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 )

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2593 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 26). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On the amendments to

section 2 –– 2593

Mr. Gabelmann

On

section as amended –– 2594

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

Division

section 4 — 2596

Mr. Gabelmann

section 5 –– 2596

Ms. Brown

section 6 –– 2597

Mr. Gabelmann

section 8 –– 2598

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

section 12 –– 2599

Ms. Brown

Mr. Gabelmann

section 26 –– 2599

Mr. Gabelmann

section 27 –– 2599

Ms. Brown

Division

section 31 –– 2601

Mr. Gabelmann

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 35). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

section 3 –– 2603

Ms. Brown

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Cocke

Division

section 5 –– 2605

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lea

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 73: minister's office –– 2607

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Appendix –– 2608

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1983

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery this morning is an old

friend and a constituent from Kamloops. I would like the House to

welcome Mr. Larry Campbell, who is with the B.C. Cattlemen's

Association.

MR. CAMPBELL: In the gallery today are four people from

Vernon — Olive and Eric Reich, Dave Morris, the clerk of Coldstream,

and Claudette Everitt, the president of the Vernon Chamber of Commerce.

I'd like you to give them a welcome.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give notice of a question

of privilege and this is the first opportunity available to me to do

that. Very briefly the question of privilege relates to events that

involve the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the necessity

of having a very clear and precise exposition of the information to

Your Honour. It is a complex situation and may involve a very complex

and involved solution. We will have that available as soon as we can

later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has observed that in the

past few days two or three notices of privilege have been sought on the

floor. While that is a proper procedure, I must clarify the fact that

simply applying for such notice does not in itself exclude the finding

— should it be — that the earliest opportunity must occur, and simply

giving notice does not, in itself, obviate that necessity for the

matter of privilege.

[10:15]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT,

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

section 1.

MR. COCKE: Apparently there are a number of amendments. I see one before me.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the order paper.

MR. COCKE: They're all on the order paper? Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there is also one circulated to the table which is not on the order paper. Do all hon. members have that?

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the first amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: As there are a number of amendments and

because some are on the order paper and some aren't, I want to be

really clear that this is the hours of work or overtime, deleting the

special apparel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct. That is the amendment to

section 2(2), which has been proposed by the minister.

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the second

amendment to

section 2 standing in my name on the order paper. [See

appendix.] Is it appropriate to comment at this time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: During the debate in the Legislature

during second reading of this bill, a number of concerns were raised

regarding the reason for this

section and whether or not an employer

could stall his negotiations in order that he might get a better

contract for him. This amendment will help to clarify, first of all,

that that is not the nature of this amendment. What it really means is

that we want to be able to step in if an employer stalls or if a union

stalls in developing a new contract, when a contract has expired but it

has within its terms a provision that that contract continues in force

until a new contract is reached. What we are saying is that quite often

a bad union might leave its employees out to dry and not bargain new

provisions, or a bad employer might leave the employees out to dry by

not bargaining in good faith. So we are saying that when it becomes

obvious that negotiations have stalled and the director feels that

employees are not receiving the protections they deserve, we can come

in and affect that contract only as it pertains to the items on the

table: hours of work, annual vacation, termination, maternity and

pregnancy leave — not wages, Mr. Chairman. They would then revert to

the Employment Standards Act.

This may be a little out of order, but the new amendment that I will

be laying on the table next takes care of the other question where the

opposition asked me whether the employer could in fact delay

negotiations. This amendment will make it very clear than an employer

cannot be an "interested person," only an employee.

MR. GABELMANN: Yesterday was the first opportunity that I had

to examine in any detail the amendments that are on the order paper and

the amendment that we are talking about. Subsection (5) certainly deals

with the concerns that I and a lot of other people had about the

section. I believe — and this is with a lack of time, and I regret that

— that the way the amendment is worded deals with the concern about the

implications of the ability of the director to suspend those certain

provisions of a collective agreement.

[ Page 2594 ]

On further review, there is no question in my mind at all that the

original

section would have allowed the director of the employment

standards branch to make null and void an entire collective agreement,

and this amendment....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's not right.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister shakes his head, but since we had

the debate on second reading I've had even more lawyers tell me that

that is the case. Nevertheless, the amendment satisfies me in that

respect. There will, however, be more debate on

section 2, once we get

to that.

Amendment approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an

amendment to

section 2, adding subsection (7): "In this

section

employment are, or were, governed by the collective agreement referred

to in subsection 5."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I presume all hon. members have a copy of this.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I've had this copy now for a

total of about three minutes. I see it says "(7)." In the course of all

these amendments, have we deleted another subsection, and that's why

this is (7) and not (8)?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, you have to go back and

forth from the original bill to the amendment. In the amendment, which

is on the order paper, there is no subsection (7). So this will add a

subsection (7) to the amendment which you find on your order paper.

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

MR. GABELMANN: We still have the situation in

section 2 where

minimum standards that are referred to in a collective agreement but

not as strong — to use that word — as contained in the employment

standards.... It leaves us with a situation where workers in this

province face the possibility of having standards lower than those

standards which are applied by law to everybody else, both in the

unorganized sector and also in the organized sector where stronger

provisions obtain in the contract.

As I said in second reading.... I won't get into a second reading debate,

but it seems to me that that principle is arguable. I must admit, quite candidly,

that I have mixed views on the question of whether or not the collective agreement

should be superior to the minimum employment standards. I think there is a reasonable

argument, but committee is not the place to have that argument; I think I expressed

my views clearly enough in second reading. But what we haven't dealt with

is the fact that this applies, presumably, immediately. Unless there is a delay

in proclamation this would apply immediately, and it would leave a large number

of employees, whose collective agreements have not yet expired and who do not

have the opportunity to negotiate collective agreements that will cover them

for the deficiencies that might exist in their agreement, in respect of those

kinds of provisions, particularly relating to maternity leave.... Before I say anything more, I wonder if I could get the minister's reaction to that concern.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have a staff member

coming down who may have some information for me, but as far as the

maternity leave benefits go, about 50 percent of the contracts in the

province have maternity benefits in them, and my understanding is that

they are quite superior to anything which is contained in the

Employment Standards Act. For others they are not contained, so the

Employment Standards Act would then prevail. I don't really see that as

a major problem. It is true that there may be some benefits which have

not yet been bargained at the passing of this act, but if they haven't

been bargained at all, they will not be affected. There may be some. I

can think of a couple of industries where layoff provisions, for

instance, are far less restrictive than in the Employment Standards

Act, but they have been bargained because of the nature of those

industries. I'm thinking of the forest industry for one, with their

recall provisions, and the fishing industry. They have bargained the

kind of layoff provisions that they think they need to meet the needs

of their industry, and they have probably gained something somewhere

else. That's the nature of collective bargaining. I don't think that we

should allow someone first of all to bargain the best deal they can

get, because of the nature of their industry, and then, if they think

that something is a little better in the Employment Standards Act, say:

"We're not going to pay any attention to that part of our collective

agreement, because there is something better for us over here." That's

really all we're saying. There will also be some people caught in the

cracks between the expiry of their collective agreement and the passing

of this bill. Some of the further amendments will pick up those people

and make sure they're always covered, one way or another.

[10:30]

MR. GABELMANN: "Some further amendments" — presumably not in

the course of this.... I'm going to wait until the minister gets his

advice; that might be useful. The concern is that if the amendments

were here, even if they were not on the order paper but were presented

during the course of discussion and debate in committee, then we could

deal with it. But otherwise, it might be a year or so from now before

we get an opportunity to have legislative amendments. You've got them

here?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They're on the order paper.

MR. GABELMANN: Not dealing with this question, though.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. GABELMANN: Let's clarify what the problem is. The

minister says that 50 percent of the collective agreements in this

province have provisions that are stronger than the Employment

Standards Act: 50 percent or better, in that range.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Just for maternity benefits.

[ Page 2595 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, we're talking about maternity benefits.

We should recognize that we are also talking about the other issues

that are on the table. I agree that even the majority of collective

agreements have provisions that are in excess of or better than the

provisions in the Employment Standards Act. We're not worried about

those people, nor are we concerned about those people who have

collective agreements in which the agreements are silent on those

matters, because if the agreement is silent, as the minister has said,

and I agree, the Employment Standards Act applies.

The group that I have been expressing some concern about — and I

don't think the minister has dealt with this — is the group that falls

in the middle of those two categories. It's a small number, no question

about that. I don't know what percentage it might be; it's certainly a

small number, but it is undoubtedly thousands of people. Most are women

in newly organized fields, whose agreements do make some mention of

maternity leave or the other issues, but who have provisions in those

agreements that are less than are contained in the employment standards

legislation. Because there is some mention in their collective

agreement, then the collective agreement applies, even though those

provisions may be less than they have been enjoying, because the

Employment Standards Act has been the floor. I must say I give the

minister credit for responding to the concerns that were expressed in

second reading by bringing in the other amendments, but there is one

amendment yet to come.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I am saying that those people whose collective

agreements have provisions that mention these items but that aren't as

strong as this legislation should have the opportunity to be covered by

the legislation until they have the opportunity to go into bargaining,

because they can't obtain any redress. There is no way for them to

obtain redress until they go into bargaining. I want them to be

maintained at their present level, which they have enjoyed for as long

as we have had employment standards legislation. I want them to be not

up, not down, but the same.

The problem is that there is a crack here. It doesn't apply to

hundreds of thousands. It applies to probably less than 10,000, mostly

women in newly organized fields. The minister says there are further

amendments, but I don't think he was talking about this particular

concern.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. GABELMANN: He agrees with me. I think the concern is a

legitimate one. It's not a huge philosophical question. There's no

reason that I can imagine why the minister couldn't take some time to

consider that aspect of

section 2. Perhaps we could delay the

discussion of this committee until later, while the minister prepares

some amendments.

MS. BROWN: I want to give the minister the statistics to

follow up from my colleague. Sixteen percent of the collective

agreements in existence provide less maternity benefits than the

statute does. Those are the latest statistics we have. They usually

have a rider about when maternity leave comes into effect: that is,

they say an employee would have had to work for the company for a

minimum of a year or two years. Also, 18.6 percent of collective

agreements in existence have no seniority accumulation in them during

the time that a person is off on maternity leave. Those are the

statistics to fill out what my colleague from North Island was saying.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't understand the significance of

the seniority accumulation. The Employment Standards Act doesn't deal

with that, anyway. That is only a matter for a collective agreement. It

always would be. I don't have the figure of 16 percent. That could be

correct, I guess, but that also means that 84 percent have either as

good or better benefits.

MS. BROWN: That's why he said it's just a few.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. And I'll just tell you how some of

the unions have dealt with this matter. It's interesting that some of

the largest unions, and the ones which are considered to be the

strongest unions in the province, have not dealt with maternity

benefits at all. So the employment standards act will prevail. The

BCGEU have dealt with it, but generally they are the same as the

employment standards. The Teamsters haven't dealt with it at all.

CAIMAW hasn't dealt with it at all. So our employment standards would

apply, and they are very large unions covering a lot of people. A

number of unions — the Garment Workers, the Union of Bank Employees,

the Canadian Farmworkers' Union — have generally just bargained into

their collective agreements that our standards will apply. So they will

continue to apply on that basis.

I don't think it is as big a problem as the member might believe. I

would not entertain any further amendments at this time, but I would

make a commitment to the member that we will watch it very carefully.

If there are some problems, we can deal with them reasonably quickly.

There might be a small period of time during which we cannot, but we

could deal with it under the other provisions of

section 2, whereby at

the expiry of that collective agreement, at least the director can then

step in, if he believes that there are benefits which are substandard,

and then make the provisions of the Employment Standards Act apply.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the tone and tenor of the

minister's response, but not the words. There is no disagreement about

the fact that what we're talking about applies to only a few people.

There is no disagreement about that at all. But it seems to me that a

provision such as the one we are calling for does not in any serious

way detract from the direction in which the minister wants to go with

this particular legislation. It fills a minor loophole, but it is a

major loophole for those people who are in it. There can be cases where

redress cannot be obtained for a considerable period of time — if they

are in a lengthy agreement, or have just concluded an agreement and

haven't bargained provisions that meet the employment standards level,

yet do have some provision in the collective agreement. For me that's

enough to suggest that we can't, despite the many improvements in

section 2, approve

section 2 in its present form.

Section 2 as amended approved on the following division:

[ Page 2596 ]

YEAS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Park

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 11

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Sanford

Gabelmann

Brown

Hanson

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

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

Section 3 approved.

[10:45]

section 4.

MR. GABELMANN: I assume that

section 4 — and I would like to

have the minister's comment — is just a continuation of his philosophy

that collective agreements and employment standards should be more

separated than they are now, and that if provisions are in a collective

agreement, then the employment standards in respect of the employer's

duty in paying over aren't required. Is that a fair assessment of the

philosophy behind this section? The minister nods his head. I'm not

going to pursue it, Mr. Chairman, other than to say that there is some

real opportunity here for a debate about whether or not employment

standards should form a basic floor for all of society. I've made that

argument during debate on the principle of the bill, and we had a touch

of it on

section 2. I think the best thing is to avoid any further

comment on that particular philosophical debate, unless the minister

wants to get into it. It would be an interesting one, but I'm not sure

we'd get very far with it at this stage.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MS. BROWN: I am just a little bit concerned, Mr. Chairman,

about the enforcement and issuance of orders for non-payment of wages

no longer being mandatory. Is my assessment of that correct?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MS. BROWN: Well, maybe the minister would reassure me about that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the enforcement of all

orders made under this act are mandatory, and the payment of wages,

once an order has been issued, is mandatory. All the provisions that

prevail, no matter what an infraction might have been, will be

mandatory.

MS. BROWN: I think it is the discretionary powers of the

officer that are creating my insecurity around this area. It seems that

an individual could be subject to the whims of whichever industrial

relations officer is assigned to his or her case. I want the minister,

in responding to me on this one, to think specifically of domestic

workers. The non-payment of wages, and going before the board and that

kind of thing, is a real problem with this particular group of workers

in our society. As the minister knows, these workers have less

protection than most, and really depend on this particular piece of

legislation to protect them.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, as the member will know,

domestic workers were brought under the act in 1981, and it would be

difficult for us to have them treated — under the terms of the act, at

least — differently than other workers. It has always been possible —

this act doesn't change that — for an industrial relations officer to,

first of all, attempt to make an arrangement between the parties to get

back wages paid on a voluntary basis — between the industrial relations

officer and the employer, not between the worker.... That's always been

the case, and it will still be the case. But if they can't make those

arrangements, then the director will issue an order that those back

wages be paid. We're not really changing that aspect of the act, Mr.

Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Except you're going from a board to a director;

you're going to one head rather than a number of heads. I'm just saying

that I want to express some concern about being able to protect those

workers, because they haven't got a trade union with any clout behind

them to fight for them. They really could be victimized by the whims

and fancies of....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think that's an extreme

position. Our industrial relations officers have a pretty good record,

and their job is to take the part of the worker, not the employer. But

at the same time, I think they have to understand and sympathize with

what may be an employer's difficult situation, if there is one, and

make the best arrangements possible to make sure that worker gets what

that worker is owed. I believe that the record will show that that has

happened.

I agree that the matter of the board versus the director is a

change. That didn't exist, though, until there was an appeal to the

board. There was a pretty heavy backlog, and we're attempting to speed

that process up so that the worker will have the opportunity to get

justice more quickly.

MS. BROWN: What we're dealing with are two changes. We're not

just going from the board to the director; we're going from a board

which was compelled — "the board shall" — to a director who "may." So

two things are happening here, Mr. Chairman. That's the basis of my

insecurity around this particular section.

Whereas the orders of the

board were compulsory — and, as I said before, with a board you had

more than one person to deal with — we now go to a director who is one

person, and the compulsion is taken out of that; we're going to "may"

instead of "shall."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe

the member is at least partly misunderstanding what's happening here.

It is correct that the board will no

[ Page 2597 ]

longer be in place, and that the director will take

the powers of the board, but those powers will remain the same. It's

the officer who "may" issue an order, but if it comes to the director,

I think you'll find later that the director doesn't have that

discretionary power at that point. If he finds that there's been a

violation he "shall" then issue orders. But there is no difference, in

the long run, to the employee, except that the employee will, I agree,

be dealt with by the director, who has the ultimate responsibility

rather than the board. But there is no change in the discretionary

powers. First of all, the officers will investigate complaints, and

they may be able to make an arrangement for payment of back wages. If

they do, that's great; it would presumably be an arrangement which

would be in everybody's best interest. If he can't make that

arrangement, he may issue an order; or he may not, if he finds, for

instance, that there are no back wages payable. Then there would be an

appeal line to the director and he would then adjudicate the case. But

there's no change in the mandatory provisions.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, subsection (2) says: "Where an

officer is unable to resolve a complaint...he may issue an

order...requiring the obligor to pay forthwith...." That's the area

that I'm expressing my concern around. The previous compulsion, which

was embodied in the word "shall" has now been softened to "may."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No. The officers always had the

opportunity to make an order or not. It has never said that that

officer must make an order in all cases, because for one thing the case

may not be proved. I have difficulty referring to another

section of

the bill, but I think it's important, Mr. Chairman. The officer has a

couple of opportunities if he's having difficulty with the complaint,

and you might look at

section 34 of the amendments as well. Where the

officer is unable to resolve a complaint, he may, as well as doing some

of the other things which are in this

section — making the order, for

instance — also refer directly to the director for an immediate

hearing. And the director, if that hearing proves that the complainant

is correct, will then issue an order. It has to be "may"; it can't be

"shall" at that stage.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to accept this for the time being.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should let

section 6 pass, because it basically makes it clear that powers that

were formerly held by the board are now held by the director. That's

the essential provision, as I understand it. I think we're embarking in

the wrong direction with this particular change. I understand the

minister's concern about efficacy and the delays that have occurred

because appeals back up and what not. But when you have a board making

decisions of this nature, the board, theoretically at least, has some

representation on it from various components of our society.

Theoretically the board would have someone sitting on it representing

workers or labour, or that side, someone representing the employer, and

also people who have a more neutral perspective. When you turn those

powers over to a director, you then say that someone who works for the

minister, as opposed to someone sitting on a semi-independent board — I

say "semi" because the board obviously is appointed by the minister....

But when you have someone who works directly in the bureaucracy of

government and for the minister, you potentially politicize the

decision-making process too much. You give adjudicative functions to an

individual who isn't a judge, and isn't set up in the way that a board

or an independent judge might be. You give, not awesome powers, because

I don't think we're dealing with awesome issues in this bill, but

extraordinary powers to a public servant. I object to that on

principle. I understand that it will probably speed up the process, but

I don't know what recourse individuals will have, short of going to the

ombudsman, if they feel they've been dealt with....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: County court.

MR. GABELMANN: County court? Have I not read this properly?

They can go to county court. Well, here we have another example of

plugging up the courts, which are already a little bit full. I can't

deal with it, but it's the same way as with a lot of other things that

are being changed by legislation right now, where we have had

adjudicative boards or tribunals, or functions like the rentalsman, and

on and on.... We more and more are moving away from that to a system

where the only recourse people have is to go to court, if a decision is

made that is contrary to their interests. When you're dealing with a

worker who — and the most common cases deal with non-payment of

wages.... Just the day before yesterday I had a woman in my office who

worked all summer, earned $1,300, has gone to UVic for her first year,

is unable to get her $1,300 from her employer, has spent weeks trying

to get redress on that. If in the course of proceeding through the

procedures she had an order issued by the director that was against

what she thinks is her interest and, in her view, wrong, she would have

to go to county court. Well, she wouldn't be able to do that. There's

no financial assistance for legal aid, so she just couldn't afford to

do that. Having a board allows her, in my view, to go and argue her

case and, hopefully, at least have someone in there helping her to

argue her case. I just think that this whole direction that is

contained here and elsewhere is wrong. It's wrong philosophically and

it's also wrong, in my view, from the government's point of view,

because it's going to cost us more in the long run if we count up all

of the different costs. And that doesn't make any sense, either.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to make one comment, Mr.

Chairman. I think the comments that the member for North Island made

are, from his point of view, well taken, and there is probably a

philosophical disagreement contained in here. I just wanted to bring to

his attention a couple of things that happen in the system. I can't

resist making one comment — and I'm going to keep track of your debate

on some other bills, when you accuse us of politicizing the system when

we have politically appointed boards in place, because you have taken

the opposite argument here: you said that a board appointed by the

minister is now somehow more clean than the public service. So I'll

just wait until I can catch you in that argument some time later.

[11:00]

MR. GABELMANN: You will.

[ Page 2598 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: And I will, sure.

There will be, we believe, quicker hearings for the employees. In

terms of the board hearing cases and being evenly balanced, the

director advises me that in most cases it is not the board which holds

the hearings; it would be a single member of the board. Generally,

these are very small cases — as you pointed out, it's a waitress who

can't get her back pay, or someone else — and it's generally small

amounts. So the full board has not been sitting on most of the

hearings. It would be one member who would hear the review and make the

order. At present we are about 90 days behind. That's not a good

situation for the employee.

Secondly, should the case just.... We can recover costs under our

legislation, so it would not be a direct cost to the government. It

does not necessarily have to be a direct cost to the government.

The final point I want to make is that should it go to county court,

and there has been an order issued, our officer would represent the

employee in court. Under the act we take the employee's position, and

that will continue under the amendments.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the story I'm about to relate

actually ties in both 8 and 12. I know I can't do that, so I'm going to

discuss it under 8, but ask the minister to keep 12 in mind while I'm

doing it so that I won't have to get up on 12 again. I received a

letter from a student who was hired to work on a fishing boat over the

holidays, the school vacation, so as to earn sufficient money to return

to university in the fall. The understanding was that this student

would be paid wages. But the wages wouldn't be paid until the end of

the fishing season, because the owner of the fishing boat wouldn't have

any money until after he had sold his catch. Well, he sold all of his

catch to a company which went bankrupt — Cassiar Packing. So now we

have this student who put in June, July, August — I guess it was three

months — went to collect his wages, and the owner of the fishing boat

said: "Go to the company and I will phone and tell them to pay you your

wage." When this kid showed up at the company, the doors were locked

and they had gone out of business; they had declared bankruptcy. Then

we discover — and this is where

section 12 comes in, which I can't

discuss because I'm under

section 7 — that the first people who get to

call on the assets of the company are the banks.

There wasn't any money to pay the owner of the fishing boat, who

then couldn't pay the student. The student was employed by the owner of

the fishing boat, and the owner of the fishing boat owes that student

wages. But the owner of the fishing boat didn't get a penny. This

section deals with unpaid wages. What recourse does that student have,

either under

section 7 or 12?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on

section 8.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think there's a misunderstanding about

what 12 does, but we can come to that. Under

section 8, I believe the

problem you describe does not lie with provincial legislation. It's a

problem with the Bankruptcy Act. The Bankruptcy Act is very deficient

and takes, as I understand it, precedence over how far we can go in a

case such as you have described. I am advised that before I took this

job my predecessor in the ministry had made some very strong pleas to

the federal minister to change the Bankruptcy Act and to bring it up to

date to allow us to handle situations like you've described. But I am

told that that is the major problem. It is not a deficiency in our

legislation; rather it's a deficiency in federal legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before allowing further debate on

section 8, I regret I'm going to have to go back to

section 7 for an amendment.

section 7.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: My apologies, Mr. Chairman; I was so

interested in the debate. I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

MS. BROWN: The plight of the student is provincial, because

the student was hired by the owner of the fishing boat. His unpaid

wages are a provincial concern.

MRS. WALLACE: On that same

section and on the same issue,

while the minister is discussing with his aide, certainly it relates to

a lot more than a student. There are crews on those fishing boats who

were hired on the basis of wage payment, as opposed to the sale of

fish. There are shore workers involved in this as well. We have a

situation now where the fishermen themselves are being promised they

may sometime down the road get 20 cents on the dollar if in fact they

continue to supply fish, which is a bit beside this particular section,

but there are a lot of people in there that are really involved in the

payment of wages, as opposed to a contractual arrangement for the sale

of fish. It all depends upon that. I realize the Bankruptcy Act is a

federal act. But surely there has to be some provision and some

assistance from the provincial level for those people who are actually

awaiting payment of wages.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There are two separate questions here —

probably more than that, because there is a jurisdictional problem, I'm

told, not only in the Bankruptcy Act but whether we have jurisdiction

in the whole area of fisheries, or whether it's the federal labour code

or federal standards which apply. I am advised that we have just taken

that jurisdiction, in the case of applying our act to unpaid wages and

other problems in the fishing industry. I am also told that the federal

minister of labour has cooperated with us and so far we have been able

to help a lot of people in the fishing industry where we may not have

any business being involved.

Nevertheless, that is not the important part. The important

part is

to attempt to help the workers. It doesn't matter whether they are

onshore or offshore. We have been applying our act. Again, the problem

in a bankruptcy is a difficult one, and there is a serious jurisdiction

problem. I am also advised that we do make the charges under our act

against the assets that are available, but we do run into problems with

the

[ Page

2599 ]

jurisdiction. I would again give the assurance to

the members that I wasn't aware of this until this debate came up, that

we had made representations to the federal government before. But I

will take it upon myself to make immediate representations again in as

strong a way as I can.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

MS. BROWN: I have a letter from some workers in a company

which is not going bankrupt but leaving the country. It has decided to

pull up roots and go elsewhere. According to this section, the only

thing that those workers who haven't been paid for some time are liable

for is two months' wages. I need to know why the decision to hold the

company responsible for only two months' wages. I wish I had the

letter, but I had been waiting for this bill to come up for some time,

and now it is here but the letter is somewhere else.

But the case remains the same. This company is doing business in the

United States, but in the meantime they owe more than two months' back

wages to their workers. I need to know why the decision under this bill

that they are going to be held liable for only two months' wages.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, the question of severance

pay. Two months is in the existing act. But if there are unpaid wages,

then that corporation should be responsible for those unpaid wages, and

I would suggest to the member that she make sure I get a copy of that

letter. We'll discuss it with the branch. There are two separate

questions here. I am happy you brought this to my attention, but I

don't think

section 12 covers it at all. It should be covered. The

company should be liable for those unpaid wages, whether it's leaving

the country or not. The two months' severance pay is covered under the

act.

MS. BROWN: I wanted to add that this is not the first time

this particular company has done that. It is closing all of its

branches around the province. It's just that this is the Burnaby branch

which they are shutting down. They are pulling their horns in. They're

in trouble like everybody else and returning to their parent company in

the States. I will get the letter to you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You should tell them to move to Alberta. It gives

me a chance to remind the member, who may not have seen our press release, that

we have just signed a reciprocal agreement with Alberta, so that orders issued

in British Columbia are collectable in Alberta, and vice versa.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would tell me why he

wanted the provision in the legislation that directors and officers are

not responsible for severance play. I understand they still are for two

months of back pay or unpaid wages, but what's the reason?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We have had some very serious problems,

particularly in this difficult economic time. It's the corporation or

the company that is still liable. It's simply that the individual

directors, as individuals, are not liable for the severance pay. We

have had some very serious problems of causing damage to individuals as

a result of a bankruptcy — and it is only in case of a bankruptcy. The

corporation is still fully liable, however, and we would attack that

problem at the corporation level with the same vigour as we have in the

past.

Sections 12 to 25 inclusive approved.

[11:15]

section 26.

MR. GABELMANN: As I understand

section 26, it repeals in its

entirety

section 49 of the act. One of the implications is that the

director wouldn't have the power to remedy a termination of an

employee. Because it is a fairly technical bill and complicated, I may

have missed another

section that replaces this, and if that is the

case, we don't need to pursue it. But I would appreciate the minister

telling us where the power that existed in

section 49 of the act now

resides.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I am advised again that

part 5 deals

only with pay in lieu of notice. The board no longer exists, so this

will transfer the same powers of carrying out the application of

part 5

of the act when it is passed to the director.

MR. GABELMANN: But if the power was in the hands of the

board.... I would agree that there would need to be a change to the

hands of the director to have that power, to be consistent with other

changes, but this amendment doesn't do that. This amendment wipes out

section 49.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The director will have the

responsibility for enforcing the act. You'd have to go back to

section

42, which is very clear in its terminology. "An employer shall not

terminate an employee without giving the employee...two weeks' notice"

or pay in lieu of. The director would have full authority that he is

given in other sections to make the order, to make the employer comply

with the sections of the act, including this section.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

MS. BROWN: That's the section, Mr. Chairman, that deals with

maternity leave. Specifically I want to speak about clause (e), "by

repealing paragraph (e)." According to my notes, this is the

section

which states that when an employer contravenes

part 7, the maternity

leave provision, he could be ordered to pay damages — to pay an

employee compensation for financial loss or damages caused by the

contravention. However, there are still some sections, some loss, that

would

[ Page 2600 ]

not be covered. Specifically, a loss could be

incurred by an employer's failure to keep up his portion of payment to

pension plans, to medical plans, dental plans, or other benefit plans

as required by the act. Also, loss of seniority upon reinstatement,

change of employment conditions under reinstatement — those things are

still not covered.

I want to ask the minister why he specifically singled out the

maternity

section of this particular section, to have that repealed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say

that we believe that our responsibilities are to ensure that people are

treated fairly at all times and that no one should lose her job or lose

wages or benefits owed to her because of having taken some maternity

leave. We attempted, I believe, to make that clear. She must be

reinstated, there must be repayment of wages — or compensation if the

employee agrees to that. So we've tried to make it extremely clear that

those are the benefits that we believe should be paramount in this act.

I agree that we have not dealt with seniority provisions in this act —

anywhere, not only with regard to pregnancy leave. We just believe

that's a matter between the employer and employee. Maybe someday, if we

find some serious abuse, we may want to do that.

On the deletion of paragraph (e), Mr. Chairman, we believe there is

a serious conflict with the common law and that those kinds of civil

damages should not be awarded by a ministry, regardless of who that

ministry is. If there are civil damages, they should have access to the

courts and the courts should award those things. Common law should

prevail.

MS. BROWN: There are a couple of things. I want to deal with

the last statement first. We're putting too many things into the

courts. Every day we are hearing tales of woe about the backlog in the

courts. They can't handle the stuff they have now. You know, we're

being forced to cut back the legal assistance for people on fixed or

low incomes, most of whom would be these people — in terms of having

legal representation in the courts. We shouldn't be putting anything

else in the courts. This

section has been in existence for some time,

and suddenly we discover it contravenes the civil law, or something of

that nature.

There are other damages that a person on maternity leave loses,

other than wages, and I just pointed them out. If the employer fails to

keep up his contribution to the pension plan or the medical plan, that

goes down the drain. So I think it's wonderful that you protected wages

and insisted on reinstatement, but there is still a penalty.

One of the things I have never been able to understand is why on one

breath we penalize women who start a family and turn around and

celebrate Mother's Day on the next. We say one of the best

contributions that women make to this society is to have a family, and

then we turn around and penalize them every time they try to do so.

This is what this

section does. I can't speak too strongly about wiping

out a person's pension. We've got far too many poor old women in this

world as it is, and they're going to continue being poor if the

pensions aren't protected. If an employer does not keep up his

contribution to the pension plan, she loses it when she takes time for

maternity leave. That ensures that when she's old, she is going to be

poor because she's lost her pension. It's in the act; why take it out?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The difficulty again is dealing with

that

section by itself, Mr. Chairman. I would have to refer the member

back to

section 53 of the existing act. I'll read it for her, because

she may not have it in front of her:

"The services of an employee who is absent from work in

accordance with this Part shall be considered continuous...and any pension,

medical or other plan beneficial to the employee, and the employer shall continue

to make payment to the plan in the same manner as if the employee were not absent

where (

a) the employer pays the total cost...or (

b) the employee elects

to continue to pay her share of the cost of the plan that is paid for jointly...."

I am advised that if in one way or another an employee loses those

benefits as a result of having been absent by reason of maternity

leave, then it would be our practice to write an order having that

considered as back wages. She will not lose her benefits, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: But you will not enshrine it in the legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It is in the legislation.

MS. BROWN: So what do you lose when you delete (e)?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Frankly, I don't think you lose very

much of anything, because we've covered, pretty well, that we will not

allow benefits to be lost. Again, I can't go back to the other kinds of

benefits like seniority, but certainly those very important benefits,

such as pensions and medical plans particularly, will not be lost.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty I have debating this

section is that I'm not allowed to debate

section 29, which puts into

the act for other groups of people what was taken out of the act under

27 for maternity leave. Once I get to 29 and I ask why you put in a

clause (

e) which says, "pay a person or employee reasonable and actual

out of pocket expenses incurred by him by reason of the contravention,"

but you took it out of the act in 27(e), I will be out of order. That's

the difficulty I'm having. He finds it necessary to put it into the act

under 29, to protect everyone else, but takes it out of the act under

27 when it affects strictly maternity leave. I can't discuss that,

because if I do I'll be out of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I notice that you did. Mr. Chairman has been fairly lenient about that.

All that

section (

e) did was allow the board to order other kinds of

damages. We are covered on those important areas of pension and

benefits.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with the member about her

approach to the courts. There is a conflict with the common law here. I

do not believe that tribunals such as this board was should be allowed

to take the place of a court and allow damages. I frankly have more

faith in the courts than that member has and more faith in a court to

give us justice in our society than I do with some appointed boards and

tribunals.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have faith in the courts too. I just think that in view of the fact that there are instances

[ Page

2601 ]

where you can wait a year or more to get before the courts, what we deal with is justice denied.

However, I want to read this

section for the minister. What the

minister is deleting is the

section that says that the board can make

an order requiring an employer to "pay a person or employee

compensation for financial loss or damages caused by the

contravention." This whole area from 51 on deals with maternity leave.

Mr. Chairman, this clause, which has been a part of the act since 1979,

is now being deleted. The minister tells us that it's being deleted

because the woman who has been wronged through out-of-pocket expenses

can then take her employer to court; she can go to civil court and

fight for those out-of-pocket expenses. However, two sections down the

road, which I can't discuss, that

section is introduced so that a man

can have the protection; the board can order the employer to pay that

man compensation for any financial loss or damages caused by the

contravention of the act. This is all I'm trying to find out from the

minister.

Why did he decide, under the maternity-leave

section of the act, to

take away that right which women have enjoyed since 1979? I want to

remind you, Mr. Chairman, that he started out in the first place by

explaining to us — and I agreed with him — that the employment

standards legislation really operates in the best interests of those

workers who do not have a collective agreement covering these things.

This act applies. Since we know that most of the women in the

employment force in our province are not members of any union or part

of a collective bargaining unit, and since we also know by the

minister's statement that 50 percent of the collective agreements — and

I'm quoting him verbatim — are silent on maternity leave, which means

that the act then applies, why is he weakening the act on this

particular issue? This is what I'm trying to find out from the

minister. This should be repealed. That (

e) should be put back into the

legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with the

member. I don't believe that we're weakening the act. I have asked our

director to advise me on whether or not we have ever used this section,

and he can't remember. The act was in 1981, not 1979. It has never been

used. The board, in fact, has been frightened to use it, even on the

one or two occasions when someone has asked the board for review,

because there seems no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that it is in direct

contravention of the common law. What's the good of it, in that case?

That's the reason we're deleting it. It has never been used. It would

obviously be challenged, according to all of the legal advice we have,

should it ever be used. So what is the point of having it there, rather

than the route that should be taken for these kinds of damages only

through the court system?

MR. GABELMANN: I think I understand what the minister is

saying about the fear on the part of the board, and now the director,

in terms of the trouble they may get into. But why, then, is it in

section 59 and taken out of 56? If it's not a problem for employee

protection aspects of the legislation, why is it a problem for

maternity protection?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, we have been given very strong legal

advice that we are in conflict with the common law with this section. I would

think it would be irresponsible of us to leave it in, given that legal advice.

If the Chairman would allow me,

section 29 simply returns out-of-pocket expenses

to people. For instance, if I am an employer and I live in Prince George and

I phone you and say, "Hey, I've got a really good job for you, come

on up to Prince George, we'll put you to work tomorrow" and I come

to Prince George, and the employer says, "Oh, I forgot, the job's not

really open," then that person can be reimbursed for the costs of going

to Prince George under false pretences, which is an entirely different thing

from suing for some damages which may or may not be there. These are there.

You paid money out of your pocket to go to Prince George, and that's not

fair. That's the very major difference between the two sections.

[11:30]

Section 27 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 10

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Sanford

Gabelmann

Brown

Hanson

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

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

Sections 28 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, you might be interested to know

that this is the last

section that I have any serious concern about,

and I think that is probably true about my colleagues.

Section 31, as I

understand it, puts a restriction on when you can make a claim to the

last six months of employment with the employer.

[Mr. Reid in the chair.]

Before now, the complaint had to be made within six months of the

time of the last payment. What this seems to open up, to me, is a

situation where a payment may have been made six months prior, but

before that some other payments weren't made or only partial payments

were made. In that event, a person who seeks redress under

section 31

would find that they were not able to collect wages owing to them

need to have some cut-off periods, and all that, but this seems to

impose an excessive prohibition on employees who may well have had the

kind of relationship with their employer where they thought they were

going to get paid, or

[ Page 2602 ]

they got paid a little bit, and they sort of got

carried along, and then they had a six-month period without payment,

but are owed money from 12 months ago and can't get it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The director just reminded me that there

is an answer to the major concern that you have. That is, if the

employer and the employee have some kind of loose arrangement, that

"I'll give you so much now, say 60 bucks a week or something, and we'll

adjust it in a year or eighteen months to what we originally agreed

upon," which may be 75 or something.... It is my understanding that

because those are back wages, they would become part of a back-wage

claim. So they would be covered if there was continuous payment over

the period.

What we're saying here, Mr. Chairman, is that there needs to be a

time limit. The kind of arrangement that we'd be concerned about would

be one where an employee and an employer make an arrangement to have

some kind of a deal where they'd work for straight time on some kind of

a condition. They would work for five years on straight time and then

the employee might get the idea: "Hey, I can go to the Employment

Standards Board now and I can claim for all of that — at overtime."

Money that wasn't paid at all, because they had an agreement.... There

should be a limit on that kind of thing. It could be 12 months; it

could be six months. We've put six months because that covers quite a

few pay periods. We could have chosen a year, but we felt that there

needed to be some limit. This is the same limit that was in existence

before 1981, when the entire situation was changed. I'm advised that

only a very small percentage of our complaints don't deal with very

current situations. The only delay is in our own backlog. We think

that's a reasonable limit, Mr. Chairman, but I am assured that the kind

of situation that the member for North Island described in the last

part of his comments is covered.

[11:45]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I described one possible

situation, and that was where partial payment had been made prior to

the six-month time limit. But it could be that you are in a situation

where periodic payments had been made in that time and periodic

payments continued to be made right up until the time the complaint was

filled. In other words, the odd paycheque was missed going back for a

year, or longer. I recognize that that is not a common situation, but

it does occur. As I understand it, in that situation, you would only be

entitled to go back six months for those paycheques that were missed in

the previous six months, and you're not eligible to claim for any that

were missed prior to six months earlier. That's my first point.

My second point is that despite the minister's answer — if I

understood him correctly — that partial payments made prior to the

six-month cutoff are claimable back up to their full level, I don't see

that here. Have I missed it, or is it just an assurance from the

minister that that is the way he intends to interpret it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think we both missed it. I've just

been advised on the way it actually works. There have been court

decisions, I'm told, and should that kind of situation prevail — say he

makes a payment, then no payment, another payment, then again no

payment — the courts have ruled that the paid payments go back to the

unpaid payments. So it is always current. We have administered it that

way because of the court decisions that have been made, and they have

been upheld. So you are always dealing upfront with what is owed.

Sections 31 to 47 inclusive approved.

section 48.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 48 as amended approved.

Section 49 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

McGeer

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reynolds

NAYS — 9

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Gabelmann

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 26, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the visitors' gallery today is an old friend, Mrs. Mary Orr, who is on tour with the American

[ Page 2603 ]

Association for State and Local History. They are having their conference. I'd ask the House to bid her welcome.

AMENDMENTS TO

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

amendments to Bill 3, intituled Public Sector Restraint Act.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the

said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to

the committee of the House having in charge Bill 3.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 35.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

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

section 1.

MS. BROWN: Although this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

is under the responsibility of the Attorney-General, this particular

section dealing with assessment is handled by our Finance critic, who

is not here today. I am going to try to stand in for him, but if I

allow anything really serious to slip by, I wouldn't like, as the

critic of the A-G, to be held responsible for it, because like the A-G

I will be out of my depth.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker,

section 3 is repealing

section 10 of

the Assessment Authority Act, which deals with the appointment of the

assessment commissioner. What we have now instead of that is a board,

all the members of which are appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I wonder if I could get an explanation

of why the cabinet has taken this responsibility unto itself.

HON. MR. SMITH: I am in the same position as the member. I am

the substitute for the Finance minister, so I will do my best as well.

I am going to handle these sections where ministers are not here.

There is no question that it is taking the power of appointment and

placing it directly under the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council. Currently

this board has power to pass bylaws approved by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council respecting the appointment of board

members and the election of a chairman. It is one of these anomalies

where really they perpetuated their own appointments. The old bylaw

requires the executive council to appoint persons from a list of names

recommended by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I want to be quite

upfront about that. This changes that and makes those appointments by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[12:00]

MR. BLENCOE: The Attorney-General is saying....

This may indeed be an improvement on the existing system where they

continue in their positions, but I am wondering how the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — virtually the cabinet — will achieve

these appointments. Will it be done through consultation with the UBCM

executive or municipalities? From where will you get your advice for

such appointments?

HON. MR. SMITH: I know the Minister of Finance has consulted

with the executive of the UBCM. I know also that he has felt he should

be free to make appointments from other than their list. So it would be

my assumption, from my discussions with him, that he would continue to

do the consulting, but he wouldn't appoint exclusively from their list.

MR. BLENCOE: Will there be a set term, or is it going to be changed at will, whenever the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council feels like it?

HON. MR. SMITH: There is no set term provided for in the act,

but it certainly has been my experience that set terms are preferable

for all these appointments, and not just terms at pleasure that float.

MR. COCKE: While the House Leader is here — he seems to have

itchy feet — it would strike me with an omnibus bill such as this, and

where a whole bevy of ministers are away.... I note that the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is not here. There are health amendments.

I hear the Attorney-General offering advice on finance. What next? It

seems that we are going to have some difficulty getting through this

travesty.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Indeed not a travesty. My colleague the

Attorney-General is fully informed, and I am sure he will be able to

answer to your complete satisfaction any question asked.

MR. COCKE: How is he going to do on Health when we get there?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Exceptionally well.

MR. BLENCOE: Subsection (3) refers to remuneration for said

directors. Do you have a figure on that, Mr. Attorney-General — what

kind of pay you're thinking of?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Actually, I know a little bit more about this than

the Attorney-General, because I sat on the assessment committee that

travelled around the province, and what we used to have here was an

autonomous board which would elect its own chairperson. We are changing

all of that. What we're having is the Minister of Finance, or the

cabinet, electing all the members of the board and then turning around

and deciding which of them should be chairperson. That is what we are

having here. So this is not a minor little thing

[ Page 2604 ]

that's going on. I have some concerns about it, and

I notice that my colleague from Victoria, our municipal critic, has

too. The whole assessment thing, Mr. Chairman.... I don't want to

reflect on other votes and things, but we made a number of sweeping

changes in the whole assessment field this session, going from real

value to true value and from one year to two years or three years. Now

we are changing the board not just by saying everyone on it is to be

appointed, but the government is going to decide who should be the

chairperson of that board as well. So this is not a little thing that

is going on here.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps the Attorney-General can say what, in

his view, are the benefits of this method of appointment over the old

system. Why have the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — in other words,

the cabinet — making such appointments? What are the benefits of doing

that?

HON. MR. SMITH: The old system was an anomaly, not only as to

the appointment from the list but with respect to the original bylaw,

which really continued the appointments from the old board. The idea

that the cabinet appoints the chairman of one of these bodies is

extremely common. In legislation brought in during 1972-1975 you find

those provisions as well. For instance, the chief judge of the

provincial court is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

not elected by the other judges. Chairmen of a number of statutory

boards are appointed by the cabinet. I don't know what more I can say.

You have your view, which I respect, but I did not want to be anything

but upfront as to what the impact of it is, how it was done before, and

how we're doing it now. I think that cabinet does have to be

responsible for this authority, not the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I

think it would be a very disappointing day if the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, through their executive, were not consulted on the

appointments. I too, like the member, have had something to do with the

assessment board. I have not sat on it and I did not realize she had,

but I appeared before it a number of times, and I know of its

importance.

MR. BLENCOE: My only concern is a fairly major concern: the

whole local real property taxation system is a very delicate and

complicated, and often a very controversial, issue which has to be

resolved and debated. The controversy has to be resolved at the local

level. What concerns me and our party is that the mechanism whereby the

chairman reflects, or is appointed with the wishes of the UBCM, the

group that is directly accountable to local taxpayers....

You take that away and give it to cabinet to do. My concern would be

that there may be a separation from local government and local

taxpayers. That chairman taking directions, not necessarily being

accountable at the local level, may now be accountable to cabinet. We

won't go into what you've been doing with local government in this

current session, but we don't agree with it. Cabinet's desires and

objectives may be totally different to what local government or what

UBCM desires for local government. And again, we really have to object

to this further inroad by provincial government into the traditional

area that local people, local government, local UBCM has traditionally

taken control of and been responsible for.

We feel very strongly that local government is quite capable of

handling its own affairs. It has to deal with those assessment

problems, because even though the Assessment Authority is a provincial

matter, the results of what it does are felt mostly at the local level.

I can tell you now, when I was chairman of finance, whatever the

Assessment Authority did and whatever came out, it was our officers,

our city hall, that was inundated with the problems, and expected to

resolve them. You take away that local chairman and that Assessment

Authority being set up in very strong consultation and direction from

the UBCM and local government. Once again you are removing that very

important issue of real property tax and the problems with it, and

therefore I'm to deal with those problems, from local government.

That's something we cannot accept. We feel local government must be

allowed to maintain its autonomy and allowed to deal with its own

problems independent in many respects from senior government. And

that's our overall objective.

Mr. Attorney-General, I am wondering if you could reflect. I know

you spent many years on local government as mayor of Oak Bay, and

indeed were highly regarded in that position. Can you put yourself in

the position of local government, seeing what's happening here, and be

candid with us all, saying it is a good move in terms of the autonomy

of local government?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I think I can, because I can remember

when the assessor was a municipal appointee and not a provincial

appointee, and that was all changed to a provincial system, and the

assessing is done now by employees of this provincial authority. They

are not municipal employees who do the assessing. It has to be

provincial appointees who decide judicially as to whether or not the

assessment has been done according to the law, or whether it's erred.

But I certainly agree with the second member for Victoria that the

municipalities ought to be consulted. They are the ones who must take

the flak for assessments and who have the obligation to set the mill

rate. But the province has the obligation to carry out assessments and

must have the obligation to appoint the body that decides whether the

assessments are proper or not, and to appoint the chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to carry on with this, but let me

refer back to an event that happened two years ago, where the

Assessment Authority sent out its notices just after Christmas when the

real property market dropped dramatically and the assessment notices

came out 30 to 40 percent higher than they should have been. There was

outrage in the province. Now I recognize the Assessment Authority is a

provincial responsibility. But when the Assessment Authority, in the

terms of its appointments and its chairman, reflected more the concerns

of local government than necessarily the priorities and objectives of

senior government, there was a reaction from that Assessment Authority

because in many respects they had the concerns of local government at

heart. Now I can see what could happen, Mr. Minister. Now it's

appointed by the provincial government, and the provincial government's

priorities in terms of what happens with the assessments may be totally

different in a situation that arises such as happened two years ago.

Again, I don't want to go on with this, but I would really caution

the government about making moves into local government areas. I think

we all have high regard for local government, and they have the ability

to deal with these things. I think it's very important that such a

thing as an Assessment Authority.... Let's face it, the real property

tax, that

[ Page 2605 ]

whole financial arrangement, is probably the most

critical thing to local government. Unless they have a body that

understands them and has a direct input and direct degree of control

over the Assessment Authority and its board, I can see a gap or a

separation emerging, even though it's a provincial responsibility, that

could make local government feel even more detached from the very thing

that they are responsible for — collecting taxes, the level of taxation

— and feeling they have really no control over it at all. I think the

government has to answer that. I know the UBCM and other local

governments are concerned about it. However, I don't want to belabour

that point, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Obviously we are not going to support this

section, so the government can start preparing for a division — unless

the Attorney-General, on behalf of his colleague the Minister of

Finance, is prepared to deal with an amendment to this section. Are you

willing to amend it?

[12:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: I certainly wouldn't in any way prevent the

member from suggesting an amendment. I know what you would like me to

do and I have heard your arguments. All I can say is that I propose to

recommend to the Minister of Finance that he continue to consult in the

strongest way with the Union of B.C. Municipalities executive. Being a

believer in local autonomy and the power of local municipalities, I

have found that in the last ten years the whole assessment field has

moved to provincial jurisdiction. The courts of revision are appointed

by the province, and have been for years. So is the Assessment Appeal

Board. I think you are saying to me that it would be wrong to make

those appointments without an eye on the wishes of local government.

MS. BROWN: I am also saying that

section 10 of the act as it

now stands, whereby the members of the board appoint the chairperson,

at least creates the impression of autonomy, and that

section should

remain as it is; that

section 10, which is being repealed, should not

be repealed. That is what I am also saying, supporting my colleague in

his suggestions, which you picked up: namely, that the appointments to

the board should be done in consultation, but once the board is

appointed the board itself should choose the chairperson. I am saying

this because of other bills which we have dealt with — Bill 22, for

example — which did a major overhaul of the assessment legislation. As

well, the other municipal bills — Bill 7 and Bill 11 — when you put

them together in a package, really erode the base of authority at the

municipal level. By retaining

section 10 as it exists we at least hold

on to a little bit of that power base at the municipal level and a

little bit of autonomy. The minister does not have the power to do

everything and make all of the decisions, and is not totally in control

of the whole situation. If the minister had been willing to consider an

amendment, all I would have suggested is that he repeal the

section

which repeals

section 10, and that we go back to the

section as it was.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

McGeer

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 11

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Sanford

Gabelmann

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

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

Journals of the House.

Section 4 approved.

[Mr. Reid in the chair.]

section 5.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on

section 5, the amendment to the

Chiropractors Act, I note that there is a bit of a widening of the

definition of chiropractor. I would ask the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen), who isn't here, whether or not this would include the

right, which chiropractors have been seeking for some time, to

administer to other parts of the body besides the spine. They are

talking about the extremities — the arms and the legs. They have felt

that they are unable to carry out their practice in British Columbia

the way they have been trained, as opposed to some other jurisdiction.

I would ask the minister whether or not this is in fact part of this

amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH: Perhaps the member would just repeat the operative part of that question.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman,

section 13 of the present act says:

"spinal column or manipulating or adjusting by hand of the ribs or

their articulations for the purpose of adjusting the articulations of

the human spinal column."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What the hell has that got to do with extremities?

The legs have nothing to do with the ribs, and you know it. If we had

the Minister of Health here, maybe we could have some answers. I don't

need answers from a back-bencher.

Further to this question, Mr. Chairman, I wonder also if anything in

here includes access to x-rays. One of the big problems chiropractors

and their patients have had over the years is this: a patient who has

gone to a doctor and had an xray taken of their entire frame — they are

not getting anything more than possibly pills under the circumstances —

then goes to a chiropractor. The chiropractor wishes access to the

x-ray rather than taking another one and exposing the patient

[ Page 2606 ]

to double radiation, but the College of Physicians

and Surgeons, in their inimitable fashion, keep that information to

themselves. Therefore if the person wishes to continue on with the

chiropractic treatment, he has to go through another series of x-rays.

I am wondering whether there is anything in this definition that would

give them further access and maybe a little more muscle in dealing with

the college.

HON. MR. SMITH: The amendment does broaden the definition of

the science of chiropractic, as the member has said. It broadens it to

include all movable parts of the human body instead of restricting it

to spinal column manipulations. The amendment is the one requested by

the association and brings our definition more in line with the

definition of this science in other jurisdictions. It is also in

keeping with current chiropractic practice. But it does not give the

kind of muscle, as I read it, that the member was referring to; that

is, I see nothing in the amendments to the act that deals with the

member's concern for x-rays.

MR. COCKE: Unfortunate.

MR. LEA: I wonder if the minister could give us some idea of

whether the government is considering the x-ray problem. I think it is

a real problem. As the member for New Westminster has related, it is

double or triple exposure to x-rays, which is not good, and some

hospitals and labs will not give out the x-rays to a chiropractor. I

think that is really important.

I would like to congratulate the government for these amendments,

sections 5, 6 and 7, which are really under the same topic. Until now

we haven't had much backbone to deal against the medical profession. We

have been a bit spineless.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Part of the art of a chiropractor is preventive

health care, and it has been fought by the medical profession for a

number of years — what I would call the ministry of sickness rather

than the ministry of health. It is about time we had this, and

recognized chiropractors as people in the preventative health care

field. As my colleague said, it is about time we put some muscle into

this act and looked at all parts of the body. Don't you think so, Mr.

Attorney-General, or is that being a voyeur?

[12:30]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that this

particular amendment is in response to a request from the Chiropractic

Association, and I know that's true. But of equal value in their

request to the ministry was the inclusion of the availability of

x-rays. It's unfortunate that the Minister of Health isn't here. We

were told at the time of second reading that we would have ample

opportunity to discuss the principle of each of these sections when we

were in committee. This is certainly a major principle in this section.

Somehow the government has seen fit to accept one of the

recommendations from the Chiropractic Association but has apparently

absolutely ignored the other recommendation, which was certainly of

equal value and importance. From a health point of view it's perhaps

even more important, because that double exposure to radiation can be

causing cancerous conditions in more and more people, which is a high

cost on the health care system — or as my colleague from Prince Rupert

pointed out, on the sickness care system.

It is unfortunate that the Minister of Health is not here to deal

with this particular point that was also raised by the Chiropractic

Association, and which is absolutely missing from this section. Would

you accept an amendment? Is there any way we can delay certain sections

of this act until the appropriate minister is available? We're

certainly not having an opportunity to deal with the principle of these

various sections, as was promised by the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

when he introduced this legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have your point on x-rays. I know that's

something the minister did address, and it was certainly something the

association....

MRS. WALLACE: Why isn't it included?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was not addressed by amending the act.

There are surely ways of obtaining cooperation and the availability of

these records other than by changing the definition in this act. The

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who had the responsibility of

the portfolio, smiles at me. I would have thought that his persuasive

powers, when he was there, would have enabled him to make advances in

this field. I will certainly undertake to express to the Minister of

Health the concern of members that those x-rays and other diagnostic

information be available to chiropractors. I think the point is valid.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I don't see any reason why we can't

cooperate on this piece of legislation. We're talking about the health

of citizens of this province. We're talking about people being

subjected to x-rays when there's no need for that. For us to hurry

through this, for whatever reason, I think is silly. It would be no

problem at all to stand this legislation aside until the Minister of

Health or the Premier is here, and somehow come to some agreement. We

have to stop these unnecessary x-rays because it subjects people in

this province to an unhealthy situation. Surely no one on either side

of the House wants that. Can't we come to some sort of agreement here?

Maybe a short recess or something.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need a motion to

table it. All we need is the agreement of the House Leader or the

Attorney-General, who is piloting the bill through, to stand the clause

by agreement. We can do anything by unanimous consent. We can stand the

clause, with the provision of returning to that clause when the

Minister of Health is present to respond to questions from the

opposition. That's all that's needed. I don't see why it should present

any major hurdles, unless you want to rush it through.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, we would like to accommodate

the official opposition on this point. Unfortunately, it's not possible

to seek the degree of remedy that you wish....

MR. ROSE: Why?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Because one can't under the rules,

unfortunately. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the committee should rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 2607 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Reid in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 73: minister's office, $132,564.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take about

five minutes to make just a few opening remarks. Then I'd like to hear

from the opposition.

I welcome this, my first opportunity to report to the Legislature on

the activities of my ministry since my appointment as Minister of

Tourism in August 1982. None of us, of course, needs reminding that the

period under review has been a very difficult one for the people and

the industries of this province. Two years ago, in common with the rest

of North America, we were at the peak of an economic cycle that the

majority of economists predicted would remain strong and healthy. The

sudden turnaround struck hard at all segments of our society. Against

this background, tourism, the province's third-largest industry,

achieved revenues of some $2.009 billion in 1982 — the second-highest

level of income generation in the long history of this major British

Columbia industry.

This achievement, which represents almost 5 percent of the total

provincial gross national product, was all the more remarkable in a

year which saw fierce competition worldwide for the tourism dollar.

Total overnight visitors travelling in British Columbia numbered

11,480,000, of which 52 percent came from outside the provincial

borders to spend in excess of $1.099 billion. One of my major

objectives is to encourage British Columbians to explore their own

province and to make use of the great variety of attractions we have to

offer. In this regard, despite the sharp economic downturn, resident

travellers formed the largest group in both revenues and the number of

persons, accounting for $910 million, or 46 percent of the total

tourism revenue; and $5.5 million, or 48 percent of the total persons.

While this represents a slight decrease from recent years, it is still

a major accomplishment in a year of economic recession. Similarly, we

experienced near-record numbers of visitors from overseas — 440,000 —

and from the United States — 2,560,000 — as a result of our extensive

marketing and promotional activities.

The success of tourism in British Columbia over the past decade has

been remarkable when measured against the decline in the tourism

industry for many other vacation destinations. Our achievements have

been nothing short of incredible. British Columbia has many pleasures

to offer; I think we all know that. But it takes more than our own

belief in this province to lure tourists to our shores and to make them

want to repeat the experience. It is the role of my ministry to work

with all areas of the private sector to market the attractions of this

province in all its seasons.

The tourism industry in British Columbia employs in excess of 70,000

people in 10,000 diverse enterprises, ranging from transportation to

accommodation to retail sales. It produces in excess of $200 million

for provincial coffers — dollars that are used to support social

services and cultural activities within B.C.

Mr. Chairman, I cite these statistics to put into perspective the

return to the people of this province from the relatively small

investment that we make in tourism. The Ministry of Tourism is

basically a sales-and-service organization for the province. My

marketing division sells people on travelling in B.C. The operations

division encourages the development of facilities and services to meet

the needs of the travelling public. In 1982-83 my ministry had a budget

of $13.6 million, including almost $7 million for marketing promotion

and advertising. In common with all sectors of government, we have

heeded the call for restraint, without sacrificing any of the product

we deem essential to encourage further growth in tourism and to enhance

the province's competitive position. I would like to stress again that

we have not sacrificed marketing dollars in the interest of restraint.

We have made some shifts in emphasis which I can discuss in detail

later. We have aimed our marketing efforts in those countries and

regions where our research indicates we have the strongest prospects

for attracting tourists, not only in the year under review, but in the

longer term through to Expo 86.

I would also like to point out that we have endeavoured to remain as

flexible as possible so as to be able to react to emergency situations

such as we experienced this year with the closure of Highway 1 in the

Rogers Pass. We have endeavoured to promote as vigorously as possible

to our neighbours immediately to the south of us in Washington state.

To that end I have personally made three trips this year and just

recently concluded a successful promotional trip to that state, where

we were well received. We received coverage on all three national

television networks.

I would like to close by saying we have a program called "Vacation

Road" running at the moment in the province, which has been very

successful. We are receiving very favourable comments on it. It is

running principally on radio in cooperation with the British Columbia

Association of Broadcasters. I have many more remarks but I know they

will come up later in my estimates, Mr. Chairman, so at this time I

will rest and hear from the opposition.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[12:45]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I gave notice of

intention to deal with a matter of privilege and I have the opportunity

now to go into that in the detail necessary to apprise Your Honour of

what it is.

The question of privilege is that the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition has been impeded and-or obstructed in the discharge of his

duties and has not been afforded the due process available to him set

under the long-established usages and customs of parliament. In

substantiation therefore we need to refer first to standing order 20

and to what occurred pursuant to that standing order.

Under standing order 20, "the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such

orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of any resolution

passed under standing order 19." No such resolution was passed. The

alternative is for Mr. Speaker to name a member or to call upon the

House to adjudge upon the

[ Page 2608 ]

conduct of a member. Neither event took place. In

summary, standing orders 19 and 20 provide that Mr. Speaker may order

members to withdraw immediately from the House, but the House must

decide upon penalties for members who refuse to follow the orders of

Mr. Speaker. The House made no such determination.

The remedy with respect to the conduct of members is within our own

standing orders, and standing order 1 comes into play only when our

standing orders are sessional or other orders do not make provision.

Further, even when the need may arise to resort to standing order 1,

the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom do

not include their standing orders. Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia ,

by George MacMinn, says on page 2: "Another vexing question is whether

or not the customs and usages of parliament include the standing orders

of that parliament. It would appear, on the balance of authority, that

the answer to this question is in the negative." If we were to follow

the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom,

we would be bound by the following provisions cited in the eighteenth

edition of May, pages 425 and 426 as follows. I don't intend to read

those if you don't feel it necessary, but they are quoted here under

the two headings of "Dual Source of Modem Power to Punish Disorder" and

"Disciplinary Powers of Speaker Under Ancient Usage."

I want to submit that all of this clearly shows that the ancient

usages have been codified within our standing orders, and any remedy is

within our standing orders and within our powers. If Your Honour finds

that there is a prima facie case of privilege, upon reflection and

consideration of it, I would have an appropriate motion to move with

respect to that matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in reserving on this matter, as has

been the custom of the Chair in matters of privilege, the Chair cannot

help but observe, on first blush, that the Leader of the Opposition, to

whom the matter refers, was in fact fully and completely aware of the

consequences of his own actions. As hon. members may be aware, he had

been advised on numerous occasions by the Chair that the consequences

would be as grave as in fact they were. Also, hon. members, it must be

taken into account that the ruling of the Chair was in fact sustained

by a vote of this House.

Nonetheless, some of the points raised by the member do require some

consideration. But again, hon. members, I must state that on first

blush the consequences and the actions were very well known to the

member who was affected thereby. The Chair will take that into account

in bringing forth a full and complete decision on the subject.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:49 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

26 The Hon. R. H. McClelland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 26) intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act , 1983 to amend as follows:

SECTION 2 , in the proposed

section 2 (2) by deleting "Hours of work, overtime or special apparel"

and substituting "Hours of work or overtime".

SECTION 2 , by deleting the proposed

section 2 (5), (6) and (7) and substituting the following:

"

(5) Where

(

a) a collective agreement contains a provision having the effect

that after the expiration of a period stated in the agreement, the agreement

may be automatically continued in force,

(

b) pursuant to that provision, a collective agreement is continued

in force, and

(

c) the director considers that since the expiry of a period

referred to in paragraph (a), no negotiations have taken place between the parties

with respect to the agreement, or negotiations have taken place, but have been

abandoned, the director may, on application by an interested person declare

that the continued application of subsections (2), (3) and (4) with respect

to that collective agreement is no longer appropriate.

"

(6) On the making of a declaration under subsection (5), the

provisions of this Act, other than subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this

section, apply as if the collective agreement did not exist but nothing

in this

section shall be construed as affecting the powers and duties

of the Labour Relations Board under the Labour Code ."

[ Page

2609 ]

SECTION 7 , by deleting the proposed

section 14 (3) and (4) and substituting the following:

"

(3) An appeal from a certificate of the director lies to a County Court.

"

(4) No appeal referred to in subsection (3) shall be instituted later than 45 days after the issue of the certificate.

"

(5) An appeal referred to in subsection (3) shall be a trial de novo .''

SECTION 9 , by adding the following paragraph:

"(a.1) in subsection (1) by adding "or order" after "certificate",

and ".

SECTION 48 , by adding the following subsection:

"

(3) Nothing in this Act extinguishes rights under

Part 5 or 7 of the Employment Standards Act

that were, immediately before this Act came into force, accruing to a

person who was, on the day before this Act comes into force, on

temporary layoff or on maternity leave and those rights may be enforced

under that Act as amended by this Act." —

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada