federal government,

surely we can take advantage of it in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Within the next ten years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It seems we are not quite as fortunate here

on the west coast as they are on the east coast in being treated

equally by the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: We need an aggressive minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: When we continue our investigations into

the actual facts of the situation, then we will consider approaching Ottawa.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We have visiting in the galleries today from

London, England, Dr. Paul Campbell. I would like all members to bid him

a special welcome.

Mr. Speaker, leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 7.

MR. D'ARCY: Looking at

section 7 before adjournment, there

was considerable debate, some of it histrionic. In an attempt to

clarify what this should mean in the opposition's view, and hopefully

in the government's view as well, I would like to move an amendment

that would delete from the second line the words "this act" and insert

"the terms of a collective agreement." I so move. The

section would

then read: "Where there is a conflict between the Public Service Act

and this act or a regulation made under this act, the terms of a

collective agreement would prevail."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, the proposed

amendment to

section 7 is one that negates intent of the

section and is

another stalling tactic on the part of the NDP to frustrate the ability

of the government to govern.

[2:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must concur with the opinion of the

minister. The amendment is out of order in that it does negative the

section.

MR. D'ARCY: Commenting briefly on the minister's remarks, I

object strenuously to being accused of making a frivolous stalling

tactic. The fact is that we're attempting to humanize this

section and

make it reasonable. I appreciate the Chairman's ruling. I appreciate

the right of the Chair to make a ruling. Unfortunately I'm going to

have to challenge that ruling on this particular proposed amendment.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS –– 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reynolds

Reid

NAYS — 8

Sanford

Nicolson

Macdonald

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

[ Page 2732

NAYS — 9

Gabelmann

Nicolson

Howard

Macdonald

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment, sections

7.1 and 7.2, standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: I am not going to belabour this section, but

clearly this gives the government the right to fire retroactively. The

minister likes to talk about years past. When he was in opposition he

used to rant and rave and go on tirades about retroactive legislation.

I would like to remind the minister that in a great many democratically

elected jurisdictions in the western world there is no such thing. It

is unconstitutional to make anything retroactive. The fact is that

until a bill is passed and signed by the governor or president or

whatever, and everybody has agreed to it — the majority has agreed to

it — there is no way that any

section of that bill can be applied. We

know that the government majority is going to force this

section

through. They are going to alter a great many people's lives by what is

clearly, by any definition, an assault on human rights, on the

traditions of common law, and on the normal rule of law and order that

we have known in this province and in other jurisdictions in Canada.

It's part of the general tenor of the bill and is something that the

government should hang its head in shame for.

[2:45]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have to refute some of the

outrageous statements made by the member for Rossland-Trail. He talks

about retroactive firings and so forth. The

section is merely a very

simple validation

section which addresses the question of notices of

terminations that have been issued. It validates them. It does not

address the question of termination, because termination will not take

place until the expiry of the collective agreement. This government

believes in the sanctity of collective agreements; therefore,

terminations will not take place until such time as the expiry of the

collective agreement.

We're saying here that we're validating this notice of termination

that has been issued. We believed it was important to notify the public

servants in British Columbia that they were going to be terminated in

order to give them as much notice as possible so that they could make

other arrangements or could seek out other employment opportunities.

There is no fairer employer than the province of British Columbia.

Where it is customary to give between 72 hours' notice and 7 days'

notice, we, the provincial government, have given up to four months'

notice. I don't know what can be fairer than that.

MR. D'ARCY: After listening to the minister's gobbledegook, I

am going to read him his own

section that he wrote, or had written for

him. At least, he has submitted this amendment to the chamber, as

printed in the Orders of the Day , October 12, 1983. For the minister's

benefit, and the benefit of his backers and apologists on that side of

the House,

section 7.1, submitted by the minister, says: "Where, on or

after July 7, 1983, but before this act comes into force" — it is now

October 12, three months later — "a public sector employer gave an

employee a notice of termination that would have been validly given if

given under this act, the notice of termination shall be conclusively

deemed to have been validly given under this act as though this act

were in force at the time the notice was given." Mr. Chairman, that's

retroactivity back to July 7. There is no way the minister can get up

and sanctimoniously talk about slicing the cake any different way.

That's what it means. If he says it doesn't mean that, then he should

submit an amendment to change it.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, this

section exemplifies the

injustice in this bill. Not only are public sector employees fired

without due process in violation of common law and all labour standards

laid down for hundreds and hundreds of years, but this government wants

to be super-boss, super-employer. They've given these employees a

time-release capsule that will kill them in terms of their livelihood

in a few weeks or a few months, whenever this bill is proclaimed. The

injustice of the process is that not only are they fired unjustly, but

they're fired retroactively, as my friend from Rossland-Trail has

pointed out.

Mr. Chairman, that minister should hang his head in shame. He is

going to go down in history as the ultimate deliverer of draconian

labour legislation in this province. It's a shameful day because that

member, even though he is Social Credit, was at one time a Labour

minister in this province. He should have some sense of the working

people, whether they work in the private sector or the public sector.

But he has absolute contempt for his own employees. To treat them

savagely in this way is an absolutely contemptuous act.

We want to register our opposition to this incredible legislation.

It's a black day for British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I would like the member to

withdraw the statement that I have contempt for the employees of the

public service of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member finds the remark offensive. I'll ask

the member if he will withdraw, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, that is not an unparliamentary

statement; it's a matter of fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, that will not suffice. I ask

the member to offer an unqualified withdrawal, which is the tradition

and courtesy in our parliament when a member asks another hon. member

for a withdrawal. Please withdraw.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I will clarify that. The government

has contempt for its own employees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But the remark attributed to the minister is

withdrawn?

MR. HANSON: Withdrawn and replaced with: "The government has

contempt for its own employees."

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it's only October 12. The

minister hasn't realized that there are still 11 weeks

[ Page 2733

to go before 1984. His sanctimonious comment that the government is

concerned about the sanctity of the contract is the most outrageous and

absurd statement among the many outrageous and absurd statements made

by that minister since we began the debate on this in committee at 4:30

yesterday afternoon.

Obviously, by making this

section retroactive, by having the ability

to serve notice of termination while the contract was in force, which

this

section allows, the government is demonstrating clearly and in

unequivocal terms that it has no respect whatsoever for the sanctity of

a contract. For the minister to give us that Orwellian claptrap is a

little bit much to take. If he would just level with the House and own

up to what he is doing — "We don't believe that the collective

agreement we signed in good faith is a good collective agreement; we

want to use the weight of this Legislature to make it null and void,

and we want to do it retroactively" — then fair enough. Say what it

means, but don't say what it doesn't mean. What the minister is saying

was something very different from what this

section and this bill

actually say. When the minister says he and his government believe in

the sanctity of the collective agreement, the government collectively

is not telling the truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just be careful here.

MR. GABELMANN: I was being very careful.

There are times when retroactive legislation is appropriate. The

obvious ones deal with tax amendments and financial legislation of that

kind, where some gain could be made if there's prior knowledge of a

bill coming into force. There is no place here for this kind of

retroactive legislation. There was in the land bill, because profits

could have been made if that legislation had not been made retroactive.

It was absolutely necessary, the same as it would be for a tax measure.

In this legislation, we're saying that if the government had started

the debate on this legislation on July 7 or 8 and proceeded in the

normal course of events, and had it passed within a week or two and

then given their notice, they could have done it legally; even though

it would have been immoral, at least it would have been legal. But what

they've done is to commit an illegal act and then ask us, as

legislators, to approve retroactively an illegal act. I object to that.

It's wrong in law; it's wrong by every possible approach that one might

take. There are times for retroactivity; this is not one of those

times.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the opposition has rarely told

the truth on various sections of this legislation, and this is another

instance....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I cautioned the opposition on that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes. You cautioned me too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will caution all hon. members. That term

itself isn't a finite term that requires withdrawal, but please, we are

in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Moderation and

courtesy are always a hallmark of parliamentary debate.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If the

minister is making the allegation that the opposition has not been

putting forward truthful statements in this House, I would ask him to

withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. please. As I've just explained to all

members of the committee, when something is said collectively about a

class or group of people. the Chair finds it hard; but I am censuring

that type of language. I would ask all members to try to avoid that

from now on. That applies to both the member and the minister, and also

the member for North Island. I think we're aware of that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it was in that context that I

was saying the opposition collectively rarely tells the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's avoid that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for North Islands attests that

this validation

section of the act really retroactively terminates or

fires people in the public service. What it does is validate notices of

termination that have been issued to public servants in British

Columbia. What I'm saying is that those public servants who have been

issued notices of termination prior to the validation

section coming

into place will not be terminated until the expiry of the collective

agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to restrain

myself so that I can keep in order, but I find it a little difficult

when the minister responds to comments that he alleges I made, which I

didn't make. Let's have a debate about the issues, but let's not

misconstrue what's been said by another member. There may well be some

room here for legitimate differences in opinion on the facts, but not

for making up new facts.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you agree with the point I'm making?

MR. GABELMANN: I agree. My concern about this

section is that

it is retroactive. Agreed, it doesn't retroactively fire people.

MR. REYNOLDS: You said that before.

MR. GABELMANN: I said it before, but the minister didn't

understand me.

MR. MICHAEL: Tell us about severance pay.

MR. GABELMANN: I would tell you about severance pay, but it’s

not in

section 7.1.

The issue involved, Mr. Chairman — and I made the point before but

the minister didn't hear me, or chose not to — is that we are being asked

to make legal notices of termination of the employment retroactively

that were given in the month of July....

MR. MICHAEL: With severance pay.

MR. GABELMANN: Severance pay isn’t in this section, Mr.

Chairman. The legislation was not in place on July 7 or those days

subsequent when employees of the Crown were

[ Page 2734

being given termination notices, effective October 31. Those notices

were given on the basis of the possibility that this Legislature might,

at some future date, approve legislation allowing those termination

notices to be given in violation of the collective agreements. Those

notices were given without any legal authority whatsoever. Now the

government, three months later, is asking us to approve the issuance of

those notices. That is retroactivity. It is wrong in principle, unless

there is some financial gain to be made by knowledge of legislation in

advance of its passage. That is not the case here. There is no call for

retroactive legislation. Give the people their termination notices once

the Lieutenant-Governor has approved the bill and not before. That is

the point we are trying to make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the admendment described as 7.1 be

approved?

[3:00]

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Chabot

Smith

Curtis

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Veitch

Ree

Reynolds

Reid

Parks

NAYS — 7

Gabelmann

Macdonald

D'Arcy

Hanson

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

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

in the Journals of the House.

MR. REE: On a point of order, I didn't notice how the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) voted.

Interjections.

MR. REE: He didn't rise in his seat at the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East was noted

as voting in the negative.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order. Did I hear the name of the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

called?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I didn't hear his name called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he's not recorded as having voted.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm sure I saw him record his vote.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: You mean he didn't vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be amended accordingly. Could the

minister take his place and indicate how he voted. There appears to be

some discrepancy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm very pleased to advise the House and

everybody in the gallery that I voted positively for the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the affirmative. No reference to the

galleries, please.

Debate on amendment 7.2 will now proceed.

On the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the amendment we have here says:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations that he

considers necessary or advisable for purposes of carrying out the

intent of this act." Mr. Chairman, that's an extremely broad power to

make regulations. Who's going to decide what the intent of the act is?

What is the intent of this act? What you're doing here in this section,

Mr. Chairman, is giving the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in addition

to the powers that are in this act, carte blanche to have a field day

at the expense of the public sector employees. I've never seen such a

broad regulation-making power as this. There is no

section in the act

defining what its intent is.

I ask the minister this simple little question: what kinds of

regulations do you contemplate will be made under

section 7.2? What are

you speaking about there?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think if the member was observant

throughout the night, he would probably have come to the conclusion

that the most important regulations that will be put in place are the

regulations I've issued in draft form at this time. Those regulations

address the question of compensation for employees who are terminated

under the provisions of the legislation. I've elaborated extensively on

those provisions, talking about the most generous severance

compensation package anywhere in British Columbia for organized

workers. It has recall rights and recognition of seniority; it

addresses the question of early retirement and the question of

retraining and recall. Those are the major provisions under which

regulations would be contemplated.

MR. MACDONALD: The regulations that the minister referred to

are those made under earlier sections of the bill. In addition, you

give yourself wide, sweeping power to make any regulations which in the

government's opinion carry out the intent of the bill. Why do you need

this subsection? You already have the regulation-making power.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This one would address the general

administration of the act in the event there was a need for such

regulation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member chuckles away, Mr. Chairman. I

want you to remember that in one year when they

[ Page 2735

were government 100 pieces of legislation came in, and every piece

of legislation made reference to regulations. Regulations were attached

to all of that legislation brought in by those socialists. And he sits

there and chuckles when I tell him why there's a need for regulations

under this legislation. I'm shocked and appalled by the behaviour of

that man, who used to be the Attorney-General of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members' behaviour is honourable, hon.

member.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is in the wrong calling; he

should have been on the stage. I was on the stage once; I fell out of a

balcony.

Of course every bill has regulation-making powers. There are

regulations that the Legislature authorizes with respect to, say, the

— that's pretty broad. But you don't finish off a piece of legislation

— we never have in this Legislature — with a broad, sweeping

section

that says you can make regulations about anything in addition to

everything else we've passed. That's what you're saying in

section 7.2:

whatever is necessary or desirable to carry out the intent of the act.

Who decides what the intent of the act is? The minister and the

cabinet. You can do amost anything under these regulations. That is

czardom. Are you going to answer that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll answer that. I'm sure that the member,

if he isn't too tired from wandering around and smoking his cigar last

night, will understand the regulations that can be addressed under

section 7.2. It says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciI may make

regulations that he considers necessary or advisable for the purposes

of carrying out the intent of this act. So the parameters are fairly

narrow. It's very confined as to what the regulation can state. Earlier

this morning I gave an example of the kind of regulations brought in

under legislation by the NDP. They were broad, sweeping regulations and

did not have the confinement that these particular regulations have,

which address strictly the intent of the act. The

section dealing with

the regulations that you brought in merely said that you had the

authority to issue regulations. I believe in the regulations being

confined to the intent and purposes which we've defined here.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in B.C. we've never had a

minister with more willingness to embark on a flight of fancy. If you

want to debate in this House some other piece of legislation with a

regulation-making power, do so, but don't just give us all that guff

that there are other bills with greater regulation-making power. We'll

go into some other bills, one by one. I'm talking about this bill. I'm

saying that you're taking carte blanche powers under this

section to

make regulations to carry out the intent of the act; whatever you decide

is the intent of the act — and it could be one thing on Monday and

another thing on Wednesday and another thing on Friday — you can make a

regulation about it. When you are affecting people's liberties in their

employment, why don't you bring in a narrowly confined

section relating

to regulations?

[3:15]

You're dealing with human liberties here. You're dealing with jobs,

with individuals — the public service of British

Columbia. You are finishing off this sweeping act with even more

sweeping powers to make regulations about whatever you may think is the

intent of the act. They are wide, sweeping powers that give the

government carte blanche control over the public sector in the province

of British Columbia. That's what you embarked on when you had those

words "without cause." You wanted to intimidate the whole public sector

in the province and hold a gun to them. Now you are putting in that

fine flourish at the end of this bill, making regulations just to carry

out the intent of the act. What are they going to be? I asked the

minsister but he can't tell me. He says "compensation package." That's

dealt with somewhere else.

Mr. Chairman, this is a fitting conclusion to this bill: the

government is seizing totally unreasonable powers.

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 9

Gabelmann

Macdonald

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

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

in the Journals of the House.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Atlin.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old grizzly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us the bear facts.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm putting together such a good

list of bear facts to bring in, but I know it's out of order on

section

9. I wanted to talk today a little bit about a cat that was hung or

laid, but I'll have to stay on

section 9. We're talking about the

repeal of

section 153. I want to ask a few questions of the minister.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) may be able to help him

with this one. I know the Provincial Secretary has an assistant there

who will be able to help him.

Section 153, which is being repealed, says: "...may terminate teachers

on 30 days' written notice." One aspect that I would like to see

brought in by the minister is that the date itself, particularly around

May 30, should be brought in. If this act is repealed — which it will

be in the next ten

[ Page 2736

minutes, once the vote comes to it — you're going to put teachers

in a very difficult situation. If a school district terminates a

teacher on June 30, the teacher would not be allowed — in 99.9 percent

of the cases — to apply for a new job, because most school districts

would have filled their staff quota for the next year. If you put

in a subamendent saying that the 30 days' notice would only happen

after May 30, it would allow teachers the opportunity to apply for a

job prior to September, because the next opportunity to apply for a job

would be in November or December, when there would be new openings

coming up in January. This would allow some protection to teachers. It

would allow them to formulate some professional opportunities prior to

December 31.

My second question to the minister is: what formula — particularly in

section 153(2), which is being repealed — will school districts use

for termination? Will seniority be involved?

Section 153 also gives a

bit of protection to teachers, particularly in

section 153(2), where

it says that school districts can use the five-month formula. It says,

in the second sentence up from the end of the section, that it allows a

five-month formula for reassignment in the district. What is the

minister going to do with teachers, once this act is passed, for

reassignment in a district? Now you have a

section in the act itself

which gives some protection to teachers through reassignment in

districts. Once that has been repealed, there will be no reassignment

in the district. This is a precious little right that is involved for

the staff, and I would like to know what the minister will bring

forward to continue this fivemonth formula for reassignment in the

district.

You also, by having this

section repealed — termination of

professional teachers with years of service — could be starting a

formula for districts to replace teachers who are on a higher level of

salary because of seniority and professional job training with,

particularly, new teachers coming out of university, which would save

the districts money, but by the same token wouldn't provide the quality

of education that our students deserve.

The last question I'd like to address to the minister is

particularly in

section 153(2) — that by repealing this you're

affecting, to a certain extent, rural school districts. I know the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), in consultation right now

with the minister, will probably be able to offer an answer to this

question. Why, with the decrease in enrolment, particularly in rural

school districts where now there is a certain aspect of the act that

protects when decreased enrolment happens in a school district, use that

as a centralization aspect? The point that I'm making is that in a

rural district, particularly in my riding.... We had the resource

community of Kitsault close down, and a number of teachers were

terminated. Under this....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), you certainly didn't come and

protect those people of Kitsault once it was closed down. You washed

your hands entirely of those 400 people who were there and offered them

no protection whatsoever for jobs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order, and the member

will speak to the section.

MR. PASSARELL: So on this aspect, what I'm wondering is

whether a district with decreased enrolment can go to another school

and start terminating teachers, even though one resource community was

closed down by a cost-saving measure?

Those are five questions I direct to the minister, and I'd hope to

receive some type of an answer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Under the provisions of Bill 3,

section 9,

there really will be more consideration given to teachers who are

subject to termination because of budgetary requirements and so forth.

The provisions of

section 153 essentially give 30 days' notice under

certain conditions. Here, because of the budgetary constraint that

exists in school districts, they will be aware of the employment

situation in various school districts and will have the ability and

flexibility to give more notification than has historically been given

under

section 153 of the School Act. So essentially it's an additional

benefit — or not necessarily a benefit but an additional notice that

will flow to the teachers who might be impacted by this section.

[3:30]

MR. PASSARELL: I'm pleased with the minister's response; you

addressed the first question I gave to you. Just one further question

about the 30 days' notice. Is it the government's belief that by

repealing this you're going to give 30 days' notice any time through

the year? Would it be in August or July when school's not sitting? The

point that I made was that many teachers, if they're terminated, let's

say, on May 30, have the month of June to apply for the new school

session. Does the 30 days' notice you were talking about cover 12

months or is it just covering until May 30 or until December 31 ?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll let the Minister of Education respond

to that one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Really, upon examination of the provisions

of Bill 3 and that of

section 153 of the School Act, you will find very

little difference. There's just one additional thing which Bill 3

gives, which not too many seem to have taken notice of. Under the

School Act, the school year, by definition, is divided into two terms,

as you're probably aware: fall and spring. What this

section says is

the "then current term." That answers it.

To close it off, I think it's important to note that there are

regulations under Bill 3 where there are none under the School Act. The

interesting thing about it is this: under the regulations of Bill 3,

the drafts of which have just been circulated, we find that appropriate

notice must be not only given, but if there is a severance package

attached to it....

There is no severance package at all within the School Act, so

schoolteachers are in effect receiving an additional benefit under this

section and are being treated on the same basis, as a matter of fact,

as other public sector employers. Really, it's a bit of a gain.

MR. MITCHELL: Just one thing keeps bothering me. We've

brought it up and brought it up, and the government still refers to

it.... This concerns the severance package, which is part of the

regulations. This severance package is like the sugar coating on a

pill. We keep hearing about it, but that can be changed by the stroke

of a pen.

[ Page 2737

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: But it can be. The way that the regulations are

drafted by the cabinet, the cabinet can change those regulations, so

let's not say that the regulations are part of this act. They're not.

They're part of the whim of the government of the day.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 10

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Passarell

Mitchell

Wallace

Lockstead

Hanson

D'Arcy

Skelly

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

in the Journals of the House.

Section 10 approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Gabelmann

Passarell

Mitchell

Wallace

Lockstead

Hanson

D'Arcy

Skelly

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

in the Journals of the House.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to note to the

committee before the minister closes debate, just very quickly, that

there has been, I think, about 23 hours of continuous debate in

committee on Bill 3, and I would like to compliment the Chairmen, who

have handled the debate in an exemplary fashion throughout the entire

time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's out of order, but I accept it

anyway.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to concur with what the NDP said,

but I think we should also congratulate the minister, who sat here for

23½ hours straight answering all the questions.

[3:45]

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

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Public Sector Restraint Act, 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 11, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. GABELMANN:

Section 1 of the bill in front of us amends

section 2 of the Compensation Stabilization Act.

Section 2 of the act

is the application section, which indicates that all public sector

employers and employees are covered by the act, as is anyone who agreed

to be covered under

section 32, which is a federal-provincial agreement

that might be enacted. So, basically, in terms of the amendment in

front of us, the issue that counts is the fact that the act applies to

all public sector employers and employees. The amendment suggests an

additional

section that arbitrators of arbitration awards containing a

compensation plan for public sector employees shall also be covered by

the compensation stabilization legislation.

A very important principle being enacted by this particular

amendment is that arbitrators heretofore in Canadian labour law have

been considered to be independent and responsible enough to accept a

variety of factors in determining what is, in terms of interest

arbitrations, the appropriate settlement of an unresolved dispute

between employers and employees. Never before has legislation existed

in this province telling arbitrators that their independence is no

longer valued or, in fact, in existence.

There are two ways of dealing with this, if the government's

intention — which I do not agree with, but let's give them that — is

that arbitrated settlements be included in the compensation

stabilization program: one is to do this, and the

[ Page 2738

other is to do the proper thing, which is to allow the compensation

stabilization commissioner to make any decisions he might make in the

same way as he would if the settlement had been negotiated freely. An

arbitrated award is simply in its final state the same as a negotiated

settlement, except that it was arrived at by a different process. If a

negotiated process occurs and the guidelines are exceeded, the

compensation stabilization commissioner intervenes and requires that

further things happen. When an agreement is reached through

arbitration, the package should then be referred to the compensation

stabilization commissioner, and he should make whatever determinations

he needs to make. The award is determined by an arbitrator based on the

evidence presented to him from both sides in the dispute.

The amendment requires of arbitrators not only that they consider

the concerns of the employer and employees and the best possible way of

reaching an agreement, which is what happens in collective bargaining,

but the arbitrator must also look at the Compensation Stabilization

Act and write an award consonant with this legislation. You no longer

have an independent arbitration process when you do that. What you have

are arbitrators working for the legislation — for the Compensation

Stabilization Commission and for the executive council — and, in

effect, doing their dirty work. That is not what interest arbitration

is all about. Interest arbitration is a mechanism that has been

designed. There has been a lot of criticism about it over the years,

but there appears to be a growing acceptance that in some areas of

labour relations it seems to be an increasingly accepted way of

resolving contract disputes, whether the arbitration awards are

compulsory or not. We are dealing here with binding arbitration awards.

What the government fails to recognize in its desire for some

short-term gain in terms of this particular program is that they are

damaging the ability of arbitrators in this province to remain neutral,

respected and an integral part of the collective bargaining process.

Some of us who have on occasion taken fairly extreme positions on the

issue of collective bargaining might be pleased to see that — in the

sense that maybe binding interest arbitration is a bad thing. I think

we have gone beyond that in our society. In fact, we have got to the

stage now where there is an acceptance that that is a legitimate

mechanism to be used, particularly in some public sector areas where

there is a preponderance of essential services being delivered by a

particular union or group of employees.

What the government in this

section is indicating to arbitrators is

that they must give their paramount concern to the ability to pay, and

they must do everything in their award in compliance with this

legislation. You are making them agents of the government. They are no

longer independent interest arbitrators. That, I suggest, from the

government's own perspective, is a slippery road. You damage the

ability of arbitrators to retain some independence and integrity. I

predict that the best of the arbitrators will not accept appointments

under this act for a variety of reasons, not just this subsection which

I have to speak to. The best ones will not do it, because they will not

have their integrity compromised by a requirement of law that they act

as an agent for the Crown. Under this legislation that's what the

compensation stabilization commissioner was established to do: to act

as the agent of the Crown to achieve the goals of the compensation

stabilization program.

I know what the response from the minister will be, or I can predict

what part of it will be at least. He will say that if a collective

agreement has been reached in free collective bargaining that exceeds

the guidelines, the commissioner can refer it back to the parties and

they have to attempt to come back in a negotiated fashion with a

package that does comply. Finally at some stage the compensation

commissioner has some ability to impose the regulations of the act and

impose a settlement. The argument would be that the same thing doesn't

apply in the case of arbitrators, because arbitrators have been

refusing to rewrite an arbitration award. They have been arguing that

the compensation commissioner has that responsibility, and I would

agree.

There is a significant difference between a collective agreement

that's reached through collective bargaining and one that's reached

through interest arbitration. If it's reached through arbitration, I

think we should maintain the principle that that arbitrator is

independent and free to make a decision based on the facts presented to

him, which include a whole variety of issues that I won't go into now.

And if the compensation stabilization commissioner feels that that

particular settlement or award is beyond the guidelines, then let the

compensation commissioner himself take the responsibility for

arbitrating the settlement further. Don't ask independent arbitrators

to do that dirty work for the government. I think that is a very

important principle, and, as I said before, it's leading the whole

process of interest arbitration in this province down a slippery path.

The ability of independent arbitrators to act with any respect or to

have any integrity is bound to slip away, and the government, more than

the opposition, will be the losers for that kind of direction.

[4:00]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, in our society there is a

well-established forum for resolution of disputes, and that is an

independent third party. Sometimes it takes the form of a single

arbitrator mutually agreed upon by two parties; sometimes it's an

arbitration board, depending upon the magnitude of the decision. In the

case of an arbitration board you have a representative from each side

and a mutually agreed-upon chairperson.

This

section of this bill overrides that long-established

tradition of resolution of disputes.

Mr. Chairman, to have a piece of legislation come before this House

that says that two disagreeing parties, whether they are at a library

in the Peace River or are a bus driver and their employer in some other

area.... There are 250,000 families, in a multitude of vocations.

There could be up to 1,500 different occupations covered under this

bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill overrides any ability to reach a

resolution of a dispute by a process that after a decision is made

would have the confidence of both parties. Clearly it was something

that they'd come to the point where they could both agree upon. What we

have now is a resolutions process which is far removed from the local

scene and far removed from any of the detail and understanding of the

grassroots grievance that has precipitated the dispute.

Mr. Chairman, there are those who hold in a naive way the notion

that if a decision is made from afar on a particular situation, that

will resolve it and no more will be heard. It's almost like the medical

analogy of a boil. Unless it is dealt with with antiseptic or lanced,

it doesn't go away. Grievances become long-standing, and they have a

multiplier or an escalating impact. I don't have to draw a picture on

the wall for you to understand that our industrial-relations climate

is deteriorating every day in this province as a result of an

[ Page 2739

intransigent attitude on the part of government that local decisions

cannot be resolved in the public sector by employers and employees

working through a disputes procedure that has been mutually agreed upon

and is tried and true, and proven over time.

This clause overrides any arbitrator's jurisdiction and freedom. The

arbitrator must make an award within the guidelines and regulations of

this act. There can be many, many extenuating circumstances, many

pent-up and historic reasons why a dispute exists. Sometimes it is

comparability with people who share the same workplace, the same types

of duties, but who for historic reasons have been locked in behind

fellow employees for many reasons. To cite just one example, a

situation that was resolved when bargaining came into the public

service was the fact that women performing the same janitorial duties

as men in institutions were being paid half or two-thirds the salary of

their male counterparts. That was an historic fact. It was something of

long standing. It was a grievance that was creating terrible stresses

in the workplace, and that was resolved in an arbitration award. The

result of that award meant a substantial increase in compensation for

those women who had been performing work heavy in nature, but who had

not been receiving the proper remuneration for that work.

Mr. Chairman, to translate that situation into the contemporary

situations before us at the moment, it would mean that Mr. Peck would

not have the authority to really take into account the historic nature

of that situation or the full redress required to settle a stressful

and disruptive employee situation and to rectify it. That is the role

that arbitrators can play. Oftentimes arbitrators are lawyers, and I

don't think that they should be. I think that there are some groups

that deliberately ensure that it is not just the legal profession that

plays an arbitrator role, but people of a fair-minded nature who want

justice, who want to see justice done, who are willing to write a fair

decision that goes right down the middle so that both sides can live

with the situation adequately. This, Mr. Chairman, is going to create

turmoil throughout thousands of workplaces in the province, because

there is no way to adequately redress past inequities, and there will

be guidelines passed on from the cabinet through to Mr. Peck, who will

then make a determination consistent with his mandate.

We hear a lot about the ability to pay on the employers' side, but

we hear nothing about the employees' ability to meet their own

commitments, whether it is in terms of their accommodation, their

health or their domestic requirements.

HON. MR. CURTIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. With respect

to the member who has just taken his seat, this is

section 1. It deals

only with arbitrators and arbitration awards. The member speaks of

ability to pay, which is dealt with elsewhere in the amending act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister; certainly you have a

good point. Up to that point I felt the member was being quite relevant

in his remarks. So if he would just carry on in the same vein as he

started, everything would be fine.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make passing reference

to the ability to pay simply because if there is a past or historic

inequity in a workplace which would require a catchup or some kind of

major modification of the salary package to rectify that situation,

clearly Mr. Peck's guidelines and the notion of the employer's ability

to pay would not be able to respond adequately to that situation.

Arbitration, as I've stated, is a longstanding and civilized way of

dealing with disputes. There are those who are very naive and feel that

to pass a law or to take away a right will create harmony, or that in

some way the employees will then acquiesce to being stripped of their

self-respect. Mr. Chairman, the arbitration process is one that has

been used extensively in our province, and this particular

section

strips away the right of local employers and employees in the public

sector to come to a dispute on a mutually agreed-upon basis. It also

hampers any arbitrator from coming to a resolution, because he or she

must operate within the narrow guidelines and regulations of this act.

Now the regulations of the act, of course, will be subject to change by

the cabinet. Therefore it is like the goalposts moving during a game or

the World Series being played, where all of a sudden the commissioner

of baseball introduces a new rule in the ninth inning, which creates

distress not only among the participants but among those who are

observing what is taking place.

Mr. Chairman, the people who are concerned about the implications of

this bill, in terms of labour stability in the province, go far beyond

those individuals directly affected in terms of those whose wages or

working conditions are likely to come before Mr. Peck. There are small

business people who are extremely concerned about the devastating

impact that these kinds of sections are going to have on the confidence

of working people in the public sector to respond in terms of their own

needs, and their confidence to spend and to facilitate a recovery.

There are those, in addition to those immediately affected, who are

immediately affected but who are innocent bystanders, so to speak, and

see an unjust situation occurring when a basic freedom — the right to

collective bargaining, the right to bargain for one's own wages and

working conditions — is taken away. That is clearly being taken away in

Section 1 of the bill.

We understand, Mr. Chairman, that there is not a lot of money

available, and that manifests itself at the bargaining table in a free

and democratic society. I might just remind you that when collective

bargaining took place in the public sector in the bargaining unit

within the Public Service Labour Relations Act during high-interest

periods, when inflation was high and interest rates were very

high.... Prior to that time a contract was negotiated, after a

lengthy period of negotiations, of 8 percent per year for three years.

During that three-year period mortgage rates and interest rates ran

exceedingly high, up to 21 and 22 percent, and many clerical people and

people in the low-income scale of the public sector were locked into

long-term, high-interest mortgages; at the same time their wages were

increasing at half the rate of inflation. Did they ask to have their

contract ruled null and void so they could go back to the bargaining

table and start fresh? Did they argue that their ability to pay had

been hampered? They toughed it out, Mr. Chairman. They honoured the

sanctity of the collective agreement that they had signed with the

government. They honoured that and went back to the bargaining table,

as they should have done, to attempt to meet their needs, which were

catchup.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've kind of stepped away from arbitration, it

seems, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: I'm pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that

circumstances change for employees and for employers.

[ Page 2740

Often those disputes can be resolved by an arbitrator. What we have

happening is that the cabinet has introduced legislation to remove that

possibility in the resolution of conflict. The last thing we want, in

the depths of a depression, is industrial conflict. But the government

seems to feel that it can use the force of its May 5 mandate to muscle

its own employees and other public sector employees to the ground, and

also to strip away their ability to protect themselves.

MS. SANFORD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I draw to your

attention the fact that we don't have a quorum in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please. The Chair will check.

We have a quorum now. Thank you, hon. member. Will the first member

for Victoria continue, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we have a question of freedom

before us. It is the right, first of all, to bargain freely for one's

own livelihood. I know that that's a contentious issue. I know that

it's a political issue. But it is certainly something that is upheld,

not only by trade unions but by churches and by free-minded individuals

in our western democracies. People have the right....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I regret rising on a point of

order, but this is not second reading debate. We have a compensation

stabilization program in place. This is an amending act and, with

respect, if we are to follow the rules of committee, this

section

simply speaks about arbitrators and arbitration awards, and nothing

else. I really would suggest that we cannot revisit the whole principle

of compensation stabilization in this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The point is well

taken. We realize that this is not second reading. This is the

committee stage, where we deal with detail, as opposed to the

philosophy of the whole act. I would ask the member for Victoria if he

would try and direct his remarks more specifically toward the content

section 1, arbitration.

[4:15]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like, then, to address a question

to the minister. What occurs when there is a situation in a workplace

of the type that I outlined earlier, where there had been an historic

misalignment, for want of a better word, of two levels of compensation

within a workplace, and an arbitrator could be resolving it and

bringing forward information on comparability? The situation that I'd

referred to was male and female janitors, but in this case it could be

two groups of workers in classifications that are essentially

performing functions of equal value, yet the compensation of the two

has been historically out of line. An arbitrator or a board could come

to terms with that and settle that in the workplace. Yet I don't see

any evidence of Mr. Peck's guidelines being able to take into account

historic factors that will clearly redress that kind of a situation. I

know in his formula there is a modicum of leverage. If you have a

festering, disruptive, long-standing situation in a workplace that

cannot be resolved with Mr. Peck's guidelines, how do you deal with it?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, speaking strictly to the

section and attempting to answer the first member for Victoria, I frankly see no difficulty with respect to the question

of comparability to which the member has directed his attention. Quite

the contrary. An arbitrator or an arbitration board, with passage of

this

section and this amending act, may be able more readily to

identify some of the discrepancies to which the member has alluded and

which we know have existed from time to time with respect to employee

groups and employers. All this

section says is that arbitrators must

take into account the provisions of the Compensation Stabilization Act

when they're making the arbitration awards involving groups of public

sector employees. That is all that it says. It says no more, Mr.

Chairman.

I realize that other members opposite want to speak on this. I may

be able to offer some further thoughts. It simply says that when an

arbitrator arrives on the scene or an arbitration board is required in

a dispute, the compensation stabilization program, as it will be

amended, must be taken into account.

MR. HANSON: I have another question for the minister. What

arbitrations precipitated the introduction of this legislation into the

house?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would have to answer

numerically rather than specifically. I was prepared for a question of

this nature.

I speak in passing only of the very significant success the total

program has had since the legislation was introduced, since the program

was announced last year. So much for that. Back to the section.

Eighty-seven percent of the 983 compensation plans submitted were

approved in

the first instance. It was found, Mr. Chairman, that considerable

difficulty — and I use "considerable" carefully — was experienced with

those plans under CSP which were initially rejected. Some 30 percent

were arbitration awards. I think this could be seen by the committee as

one indication of problems associated with that aspect of the

negotiating process. As I say, I do not have the specifics, but I think

the numerical response of 30 percent of those which were in difficulty

at the outset was related to those which had gone to arbitration in one

form or another.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to have the minister

explain to us how arbitrators might more readily be able to address

those discrepancies that exist within the various contracts that were

alluded to by my colleague the first member for Victoria. The minister

didn't explain how the arbitrators might more readily be able to

identify those differences. I fail to see that placing the arbitrators

under the compensation stabilization guidelines, which we're doing in

Section 1 of this amending act by placing the arbitration process under

the guidelines of the compensation stabilization program, is going to

enable the arbitrators better to determine the discrepancies that

exist. That was brought to the minister's attention by the first member

for Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's unfortunate that the government has

chosen to include this

section which makes the whole arbitration

process subject to the guidelines included in the compensation

stabilization program. Part and parcel of the whole collective

bargaining process over the years has been this ability, when a dispute

arises, for the parties to go to arbitration knowing that within the

province we have a body of people who are independent, who are

knowledgeable about collective bargaining and arbitration processes and

who have been able over the years, with a great deal of

[ Page 2741

success, to come up with solutions that are acceptable to both

parties in the end; sometimes not very readily, I recognize.

Nonetheless, it was the best possible system that we could devise in

order to ensure that collective bargaining could be successfully

concluded.

By putting these arbitrators under this program we have taken away

their very independence. They've taken away their integrity. There are

many talented what I would call professional people, professional

arbitrators, who are now asked under this legislation to become lackeys

of the government. They are asking the arbitrators to take on the

political work which that minister is asking them to do under this act.

That's unfair, and it's dangerous, because it's only one more step in

destroying the industrial relations climate of this province, which this

government has done under many other sections under many other bills.

Surely, if the minister understands the need for independence in the

work of arbitration in the industrial relations field, he will

recognize that this

section does not belong in this bill. If he has any

understanding of collective bargaining and what we're attempting to do

in this province by establishing a climate in which collective

bargaining can take place successfully, then this

section would not be

in this bill. The minister has embarked here on yet another attack on

the process and on the atmosphere and the climate that government

should set for that whole process to take place. Arbitration as we know

it will no longer exist, because an arbitrator must be free to

determine the best possible settlement to any dispute, based on the

facts before him, not the political direction that's given to them by

this government or by that minister. If we are going to have successful

arbitration, that is an absolute necessity, Mr. Chairman. It's

unfortunate that the minister can't seem to recognize that; nor can his

government. I think there will be a number of very unhappy people who

have served this province well in the field of arbitration who are now

forced to knuckle under to the wishes of government and its political

needs of the day in order to serve as arbitrators under this particular

bill.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether or not the minister has had any

discussion whatsoever with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) and the arbitration process that takes place — and those

arbitrators will be affected by this bill as well — between the school

boards of the province and the teachers. As the minister well knows,

most of the agreements between the teachers' federations and the school

districts are settled through arbitration.

I mentioned some time ago that I felt that the Minister of Education

should consider at this time eliminating entirely the arbitration

procedure that's now allowed under the School Act. The minister said he

would consider it. I'm wondering whether or not the Minister of Finance

has discussed with the Minister of Education eliminating that procedure

entirely. What's the point? It's a very expensive procedure. I think it

costs some $2 million to $3 million a year in this province for all of

those arbitrations to take place.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) agreed that because

arbitration as we have known it in the past will no longer exist under

this Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act perhaps they should

eliminate that entire procedure that's now allowed under the public

schools act. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that when you are destroying

the whole arbitration process as we have come to know it, and as

right-wingers and employers over the years have come to view favourably

this procedure.... You know, most right-wingers think arbitration's

a great solution to the disputes that occur between labour and

management. Over the years they have agreed that arbitration....

Here we are eliminating that procedure, that process and that concept:

arbitrators must be able to act independently, and they can no longer

do that under this bill.

I'm wondering if the minister has had discussions with the Minister

of Education concerning the school boards and the teachers

particularly. And I'm wondering whether he has had discussions with the

other ministers who are affected under this legislation with respect to

the arbitration procedures that the employees for those ministries have

come to know, expect, rely on and turn to. I'm thinking that by placing

arbitrators and arbitration boards under this particular section, they

may as well eliminate the whole process. They're paying enough money

already for the compensation stabilization commissioner and his staff.

Why involve the independent arbitrators in a procedure which has no

meaning any more? It all has to fall under the compensation

stabilization program, it all has to receive the scrutiny of the

commission, and I don't see that we have any real arbitration at all

with this particular approach adopted by the Minister of Finance in

this bill.

I wonder if the minister would respond to some of those points.

[4:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, restricting myself to the

section which is before us,

section 1, I can tell the member for Comox

that of course there has been extensive consultation with other

ministers in this government, leading to the presentation of this bill.

Unlike a number of those which I have to speak to in this House, this

is not a tax bill; this is a bill, therefore, which received — as the

member will know — and I can assure her if she did not know — very wide

consultation among members of the executive council. I am not going to

repeat for the member specific discussions which I may have had with

individual ministers, but I speak as one member of this committee

indicating that the consultations did take place leading to this

Section in this bill which is before us.

There was a suggestion on the part of a couple of the speakers — not

so much the speaker from Comox; well, yes, she did allude to it — that

the compensation stabilization program of 1982 made no mention of

arbitration or arbitrators in any way, shape or form. She will know and

will admit, because we had weeks of debate on the whole bill last year

— and we may again this year, Mr. Chairman — that

section 29 deals

specifically with arbitration awards. So it would not be correct for

the committee this afternoon or tonight or tomorrow or the next day to

draw the conclusion that this is the first time there has been

reference to arbitrators or arbitration awards.

Again, it seems to me that the

section is really quite narrow in

scope, but not narrow with respect to the arbitration process. It says:

"Arbitrators, you must take into account the compensation stabilization

program as it exists from time to time" — the guidelines and the

regulations, about which we will speak later. But that is all it asks

and all it directs. I think I said the same sort of thing last year. I

perhaps have not had the intensive experience on one side of a

bargaining table that some members have had; nonetheless, I have been

involved in public sector negotiation, and I have found it necessary or

advisable to turn to the arbitration process to seek that

[ Page 2742

third-party assistance. So I don't come to this debate completely

uninformed about the process. Certainly, since the CSP was introduced I

think I've learned considerably more.

The point I want to make is that the arbitration process and

arbitrators themselves, in this province or in any other jurisdiction,

must pay heed, be cognizant of and take into account the law of that

province as it exists from time to time. The Employment Standards

Act.... I won't speak of other legislation on which we have been

working as a committee or as a Legislature; it is simply another

reference to the statutes of the province of British Columbia saying:

"When you come, in the public sector, to attempt to assist a group of

employees and an employer, you must take into account the provisions of

the compensation stabilization program." I am not aware — and if the

committee is, Mr. Chairman, I'd be grateful — of any arbitrator who has

said: "This is the end of my function, the end of my contribution to

trade union and public sector management negotiations. It's game over.

I can be of no further help." I haven't heard that, and I think it's

very important that we.... If any of the members opposite have

specific examples of arbitrators who have said, "That's the end of it,

can't function, have to move, have to concentrate on the private

sector, that's just the worst thing that's happened," then I'd like to

hear about that. I haven't heard about that, and my inquiries have not

suggested that that sort of comment has been made.

MS. SANFORD: What I said was that arbitration as we know it — that is, as an independent process, independent of political

interference and any direction by government — will no longer exist.

There's no way around that, because the arbitrators can no longer look

at what is presented to them by the employers and the employees, and

arrive at some sort of a decision. Leave it up to the commissioner;

leave it up to Peck to determine whether it has to be rolled back or

whatever; but the independence of that whole procedure is lost. It has

ended. And that disturbs me, because it is an interference with the

whole collective bargaining process — and arbitration is very much a

part of that process — which is going to lead to a further

deterioration of industrial relations in this province. The minister

certainly confirmed what I said earlier, when he said that he had

consulted with all of his colleagues and this is what they had come up

with.

What I'm saying is that the people who are in charge these days, the

Socred government, do not understand that process, and won't suggest

what the other alternative is. I'll be kind, and say that they don't

understand this process and that's why they've included this in here.

Of course, the minister did not answer the question that was posed

first of all by the member for Victoria, and then repeated by me, about

how arbitrators are better able to determine discrepancies that exist

between various groups of employees under this system than they were

under the previous system. He didn't mention that. I would hope that

maybe he'll get to his feet and explain what he meant by that, because

I still do not understand what he means by that at all.

The other thing: he mentioned that he had had extensive consultation

with his colleagues who are affected by this bill — the members of

cabinet — and he wasn't going to reveal to me the outcome of those

individual conversations. But I would suggest that the consultation

with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was not very

extensive, because when I raised this issue with the Minister of

Education in this House about two weeks ago, that minister had not

considered at all the arbitration provisions between the schoolteachers

and the school boards of the province. He said he certainly would

consider that. So I wonder what sort of extensive consultations have

taken place in that cabinet on this particular

section and this

particular elimination of arbitration as we have come to know it, and

which unfortunately is a dangerous precedent and yet another example of

the interference of this government in collective bargaining, and of

its — should I say determination? Perhaps unwilling determination. I'm

not sure what to say about this, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to be kind.

But the effect of what they're doing is further deterioration in that

industrial relations climate, and that won't benefit anyone. I suggest

that if they eliminate arbitrators from this section, they will be

doing the province a service.

The other thing the minister mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was that

arbitrators and arbitration procedures were in fact covered in the

initial bill passed in 1982, the Compensation Stabilization Act, which

this bill before us amends. If it's the case that the whole procedure

was covered, then why do we need this additional

section here today? I

submit that it's to change the arbitration procedures and to give the

government even more control over the incomes of those people who are

employed in the public sector. It's more centralization: the government

is tightening the noose and is using the arbitrators of the province,

who have served us so well over these years, to carry out its political

will, and that's tragic.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering how the minister

justifies adding arbitrators in this particular

section of the

Compensation Stabilization Act when in fact it would seem to contravene

what the Labour Code has to say about arbitrators. I'm looking at

section 92(3) of the Labour Code:

"An arbitration board, to further the intent and

purpose expressed...shall have regard to the real substance of the

matters in dispute and the respective merit of the positions of the

parties to it under the terms of the collective agreement, and shall

apply principles consistent with the industrial relations policy of

this act, and is not bound by a strict legal

interpretation of the

issue in dispute."

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that by putting arbitrators in the

position of having to fall under the terms of the Compensation

Stabilization Act, what in fact we're doing is saying to arbitrators

that they cannot follow the law as set out in the Labour Code; they

will have to contravene those instructions which are enshrined in

legislation if they are going to be bound by this piece of legislation.

The Labour Code makes it binding upon both parties if you go to

arbitration. Both parties must agree that this is a binding settlement.

Yet that is not going to apply if arbitrators and arbitration awards

are subject to this particular bill. It's removing their powers

completely, and it's contrary to what we have written in the Labour

Code, as far as my

interpretation of the Labour Code goes. It's

absolutely contrary to the terms of reference, the responsibilities and

the mandatory requirements that both parties involved agree to accept

that award.

I think that has to take precedence over putting arbitrators into

this particular bill. We have a compensation stabilization officer who

has some pretty great powers; mighty powers, in fact.

[4:45]

Interjection.

[ Page 2743

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, awesome powers; right. The Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is helping me out. And he does have awesome

powers, because he has the power at present to overrule what an

arbitrator or an arbitration board comes up with, as set out in this

piece of legislation. It's pretty awesome to be able to overrule

something that's done in accordance with a

section in

an act which is

as substantive as that one is. It gives him broad, sweeping powers. You

may say those are awesome powers, but those powers are established in

that particular bill. Now we're not only going to allow the

Compensation Stabilization Act to override what they do, but we're

going to say they can't even do that.

Why do we need it both ways? Surely we have to allow the system to

work. If you check your own remarks, Mr. Minister, I think you will

find that you have indicated that very few cases have actually come out

of arbitration and gone before the compensation stabilization officer.

They have been very much in line. There haven't been many cases

referred, so why are you curtailing this? What reason? There doesn't

seem to be any reason to it — unless it is that you want to completely

destroy the process of collective bargaining. It seems to be part and

parcel of that vendetta that this government is embarked upon to

destroy the whole process of a sane and productive kind of labour

relations in this province, where we don't have the kind of conflict

that's bound to result from this kind of move. When you take away that

authority, that ability, that right from the arbitrators or the

arbitration board, then you're immediately putting the people involved,

the people who are going to arbitrated, in a very awkward position.

They have to agree to accept the award; it's a mandatory award coming

down from that arbitration board. They realize that that award is not

going to be made on the terms of the Labour Code; it's going to be

limited by the terms of compensation stabilization, which is in turn

limited by regulations.

Mr. Chairman, you may be aware and you may not, but before you came

into this House we saw those goal-posts changing so fast that the

minister was saying something in the House when introducing the bill

and the Premier was in the hall saying something else. That's how

quickly they were changing — how unreliable, how indefinite those

goal-posts are. So we are now putting arbitration boards and

arbitrators in the position of making decisions based on the

Compensation Stabilization Act, which is based on regulations which

will change from time to time. Who knows where that award is supposed

to come down? What employer or group of employees would agree to go to

binding arbitration under those conditions? And what's the alternative?

It's a strike or a lockout. That's exactly the direction this is taking

us. I don't know if the minister has any response to that or not, but

to me it's a travesty to be in this kind of a position with this piece

of legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I fear that in some respects

we are not only revisiting second reading debate, but on the basis of

the remarks by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who has just taken her

seat, we are also revisiting the debate which occurred last year when

the compensation stabilization program was put in. It worked, Mr.

Chairman! And the members opposite refused to recognize that it could

work, resisted it every single step of the way week after week, in this

chamber. It worked, and they don't have the courage to say today that

it has worked. So much for my straying from this section, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SANFORD: You're starting to lose your cool.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am cool, Madam Member, very cool and

relaxed, and prepared to stay here as long as you want on this

section

and on other sections.

I do owe the member for Comox a comment with respect to — she

questioned me twice, and it was not a deliberate oversight — the

unequal treatment of employees. We still have the situation of some

public sector employees being paid under compensation stabilization and

others not. This

section directs the arbitrator to take that into

account at any particular stage of his or her involvement — or their

involvement — in the process. I think it was the first member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson) who developed that thesis initially. He suggested

that this

section is a very slippery slope — if I recall his words; I'm

pretty close — towards unequal treatment. It's quite the reverse, Mr.

Chairman. It leads to further equity, further fairness in the program,

because it says to the arbitrators or the arbitration board that they

have to take compensation stabilization into account. This amending act

only deals with compensation. It doesn't deal with other aspects of the

workplace, other aspects of the relationship between the employee and

the employer. It was never intended to. It did not last year; it does

not this year.

Mr. Chairman, I trust that I have at least stated the government

position. I don't expect that I will satisfy members on the opposite

side, who have found it appropriate to oppose this legislation from the

day it was announced by the Premier of the province on February 18,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the hon. member for

North Island, I would like to point out that the Chair is a good

listener. I've listened very carefully to everything that has been

said. It has been stated, and it is very true, that this particular

section, by its very nature, is limited in the scope of debate that can

be brought forward. Up to this point in time, I would go so far as to

congratulate speakers on how relevant they have been. But latterly the

Chair has been hearing some repetition, which I suppose is bound to

happen by the very nature of the beast we're dealing with.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to ask the minister whether he agrees

with this statement by his former deputy: "In the final instance, when

incomes policy objectives come into conflict with industrial relations

considerations, the former has paramountcy." I'm sorry, it's not your

former deputy; it's the former Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations and current president of the Employers' Council of B.C. — Mr.

Matkin's statement. My apologies for misleading the House on this.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would be interested in the member's view,

since he has raised the matter under

Section I of this amending act.

Perhaps he would care to tell the committee how he feels about it.

MR. GABELMANN: I have done that, and I am going to be very

careful to keep within your strictures, Mr. Chairman, and not repeat

myself. I made some comments earlier, around five to four, on that

precise point, and I'll do it again very briefly, to indicate to the

minister that I happen to believe that the process of arbitration,

which is an integral part of industrial relations policy and procedures

in this province, is essential in terms of preserving long-term

industrial relations

[ Page 2744

in this province. I find that more important than saying to a group

of workers: "Because you have signed a first collective agreement, and

the arbitration award has attempted to bring you up to the prevailing

rate, already agreed to by the compensation commissioner in other

settlements, that arbitrator will be told by the commissioner that he

cannot bring you up to prevailing rates in a first agreement."

There are two issues that I am raising in this matter. One is the

whole paramountcy of normal collective bargaining and industrial

relations, which is being subverted by this section, in my view. The

other is the position of the former Deputy Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations, who says that industrial relations is less

important than a rigid — and I emphasize the word "rigid" — adherence

to an incomes policy, which, in the case that I'm beginning to talk

about, is applied absolutely inequitably. It is my understanding that

the Ontario program allows for first collective agreements to be

considered separately from subsequent collective agreements under their

incomes policy. I wonder what the minister's views are on these two

questions that I raise. One is the threat to industrial relations and

the choice that it appears the government is making that a rigid

application of an incomes policy comes first. The second is his view

about first collective agreements which bring workers up to the

prevailing rate in a particular sector.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Answering the second question first, I would

refer the member for North Island to later debate in committee stage of

this bill. There is an amendment on the order paper where I think that

debate might be more appropriate. I know the circumstance of which he

speaks, and I think we could debate it more effectively later.

The question of a "rigid" incomes policy. I am pleased that he

recognized that he threw me the first time when he referred to someone

who has not made such a statement — i.e. the Deputy Minister of

Finance. A "rigid" incomes policy suggests, among other things — I feel

constrained by the fact that this

section deals only with arbitrators,

but I will go so far as the Chair will let me — the 6 and 5 percent

policy, or 5 and 5. The fundamental thing which the arbitration process

will still be able to take into account, as enunciated in

section 1, is

the fact that we have a range. So "rigid" is not an appropriate

adjective to use in connection with the original program or the amended

program we are debating today.

I trust that these comments may invite more debate, but strictly

speaking to

section 1, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace)

may have missed my remarks. I don't think she was in the House at the

time. There is very strong evidence of success of the program, but some

have created difficulties. There have been difficulties with some

settlements. Of the 129 plans initially rejected, Madam Member, 30

percent were arbitration awards. I tried to explain earlier in the

debate on the

section that this is one indication of the kind of

problem which arbitrators had with the program, or which the program

had with arbitrators. You can look at it either way. Therefore, it is

necessary to bring the arbitration process more clearly under the

compensation stabilization program. In fact, to expand further — and

the information that I share with the committee is very recent; I can't

commit that it is up-to-date within days — of the 42 arbitration awards

received so far in the commissioner's office, only 4 were approved

after initial review. I offer that information to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat, recognizing that she may not have heard my comments

in my earlier response.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: I want to spend a couple of minutes talking

about the arbitration process, because in our estimation this first

section is a key component of this act. I think, first, we should

reflect deeply on the procedures that have been established over the

years in Canadian labour law to establish sensible and reasonable

arbitration processes. If there is one area that has taken a long time,

hours and hours of discussion by many experts and lay people, it has

been in the area of grievance arbitration. It is a delicate area;

anybody who decides to tread there should go very lightly. There is a

fine balance. It is an important part of the labour process, an

extension of the collective bargaining process, often when the

collective bargaining process has not worked at its best.

Again, as I have done a number of times on labour bills, I caution

the government to think about the whole question of arbitration and to

be very careful about impacting upon the role of the arbitrator to take

total control of the situation. Because of the little time we have as

MLAs to do research, I will take the opportunity to share with the

House a definition of arbitration. First, from The Concise Oxford

Dictionary , which might be useful, the definition of an arbiter:

"Judge; one appointed by two parties to settle dispute; an umpire; one

who has entire control." I think that is a very important description

of the arbiter and the arbitration process.

Clearly, under

section 1, there is a major shift in terms of the

role of the arbiter in the arbitration process. It's a major intrusion

into long-established Canadian labour practices. Again, as one member

of this House, I urge the government to think more seriously about

treading into that area, which could create many deep problems for the

government. It may be a short-term or political solution, but in terms

of its impact on the labour situation, it may sow the seeds of all

sorts of problems for the government and for the province of British

Columbia.

Again, from the dictionary. "Arbitration. Deciding of dispute by an

arbiter; authoritative decision." Again, this is an important

description.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I think it is very important to start at the

roots in terms of the bill. Take a look at the roots of what you're

doing, Mr. Member, and maybe we can start to analyze the overall impact

of your legislation. Let's start at the accepted descriptions of

certain words. The Oxford dictionary is a pretty good source for that.

Authoritative decision; again the concern should be that the

government in its wisdom is deciding to make fairly major intrusion

into that authoritative decision-making process, one that the minister

and the government should think most closely about.

Mr. Chairman, I started with the Oxford dictionary, but I'd like to

move on to probably the most well-known landmark book written about

Canadian labour law. I have cited it before, but these will be new

sections, something that I think all sides believe in and support. It's

Canadian Labour Arbitration by Brown and Beatty, 1977 edition, for the

loyal public servant over there who's taking notes.

[ Page 2745

This particular piece of work is important and should be reflected

upon not only by those who are going to be involved in the arbitration

process, but by the politicians about to make the decisions. I would

just like to quote for the edification of all members of the House some

thoughts that come from the introduction of this very learned book.

"There is no inevitability about the manner in which arbitrators may

perform their task. The arbitrator might content himself with looking

to the dictionary meanings" — as I have just done — "of the words in

the contract to dispose of the unanticipated case."

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, being in

committee, it's my understanding that the rules of relevancy are much

more stringent. The standing order, I believe, refers to strict

relevance. It seems to me that the comments of the hon. second member

for Victoria would be more appropriate in discussing the principle in

second reading. I would request the Chairman's direction in asking the

speaker to be strictly relevant to the very, very narrow principle of

the first

section in this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, for bringing that to

the Chair's attention. The point of order is extremely well taken. We

are in committee, and debate in committee must be strictly relevant to

the

section or clause that the committee is considering at the time.

I'm sure the second member for Victoria can relate his remarks with

strict relevancy to

section 1 before us as it stands.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't think there's any more relevant part to

this act, or to this particular

section which obviously reflects on the

process of arbitration and the work of arbitrators. I am indeed quoting

from the most well-known authoritative book on this particular issue of

arbitration and arbitrators. Mr. Chairman, I think it's very

appropriate to reflect on them. So if I may, I will just continue. It

doesn't go on for very long, but I think it's important to consider it.

"The arbitrator might content himself with looking to

the dictionary meanings of the words in the contract to dispose of the

unanticipated case. He might rely on ancient common-law precedents,

especially those drawn from the law of master-servant relationship.

Alternatively, he might simply react intuitively to the perceived

equities of the individual case. By and large, as this treatise

indicates, Canadian arbitrators have taken none of these routes.

Instead, they have gradually evolved a set of reasoned principles of

the law of the collective agreement, founded on analysis of the

function of particular contract provisions, larger assumptions about

collective bargaining relationships, a sense of the typical

expectations of labour negotiators, and so on. That product, stated in

precise, jurisprudential terms, is a principle of the law of the

collective agreement. By this I mean that an arbitration doctrine is

not a binding directive about what the parties must agree to, no matter

how clearly expressed is their intention to the contrary. Rather, in

those cases where the intention of the parties is either murky or

unformed, the function of the arbitration doctrine is to supplement the

initial bargain which has been reached, to provide the result which at

least in normal circumstances is considered to be the most sensible."

Mr. Chairman, the introduction of this book goes on and says: "I

believe this jurisprudence is one of the most remarkable feats of legal

creativity in the entire Canadian legal system in the postwar period.

It certainly is quite unlike the typical operation and product of

Canadian adjudication throughout that period." Mr. Chairman, what they

are basically saying is that this arbitration jurisprudence has been

produced through the collective or collaborative efforts of judges,

lawyers, law teachers and labour-management experts. It's been

developed through much blood, sweat and tears to try to ensure that

there is a fair and equitable process at the end of the system to deal

with particular problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now perhaps we could relate the comments to

the compensation plans for public sector employees.

MR. BLENCOE: I am, indeed, Mr. Chairman, because what

they....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's clearly what is in the section.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, what this

section does, Mr. Chairman, is

put restrictions on the arbitrators in terms of what the government

says they can deal with — the terms of reference. I'm saying that

arbitrators traditionally have been the ultimate control and through

their expertise in analyzing situations have come up with decisions

that take both sides into consideration. This particular

section is

extremely important when you consider the many years that have gone

into ensuring that the arbitration process is understood and, indeed,

is respected by all sides. The major concern we have on this side of

the House is that you are now really shackling that process. You're

making a major intrusion into something that has taken a long time to

come. This is a word of caution for perhaps a reconsideration by the

government of taking on such a sensitive area, one that generally is

perceived to have worked well.

MR. MICHAEL: On a point of order, I feel that this subject

he's on right this minute has been well canvassed. It's been repeated

many times during the debate. We've been on this debate now for close

to two hours — about an hour and 45 minutes — and I'd like the Chair to

ask the speaker to stick to

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The member

has been advised that in fact we are in a very specific section,

clarifying that the act applies to arbitrators of awards containing

compensation plans for public sector employees in the province of

British Columbia. I'm sure the member can relate his remarks to the

specific confines of that

section before us now.

MRS. WALLACE: While my colleague is getting his facts

together and making sure that he can speak in order, I have....

First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for mentioning the 30

percent of the 129 awards. Thirty percent isn't that much, Mr.

Chairman. You know, 70 percent of the awards were not arbitration

awards. So 30 percent doesn't make me believe that that's a big enough

percentage to bring in a sledge-hammer like this.

I just have a quick question for the minister. We've been talking

about arbitrators and arbitration awards, and we've

[ Page 2746

been thinking in terms of arbitrators as appointed under the Labour

Code. What about the Arbitration Act? Are arbitrators appointed under

the Arbitration Act also going to be included under compensation

stabilization if, in fact, they were arbitrating something relative to

the public sector? If so, would the terms of the Arbitration Act apply

to those arbitrators or would they be covered by the Compensation

Stabilization Act? I wonder if the minister could advise me.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, this section, rather than

identifying the duties of arbitrators, directs them to consider the

compensation stabilization plan, the original act, and this amendment

which is before us. Any arbitrator, therefore, who was involved in a

public sector compensation issue would be directed to this section.

[5:15]

MRS. WALLACE: It's very interesting, when you have a look at

the Arbitration Act and some of the powers spelled out in the

Arbitration Act. I'm wondering whether or not we're in contravention of

that piece of legislation as well as the Labour Code — perhaps even

more so, because the Arbitration Act specifies very clearly that the

courts are supreme.

Section 23 of this act applies to an arbitration to

which the Crown in right of the province or a minister of the province

is party. Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about what we're doing

here. Are we getting some kind of legislation that's going to wind up

in the courts and be declared ultra vires? I don't want to be out of

order, but I'm thinking of some of the things that have happened

relative to our new constitution. Some of the clauses in that are being

referred to the courts. We could find this particular thing in the

courts. It seems to be completely without reason or need.

The minister talks about 30 percent of 129. He has set up a

compensation stabilization officer who is supreme, and if he can't deal

with 30 percent of 129, which is about 37 or 38 cases, without having

this particular clause in here, when the pitfalls that appear apparent

to me just from a quick perusal of some of the legislation that's

relevant to this particular thing could happen, I'm wondering why the

minister is insisting on putting this in here. He has all the power he

needs. He's not having that much of a concern. So why not drop it? It

would simplify everything.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I too would run the risk of

being tedious and repetitious if I canvassed that topic again. I've

indicated that the bulk of the settlements of the compensation plans

approved were done so quite apart from the arbitration process.

However, there has been found a flaw in a program which has worked

extremely well since it was announced and since this Legislature

approved it last year. I don't want to stray further, as I indicated

before the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) took his seat

a few minutes ago. It is important, I think, for the member for

Cowichan-Malahat to understand, once again, if I may say so, that the

Arbitration Act deals with an incredibly wide variety of arbitration

activities. This simply says that when there is a public sector

settlement proposed, when there is a public sector dispute, when the

compensation in the public sector is at issue, then the arbitration

board must be cognizant of CSP. That's all it says. I can't

forecast....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry, I can't hear the interjection. I

indicated earlier: "must take into account." Must be cognizant of,

subject to — yes, fine....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: See, now the member is letting her

imagination run away with her, directed politically.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, once again we reflect on the fact that

the NDP lost the last election on the rejection of compensation

stabilization. They fought it every step of the way, and they want to

speak politically. Then I would be delighted to do that. But I don't

think you would permit me to do it under

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have strayed about as far as we can

go on this, hon. member.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I've been sitting here listening

to this debate on this one motion for pretty close to three hours now....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Three hours?

MR. REYNOLDS: Quarter to four, quarter to five, quarter to

six — two and a half hours. All right.

The repetition.... You've called the members to order many times

and the minister has his answers, and I would move that the question be

now put.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, I just wanted to clarify

whether the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound is suggesting that the

Minister of Finance is tedious and repetitious. He was the last person

to speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member, and a

division has been called on the question.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Davis

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Veitch

Segarty

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Sanford

Lauk

Howard

Blencoe

Wallace

Barnes

Gabelmann

Lockstead

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

the Journals of the House.

[ Page 2747

[5:30]

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Davis

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Veitch

Segarty

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Sanford

Lauk

Howard

Blencoe

Wallace

Barnes

Lockstead

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

in the Journals of the House.

section 2.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I did have some notes prepared

for

section 1. However, closure was invoked, and you've all missed the

opportunity to hear me being tedious and repetitious. However, we'll

try it on

section 2 and see what happens.

I heard an interjection across the floor while the division was

being taken. The member for Vancouver Centre suggested that perhaps

this

section wasn't required at all and was strictly a political

section. Well, I'm not sure about that, because I'm not a lawyer. There

is one phrase in the section.... Well, the whole

section bothers me.

But now that I have the minister's attention, I was wondering if the

minister, when he gets up to reply to either myself or other speakers,

could tell us how the government intends to determine the employer's

ability to pay. It's not like private business, where you know exactly

what your income is, what your profits or your losses are, and you have

a contract under the private sector much of the time with a bargaining

unit.

With this government's most disastrous record of handling the

finances of this province, where they've plunged us into debt by

literally millions, if not billions, of dollars....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just relax. We're talking about the ability to

pay, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are all

aware that we are in committee. Standing orders require that all debate

be strictly relevant to the

section under debate. I respectfully

suggest that the hon. member is clearly digressing well beyond the

strict relevant

interpretation of

section 2. I would ask the Chair to

rein him in.

MS. SANFORD: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. It

seems to me that when we are discussing an issue such as the employer's

ability to pay, then we are looking at a very wide range of subjects.

There is no way that the member for Mackenzie was out of order on that

particular debate.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: He's talking about the economy, the ability to

raise funds and the ability of the employer.... Mr. Chairman, it's the government that determines what school boards

are going to get and so on and so forth. What we have to allow for here

is discussion on the ability of the employer to pay, and that means

raising funds and distributing those funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All hon. members must bear in mind that the

purpose of the act was discussed very thoroughly in second reading. Now

we're discussing only this section. It is going to be difficult for

members to remain relevant, but I would caution them that they must do

so; otherwise, the Chair will be forced to ask them to take their place.

MR. LAUK: I didn't speak before you as Chairman commented

upon the point raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Parks). Clearly, if you read the

section proposed by way of amendment

to the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, it's a broad,

preamble-type of section. It's a most unusual

section and contains

within it two broad statements of principle that have to be dealt with

that were not canvassed, to any great extent, in second reading. How do

you restrict people in committee on a

preamble-type section? You can't

do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was no intention of the Chair to restrict

debate. Even under the circumstances explained by the second member for

Vancouver Centre, we still have a requirement to be relevant.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I won't go into the financial history and

performance of the government as I see it. I don't think I have to do

that to get my point across, although I think that under this

section I

have a right to. For your edification, I would like to read the

section

so everybody in the House will know the broad scope of the

section we

are currently discussing.

"Purpose of Act.

"2.1 The purpose of this Act is to establish a program

that will encourage productivity and restrain and stabilize

compensation in the public sector while ensuring that the paramount

consideration for determining compensation is the public sector

employer's ability to pay."

This is exactly what I am getting at. Who determines the public

sector employer's ability to pay? How does the government determine

that, Mr. Chairman? The normal procedure in the public service is for

negotiators to sit down across the table and negotiate in good faith,

reach a conclusion and either ratify contracts or whatever. However,

what we have here, and what we'll be discussing in a

section of this

bill further down — I won't get into that here — are those various

guidelines that I just referred to. I'd like the minister to explain to

this House how they plan to determine.... I have a sneaking

suspicion, Mr. Chairman, that the way the

[ Page 2748

government is going to determine the ability-to-pay section, which

we're discussing on

section 2, is by going to cabinet and making an

arbitrary decision to say that no matter what may have been determined

in mediation, things will remain the same; employees will take a cut or

maybe a slight increase in wages. But the decision will be made

strictly in cabinet by very few people. If I'm wrong the minister can

tell me right now.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I concur completely in the remarks

made by my colleague from Mackenzie and the second member for Vancouver

Centre. They suggested to the minister that the

section is suspect by

the inclusion of terminology that lends itself to a broad

interpretation and doesn't seem to have very much of a purpose, other

than to insure the plan of the government to undermine the ability of

the public sector employees for effective collective bargaining with

the government.

The member for Mackenzie read the section. I won't repeat it, but

the salient point in the

section is the employer's ability to pay. What

criteria will there be for all parties concerned to rely upon? "Ability

to pay" is a very slippery phrase, It doesn't lend itself to a strict

definition. As the member for Mackenzie pointed out, it is going to be

a device whereby the cabinet from time to time will be able to make

decrees and declarations as it sees fit, not to mention the possibility

under this

section for the government simply to divest itself of any

serious collective bargaining with any employees in the public sector.

Clearly, the

section leaves it up to the government to define

unilaterally its abilities.

Can you imagine what the potential of this

section could mean over

the years, in undermining any legitimate attempt on the part of the

parties concerned to seriously address the question of collective

bargaining? It just isn't going to be possible under the section. It's

far more than just a political device for the government to evade

serious responsibility. It's a sham; in fact, as time goes along, it

will be seen to be an intolerable situation for serious collective

bargaining.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if you could bring the member

for....

[5:45]

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will come to order.

MR. BARNES: Quite frankly, I'm very saddened to see that the

government would put a

section with such a broad latitude and extreme

openness in the bill, which really is a one-sided situation. It will

protect the government's interest with no interest whatsoever for

employees. But it will mean — and I'm sure the Minister of Finance is

aware of of this — that as the months and years unfold, there will be

less and less ability on the part of the government to pay; that this

is really a prelude to a very determined, designed device to undermine

any opportunity of the public sector employees to maintain any level of

compensation that will provide them with the kind of income they need

to survive.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not true.

MR. BARNES: Yes, it is. The ability to pay will be defined

differently from time to time, and I can assure you that there will be

no pressure on the government to try to maintain a level of

compensation that's just and fair, when it can always say: "We just

can't afford it."