[ Page 941 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Contempt of parliament.

Mr. Smith — 941

Mr. Speaker — 941

Mr. Smith — 941

Mr. Speaker — 942

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 942

Mr. Speaker — 942

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Relocation of Burlington Northern Railway tracks.

Mr. Bennett — 942

Tabling of B.C. Ferries design estimates report.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 943

Potential further shutdowns on B.C. Rail. Mr. Phillips — 943

Additional natural gas costs. Mr. Wallace — 943

Sale of newsprint in B.C. Mr. McClelland — 943

Design of new B.C. ferries. Mr. Curtis — 944

Negotiations with Ottawa on Sukunka coal port.

Mr. Phillips — 944

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill 36). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 945

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 945

Public Officials' Disclosure Act (Bill 37). Second reading.

Mr. Curtis — 946

Hon. Mr. Hall — 946

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 946

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 38). Second reading.

Mr. Curtis — 946

Cyril Morley Shelford Compensation Act (Bill 41). Second reading.

Mr. Richter — 947

Hon. Mr. Hall — 947

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 947

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 47). Second reading.

Ms. Sanford — 947

Mrs. Jordan — 948

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 948

An Act to Limit Smoking in Public Places (Bill 42). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 949

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 950

Ms. Brown — 950

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 951

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 951

Public Service Labour Relations Act (Bill 75). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 951

Mr. McClelland — 953

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 957

Mr. Wallace — 961

Mr. McGeer — 964

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 966

Hon. Mr. King — 967

Mr. Chabot — 969

Hon. Mr. Hall — 971

Division on second reading — 974

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. SMITH: The matter that I wish to bring before this House is, in my opinion, the most serious breach of parliamentary privilege that was ever committed by any responsible Minister of the Crown. I believe that it is a contempt of parliament and for the parliamentary process.

I wish to refer, Mr. Speaker, to a matter which I believe should require the resignation of the Premier of this province, and I wish to bring before your attention the particular matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to point out that the fact that you're standing and making an oral statement on something is a serious matter for several reasons. Over the past year I have felt that it's really unfair to the House and it's unfair to the Speaker to rise without any knowledge by the Speaker of what you're doing, whether you're in order or whether you're not, and whether there should be some guidance in this question before it's brought to the floor of the House.

Usually, in most Houses, a written statement is handed to the Speaker of the question of privilege before the House sits. And I'm wondering if this is the sort of thing where you should perhaps do that. You confer with the Speaker before you proceed if it's as serious as you say.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a serious matter: it constitutes, in my opinion, a breach of privilege of parliament. I wish to bring it to your attention at this time; later on during the session this afternoon I will present a formal motion which will have to go through the proper channels of the House. So I wish to continue, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: I would say another thing. Certainly the advice I get both from my readings and from my advisers is that your only function when you rise on a point of privilege is to state the matter of privilege. It is not up to you to make judgments — that's for the House.

MR. SMITH: I respect your decision in that respect, Mr. Speaker.

The matter of privilege is the fact that the Premier of this province did today indicate in an interview that a message bill had not only been before His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, but has already been signed by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor without ever coming before this House. And this constitutes a breach of privilege of parliament: that a message which His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is required to bring in through a cabinet Minister was signed by the Lieutenant-Governor before it was ever brought in, discussed, debated, or in any way disposed of in this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's get the sequence of events correctly. You've made a statement of a fact that you say you know — that's the first point.

MR. SMITH: Right.

MR. SPEAKER: The second point is: do you have any authorities that would guide the Speaker to look at the matter from a prima facie point of view before I recommend to the House whether it should even take the time on a motion?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you give me an authority, please?

MR. SMITH: I have a transcript of the programme "Capital Comment," which was taped this morning.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let the Hon. Member have his say.

MR. SMITH: I also have a transcript of the words that the Premier used in speaking in "Capital Comment."

MR. SPEAKER: Would you be prepared to send that up to the Speaker?

MR. SMITH: Yes. And I also have the 17th edition of Erskine May, page 613, talking about message bills: "Such messages are usually communications in regard to important public matters which require the attention of Parliament." Then they go on to state it may be a declaration of emergency and so on, the way a message bill generally comes before the House. It's been the custom in this House to introduce many bills as message bills.

And on page 617:

"Constitutional character of these communications. — These several forms of

[ Page 942 ]

communication are recognized as constitutional declarations of the Crown, suggested by the advice of its responsible Ministers, by whom they are announced to Parliament in compliance with established usage."

The message that the Premier discussed this morning on "Capital Comment" in an interview has never been before this House. He discussed an emergency bill which they had prepared, drafted, signed and were ready to use at any time — it was never brought before this House. It was referred to as a bill similar to a war measures Act; it could be used in the energy crisis either now or in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the obvious answer to this is that if the Hon. Member would send up to me the statement upon which he bases his allegations — he's given me the citations, which is very useful and for which I thank him — I'll give it my urgent attention and report back to the House on what my duties are in regard to the statement that you've raised.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I reserve my right to present a motion which I have indicated that I will present.

MR. SPEAKER: Naturally, that matter will be dealt with in due time in accordance with our rules.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): First of all, I would like to point out to you that no bill or message is ever brought into this House unless His Honour signs it.

I would also like to point out to you that I was asked the question if such a bill had been prepared and signed by His Honour. I said yes, such a bill had been prepared by His Honour and is ready. There was no way I was going to lie, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to bring that information to you when you consider this matter of privilege which referred to me. I have a right to respond. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the message has not been brought to the House. I was asked if such a message had been prepared and I said yes, such a message had been prepared.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I would find it in very bad taste if the party who makes an allegation doesn't permit the other person to clear up what he says are the facts. I've got both of the statements now from both Members concerned; I will examine the matter as soon as possible and report back to the House.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): With us today in the gallery are two officers of the Canadian Council of Unions. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Len Dircks and Reg Ginn to this House.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I take great pleasure in introducing to the House His Worship the Mayor of Salmon Arm, Martin Budziak, and the administrator for that municipality. In the past I have had the honour of working in the municipal government with the mayor and he is a great asset to this beautiful Shuswap area.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): Today I am very pleased to ask the House to welcome a couple of the best campaigners we had in our campaign. They happen to be almost relatives of mine. I'd like the House to welcome Tricia Cummings and Roy Cummings, Jr. and the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver—Little Mountain's (Mr. Cummings) nephew, Bruce Clow, who are in the gallery with us.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): From the riding of Revelstoke-Slocan in the village of Meadow Creek at the headwaters of the beautiful Kootenay Lake, we have the gentleman who runs the artificial spawning grounds and husbands the Kokanee as they journey up the river to spawn. I would like the House to welcome to the gallery Mr. and Mrs. Ken Bowles of the village of Meadow Creek.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, up in the gallery is one of the grand old men in British Columbia of personal and marriage counselling and family effectiveness training, Bert Bentum. He actually had some input into the development of the psyche of both the Premier and the Member for Dewdney in that he did help us in some of our earlier formative training in marriage counselling.

Oral questions.

RELOCATION OF BURLINGTON
NORTHERN RAILWAY TRACKS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Yes. I would like to direct my question to the Hon. Premier; it is to do with the Burlington Northern Inc. Relocation Act. In that Act the B.C. Railway was charged with removing the tracks through White Rock. I would ask him what has happened and if agreement has been reached.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Discussions are still continuing.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary to the Premier. Has no agreement been reached as to the relocation area or has it not been relocated at all, or what?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Discussions that we inherited from the previous administration are still

[ Page 943 ]

continuing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they now?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are in second phase. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: You mean it is a two-phased answer. (Laughter.)

TABLING OF B.C. FERRIES
DESIGN ESTIMATES REPORT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Minister of Transport and Communications whether he will table in the House a report dated May 24, 1973, cited by the Minister in the Legislature on September 24 of this year, containing the competitive estimates for design costs of the new B.C. ferries?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'll give it consideration.

POTENTIAL OF FURTHER
SHUTDOWNS ON B.C. RAIL

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and director of the British Columbia Railway. Would the Minister advise me if there are any unions in the British Columbia Railway that have not yet renewed their contracts?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, there are many.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Of these unions who have not renewed their contracts, have any of these unions served strike notice?

HON. MR. KING: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour and director of the British Columbia Railway, Are we facing a further shutdown on the British Columbia Railway with the resulting damage to the economy of British Columbia?

HON. MR. KING: I hope not.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question. Is the Minister of Labour going to take some positive action to resolve the union disputes that are still not settled so we don't have to have any more shutdowns on the British Columbia Railway? You've already shown that under pressure you can certainly resolve these problems. Will you please, Mr. Minister of Labour, assure the House that this is going to happen so we don't have any further shutdowns?

HON. MR. KING: The answer is partially yes and partially no and partially maybe.

ADDITIONAL NATURAL-GAS COSTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney General, with regard to yesterday's announcement regarding the natural gas problem, has he had an opportunity to find out who is going to absorb the added costs of the more expensive gas: the consumer or Westcoast Transmission?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the way things have worked out, we won't be importing the more expensive gas from the Province of Alberta. Therefore, there will be no additional impost on the consumers of this province.

SALE OF NEWSPRINT IN B.C.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. On October 15 the Premier told this House that he would consult the Minister about tabling the new newsprint sales agreement with Gottesman–Central National Organization. I would like to ask if that consultation has taken place with you and whether you would now agree to table this agreement as public business.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): The answer, Mr. Speaker — and I indicated that on a previous occasion — is no.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the Minister advise us whether the newsprint sales committed to this new organization are on a guaranteed or a floating price?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's on a basis which is beneficial to the company and the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, come on.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I had a couple of other questions but it is obvious that I won't get any answers to them.

I would like to ask if the government is in a position right now to insist that newsprint from Ocean Falls be available in British Columbia to avert a threatened rationing of newsprint products in B.C., or is the newsprint committed to the artificial high-priced world market which exists presently? In other words, is the government going to take the same position with regard to local needs in newsprint

[ Page 944 ]

as it has taken in the energy situation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would hope that the newspapers start looking at the question of quality rather than quantity in British Columbia.

On the question of artificial prices, as supporters of the market system, I am surprised that the question is raised. The intent is to proceed on the basis of the contract we have. It allows some flexibility which the company still has not dealt with. In that sense we do not regard it as prudent business to discuss the contract when further matters are still pending.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, just another supplementary. Does the Minister realize, for one thing, that there can be no new newspapers started in this province because of the lack of newsprint?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I am asking a question.

MR. SPEAKER: You are not asking a question.

MR. McCLELLAND: I am asking a question.

MR. SPEAKER: That is entirely argumentative. That is forbidden under the rules.

MR. McCLELLAND: I asked the Minister if he realizes that condition exists in this province. Perhaps he'll advise me otherwise; perhaps he will advise me that that condition does not exist.

The question is: will there be any protection for the people in this province who need newsprint and have been told that they are going to be restricted to the amount of newsprint they used this year? There can be no expansion of either new newspapers or any expansion of existing newspapers which may want to expand their business.

AN HON. MEMBER: …you have a personal interest in this.

MR. McCLELLAND: I have a personal interest, Mr. Member, in the business of the people of British Columbia, and that's the kind of interest I hope to protect.

DESIGN OF NEW B.C. FERRIES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications. I wonder if he would indicate to the House if there has been any communication with masters and senior officers of British Columbia Ferries, or will there be any, with respect to the design of new vessels which are to be added to the B.C. Ferries' fleet? The reason for the question obviously is that these are the men who will have to operate and sail the vessels and I wonder if the Minister would tell us what input they have in the design stage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I expect that there will be consultation.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary. I wish the Minister would cooperate a little more with this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. At what stage? After the ferries are built? When they are on the slips about to be launched? When the designs are complete? Could he elaborate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the very first stage.

MR. CURTIS: Well, that would be now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I told you that.

MR. CURTIS: Are they being consulted now?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I told you I expect. Do you understand the meaning of the word "expect"?

MR. CURTIS: Not in your case.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH OTTAWA
ON SUKUNKA COAL PORT FACILITY

MR. PHILLIPS: I have a question to the Hon. Premier. Would the Premier please advise me how negotiations are progressing with the federal government with regard to a port facility for the export of Sukunka coal?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Phase three. We have agreed to an impartial person to do the economic studies. I forget his name; he is a professor at UBC. There is a dispute, or a disagreement, between us and the federal government as to the most economic routes. When we have the outcome of that study we will be able to make a statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question on the same subject. Would the Premier advise me, now that the coal project has closed down for the winter with just a holding operation of 10 men, does this mean that serious negotiations with another company to take over the other percentage has failed, or is it still progressing?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Member raised that. The fact that they are keeping a 10-man crew on at this time indicates how

[ Page 945 ]

serious the negotiations are. They are quite serious. But you must understand that it is not an easy matter. In the past what was done was that coal leases were signed and people were given access to resources with hardly any restrictions, and as a result this is something new. We have a government now that is saying that we will not give resources away, and we are bargaining on very tough conditions so that we get a fair share.

MR. PHILLIPS: But are there still very serious negotiations underway and is the project still indeed alive and in the minds of the government, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is the desire of this government to complete that deal, but we intend to be very hard-nosed in our bargaining. We understand that progress is being made.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members.

MR. SPEAKER: It doesn't require a motion; it is private Members' day.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 36, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill that was discussed at the last session, and I hope for a sympathetic hearing. It is simply an amendment which allows a child, a student, who moves from one school district to another, since some course or some option is open in the second school district which is not available in the first school district…. This amendment is simply to ensure that if that child's parents have paid the equivalent amount of education tax, that it be transferred from district No. 1 to district No. 2.

At the present time this is optional by the first school district. If the first school district has been paid for the education of that child or student and the student moves to a second school district, it is not mandatory for the first school district to transfer the funds to the second one.

I've had cases brought to my attention where a child may move, let us say, from Campbell River to Victoria and is charged or is expected to pay $300-and-some to continue her education in School District 61.

I've discussed this with the staff of School District 61, and this is the kind of amendment which they would very much like — namely, that instead of it being optional for one school district to transfer the funds to the second district, it should be mandatory. The amendment would have that effect.

It seems to me like a simple housekeeping measure, Mr. Speaker, which is favoured by certainly the administration of School District 61. It would seem to me only fair that while the parents may pay taxes in one school district, if their son or daughter has to go to another school district to obtain the particular education, then surely the funds should be transferred; and I so move.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Yes, I know that this is the second time of asking by the Hon. Member. When you brought this up last year I did say I would look into it in the ensuing year, which I have done.

At the time you presented this I, too, thought it was a fairly simplistic bill and one which could solve a problem that has plagued some parents. I am quite aware, particularly it seems in the greater Victoria district, that we've had this problem. But I would like to bring to your attention that we have studied it, and if we followed your bill, as you have it here, it really does still pose a lot of problems to the Department of Education and to school boards. I would just like to run through a couple of those and then give you some idea of what we would like to do about it.

The whole problem of that mobility of students, as you said, from district to district does perhaps cause undue financial strain on parents. It is interesting to see the different ways in which various boards cope with it, and there is a great variance.

One thing that bothers us in looking at your bill is that you could have a possibility, because of the simplicity of the wording in this bill, of having a mass influx of a group of students from one district to another. There is really nothing there which could prevent that, because there is nothing written there which sets out any specific regulations which could stop that.

You could have a situation where a number of parents were discontented with the particular structural organization in one district and simply decided that they wanted to move wholesale into another district. This would really cause a considerable number of problems.

I myself questioned the department officials on whether this could happen, but they were concerned that there could be this possibility following the way your bill is written here.

Interjection.

[ Page 946 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, but to whom do they make the reasons? Who are responsible for accepting those reasons? You still could have a confrontation scene between the two boards over whether each board accepts that reason as valid — that is, whether the receiving board would accept the reason from the board that the child was coming from as a valid reason.

Now I sympathize with the Member who brought this to our attention and to the many parents who are concerned. At the moment it is unfair.

I wonder if the Member would appreciate the fact that instead of accepting his bill in this very simplistic form, I am prepared to bring in amendments to the Public Schools Act which would reduce some of the financial strain which now exists on parents.

MR. WALLACE: I will accept that.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Thank you. Well, then, I move adjournment of this to the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS' DISCLOSURE ACT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my remarks with respect to Bill 37, inasmuch as it was presented in pretty well the same form in the spring, 1973, session of this Legislature. There have been some refinements which are incorporated in the bill before us now. I also referred to it in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Therefore, I feel that most of the points which have been made in the past on those two occasions would only be repetitive today. I am sorry that this has to be a private Member's bill. I would much prefer to see this, or something similar to it, as a bill introduced by the government side of the House.

It has been said that one cannot legislate morality. But in spite of the possible accuracy of that statement I believe most fervently that the public has the right to know what other interests someone in public office may have and that this information must be readily available and would apply not only to Members of the provincial Legislature, but to mayors and aldermen, municipal councils, to members of regional districts who are elected at large, to school trustees throughout the province indeed, trustees or directors of any other body which is elected by a public vote.

There is similar legislation in force or under active consideration in other jurisdictions. I think that it is time British Columbia caught up with those other jurisdictions and adopted legislation of this nature.

I think that there is perhaps nothing of more concern to the average citizen when he considers the people who represent him in a variety of political arenas than the possibility of conflict of interest. I move second reading of Bill 37.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I remember this was Bill 132 in the previous session. We're working on this, as the Member well knows. It's part of our programme.

I must draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to section 8, which I think really renders the bill out of order in the hands of a private Member. But in so doing I want to indicate to the Member for Saanich that this is on our programme. We've had one stab at it as you know and information is still coming in.

MR. WALLACE: Don't wait too long.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I point out section 8 does provide for penalties and imposes conviction for an offence. Under our constitution it's impossible for a private Member, without the sanction of the government, to introduce a bill imposing a penalty. Therefore the bill would be out of order in its present form. I presume I have no other course but to rule it out of order, and I do.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, again I feel that it is unfortunate that this bill has to be introduced by an opposition Member, particularly when the government party, if not officially prior to the election in 1972 certainly in a variety of ridings, indicated that this matter was of real concern to that party. And yet we have no indication of any bold move on the part of the government with respect to restricting foreign ownership of land in British Columbia.

I think perhaps in the past I have referred to the astonishing amount of lands which have been acquired by foreigners, that is other than Canadian citizens, in Prince Edward Island, where I investigated the situation very carefully approximately three years ago. To a lesser or greater extent the problem faces every jurisdiction in Canada and British Columbia is no exception.

You will note in section 1, Mr. Speaker, that there are opportunities made available to newly-arrived people in Canada with respect to land ownership: in subsection (a) where the land is less than 10 acres and intended for the residential use of the purchaser;

[ Page 947 ]

where the purchase of land by non-Canadian corporations and individuals is compatible with commercial activities already located within the province; or (c) where it can be proven to the satisfaction of the British Columbia government that the purchase of the land by non-Canadian interests would be in the public interest.

I feel very strongly about this particular matter, Mr. Speaker, and again express extreme regret that the government has not brought forward a bill something along these lines. It seems to me that it is almost too late in some parts of British Columbia, but if the government sees in its wisdom to accept this private Member's bill and sets something of an historic precedent, then we might be well on our way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't hold your breath.

MR. CURTIS: I won't hold my breath.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 41, Mr. Speaker.

CYRIL MORLEY SHELFORD
COMPENSATION ACT

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in giving the purport of Bill 41, the Cyril Morley Shelford Compensation Act, the history of this particular case is well known and well recorded.

Cyril Morley Shelford was formerly a Member of this Legislature for some 20 years. Along with that he was a Member of a former government's cabinet and was injured in the course of his duties. Now this can happen to almost anyone. I know that the respective Members of the government bench, namely the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and also the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) were supplied with copies of the physician's report on Mr. Shelford. It's well known that he has been permanently injured and will remain so for the rest of his life.

I feel very strongly that people who are prepared to enter into political life are subject to riots and other uprisings. Of course, there's always open season on government Members, I don't care what political stripe they carry. I think anyone who is offering their services this way should have some measure of support in the event of injury.

I can cite a particular case of one of the cabinet Ministers on the present government benches, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). He could have been subject to a situation very similar to what happened to Mr. Shelford. Fortunately it didn't happen and I'm very happy for that point.

However, it isn't always so. We have had civil servants who were injured outside of the province; we have had a number of other cases in Quebec, for instance with Pierre Laporte; we have George Wallace in the U.S., we had Robert Kennedy who met a fatality that way. Even if the Member meets his demise this way, his family still must go on. Without some form of support or some form of assistance then it becomes a matter for the state to enter in and support that family.

Now it might be much easier if a fund were set up in some form in which some form of assurance or insurance could be given in such an event. Let's hope it never happens. Maybe we'd never have to call on it, but certainly it would be something to rely on.

When I speak in relation to this bill, I'm talking about a retroactive measure which is necessary to help the named party on the head of the bill. I have discussed this at various times with the government. I hope they will be more prepared to accept this bill at this time. I move second reading.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for his persistence in looking at this problem. I realize the difficulties that he mentions. The results and the affairs he refers to in countries not too far away from here are all part and parcel of the picture that the government is looking at in terms of protection — there are pension plans and everything else.

However, we are not prepared at this time to move in this singular and particular direction. I don't want to adjourn the debate. That in some ways is a way of killing it on the order paper; I much prefer to be tidier.

Having said that, and being straightforward with the Leader of the Opposition, I draw your attention to section 2 of the bill and declare it out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The only question is whether under standing order 67 it would be lawful for the House to proceed on this bill, in view of the fact it would require an appropriation in order to bring it into force and effect and that therefore it would require a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. Since it would do all these things, with much regret I have to declare it out of order. I so do.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): This bill also attempts to come to grips with the question of

[ Page 948 ]

foreign ownership of land in British Columbia.

The bill is in two parts. The first part deals with the registration of the people who are purchasing land in the province. At the present time the provincial government has no record as to the nationality of the owners of the land in this province. The Land Registry Office asks you to list all sorts of things, but doesn't ask whether or not you are Japanese or German or whatever else.

The first section of the bill calls for the registration of the nationality of the people who are purchasing the land. What I'm hoping to accomplish in this section of the bill is that we can begin to get a record of how much of our land is owned by Canadian citizens or landed immigrants or foreigners.

The second part of the bill deals with this question of purchasing land by foreigners. I'm calling in this bill for no further sale of land in British Columbia to people who are not either Canadian citizens or landed immigrants.

This is not a new concept, Mr. Speaker. Just recently in the Province of Ontario — in Tory Ontario — there was a legislative committee struck to look into the matter of the foreign ownership of land. That committee, which was made up of members of all sides of the House — seven Tories, two Liberals and two NDPers, brought down some very interesting recommendations. They recommended that: "The future sale of lands to foreigners be prohibited." Secondly, they recommended that foreign heirs to Canadian properties would be required to sell them to Canadians within three years. Another recommendation this committee has made to Premier Davis is that the government give this whole matter urgency and priority in its consideration.

In Prince Edward Island, for instance, they have set up a royal commission to look into the matter of foreign ownership of land. Other provinces are doing the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that so much of our economy is controlled by foreigners in this country, that so much of our economy is directed and our resources are controlled by foreigners, I think it is high time we at least control our own lands. I suggest that we should not sell any more land in British Columbia to foreigners.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, it's rather unprecedented that anyone else should speak to a private Member's bill, but I was so shocked by what this Member proposed that I just can't resist the opportunity to say first of all, as far as this party is concerned, that Member's suggestion that where the land registry applications now require to know your nationality if you are purchasing land, and then to suggest that that should be there if you're selling land — I suggest the whole thing should be wiped off.

I don't think it matters to anyone in British Columbia what anyone's nationality is. We're fighting to do away with this type of discriminatory thinking. What would be important and relevant is to whether or not the purchaser, and possibly the seller, is in fact a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant. And that is quite different from wanting to pry into a person's nationality. I would strongly oppose such a thought being extended. I must mention in all kindness that I'm shocked this Hon. Member, who always champions the cause of the underdog, should even express such an idea.

Another matter that I would like to bring to the Minister's attention in speaking to this bill is — whether or not he chooses to get into the debate of foreign ownership in British Columbia — that I do think we have no need to wait for the revision of a whole bill in order to make it illegal for anyone from another country to own land in British Columbia if they have an indictable offence against them in another country.

We have such a case now in the north Okanagan where a young man who has an indictable offence against him in the United States — for the use of drugs — has been allowed to purchase land in British Columbia.

In considering this bill, and his response to it, I would ask the Minister to make reference to at least this type of an amendment, which could be done right away, and also my comments that the nationality of people in British Columbia does not matter. It may well be important that the citizenship or the intent to take out citizenship does.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome this bill and the particular debate related to it. I specially want to thank the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) for bringing this bill in.

The intent, as clearly understood by me, is that the Member is addressing herself to a very serious problem of non-nationals purchasing land here in British Columbia — those are people who are residents of other countries who have no intention of becoming Canadian citizens, or becoming landed immigrants. Quite frankly, it is a problem.

If you are to examine the problems in the State of Hawaii right now, great blocks of land are being bought in that state by non-nationals. As a consequence the price of that land is being driven up.

The land purchase by non-nationals is a matter that is being discussed by all premiers in this country, at the request of the federal government. We have had on the agenda at the first Ministers' meetings a lengthy discussion on this problem right across this country. It is my understanding that the federal government is also considering some federal legislation regarding this matter. But it is a very serious problem and the Member is being completely

[ Page 949 ]

responsible especially as it relates to her constituency because it is a choice part of the world to live in — almost as good, Mr. Speaker, as the District of Coquitlam.

I want to say that because this matter is being discussed by the other premiers and is under consideration by the federal government, I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say to the Hon. Member who is standing in some perplexity, she still reserves her right to wind up the debate on the bill when, if ever, it is called again.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, can I rise just on a — point of order? There was the point raised by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan….

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, there's no way at this stage that it may be debated further.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to the very excellent principle contained in this bill….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out what the bill is?

AN ACT TO LIMIT SMOKING
IN PUBLIC PLACES

MR. McGEER: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. May I note, Sir, that this is a public place; you and I and the other Members do not smoke here and neither do the guests who are in the galleries, and I think that's a very excellent principle that should be extended beyond this legislative chamber.

I don't think it's ever worked a hardship on the Members not to smoke in this legislative chamber — the atmosphere gets murky enough without tobacco smoke. I don't think it's worked a hardship on the people who are in the galleries either.

This particular bill is slightly different in form to the one I introduced last spring. It says that smoking tobacco in any public area is a misdemeanor only and it is punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $100.

Now, my reason for presenting this version of the bill, which is slightly different from the Act introduced last spring, is that the State of Arizona — a place very proud of its fine clean atmosphere — has introduced exactly this Act and it is the first jurisdiction to pass a law against smoking in public places.

Mr. Speaker, may I say to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) that I would be prepared to accept amendments to this particular legislation if he or other Members of the government can think of ways as to how the bill might be improved.

But I think all Members realize that smoking is not only the number one source of air pollution in this country, it is also one of the major public health hazards for people between the ages of 35 and 50 — the best working years. Lung cancer is the number two killer.

The average male in North America, and that includes all the ones like myself who are non-smokers, consumes 205 packs a year.

Mr. Speaker, what would you say to someone who offered you a trip around the world?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): He'd take it. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I'd think about it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, not just a trip around the world, but three years' holiday.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll take that.

MR. McGEER: That, Mr. Speaker, is what you can offer every single smoker in this country because the money spent on cigarettes over a lifetime would pay the way around the world for every adult in North America over 18 years of age.

More than that, Mr. Speaker, statistics acknowledge the fact that quitting smoking for people who do smoke will add three years to one's lifespan. That's the offer we throw out — three years and a paid vacation around the world. That should be incentive enough for any man to kick the weed.

Now then, Mr. Speaker, having offered this enticement to the smoker, may I speak for a moment about the rights of the non-smoker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. McGEER: Anybody who goes into a crowded public place, whether it's a restaurant or one of our B.C. ferries, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), you are forced to inhale the same poisons that bring on lung cancer. You have no choice but to deeply inhale those poisons.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You can always stop breathing.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): There are non-smoking areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go out on the deck. (Laughter.)

[ Page 950 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Jump off!

MR. McGEER: "Go out on the deck," says one Member — a bitter smoke. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Choke!

MR. McGEER: The non-smoking areas are almost as big as the Member's desk, and if you hunt with a magnifying glass, you can even see the sign. But what happens if somebody smokes in that area? Why, nothing happens.

AN HON. MEMBER: They walk the plank.

MR. McGEER: They don't make them walk the plank, no. They just go ahead and puff away.

Mr. Speaker, there are areas reserved for non-smokers on airplanes. Try and get a seat in that area unless you're one of the first passengers to arrive at the ticket window. I'm always last, and I can never get into these non-smoking areas because they always fill up first.

So there's no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that what people who hate air pollution and want only clean air for their lungs desire is to be free of the curse thrown upon them by the smoker. This is what this bill intends to end. Give the non-smoker his right to inhale a lungful of oxygen. Nothing provokes me more these days than to see some young ego freak complaining about the pollution of the beaches and the pollution of pulpmills and pollution of everything else, while he's blowing smoke rings in your face.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. McGEER: Shame. Yes, indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell from the enthusiastic applause on the other side of the Legislature that I've made my point, this bill will be accepted and the people of British Columbia will be free from the air pollution caused by smokers from this day on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker and Smokey McGeer, speaking for myself, not as Premier, I accept the bill. I am in complete agreement with the Member's sentiments, but before I express my opinions, I canvass the gallery very closely and I notice that my wife is not here. For those of us who don't smoke, smoking is a filthy habit, Mr. Speaker. It is disgusting, it is very expensive, and I'm against it. But if any one of you repeats this speech to Shirley, I'm in trouble. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, smoking is often fatal, as life itself must come to an end. But why add to that possibility, Mr. Attorney General? On occasion I succumb and smoke a cigar, and I feel guilt for days, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: And its awful taste in your mouth, too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I always smoke OPs.

Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid the great day when this bill would pass this Legislature is not yet with us. But I completely support the good doctor and I wish that other people would have his good sense and not smoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have a free vote!

HON. MR. BARRETT: In my case, it's not a free vote — I am under instruction from someone who is not here in this House, and I dare not record my feelings because of that pressure. Nonetheless, I would enjoy hearing further comments in the debate, and perhaps you'll find even greater support than my timid approval.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): One of the very first things that I learned when coming into this Legislature was never to get up and speak after the Premier, because he's a hard act to follow.

MR. PHILLIPS: Act is right.

MS. BROWN: But since you recognized me, I guess I have no option. I would like to speak in support of this bill very strongly, despite the fact that I have been reminded on more than one occasion that charity begins at home and I live with someone who smokes cigars. Nonetheless, I think that they're not as harmful as cigarettes, to start with — they may smell worse and they may even pollute more, but when a cigar is smoked by a very special person, it doesn't carry the same kind of effect. (Laughter.)

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on health last session looked into the business of tobacco advertising. Often, on more than one occasion, the recommendations came through that it really didn't make much point to cut down on the advertising of cigarettes unless we were going to do something about the whole business of encouraging the use of cigarettes, which is what we do when we continue to permit smoking in public buildings.

I think the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) outlined in great detail the kinds of things that we can do even without legislation. The fact is that the no-smoking area on the ferry is so much smaller than the smoking area on the ferry, and as someone who has to use the ferries each week, I certainly share with him his concern for my own health, if for no one else's, because people do smoke even in the no-smoking area, and the no-smoking area is so small that when you get on the ferry you have a choice: do you race to the dining room or do you

[ Page 951 ]

race to the non-smoking area? So my recommendation would be to the Minister, first of all, that even if we do not accept this bill, let us expand the no-smoking area in the ferry, as a first start.

As a second start, let us extend this to other public facilities and other public buildings that we have some control over, I supported in principle Bill 71, the weed control bill, because I was hoping that when the decisions were made about what a noxious weed was, cigarettes and tobacco would be included in the whole area of noxious weeds and the control of the use of tobacco was one of the things that were going to be controlled by this Act. So even though it's possible that Bill 42 will not go through, I'm hoping that when Bill 71 goes through, it certainly will take into account that tobacco is a noxious weed, and the control of tobacco in public places should be included too. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, motherhood is beautiful, particularly when we take this particular issue. We don't smoke here, agreed, but there's a bit in this Act that says that smoking tobacco in any form is a public nuisance and dangerous to the public health. Mr. Speaker, that was made by a scientist — not of the variety, however, that makes these kinds of decisions. I have spoken to thoracic people and chest people, lung people, who don't always come down on the same side of that issue. So therefore I suggest to you that while this, to many many people, is a very enticing kind of piece of legislation up to and including the Premier in private, there is a lot of study that has to go on, particularly if we're going to take a great vast majority of people and place them in a position such as this bill does. It's too broad, it's too expansive, the wide powers are totally unacceptable by this little government. And it's very vague about who the powers are directed at, how they're to be directed. Mr. Speaker, this kind of blank cheque legislation (Laughter) just can't possibly be endorsed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. Then it was also suggested that there's a great deal of the heavy hand of state Liberalism here, so we're very worried about it.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that it is the prerogative of the Crown and the Crown only to impose penalties, and therefore I would suggest that the bill be declared out of order on that basis. There is noted in section 2 that very question.

MR. SPEAKER: I have 24 books around my desk here, and I've looked through every one of them.

There's no way I can get around section 2, although I would like to, if I can express that much support for the bill. It is out of order in its present form.

AN HON. MEMBER: So are you. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He's always out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I know I'm out of order now. Nonetheless, it is my duty to declare it out of order because of the punitive sections that cannot be made by a bill in the hands of a private Member. So I rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading, Mr. Speaker, of Bill 75.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR
RELATIONS ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, in the spring session of this year I introduced into the House a bill intituled the Public Service Labour Relations Act, whose number at that time was 182. In a statement to the House I said that I would not be calling the bill for second reading but would instead let the bill remain, as it were, on the order paper so that all Members and the public generally, together with all the interested parties, could have an opportunity to look at the government's attitude towards the public service labour relations and what best form collective bargaining should take in — this most important endeavour.

We've now had an opportunity to receive the information from those directly concerned, those indirectly concerned, from Members and interested people. Now the bill has been reworked a little here and there and has now come before you in the form of Bill 75, still intituled the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, what the bill seeks to do implicitly is to provide a system of free and full collective bargaining for the public servants of this province which is long, long, long overdue. We're the last jurisdiction in Canada to present such a system to its Legislature. We're the last holdout for the old systems of paternalism and edicts, and I think that it's time now we got on with the job.

The government, of course, is honouring its election commitment; its programme for many, many years has had an item such as collective bargaining for the public service. In many ways the party that

[ Page 952 ]

preceded the New Democratic Party, namely the CCF, of course, was one of the first governments to bring in this kind of activity in its sphere of influence from time to time.

The system that we propose, envisaged in Bill 75, is innovative and it's unique. It's giving employees a real voice in determining the wages and working conditions which they have been requesting for years in place of the outmoded systems I've just referred to.

The system is tailor-made to the unique conditions in British Columbia and it has not been tried anywhere else. British Columbia, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has the highest ratio of union members than any other place in North America. The bill recognizes the high degree of union activity and the history of attempted formulization of union activity even in the last 20 years.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is 31 years ago since the public servants of this province banded together and eventually formed the beginnings of the union that currently is the only one with which the previous government and this government have done business.

The bill envisages a two-tier system: that is, it proposes a system which will give a master contract and then will give the people who work in the same kind of occupational groupings an opportunity to reflect those particularities and singularities that are theirs in the form of a component agreement.

The bill proposes regulative procedures which include the right to strike. I maintain that giving workers the right to strike in a full and free collective bargaining system in effect reduces strikes, reduces illegal walkouts, reduces lockouts, reduces the kind of recalcitrants that have been seen to appear in our public service over the years.

There will not be any strikes, Mr. Speaker, if both sides work conscientiously to make this new system work. I would be foolish to suggest to you, and you would be even more foolish to believe it, if I said that everybody will accept this totally. There are obviously going to be some who resist the sweeping changes, and I certainly don't expect 100 per cent acceptance of all the details.

However, the vast majority will accept, and will find the significant improvements to the mutual advantage and to the better advantage of all of the people of British Columbia.

Several new sections, Mr. Speaker, have been added to the bill that you saw in the spring session, namely a section on unfair labour practices, a religious conscience clause worded the same as in Bill 11 and, of course, a penalty clause.

The bill applies to all public servants with fewer exceptions than before. There are some four or five changes in the exclusion section, namely the little operation the government has in Manning Park Lodge, in the Lions Gate Tourist Court and the Workmen's Compensation Board, and a temporary situation which is still causing some unease, namely the one in the British Columbia Institute of Technology. It is the government's desire, as soon as is possible, to make that institution independent, or at least on the same square footing as other post-secondary institutions in the province, and have its own board of directors, regents or governors — call them what you will. But for the meantime we'll have to grope along, doing the best we can with the staff of the BCIT until that happy day when I can see the Deputy Premier and Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) rise in her place and introduce a bill about the British Columbia Institute of Technology.

We have taken in large measure, Mr. Speaker, the advice of the commission of inquiry into bargaining — not all of the advice, Mr. Speaker, but the advice that frankly we thought was first class and in line with the real requirements and our own philosophy. We, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, rejected some of the structures that were enumerated in that report. We believe that now that we've seen the shape of things to come, as it were…. I can't debate this bill meaningfully without referring to Bill 11 to a little extent, if you'll allow me to do that, Mr. Speaker.

We didn't see Bill 11 in the spring of last year, but now that we've seen Bill 11 you can perhaps now see better why it's my view that the kind of alive, vibrant, swift, decisive Labour Relations Board that we are going to have in this province will be the one that administers the nitty gritty of this Act. I know the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has other adjectives he likes to apply to this board, but those are the ones I feel are perhaps better suited to describe it, and describe it more accurately.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

  The Civil Service Commission, Mr. Speaker, will be the government's bargaining agent on behalf of the Treasury Board. All the employees will be in one of three bargaining units which are described and shown in section 4 of the Act. The two-tier system of bargaining, whereby each bargaining unit will negotiate a master agreement and subsidiary agreements is of course, as I say, unique.

The determination of the people themselves, on both sides of the table, to negotiate exclusions to explore the whole grievance field, in my view, again is progressive and unique. I want to particularly refer, if I may, to the section on technological change, which I think is probably the most progressive in this country, if not on the continent.

For those of you who may care to seek some differentiation between the technological change section in this bill and any others that may be before you, may I point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that

[ Page 953 ]

you must look upon Bill 75 as the first step in a two-step system. This step is, in effect, the first that goes towards getting a collective bargaining agreement with as many of the people as we can in the public service, and it has got a particularity and a singularity that shouldn't be confused with the overall labour code that is for the total private sector that we have been debating these last few days.

Mr. Speaker, I can say as I prepare to take notes, as the debate ensues, that it has been a happy six or seven months and it's been a particular point of pleasure for me and for the Civil Service Commission to receive, in a very large way, the cooperation of the majority of the public servants in the province. I want to commend the public service of this province for its patience, its goodwill, its good temper over the 12 months that this bill — the gestation period, if you like, of this bill.

I want to go on the record of this House as paying that tribute to them. As I say, there are going to be some feathers ruffled and there may be some noses out of joint. But in the large and overall scheme of things this bill, I think, is a good one — a bill which will seek to and will suit the purposes of bringing into operation in this, the last province in Canada, full and free collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Commission and the representatives of the various groups have not been idle during the summer. It is fair to say that at a committee level, at the grassroots level, there have been tremendous strides made to facilitate the introduction of collective bargaining.

Already there has been at committee level, still to be endorsed by a senior level, a surprising amount of agreement in a very short space of time on the facilitation of this Act — namely, the getting together of the commission and workers to determine exclusions, and the getting together of people in the payroll departments of the Minister of Finance and respresentatives of the unions to make sure that the smooth introduction of the payroll business is done properly. It opens up the question of check offs, and possibly the question of savings, credit unions, and all that kind of thing.

There has been a committee set up of members of the Civil Service Commission staff and representatives of the union and the nurses, a committee of female persons to look into some of the problems in the civil service to do with the hiring of women. I think that that is all for the good.

There have been meetings, as I say, in my office of representatives of the psychiatric nurses, registered nurses, and the B.C. Government Employees Union. It has been a happy time. It has been a constructive time. It has been a time when a lot of differences have been placed on the table and compromises and solutions have been worked out. It is my fond hope, my real hope and, I think, my expectation that that state of affairs will continue and that the smooth introduction of collective bargaining in the public service over the next six months will proceed on schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I know that many Members in the House have got a number of points to make about this bill and I want to assure them of my attendance and my keen attention to their debate and their arguments. Hopefully I will be able to answer them in the greatest of detail when I rise to close this second reading.

So, Mr. Speaker, to start that I move second reading of this bill.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): At the outset I would like to say that the official opposition supports completely the concept of collective bargaining for the public service. However, we find that there is more than one principle in this bill. In addition to the fact that it is perhaps a multi-principled bill it also contains a number of areas with which we have some concern, and I'd like briefly to outline some of those areas, Mr. Speaker.

For one thing there is, it appears, no prohibition of a strike during the term of an agreement in this bill. Strikes are permitted either on the master agreement as well as on any subsidiary agreement. In the bill the Minister has, of course, placed the counter to a strike, which is a lockout. That turns out to be a completely phony concept because you can't assume in your wildest imagination any lockout by the government. Would you, for instance, lock out at Riverview? Would the government lock out the ferry system? The Workmen's Compensation Board? Provincial jails? No, Mr. Speaker, that provision is real window dressing.

There aren't either, Mr. Speaker, any requirements to bargain collectively before proceeding to mediation, arbitration or a strike. It isn't necessary to bargain collectively before taking those drastic measures. The Mediation Services Act, if you will recall, did require that collective bargaining be in operation for at least 10 days before a mediation officer would be appointed. There is no such requirement in this bill and, as I understand it, the union could proceed almost directly to strike without ever getting together with management to talk over their problems.

There is no actual requirement, Mr. Speaker, in this bill to take a strike vote before striking. I think the only requirement in the bill is — and I don't want to refer too much to individual sections but I must point out — that the bargaining agent "may" conduct a vote by secret ballot as to whether or not the employees will strike. So once again there is no requirement for those employees to take a secret ballot strike vote before actually walking off this job.

I recognize that the Minister said that in the time

[ Page 954 ]

between the spring and the original Bill 182 that we had and this bill that we now have before us, the bill was reworked a little here and there. I notice that there has been a penalty clause added. But despite the addition of that penalty clause, because of the other requirements or lack of requirements in this bill, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the union can take strike action on any matter at any time without any penalties, because it would not be in violation of the terms of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, section 27 perpetuates this government's disdain for contractual agreements. It seems fairly obvious that this section is aimed at ferry workers. But regardless of who this section is aimed at or what group of people, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong in principle. As we have pointed out on a number of other occasions in this House, it is wrong in principle for agreements, contracts, memorandums of understanding or any other kinds of agreements reached between two parties to be considered by this government as mere scraps of paper. That is exactly what we are seeing again in this bill, as with so many other bills that have been put forward by this government.

The concept, Mr. Speaker, of the sanctity of a contract is totally destroyed by this government, and it is being carried out once again in Bill 75.

The Minister, in opening debate on the bill, Mr. Speaker, referred to the commission report, the report and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service of British Columbia — commonly known as the Higgins report, I believe — and suggested that they didn't take all of its recommendations, and we recognize that. But I would like to ask a few questions of the Minister about some of the recommendations which the government decided not to take.

In the first instance, the commission, Mr. Speaker, recommended the establishment of a secretariat responsible to the Treasury Board, distinct and separate from the Civil Service Commission, to act as the bargaining agent for government. However, as the Provincial Secretary has pointed out, the bill now provides for the Civil Service Commission to act as bargaining agent, with the addition, I believe, of one cabinet Minister.

But the Higgins report made some very good points, Mr. Speaker, on the reasons why the Civil Service Commission should not be the bargaining agent for the government. I quote from page 20 of that report:

"The commission of inquiry, however, considers it both improper and illogical to assign to the Civil Service Commission the task of acting as the employer's bargaining agent. The essential function of a Civil Service Commission is to act as an independent body which ensures the maintenance of certain standards in personnel administration within the public service.

"Foremost in this is the Civil Service Commission's role in the application of the principle of recruitment to the public service by merit. If the Civil Service Commission were also to act as an agent of the employer at the bargaining table, it would completely forfeit the status of an impartial commission whose autonomy ensured that recruitment to the public service was free of political and personal consideration or any other forms of patronage."

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, the Higgins commission recommended very strongly that the Treasury Board should be the responsible agent for which the bargaining would be carried on for the government. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why that recommendation wasn't considered by the government in preparing Bill 75.

There is a serious question in the mind of the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the definition of "employee" in the Act, and certainly as it relates to either managerial or administrative positions.

The Higgins commission recommended that person in managerial positions be excluded from the provisions of this Act. However, this bill provides only that a collective agreement "may" exclude employees in managerial or administrative positions, the exclusions to be determined by negotiation between the parties.

The commission was very specific on this again, Mr. Speaker, and I quote. The commission recommends that the Public Service Labour Relations Act provides that "those persons performing managerial or confidential roles are not considered employees for the purposes of this Act." However, when we look at the Act itself, we find that the only people really excluded under the terms of these provisions are the Deputy Minister, the Associate Deputy Minister or Assistant Deputy Minister — the terms with which we are interested.

There is a serious problem here in that the relegation of duties is going to be placed under a severe strain if this aspect of the bill is not changed. I don't think there's any objection, Mr. Speaker, to managerial employees or administrative employees being covered under some form of collective agreement. The question is: should they be lumped into the single collective agreement with all of the other employees and those employees to whom they bear direct responsibility? I don't think they should. I think that the commission recommendation with regard to administrative employees and confidential employees and managerial employees is a good one,

[ Page 955 ]

and one which should have been followed when this bill was being drafted.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Higgins commission recommended that the Rand formula apply with regard to union membership. The bill, however, doesn't provide for that at all. Once again, if I could quote from the Higgins report so that we know exactly the kind of conclusion that the Higgins commission arrived at, they said that:

"The most appropriate form of union security for the public service of British Columbia is that which combines the individual's freedom of association with the obvious obligation owed by members of a bargaining unit to the security commonly referred to as the Rand formula most appropriately meets these criteria."

Now the government has waffled a bit on this one, but it's once again a bit of a smoke screen, I believe, because the government has said that all employees on staff at the time of certification have the option of joining or not joining the union. In effect, the Rand formula will apply to those employees. But with the rate of attrition and as time goes on this will become a closed shop and the Rand formula will no longer apply, despite the fact that this commission, a member of whom was Mr. J.L. Fryer of the British Columbia Government Employees' Union, felt that the Rand formula was the most fair way of dealing with both matters of conscience and with the rights of the unions to expect support from all of the people in the service.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, what should be done is that we let the workers decide the system by which they'd like to operate. Perhaps the thing to do would be to let the employees in the public service take a vote on whether or not they would like to be governed under a form of the Rand formula. Perhaps that would be the most fair way to approach this problem — and it is a problem, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to get an explanation again of the reasons the Minister decided not to follow the recommendations of the Higgins report in this regard.

Further to the commission report, Mr. Speaker, the commission recommended that 10 days' notice of strike action be required. The bill requires only three days' notice. I wonder why. I wonder what kind of problems we're going to find ourselves in if we adopt the formula of allowing only three days' notice before strike action can be taken. Once again, the commission was very firm in its recommendation and very clear on its recommendation. Under the dispute settlement section it said:

"Where a majority of employees have voted to support a strike, the employees' bargaining agent should be required to give 10 days' written notice of any intention to strike, but no strike should be permitted pending the receipt of the report of the mediator appointed under the Act. A similar time limit should apply with any intention by the employer to lock out."

That's a fair and reasonable amount of time, Mr. Speaker — 10 days. Certainly three days is not. Three days doesn't give us nearly enough time. What, for instance, would happen if the union filed its strike notice on a Friday? We would have no time within the service to prepare for that strike. What about welfare cheques? What about Mincome payments? What about the alteration of ferry schedules, if they need to be altered?

The government must be given the opportunity to first of all prepare itself for any eventuality, should a strike occur. Three days doesn't give the government the chance to do that. Secondly, of course, only three days' notice allows no possibility for any kind of a last-ditch settlement. It allows no possibility for the parties to get together and work again for another attempt toward the settlement of the particular dispute. If, for instance, the three days' notice came on a weekend, it would be as if there were no notice at all, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the government failed to understand the reasons for the recommendation by the Higgins commission for 10 days' notice. They would seem to be very clear and it would seem to me that with only three days' notice we're — as in other sections for this bill, about which I'll speak a little later — almost offering, almost inviting the parties to either lock out or strike. Why don't we allow them the opportunity to have a period of time in which they can get together again and try once and for all to make a decent and honourable settlement? What's wrong with 10 days?

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that there are perhaps two or three principles in this bill. One of them, of course, is to allow collective bargaining in the public service. It's a principle for which you'll find no argument, I'm sure, in this House.

But there is another principle, Mr. Speaker, regarding strikes in essential services. I wonder who the government asked when they were talking about allowing strikes in essential services. I wonder if they had thought to ask the people — the employees who are in the public service. Because I have a feeling that even the employees in the public service aren't too crazy about the right to strike for essential services. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, every survey that has been taken in the last several years shows that the public sure isn't in favour. The public is diametrically opposed to the disruption caused to third parties by strikes in essential services.

At least, Mr. Speaker, if you're going to allow strikes in the public service, limit those rights to strike to non-essential services. I understand that it's very difficult to decide which is a non-essential service — and that area between non-essential and

[ Page 956 ]

essential service has become completely fuzzed up in the last little while because the line is diminishing. It's hard to know whether one strike which affects many people outside of the actual area of dispute is an essential service just because it does affect many third parties. But we do know for sure, Mr. Speaker, that third parties are more and more being affected by strikes of all kinds. We have an obligation to respect the rights of those third parties, of those people perhaps a fixed income, the consumer and housewife and the worker on low wage — he's the person who is being affected now by strikes, and by the settlement of strikes, in many instances.

So it's more than a little difficult to decide what are those essential services. But decide we must, Mr. Speaker. I think we must someday sit down and face that there are services in this province in the public service which should not be allowed the right to strike.

Perhaps the Minister might refer to one of his own kind, a prominent member of the New Democratic Party who is from the Toronto area, who sometime ago — June of this year, I believe — was in the Vancouver area and submitted, I believe, some suggestions to the Labour Minister's advisory group, Mr. Val Scott, who has come up with an interesting concept that he calls "Final Offer Selection" (FOS).

It is an interesting concept, particularly as it relates to the people that I talked about earlier, those people in a professional and supervisory class of civil servants. FOS, according to Mr. Scott, involves what he says is a mutually acceptable selector — perhaps that could be the Minister's special officer — being named by the parties who can't solve their contract dispute. The selector chooses between the final offer presented by both sides, and his decision is binding. According to Scott, the method encourages the parties to be more realistic, It dissuades them from taking the extreme positions which have made the job of arbitrators and arbitration boards more difficult in the past.

The arbitrators have tried to find a happy medium in the widely divergent positions of the disputants, and they have wound up leaving one or both sides dissatisfied. The chain reaction, he says, has been further discontent over the existing bargaining processes, and the suggestion is that perhaps some kind of a modified form of the FOS could be implemented first of all in the public service at that level which is concerned with supervisory and administrative personnel. If it works, it could be used, in other sections of the public service.

I think that's a reasonable suggestion, because I really can't accept the possibility that supervisory and managerial positions can be lumped together with the rest of the bargaining unit.

Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to go out on a limb and do a little experimentation. He said that this government is interested in new ideas — why not try something like this with the professional people and the managerial people in the public service?

Already one of the Ministers on the government side has said that they're willing, in fact anxious, to reconsider the position that all workers have the right to strike. The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), following his disastrous negotiations with the ferry strikers, said flat out, "I'm not so sure any more about that concept."

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well after he had the gun to his head the trigger went off — of the gun which he didn't know was loaded but found out very quickly the kind of calibre it was.

That Minister said he was perfectly willing, in fact anxious, Mr. Speaker, to have another look at the concept that all workers in the public service should have the right to strike. I think that that Minister displayed a very reasonable and sensible attitude. I hope that that Minister has had some influence with the rest of the Members of his cabinet and that he's had some influence in convincing them that they too should soften their position on the matter of the right to strike in the public service.

I said before and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in many instances this bill makes it so easy for a strike to take place it is almost an invitation for a strike to take place. The bill and the attitude of the bill seem to be overly obsessed with strike, strike, strike, and that's part of the problem with our labour relations in this province.

The attitude is so prevailing that the union, the British Columbia Government Employees' Union, has already gone out and started to build a strike fund, and it's because of the attitude that is contained in this bill with its obsession with strike action. They've already gone out and begun to build a strike fund. Their very first reaction to the public display of this bill — although I know very well they saw much of this bill far sooner than this House did — was to get out and build a strike fund.

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that because of the attitudes contained within the bill there is an invitation to try to make it not work. And as we've said with Bill 11, every Member on this side of the House wants labour peace in this province. There's no doubt about that.

Labour-management practice — and the Speaker I'm sure knows this better than anyone — is largely a question of attitudes. It doesn't really matter what you put down on paper. If you can't change attitudes or if you establish attitudes in the minds of either one

[ Page 957 ]

of two disputants, you're never going to change them unless you take some action toward the attitudes — not towards laws or anything else.

As long as we continue to perpetuate and glorify the adversary system, if both sides always have the chance to use the so-called "ultimate weapon" — strike or lock-out — then the chances are pretty good that the ultimate weapon will be used regardless of what the Provincial Secretary has said in his comments that he feels that the "right to strike" means that the strike weapon won't be used. Well that's not correct in my opinion.

What is wrong with the concept of compulsory arbitration? The teachers of this province have submitted to compulsory arbitration for years and years, and they are an employee group under the public service umbrella which has done very, very well for itself in this province under compulsory arbitration.

I don't think there's anything wrong with compulsory arbitration. Labour leaders throughout North America, sensible and responsible labour leaders, have been more and more coming to the idea that strike action is an out-dated and barbaric concept, one which should be replaced with something better. And yet each time we sit down and attempt to tackle the problems of labour and management in British Columbia, and for that matter anywhere in North America, we always end up with the same idea that it's the strike that must be the final and ultimate weapon and that we build from there. The strike is the centre of the core and everything else comes from that centre.

Not until we develop some attitudes among ourselves that the people are no longer prepared to accept blindly strike action by employees or lock-out action by employers, not until we accept that concept as out-dated, will we ever get real labour-management progress in this province or anywhere else in Canada.

I say once again that the official opposition intends to support fully the concept of collective bargaining for civil services but that we have some serious reservations about the other concepts contained in this bill. We'll discuss them more fully in committee stage in third reading.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss this bill on second reading here with a great deal of interest. Perhaps unlike most in the House I have been a civil servant; I have been affected both before and after bargaining rights came in and I had the unfortunate experience of losing some $1,500 as a result of a provision in the federal legislation, which is very similar to a provision in this one, which I'll describe later on. But I certainly would caution people who think that collective bargaining in the civil service is an easy or quick thing that can be introduced.

As far as the whole concept of collective bargaining goes, which I presume is the principle of the bill, I have no objection to it whatsoever. My own personal view is there should be the maximum amount of consultation, discussion and involvement of employees, be they employees of the civil service or be they employees of private industry, in the question of working conditions, wages and differentials between the various categories of people working in certain areas. I think that the more involvement there can be of the employees in this the better off we will all be. This is particularly true of course of the civil service, which is such a big employer of labour.

We question — and I think at this stage in the discussion of the principle of the bill that's about as far as we can go — the position of the government with respect to the right to strike and with respect to essential services.

First the question of the traditional position of the employee in private industry and the position that a civil servant finds himself or herself in, be it a federal or provincial civil servant, or even a municipal employee as well. The difference, of course, is that there is virtually no way that an employee of the civil service at any level can put economic pressure upon the government. The contrast with private industry in this area is very sharp indeed. In private industry a long strike will put heavy and indeed in some cases fatal pressure upon an employer and either lead to a settlement or to an organization's going out of business.

The newspaper industry for example is littered with the corpses of newspapers. In particular I was thinking of New York City at this stage, where strikes and labour disputes led to the demise of the employer organization — in other words the newspaper company.

This is not the case at all in the civil service. If the members of the civil service go on strike there is really nothing in the economic sense which happens which can affect the government itself. The tax revenues are guaranteed by statute, by criminal law, and the revenues of the government are not materially affected.

I have only to give as an example the postal strike which occurred in the federal civil service, and let's refer back to 1968, a strike that went on approximately three weeks. The postal strike was inconvenient to a large number of people but in no way was the effect of that strike on the government one of creating economic hardship or an economic pressure to settle the strike.

The strike eventually was settled entirely on different grounds. It was settled because of political pressure; it was settled because of public inconvenience. The economic pressure, which is the

[ Page 958 ]

traditional method of putting an employer in a more agreeable frame of mind to accept a union demand, simply didn't exist in that case at all.

Obviously the revenues of the post office are important, but quite obviously the revenues of the post office were quite irrelevant in terms of having the government come to a settlement in the case of the postmen.

That is an important distinction which I think we should recognize at this time. It's fine for us in this Legislature to say well, we want to treat the employees of the government in the same way as the employees of private industry are treated. But when there are very fundamental differences between the positions those people find themselves in, we have to recognize that to apply in a blanket way provisions which may be very successful in private industry is perhaps to simply bring in concepts which cannot work effectively in the public sector.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to a strike which took place not too long ago in the ferry system of British Columbia, a strike which the Minister informs me, by way of a question that I asked on the order paper, cost approximately $3.5 million if my memory serves me correctly.

The amount of money involved, of course, was totally irrelevant. We know that the revenues and the expenditures of this government are somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.8 billion to $2 billion. For a work stoppage $3.5 million really isn't a major factor in affecting this government's ability to carry on its operations, in causing it to change its mind with respect to those employee demands. The economic element in the settlement of that strike would, in my mind, be such a fraction of 1 per cent as to be totally irrelevant.

What did settle it, and this was referred to earlier by my friend from Langley (Mr. McClelland), was the public inconvenience — inconvenience which I think the Minister correctly described as of such intensity that he felt that the ferry workers had a gun to his head, to quote his own words. I think he was right: they really did have a gun to his head.

He in turn gave in to these demands and we saw a settlement which eventually ended the strike. I give those two examples — (1) the post office, (2) the ferry workers' strike — to indicate this major distinction between employees in a private company, employees in the private sector, and employees in the public sector.

Take, for example, a strike of civil servants in the filing department of the archives. Those people carry on an extremely responsible job. Anything lost in there will be lost forever. If they do things badly, the whole concept of archives becomes just absurd because archives are only of value if information can be retrieved. So they carry on a very responsible bit of work which is generally unsung and unheralded.

But say, for example, because it is the type of job that isn't in the public eye, that they do go on strike; say they feel that they've been mistreated; say they want to better their lot by strike action. How much political pressure can those people put in comparison, for example, with the ferry workers, Mr. Speaker? None whatsoever. They can put no economic pressure on the government. They can put no political pressure on the government.

We can see, I think, from this that there is a tremendous imbalance within the civil service depending upon whether people are before the public eye, carrying on jobs that are of critical importance to individual citizens, or what individual citizens feel is of critical importance to them, and those who carry on equally important work for all of us, but which is not the type of work where individual citizens and taxpayers are critically affected at any one time.

Mr. Speaker, there's no need to suggest what would happen if a group, say 10 days prior to the expiry of the licences — say on February 18 — went out on strike. Obviously it could create chaos, particularly in this year where insurance comes in at the same time. That type of group is in a very critical situation, but my friends who may be filing in the archives are not. I think this must be borne in mind. The normal economic pressures which lead to settlement in the case of private industry do not exist in the government, and to not recognize this is to buy trouble for yourself in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested that the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) introduced this bill. My belief in his position is that he is really the head employer, the man in the cabinet responsible for his employees. It was a curious parallel, I would think, with an employer bringing in some sort of framework for a collective agreement. I would think that there would be a conflict of interests and I'm surprised that the Minister of Labour did not bring it in, as was the case with Bill 11.

I would like to turn to the question, Mr. Speaker, of essential services which was discussed earlier. It's pretty simple for us in this Legislature to say, "Sure, we approve of collective bargaining, the right to strike — fine. We'll grant it to civil servants regardless of where they may be." But every one of us in this Legislature knows in his heart that when we're dealing with essential services, the right to strike is as phony as the proverbial $3 bill. Why? Because just as soon as they go on strike we'll be called back into this Legislature and we'll be called back to take them off strike.

So we've got a $3 bill situation. If we're telling these people who are the employees of the public that they have the right to strike and we ourselves as legislators know that our job will be to wipe out that right just as soon as it starts affecting essential

[ Page 959 ]

services, then we are really talking with a forked tongue.

There is no real right to strike in essential services because if they are essential — and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), I'm delighted, is looking quite interested in this point because many of these essential services come under his department — if they are essential, there is no way we can permit them not to continue functioning and therefore there is no way that we can permit strike action in these areas.

The legislatures of the British Commonwealth and of Canada in particular are simply full — their records are full — of examples of legislatures being convened for the purpose of essentially, let's face it, strikebreaking — breaking strikes in essential services, be they in transportation, be they in health or be they in a number of other fields.

For us to stand here and fail to recognize…. Essentially we're talking in really pious terms about the right to strike, and yet we know full well, and the government knows full well, that if they honour their responsibilities to the public, they will have to call us together to break a strike; it's pretty ridiculous.

I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, the transcript of a taping interview, a tape for Sunday, October 28, with the Premier of this province for that show Capital Comment, which was referred to earlier. I only refer to it to point out that in that transcript there is a statement by the Premier with respect to an energy question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What's going on with this thing? How did you get hold of that…?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You just relax, relax, relax. The Premier stated that "We have to have emergency powers in British Columbia." That's the statement. This is the reference, in case the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was not following events earlier, to which the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) referred. It's obvious in that case that he was aware of it. It's obvious in this case that I am.

What I'm stating, Mr. Speaker, is very clearly this: in a situation where the Premier of the province states flatly, "We have to have emergency powers," and he complains that they're not on the books now, we are in a situation where the Premier realizes there are situations where this vaunted right to strike, in essential services that we have talked about, simply will not be permitted to be exercised. We won't permit them to exercise those rights to strike.

So we're in a situation where basically, I think, the government is being far less than frank with us, and I would say that the Provincial Secretary has been less than frank with us, in not properly discussing what will happen in essential services if this so-called right to strike is granted. It won't be allowed to take place and, therefore, it's no right at all. That has to be faced up to.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what should we do instead in this area? It would seem to be a lot better, rather than wait with uncertainty in the public mind, uncertainty in the minds of the employees who feel that they have a genuine grievance which the Civil Service Commission are not taking adequate note of, if they feel that they've got such a problem that they want to strike, they should know beforehand what would happen. Indeed, if they don't know it and if they simply expect that maybe or maybe not we'll have to come back to the Legislature and we'll have to settle it that way, then everybody's in this area of uncertainty, and no one really knows what can be done and what should be done.

Instead, and I think this is really essential, we need some decent mechanism worked out beforehand in a dispassionate way before there are disputes which will take care of these cases. Because we know full well that in essential services when we are called back, we're dealing with an explosive situation quite frequently, sometimes involving life-and-death situations. We're then dealing with a very emotionally charged situation and the opportunity of having a dispassionate settlement at that time is far less than it would be otherwise.

What we need at this stage before any such disputes occur is a properly set out system of procedure whereby compulsory arbitration can take place because that, Mr. Speaker, is what is inevitably going to happen anyway. For this government to pretend otherwise is for this government to deceive the civil servants. And I speak with feeling as a former civil servant.

We need smooth machinery, prepared beforehand, in operation in the critical times. You really don't get a good settlement, Mr. Speaker, you really don't get a good resolution of problems, if you wait until the crisis is acute, if you allow uncertainty to increase and then at the last minute bring in something which, of course, will be hastily drafted — it will have to be hastily drafted — and which will not, I think, best serve either the public or the employee.

Mr. Speaker, the bill has one aspect that I feel I should comment on at this time in that it will give the Minister a chance to prepare amendments. I mentioned when I opened my speech that there are great difficulties to bringing in collective bargaining for civil servants, one of which was the tremendous delay as you took job category by job category and attempted to work out some organized system of differential between them. Quite frequently 18 months was the amount of time that the federal civil service was behind in its negotiating with the civil servants in the unions.

[ Page 960 ]

This delay was not expected and yet it occurred, This delay was not due to any bad faith on anybody's part; it was just the tremendous problem of establishing a whole series of collective agreements, the major and the minor, throughout the whole range of the federal civil service.

In the case that I mentioned, 18 months later a decision was arrived at, collective bargaining was concluded and it was retroactive. In my specific case, as I had then ceased to be a member of the civil service and had become a politician, because I was no longer then employed I couldn't take advantage of the retroactive provisions which led me to lose approximately $1,500.

I was not the only one, There was a large number of people who had left the civil service during that period of negotiations for retroactive increases who were met with the same problem. In particular, the group that was particularly hard hit were nurses. Nurses, for some reason, had a longer delay than some other groups in having their collective agreement arrived at. The result was, of course, that many of these girls found themselves in other jobs in private hospitals, found themselves unable to take advantage of the pay increase which was brought in for the actual months they were working. They were unable to take advantage of it and therefore, of course, lost that money.

This makes section 27 of this particular Act highly questionable. section 27, in my mind, will cause more difficulty in this regard than perhaps any other. The reason is fairly simple: section 27 talks about anything not negotiated under this Act…"is terminated on the date upon which the Act or any provision thereof comes into force." That, in the light of experience of the federal jurisdiction, doesn't make sense and will lead to enormous difficulty.

Unless these collective agreements carry on, unless we allow a maximum amount of time as we set up this new system, we're going to be in trouble. I would most strongly urge the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) to have his draftsmen re-examine that and change it, perhaps delete it. It's the type of provision which experience elsewhere shows will cause much more trouble than it is worth. It's a temporary provision, a transitional provision and it should not be there.

Mr. Speaker, in this stage of the bill, we would like to emphasize that this particular bit of legislation essentially embodies the principle of collective bargaining, which we are for. Amendments we will bring forward later will deal with this legislation and other aspects which we feel are subordinate to the basic principle.

Because of the experience of the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) yesterday, when he attempted to bring in an amendment to Bill 11, and my own experience last year, when I attempted to bring in an amendment to the insurance legislation which would have allowed competition and which was ruled out at that stage because it apparently affected the principle of the bill, when this is examined in committee clause by clause, we trust the question of what is principle and what is not is very carefully looked at.

As we understand it, this is a bill bringing in collective bargaining in the civil service. After that general principle is accepted, we understand there will be the possibility of exceptions and alterations in certain categories. We trust, Mr. Speaker, that the very closest examination is given to any amendment dealing with this legislation which would affect certain sections of it or certain groups of civil servants but which, in our minds, at this stage does not affect the general principle of collective bargaining in the civil service. If we're wrong on this we would like the Provincial Secretary to state his views.

We cannot see that Acts which are complicated and involve many thousands of people in tremendously different categories should be treated in a simplistic fashion. We would most strongly urge, Mr. Speaker, that if you, Mr. Speaker Dowding, have any doubts on this, we should have a declaratory judgment before this bill comes up for second reading.

We feel it is essential, in this bit of legislation where you have collective bargaining, for us to stand up and say we approve, in principle, of collective bargaining in the civil service. I've stated the reasons why. But we do not feel that accepting the basic principle leads us to accept every other principle which may be included in other sections thereof. We do not feel that the experience of the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) yesterday and my experience on the insurance legislation in any way should be repeated in the future except when the amendments in question go to the heart and crux of the bill, when they really go to the principle of it.

If the principle of this bill is not collective bargaining in the civil service, we would like the Minister to state what it is. If he wishes to amend or alter or adjust or increase or decrease what happens to be the opposition's understanding of the principle, we think he should speak up now and we think, indeed, a declaratory judgment from the Speaker will be necessary. There is no way whatsoever that we in the opposition can continue to put amendments up for bills in good faith when we find them struck down as, indeed, amendments have been struck down on at least two other pieces of legislation.

We feel that if the clause by clause consideration of these bills is to mean anything at all, it must be more than strictly drafting errors, such as the one picked up yesterday and, I might add, accepted by the Minister on Bill 11.

If we are to put forward intelligent amendments, if we are to examine this legislation with the intent of

[ Page 961 ]

improving it, we wish to have amendments considered in good faith by the government and not rejected on the grounds that it may involve some principle. Every amendment, except a drafting amendment, involves some question of principle; that we know.

Drafting amendments, okay; it's an error that has been made and we are quite willing to suggest to the government it should be changed before the legislation comes into force. But other amendments which deal with questions of principle, perhaps in a tangential sense, are important to us. If there is to be any proper examination of legislation such as this, we must know that, while we accept in principle bills of this nature because we think we understand what the principle is on the basis of what the Provincial Secretary has stated, we cannot be barred in future from suggesting amendments which we were going to put forward in good faith and which we feel would improve the legislation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would like to preface my remarks on second reading by following up the comments of the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to the effect that this bill, in the light of yesterday's decision in this House, makes it mandatory that the whole question of what is the principle of this bill must be very clearly stated.

We in this party, as in the Liberal and Social Credit Parties, certainly agree that collective bargaining is the best method by which employees can obtain justice in terms of financial return for their labours and the various fringe benefits that go along with employment. Therefore, as has been clearly stated by the other two parties, let me make it also unmistakably clear that the Conservative Party favours the pursuit of collective bargaining as the best and fairest method of employing — the government being an employer and the public servants being the employees.

But, on the other hand, as has also been pointed out by the other parties, it would appear to me — if I make an analogy between this bill and the labour code which I attempted to amend yesterday — that there are at least two principles in this bill: is collective bargaining a wise and justified procedure to follow; should the employees concerned have the right to strike?

Mr. Speaker, the right to strike can be such a powerful weapon with such tremendous ramifications in its damaging effects on the public interest that one cannot possibly debate this bill simply in terms of collective bargaining without also considering that the equal principle, or maybe an even more important principle, is the principle of the right to strike.

Therefore, I'll make this party's position very plain, although perhaps one should wait for the possibility of a declaratory judgment from the Speaker. The point is that if the experience that I had with Bill 11 is to be followed as a precedent, then we have no choice in this party but to vote against this bill on second reading because we are opposed to the right to strike by public-service employees.

If by voting to support the principle of collective bargaining amendments are then thwarted because this government chooses to say that the principle of the bill is the right to strike, then of course we are at an impasse.

I repeat, this party, as was very clear in our comments on Bill 11 in second reading and yesterday, does favour finding the best, fairest, most comprehensive way of giving employees and employers justice in their relationships with one another. But to suggest that because we support that principle we have to support every single section of the bill or otherwise be accused of contradicting the principle of the bill, I think makes our job as opposition impossible.

Therefore, while we support very strongly the concept of collective bargaining, we do not accept that this bill should give to the public service employees the right to strike.

When the Minister introduced the bill, Mr. Speaker, he said this was a unique bill, and that's right. This is a very unique employee-employer relationship. There's no other employer anywhere in the province like the government and there is no other employee of such importance or who perhaps has as few equals in importance, as the public service employee who keeps the very life of the province flowing in a most indispensable way. For that reason the Minister is perfectly correct when he talks about this being a unique bill because he is certainly dealing with a unique employer and a unique category of employee.

The word "service" is in itself something unique. In our society people providing a service are closely associated with human needs, as perhaps contrasted with many other examples where people are employed manufacturing goods or products which may be useful but not in any way comparable with the importance of the type of service, whether that service be the distribution of goods, or the transportation of people, or the very carrying out of the provincial government's business in the many departments — and we can all think of many of them; some of them have been mentioned this afternoon, such as the Department of Human Resources, just to take it as probably the most obvious example.

Therefore I think it is very appropriate that the Minister has used the word "unique," because indeed you cannot compare public service employees with anyone else other than people in other service pursuits. I'm thinking in terms of the services such as those provided by hospital workers, by firefighters, policemen and doctors.

[ Page 962 ]

In the throne speech debate at this session I made it quite clear that this party feels that the time has come to look fairly and squarely at the meaning of the word "service" and more specifically at the phrase "essential service." We have all, I think in the three parties in the opposition, discussed this to a greater or lesser degree.

I think one of the points which I have raised for the first time this afternoon has a great deal of bearing on the attitude we should adopt to essential services, and that is the fact that in the so-called essential services the so-called right to strike is really a mirage in the sense that, if these employees exercised that right, the very damaging impact on the public interest and possibly the serious impact on the public economy of the province or the nation makes it absolutely unavoidable for the government to intervene in some unilateral way.

Now I am not about to define what that particular unilateral way would be, whether it would be simple imposition of a settlement or whether it would be the recalling of this House or the recalling of Parliament, as happened with the national railway situation. All I'm saying is that I am echoing the words that were said by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) when he said that it may have some superficial value in dealing with essential services employees to say, "Yes, we'll give them the right to strike," when in fact we know very well that if that right is exercised it is of such a temporary and transient nature, for the reasons that I have mentioned, that it is very little more than a sham right in terms of other businesses or industries where the right to strike exists and where the purpose of the strike is to exercise economic sanctions against the employer. There is then, I think, every valid reason to say that the right to strike truly exists, and we have numerous examples of this.

I think that the comparison that has already been made this afternoon between that sector of business or industry and the situation covered by this bill is invalid. You cannot compare the two situations.

Apart from our party philosophy on this point I certainly, in my travels and in my own area of British Columbia, get the impression from general conversation that the public is seeking some restriction of the right to strike on essential services. And I'm not at all convinced, from talking to the public service employees, whom we are discussing today, that very many of them wish to have the right to strike.

Furthermore I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, since this is such a very vital point in this bill or in any other bill affecting labour relations, that some form of plebiscite or vote should be taken of all the employees who would come under the provisions of this bill to ask them a simple question: do you or do you not wish to have the right to strike?

The Minister, in introducing the bill, made what I thought was a very reasonable statement, that if government provides bargaining rights to the public service employees the very bestowal of these rights or that right to strike within the collective bargaining arrangement would, in effect, inspire confidence and would engender a sense of responsibility on the part of the employees. I'm not sure that that is correct, but I think that the implication behind the statement is that the Minister would encourage this attitude of responsiveness on the part of the employees.

He proved that it already exists to a degree by the patience with which the employees have waited for the re-introduction of this bill; and in the brief I have here which they submitted following study of Bill 182 they made a comment that the only thing they would like to say is that Bill 182 cannot be introduced quickly enough.

So I think there is that measure of responsiveness presently in existence. But I wouldn't be carried away by an attitude of responsibility, because I think the recent ferry strike demonstrated that although there was a memorandum of agreement the ferry workers in withdrawing their services did quite clearly breach a written agreement.

It is all very well for the Minister, in introducing the bill, to say that he feels sure that by being fair and considerate and just in his attitude negotiations will take place in the atmosphere described in the bill — collective bargaining in good faith, et cetera, et cetera. Nevertheless, I don't think he can conclude that the existence of the right to strike will diminish the likelihood of strike. Because we did have a legal agreement with the ferry workers. It may not have been in a collective bargaining agreement as is understood in the labour code, but it was a signed memorandum of agreement to the effect that any difference of opinion would not be solved by withdrawal of service.

Now despite that commitment the workers did withdraw their services. They broke their word and they breached a contract. There's no getting around that fact. And that fact is proven by the Minister's statement at that time, that it was an illegal strike.

It is certainly, I think stretching the credibility a little bit to suggest that because the right to strike will be put in this legislation, it will in fact not be used — or is less likely to be used. This is where we obviously have an honest difference of opinion.

To return for a moment to the question and the definition of essential services, I'm sure that the great majority of citizens in this province realize that we do have certain essential services, and the word "essential" means "necessary, unavoidable, must be there." If it is essential then there is no sense in suggesting that, at the wishes of certain employees, these services can be withdrawn.

As I say, it is a contradiction of terminology on

[ Page 963 ]

the one hand to say that you have essential services and yet permit legislation which allows the withdrawal of such services. We feel, quite clearly, that the public service employees provide such a vital and essential service that society is in very serious trouble if they are allowed to withdraw such service. Therefore we are opposed to the bill for that reason.

The other statement was made publicly by the Minister that he expected that he would have tacit — I think that was the word quoted in the press, and the Minister can correct me if he wishes — tacit agreement or verbal agreement, and that, of course, those essential services would not be withdrawn although, in fact, the right to withdraw them is written into this legislation. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment when he winds up second reading, or might interpret for us in a more accurate way, what he meant by "tacit agreements" or what kind of private arrangements have been made or have any private arrangements been made between his department and the BCGEU to assure him that, in fact, although the right to withdraw service exists in the bill they are not going to use it.

This would seem to me a very strange situation: that we have a clear definition of a right in the bill which the employees themselves have privately told the Minister they are not going to use. This was certainly the implication of statements attributed to the Minister which appeared in the press.

Certainly, if this is the way in which the government is dealing in two different directions with the employees, giving them one assurance of certain rights in black-and-white in the statute, but on the other hand, behind closed doors, coming to some private agreement or having some verbal promise from the employees that in fact they won't use that right, then I think that would be a very strange way for any government to behave. There are certainly newspaper clippings available which quote the Minister as making that kind of statement.

It is always necessary, we feel, that when we criticize or negate some intent of government we offer a positive alternative. It would be our feeling, as it obviously is of all the opposition parties, that binding arbitration could be set up. Perhaps the most strenuous efforts would have to be taken to ensure that the employees and the government could reach the fairest possible settlement since, of course, the employees have not the same power in the strike weapon that other employees have, such as I have described earlier.

Therefore any employee in an essential service who is denied the right to strike must be given, as far as is humanly possible, some extra assurance that whatever technique of arbitration will be used can assure the employees of the maximum degree of justice in the marketplace. I feel certain — and I would expect the government to agree with this since they have already said that they are appointing such highly-experienced men and women with a great degree of expertise to the Labour Relations Board to the degree that they are trusting that board completely with decisions and to a degree of confidence which obviates any mechanism of appeal….

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the government feels that confident in being able to select a Labour Relations Board who can do that perfect a job, surely it should be equally possible to create some board of arbitration which could equally and correctly, infallibly solve any dispute affecting the employees in the public service of the government.

I don't think really the government can have it both ways. They believe, and I accept the point of view — the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) made their point of view very clear yesterday — that they have given great power to the Labour Relations Board simply because they are picking the best people they can find to serve on the board in the belief that the best kind of judgments will be handed down with the greatest chance of fair play to both parties.

I just submit, Mr. Speaker, that if that concept is applied to the Labour Relations Board, it should be equally possible to apply that concept to an arbitration board which could ensure, in the case of binding arbitration, fair play to the employees of the government in this province.

Until yesterday I was about to introduce an amendment to this bill with just that intention in mind. The amendment would suggest (1) that we have binding arbitration, and (2) that the arbitration board would be specific and unique for this particular situation, namely, the matter of the employment of public service employees by the provincial government and that the same concepts and principles which the Minister of Labour has outlined could be followed up in selecting the members who would serve on this arbitration board.

We wouldn't need to worry about the problems that would be created by the strike, as is presently in this bill. Yet, hopefully, although removing that right to strike, this kind of arbitration board that I would have proposed in an amendment would, I feel, be able to ensure that the employees received fair judgments and decisions if they could not negotiate their own agreement with government. In other words, if the collective bargaining process broke down and an impasse was reached, such as occurred with the ferry workers, then the kind of arbitration board that I'm suggesting could have been created and constituted for this unique situation which I mentioned earlier on.

Unfortunately, yesterday's ruling, and I respect the ruling of the Chair that by contradicting what the government considers to be an essential principle in the bill the amendment is out of order…. As I said

[ Page 964 ]

earlier I think the main principle in this bill is to give the employees of this government collective bargaining rights. I don't want to be misunderstood a second time. If the government is equally concerned that the principle of this bill is to give them the right to strike, then I would have to oppose that principle.

There are many other points in the bill, Mr. Speaker, which would be better discussed in committee stage, but I would like to add our concern about the cancellation of existing agreements. I think this is also a point of concern which was expressed by Mr. Fryer, who represents the BCGEU.

The other point which I would express some other concern about is that I have been approached by certain officers in the ferry service expressing their alarm at the fact that will they not only have a separate bargaining unit, which in itself is a debatable issue, but the manner in which they have reached their present situation and are excluded from remaining members of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild is causing very serious unrest among those officers.

I met with two of them just the other day and I think that if there is any intention at all by the Minister to reassess the matter of bargaining units, then this would appear to be the first area that should be looked at. I was convinced by their sincere feeling that they are not only being penalized by not being able to choose or continue to have the Canadian Merchant Service Guild as their bargaining unit, and they are very upset by the fact that they never, anywhere in the past — I don't know how many months — had any opportunity even to be given a vote to express their preference.

Since one of the main thrusts of the labour code which we are debating was always to be certain that workers and employees should have every opportunity to choose the union, or to use the bargaining unit of their choice, since we have already had a strike on the ferry service and since there can be few individuals on the ferries more important than the officers who are in the highest level of authority on the ships, I would suggest that public safety has to be considered if there is great unhappiness regarding the conditions of work and the bargaining rights of these officers.

This is perhaps more specifically suitable to debate in committee stage, but I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's important enough to try and prevent further trouble on the ferry service before it develops. The evidence is there, and I think all Members of the House have probably had several letters on that subject.

The same has been raised by the stationary engineers and the Minister is on record as stating that, of course, everybody feels different from everybody else and that there has to be some limit to the number of bargaining units that can realistically be created. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, these two particular groups — the officers on the ferries and the stationary engineers — are most unhappy. Surely if for no other reason than that their efficiency must be impaired in their work if they are working under conditions with which they disagree, I don't think that these two groups should be overlooked. If there is any further reassessment of the number of bargaining units I hope the Minister will give these two particular sections of the employment force consideration.

I just wish to close by re-emphasizing the two main points: that we support collective bargaining but we oppose the right to strike in essential services — and we consider this very much an essential service — and that in fact all of us should look at the so-called right to strike in this case, and ask if it really has any real validity and is not just a rather superficial guarantee that the workers can strike when, in effect, they would very quickly have a settlement imposed upon them if they did strike.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I've been getting just a little bit of coaching on this particular bill. We certainly regard it with a great deal of interest, because for many years the Liberal Party has said that the civil service should be treated just like any other group in British Columbia. For that reason there are many aspects of this particular legislation that are overdue.

However, I must echo the sentiments expressed by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and that is that there is a difference between collective bargaining and striking. If this bill is interpreted as the right of the civil service to strike, and is offered as an encouragement of the civil service to make the maximum demands and to use this as the power to strike, then I don't think we will have done a service to the people of British Columbia or to the civil service itself, and really this is the dilemma which has encouraged the Member for Oak Bay to resist this bill, oppose it. We want to make exactly the same points, and whether you do that by supporting the bill or by opposing it is rather a dilemma in my mind, because the bill has its good side and the bad side.

The good side of it is that we treat civil servants in the same vein as any other group in British Columbia. As working people we give them equivalent rights. On the other hand, if we provide one more weapon to periodically cripple the smooth functioning of our society, then we have done a disservice.

I'm not certain that the civil service provides us with the most essential service in our society. I think doctors, policemen, firemen and many other people who are engaged in occupations where the withdrawal of their services would do grievous harm to individual citizens almost randomly selected from our society

[ Page 965 ]

are really more essential in the reliability of the service they provide than our own civil servants.

What it does, in my view, is highlight a gaping hole in our whole philosophy of what constitutes the right of an individual to collective bargaining and his responsibilities to his fellow man, because if in exercising that right he does harm to his fellow man by abrogating these other responsibilities then he's not a first-class citizen, and his group has exercised its right and its power to the detriment of some helpless individuals in society. This bill doesn't come to grips with that particular dilemma, but as elected Members sooner or later, somehow, we have to begin to recognize this as a fundamental problem and an absolute responsibility of this elected assembly.

If aspects of the civil service function are essential, then I am adamantly opposed to their being allowed to strike. This legislation gives them the right to strike without giving us, as legislators, appropriate methods for halting that strike, just as we lack appropriate methods for halting strikes in hospitals, in municipal workers who man the police, man the fire stations, schools and other essential services. So we're asked to support a bill granting equal rights to the civil service but we recognize that because this Legislature lacks these other powers it's the largest specific gap in Bill 11 introduced by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King).

We are placing society as a whole in slightly greater jeopardy than it was before this bill was introduced. I see that as the dilemma. I understand and appreciate the reasons why the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) feels he must oppose the bill. I don't know whether that's the best way to make the point. We intend to support the bill even though we absolutely agree with the points that he raised, because we feel on balance that the civil servants deserve to have equality in bargaining rights with any other group in society.

We urge the government to exert some common sense in this matter. The legislation and the attitudes expressed by the government since the day it took office have been very heavily weighted in favour of the labour movement. Now, you may say that that's long overdue. For a generation before, the attitudes had been weighted in favour of management. But a government is not serving the people by being biased in favour of labour, any more than it is serving the people if it is biased in favour of management. It only serves when it is impartial to these great protagonists and sets as its objective instead the protection of the public interest. That applies whether the public interest is represented by a single individual or by every citizen of our province.

So, Mr. Speaker, we regard this bill with very cautious approval and we hope that the government will be able to raise its responsibilities and its attitudes a little beyond snickers from the government benches.

We've seen snickers from government benches before; it's nothing new in this House, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're on your side.

MR. McGEER: I can remember Ministers of Labour and Ministers of Health amusing themselves, snickering at the opposition when some of the good Members on that side sat over here. Those Ministers aren't even in the House at all now. They were so sure they were doing the right thing. The public didn't quite agree.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And you didn't move anywhere.

MR. McGEER: No, we're still here looking at people in different clothes grinding out the same old propaganda, bringing in the same old dictatorial bills.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair and return to the principle of the bill?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Reading the reviews in The Vancouver Sun.

MR. McGEER: You know, I don't know what governments do without The Vancouver Sun; I really don't.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: The Premier watched the former premier very closely and he learned that the former premier made a lot of mileage….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. McGEER: It's marvellous, it's marvellous.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just want to give you a few memories.

MR. McGEER: Well, you do it right with your legislation; though I must admit, the former government would never bring in an Act like this.

He discovered how valuable it was to attack The Vancouver Sun. Marvellous thing for a premier to do; it's worth several years in office.

But, Mr. Speaker, when the present government gets over this jag of weighting everything it does in favour of the labour movement and gets to consider a little more seriously the poor humble, innocent citizen of this province who is the real victim of the labour-management disputes and who will be the real victim of this particular Act should the civil service

[ Page 966 ]

use it to bring a major strike upon this province without our having in our hands the kind of legislation to bring a termination to this or any other dispute which harms the public interest…. That's what bothers me and it's the one reservation I have about this particular Act.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. Make up your mind, Members of the opposition. Are you going to vote against it or vote for it?

The one single issue that I've been involved in before I was elected to this House, right up to the time we formed a government, was a promise to provide collective bargaining for civil servants. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I came into the world of politics right out of the civil service. Right out — I was thrown out, Mr. Speaker, by the former administration. I was canned, fired, sacked. Don't you regret that now? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, every year I used to go through the charade of standing up and asking the former Provincial Secretary, "Can we have the Carrothers report?"

"No"

"Will the civil servants get bargaining rights?"

"It's under consideration."

"When will it be decided?"

"In the future."

And then today we have to witness that party over there eat crow through its spokesman by saying, "Yep, we're going to support this today."

AN HON. MEMBER: We're not going to support this.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Yep, yep, yep. We're all for it. Yes, we always believed that the civil servants should have collective bargaining; the only problem was we could never convince the government until you arrived. But now that we convinced you," they say, "we're going to get it."

As for the Liberals, talk about wishy-washy attitudes: "Well, I'm in favour of the bill, but if it's not very good then I'm against it. On the other hand, if it's good, I might be in favour of it if I'm against it. But if I'm against it, I'll be in favour of it. But then, I haven't made up my mind. When the vote comes, I want to be able to say I voted for it even though I spoke against it, so that no matter what happens I'll land on my feet." (Laughter.)

You know, Mr. Speaker, he's got the nerve to say….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, they're the watchdog all right. They watched the former government deny civil servants bargaining rights. When they attacked the former government for not doing it, they were safe. Now there's a government in that's going to do it, they've got to attack us for doing it. That's one thing about them; that's why they're always going to stay there in the middle of the row, because they never make up their mind to turn in any direction.

Why not? Why shouldn't the civil servants have the right to collective bargaining? Why shouldn't they? Why should they be second-class citizens?

They were promised it in our four-hour strike of 1958, I think it was, when I went out on strike for four hours before an injunction was brought against us. That's right: four hours we were out in the bricks — I was working in a jail at that time — and the jail never ran better. (Laughter.) The four hours we were out, there was no problem in jail, Mr. Speaker. They ate well; the cells were not locked; things were running pretty well. As a matter of fact, some of the staff were happy the injunction was brought in; we had to go back and prove we needed jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jobs!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, jobs! (Laughter.) Yes, there he is. He's the five-to-one shot. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Man, you aren't 100-to-one; you ain't got the bucks dollars…moolah…cash.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mooney.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mooney, yeah. You ain't got it. He's got a lot of life, a nice smile, but no cash. (Laughter.)

So, Mr. Speaker, what is their fight all about?

MR. CHABOT: Hey! When I get to be Premier I'll have lots of money. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you get to be Premier, it won't be on the back of a Social Credit free-enterprise education fund. You ain't one of the signatories. You're not gettin' near that vault, baby.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, with the four-hour strike we had, one of the promises made by the former government was that they would have Prof. Carrothers do a report for us workers and then release the report and let us know whether or not Prof. Carrothers would recommend collective bargaining.

I went back to work that day on the strength of that promise because, after all, when a government speaks, when a Premier speaks — certainly Mr. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) would agree with that — when a Premier gives his word and

[ Page 967 ]

he doesn't live up to his word, he should resign. He's an expert on that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the former Premier said he would have Prof. Carrothers do this report.

Guess what? Professor Carrothers did the report.

Guess who got it? The former government.

And every year we'd ask, "Where is it?"

And they'd say, "Somewhere." (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, now it can be told: they were telling the truth; they didn't know where the report was. When we came to office one of the first things we asked for was the report, and we had to send out for it.

Did we send out to the filing system?

No, Mr. Speaker.

Did we send out to the Provincial Secretary's office?

No, Mr. Speaker.

Did we send out to the library?

No, Mr. Speaker.

Was it in the vault?

No, Mr. Speaker.

Was it in the building?

No, Mr. Speaker.

Was it in town?

Yes, Mr. Speaker it was in town. It was at the home of the former Provincial Secretary (Mr. Black), stashed away in his home, Mr. Speaker.

Well! Well, well, well! Maybe the former Premier didn't know we had it. But I got news for you. We found it, and we had to order that report back to this building, Mr. Speaker.

In 1961 Prof. Carrothers recommended that the civil servants of this province be given the right to collective bargaining, and they hid that report. Eleven years they hid that report. It's a wonder the former Provincial Secretary didn't charge rent for the space that it was taking up in his home.

They wouldn't even trust the Members of the government to read the report. He had to take it home.

We made a solemn commitment to provide collective bargaining for the civil servants of this province. We're not going to treat people as second-class citizens.

We know that we have inherited perhaps one of the most responsible groups of civil servants anywhere in this country, other than the ones who were appointed politically, as we appointed people politically. Those who were appointed politically go down the road when the government changes…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: …just as ours will go down the road when the government changes. Even if someone like Gracie gets hired, that's your choice. You set the standard of what you expect from a civil servant and we all had a chance to measure that. But that's your choice.

We're saying that the 99.9 per cent of the civil service who are not order-in-council appointments have the right for decent, honourable recognition as people working as professionals or in any capacity for the people of British Columbia. The presumption that somehow they are going to abuse public trust or somehow go on strike and inconvenience the public, using that as an argument not to give them collective bargaining is an archaic attitude, Mr. Chairman. It reflects a complete lack of awareness of where the world is today.

The most responsible people, generally speaking, are civil servants. But if you treat people badly, such as offering wages well below the national norm, you're going to have nurses walk out of hospitals, you're going to have clerks walk the streets. That's to be expected. I don't want to talk about the jurisdiction that's causing that problem, but I haven't seen the Liberals fighting for the federal civil servants in this province. No way.

No, Mr. Chairman, it's one of those happier days, happier days in that the new Members of the Social Credit group can stand up and say, "Yeah, we vote for this. We're all in favour of it. Right on. I'm going to go back and tell everybody I voted for it." But the old veterans, when the vote comes, will have to stand up and vote for something they fought against year after year when they had the opportunity to provide this kind of legislation.

And guess what? There is going to be a vote on this bill. Yes, sir, there's going to be a vote on this bill. It's another one from my loose-leaf binder, Mr. Chairman, that I'll hold up in front and say, "Here's the list, gang."

AN HON. MEMBER: Are we going to have a vote on this motion?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, we certainly will have a vote on everything. A year ago August we had a vote and we're happy with that result too. So, Mr. Chairman, here it is. The chips are down. Are you for the civil servants or against them? I'm all for them. It's a pledge we made and we intend to keep it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. KING: I wanted to offer some observations on the discussion I've heard this afternoon. I was amused by the assertion from the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that he's faced with a dilemma. I certainly would agree with that after listening to his

[ Page 968 ]

performance for a few minutes this afternoon. His dilemma is to oppose the intent of this legislation and not seem to do so. That indeed is a dilemma.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), though, made some suggestions that I want to take issue with. The Member inferred that collective bargaining can be offered to civil servants without the right to strike. I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that collective bargaining without the right to strike is not collective bargaining.

It's been the practice and the standard of such organizations as the International Labour Organization, which is an arm of the United Nations, to judge the freedom and the democracy of nations on the basis of how they treat their working people. Indeed, conventions are passed at the International Labour Organization and ratified by member nations which are based on the premise that working people have the right to belong to a free and democratic trade union movement within that nation.

To suggest that in the name of the public good we should withdraw from the government's own employees the full measure of collective bargaining rights is to me altogether inconsistent with the intent and the principles enunciated by the International Labour Organization. If we view ourselves as a true parliamentary democracy, then I think it's incumbent upon us to ensure that we not only provide the full measure of collective bargaining to all workers in this province, but the government should seek to set an example to the private sector.

We have before this House a bill which is new in concept and which will govern the private sector in terms of industrial relations. It's inconceivable to me and altogether unacceptable that the government of this province should seek to impose regulations and standards upon the private sector which they are unwilling to live with in their own relationship with their own employees. I think that suggestion is altogether at variance with the principle of free collective bargaining and I'm surprised that the Member for Oak Bay suggests that yes, we should give a little bit of collective bargaining but not the full measure.

Now it's true that with every freedom, with every social right that citizens of this nation have, there is a measure of responsibility. And the more formidable in terms of its impact the right that the people have, then the greater the measure of responsibility that must go with it. I think we should proceed on the assumption that the working people, the working men and women of the Province of British Columbia, are indeed responsible citizens. I think we should not seek to establish secondary groups within that total concept.

It's rather interesting, Mr. Chairman, to note an article which came to my attention from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin in the state of Hawaii. There's an article here which reports on an interview with Robert Hasegawa, who's the Secretary of Labour in that state. It says:

"Best Labour Laws in U.S.

"Robert Hasegawa thinks Hawaii's workers enjoy the best labour laws in America;, and he should know. He once was a labour organizer. Now he is State Director of Labour and Industrial Relations for Gov. John A. Burns, whose administration this year started its second decade in office.

"Hasegawa said, 'Strong labour lobbying and the interest in politics of organized labour…resulted from Hawaii"s long history of repression' in which workers were treated as chattels under the 19th-century Masters and Servants Act. The rise of the labour movement after World War II changed Hawaii for good. Hasegawa put it, in his understated way, 'History has not been lost on recent Members of our Legislature.' "

In going on to describe some of the advances that have been made in that state,

"The first he mentioned is the trial-and-error period of Hawaii's 1970 law establishing collective bargaining for public employees. So far the bargaining has been rocky, especially between the state and the school teachers.

"Hasegawa had this to say: 'I don't know if the law was really helpful to government employees. I have my doubts. The government unions, prior to enactment of the law, have been highly successful in gaining legislative support. Now the collective bargaining law creates all kinds of problems, as we have seen.

" 'I should add that it's satisfying to see that elected officials in Hawaii were ready to give government employees the right to strike. In the long run, public bargaining will elevate the art of bargaining and also the quality of management. But no doubt we're going to have aches and pains before we realize the benefits of the law.' "

Now this is a recognition that the full freedom of collective bargaining, which implies the right to strike, does produce conflicts. The right to strike is meaningless unless some conflict does occur. That's the intent of the right to strike, to bring the focus of attention upon what the employees feel is a just social and economic case. While it's disruptive and while it's regrettable that this right to strike should become the customary and usual tool of collective bargaining, I suggest that any move to withdraw such a right from any group of workers is repressive and a denial of basic freedoms and certainly alien to a democratic society.

I can quote from another article in the same state.

[ Page 969 ]

MR. WALLACE: Did the doctors go on strike?

MR. GARDOM: They did.

HON. MR. KING: They certainly did. When they felt that their social and economic interests were being jeopardized they certainly went on strike.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whether you approve or not they did go on strike.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister please address the Chair?

HON. MR. KING: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Member for Oak Bay talked about the ferry workers who lacked the legal right to strike. He's quite correct. They did lack the legal right to strike, but nevertheless they went out. Now what would you suggest?

MR. WALLACE: That's wrong.

HON. MR. KING: Certainly, it may be wrong, but what is the solution? What is the solution?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let the patients die.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Are you going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, through you, that workers should be jailed and required to work? The point is that workers will strike when they feel aggrieved, whether they have the legal right or not. And by the Member's own definition, he has provided proof positive of that situation.

I just want to quote from this article again with reference to public employees. It says here:

"Now, for the first time, more than 40,000 state and county workers can bargain like those in private industry for better working conditions, wages and fringe benefits.

"Moreover, they have been given a weapon which few other states have granted their public employees. This is the right to strike when collective bargaining fails."

By golly, I think that if a state like Hawaii can display that kind of confidence in their employees and recognize the need to demonstrate the government's willingness to live by the same rules that they impose on the private sector, then I think British Columbia can do no less.

Now the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) expresses a legitimate concern when he says that there are certain areas that are very, very disruptive to society. No question about it. That's the whole theme. That's the whole thrust of the new legislation that we are trying to develop — not an arbitrary, high-handed, punitive method which has been used in the past, but rather a conciliatory approach with some new concepts which will seek to solve some of the causes that produced the strikes in the first instance.

That's how we serve the public interest, not by denying the people what is a basic democratic right. I suggest that the Provincial Secretary has brought forward a bill which is compatible with our approach to industrial relations in the private sector. I suggest that the Provincial Secretary should be commended for recognizing the fact that our civil servants are surely as responsible as the workers in the private sector. I support the bill heartily.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I was rather amused in listening to the Premier just a moment ago attempting to intimidate and threaten the Members of the opposition. "Big Brother government is going to punish you if you don't support this bill. We will go around this province and tell the people."

I'll tell you I'm sure glad that the Premier of British Columbia can't stand up in this House and say, "I'll take $2,000 off your indemnity," because that's what he would be saying here tonight.

I have listened to the Minister with interest. In his opening remarks he has suggested that in giving the right to strike to civil servants, that will mean there'll be fewer strikes. Now that's a strange statement to me because I just don't understand how, where you give the right to strike, you are going to create fewer strikes.

What we are discussing basically — despite the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey suggesting that really what we are discussing is the right to strike — is the granting of collective bargaining to the civil servants. I think it is pretty clear. The concept is a good one. I have to say that the bill will pretty well fulfill the wishes of John Fryer, BCGEU. What John Fryer wants, John Fryer gets.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against it.

MR. CHABOT: There were negotiations or collective bargaining with the Minister and John Fryer not too many months ago. I forget exactly. The press said it took 90 seconds to come to some kind of wage settlement between the civil service and the BCGEU — 90 seconds…no problem. Now the Minister, who is the employer, in fact, is suggesting that next year the civil servants, in order to catch up, need a substantial increase in wages. He is already making the open statements of how he is going to administer collective bargaining under this Act.

We see that what John Fryer wants, John Fryer gets, because in the Act we see now that the Workmen's Compensation Board has been included;

[ Page 970 ]

Manning Park Lodge, Lion's Gate Tourist Court and BCIT have also been included in the Public Service Labour Relations Act. I think we really should look at what the Higgins report had to say as to the direction of these particular groups of employees. On page 81 under the findings of the public service they had this to say:

"(1) The employees of the Workmen's Compensation Board be granted the right to collective bargaining through an amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act to provide coverage under the proposed Public Service Labour Relations Act or the Labour Relations Act. "

They gave an option for the direction of these particular employees.

"(2) The Queen's Printer to be established as a separate agency and the employees be granted the right to collective bargaining under the Labour Relations Act.

"The employees of Manning Park Lodge be granted the right to collective bargaining under the Labour Relations Act.

"The employees of the Lion's Gate Tourist Court be granted the right to collective bargaining under the Labour Relations Act."

In almost every instance that the Higgins report suggests for the usage of the Labour Relations Act, we find these groups — BCIT, WCB, Manning Park Lodge, Lion's Gate Tourist Court — all included in the Public Service Labour Relations Act. That's why I say: what John Fryer wants John Fryer gets.

We see the ferry service lumped into one of the three bargaining units. I personally believe that there should be a separate bargaining unit for the ferry workers because the ferry workers' basic responsibilities are quite dissimilar to those of the civil service. They are basically a marine service. I think that being a marine service, and because of the difference between their occupation and their conditions of work as well, they should come under a separate bargaining unit. Their wage structure and working conditions should be tied to the coast marine service of British Columbia.

The Minister might stand and say, "Well, one of the reasons that we have only three units is because we are opposed to fragmentation." I think that the units should more properly reflect the occupations of the various workers in the civil service rather than being lumped into three distinct, troublesome units. I think that all we have to do is go back and look at the federal structure of bargaining units; this is the way theirs is set up. In bargaining units during initial certification period they say "Pendant la periode de registration initiale la commission ne peut decider que…." Oh, just a moment. That's the wrong side.

"During the initial certification period, a unit of employees, in respect of whom Her Majesty, as represented by the Treasury Board, is the employer, may be determined by the board as a unit appropriate for collective bargaining only if that unit is comprised of all the employees in an occupational group, and

"(b) All the employees in an occupational group other than employees whose duties include the supervision of other employees in that occupational group."

We don't see that separation here in British Columbia. I think that if the Minister had used the kind of definition of bargaining unit used by the national government, there would be less problems in collective bargaining between the government and the civil servants. We find also, by the limited number of bargaining units, that the workers are basically locked in to the BCGEU.

If there were dissatisfaction on the part of certain employees, there would be no way of being able to go into another union. They are locked in whether they like it or not. They have no right to decide the union of their choice — which has been spelled out historically throughout the years in labour relation laws of British Columbia and other provinces.

We see the closed-shop concept included in this legislation where the Rand formula applies to employees who were employees prior to the institution of this legislation. I think that the employees — those people who are going to be covered under this new piece of labour legislation — should have an opportunity to vote on the question of whether they want the Rand formula, whether they want closed shops or whether they don't want either one. That hasn't been given to them. It is most unfortunate that the wishes of the workers of the civil service in British Columbia have not been taken into consideration.

We also see in this legislation another phony religious clause — phony because it doesn't give the true right of civil servants to opt out of not only belonging, but to contributing to unions. It is unfortunate and I am not going to go into the full arguments of this phony religious clause. I am going to read one letter which I received from a civil servant dealing with this particular thing.

There aren't that many civil servants that have strong religious convictions but I think, even though there are probably only 15 or 20, that their position should be given some form of consideration. In the letter which was just received today, he has this to say:

"It is to be regretted that Bill 11, clause 11, was passed without any heed by the government to your proposed amendment re: union dues.

"First I wish to thank you for your sincere efforts on behalf of a small number of people who have a genuine conscience as to paying

[ Page 971 ]

union dues to the union. Unless something can be done, this will now result in some persons, who are still working and in the employ of the provincial government, in having to leave their jobs after serving for a long number of years.

"These men had young families in most cases, but cannot go against their genuine conscience towards God. It seems as though the government has no regard for the Bill of Rights.

"Could you give me some advice on this matter? Is it possible for us to appeal to anyone? Could this be done to an ombudsman? If so, it should be done immediately, as the matter is urgent.

"What will happen is that as soon as these persons have union dues deducted from wages they will immediately object and be forced to leave the employ of the government."

"Another question is: Would they be eligible for relief if this becomes necessary?"

I presume that what he is suggesting as relief is social welfare…. These few people who are employed under civil service have been put in a tremendously difficult position by the lack of consideration given them in the religious conscience clause of this Act.

We see that the government intends cancelling again another contract, the memorandum of understanding between the ferry employees and the former government. It is most regrettable that that has been cancelled by legislation. I thought it would have righted itself after the signing of a collective agreement, but one wonders when the legislation will be implemented and whether there will be a gap between the legislation and the signing of a collective agreement that might or might not include the articles in the memorandum of understanding with the ferry workers.

One other thing shocked me not too long ago when I read in the press that the Minister will be the guest speaker at the B.C. Government Employees' Union convention.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You know, it makes me think, and I wonder: would the IWA invite J.V. Clyne, would the IWA invite Robert Bonner to their annual convention as guest speaker? Certainly not. Certainly not. But we see now the Minister going to speak to the annual convention of the B.C. Government Employees Union. He'd better have some goodies for them. He'd better have some good suggestions and some goodies to hand out.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I don't think the Minister was speaking at that convention. If he did….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: We are dealing with a completely different situation here (Laughter) and why we're dealing with a different situation is because we have a PSLRA Act now. I think that's an entirely different situation. Whether the Minister agrees or not, it reminds me of J.V. Clyne going to the IWA, the Minister going to speak to the BCGEU.

Again, this has been pointed out by other Members who spoke prior to me. The government has given no consideration to the question of essential services, and I must just ask: can we tolerate strikes in areas of essential services in British Columbia? I think there should be a very clear definition of the areas that are considered essential within the public service. And once they are defined, there should be a procedure established that after collective bargaining has taken place there is an arbitration formula to ensure that there is no public inconvenience.

It appears to me that the government is not overly concerned about the question of public inconvenience, and I think if there are a series of strikes in the essential service field, the government will have to, in due course, reconsider the direction in which they are leading the civil service of British Columbia. And you'd better believe that they are leading the civil service, and giving them, and spelling out, and saying very clearly that they have the blanket right of strike. Once you make these statements, I think that even in the essential services people will tend to disrupt public interest situations which the public will not tolerate.

The legislation is one which can probably be better discussed in committee stage, and at that particular time, whether the Minister, whether the Premier or any other Member of the NDP agrees or disagrees, I think that we should have an opportunity to discuss amendments which will improve and make the Act far more workable, and not only more workable but take into consideration that vital concern of some people in this House — the public interest.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: I want to just briefly go over some of the comments that were made in closing this debate, and in reverse order. I would like to address myself for a couple of minutes, if I may, to the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

He spent a great deal of his time talking about collusion, and I reject that kind of inference. I reject the kind of doubt he is trying to put in the minds of the Members of this Legislative Assembly.

It would be more than passing strange if I, as the Provincial Secretary, didn't have to meet with the executive secretary of the B.C. Government

[ Page 972 ]

Employees Union. It would be more than passing strange if I didn't meet with Ms. Paton of the registered nurses. It would be more than passing strange if I didn't meet with Mr. Wenham of the psychiatric nurses. And I don't suppose you, as a member of the cabinet before, even knew their names!

He talks about giving the green light for substantial increases. You'd better believe this government stands for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work for 40,000 employees in this province. When you sat over here and saw civil servants getting less than the minimum wage….

AN HON. MEMBER: And did nothing about it.

HON. MR. HALL: Less than the minimum wage! Now then, having used my voice the way those two people over there do, showing that we can all go through that kind of stuff….

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: I want to tell you that you quote the Higgins report when it serves your purpose.

MR. CHABOT: Don wants to see you.

HON. MR. HALL: …in terms of some of the structures, but when it serves your purpose about the number of units you fly from the Higgins report and pick up the Federal Service Alliance with its 18-month delay and all the other delays that the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) talked about.

He uses words, Mr. Speaker as he closed his speech he said, "These people" meaning the civil servants of this province — "intend to disrupt these essential services."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. HALL: Inflammatory. Read Hansard, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow. They will be on the tape.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in response to that Member, when he questions the propriety of me attending a convention of the B.C. Government Employees Union, that I wasn't the first cabinet Minister to go there. The Member for Victoria, Mr. Waldo Skillings, went there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, the guy who used to fall down.

HON. MR. HALL: In Prince George he attended the government union convention, Mr. Speaker, with Dr. Crispo, a renowned expert in labour-management relations, and when Professor Crispo said it was his opinion that the members of the public service of British Columbia should have free collective bargaining, the Hon. Waldo Skillings went to the microphone and said they should not have collective bargaining and he was booed off the stage and out of Prince George.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And out of office.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), the ex-leader of the Liberal Party, summed his position up very well. He wants the civil service of this province treated like any other group, and that's exactly what we are going to do, so I expect to see him standing on his feet supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talks about the principles inherent in this bill. The principle of this bill is to provide full and free collective bargaining for the civil servants of British Columbia. By my language, my set of principles, that means the right to strike. That means the right to strike.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: I don't see, Mr. Member, how you can support one and not the other without changing the words "collective bargaining," but that's a semantic argument that we can have from time to time throughout the sections.

Your remarks, though, about whether there are any private arrangements going — the answer is no, there are no private arrangements going. I have reported to the press on a number of occasions the presence of committees, as I reported to the House this afternoon. The cutting that you quote from I don't know about, I would be pleased to see it. You mentioned the words "tacit agreement." I am hopeful that in the preliminary rounds of negotiation that many, many members of the civil service will take all sorts of approaches to the business of collective bargaining and come up with all sorts of solutions and all sorts of accommodations that will meet some of the misgivings expressed by the Member in the sincere way that we know he does. But certainly there are no private arrangements, no tacit agreements, no under-the-counter deals, no sealed doors, no closed doors.

But I will say this: it was my desire when I was given this portfolio to start talking to people who work for us. It has never been done before. I found out that members of the union had never been in the offices of the cabinet Ministers in any great measure at all. There are a number of civil servants who have come to me over the year and said that it was a pleasure and a unique occasion to find themselves engaged in discussions of vital affairs that affect their

[ Page 973 ]

day-to-day existence.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Without being canned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Santa Claus.

HON. MR. HALL: You can call that Santa Claus, you can call that what you will. I call it an alert, progressive, personnel management policy by this government in this day and age.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) asked for my views on the propriety of any amendments by virtue of his reference to the ruling out of order of two amendments on two different bills in times gone by. I cannot give any assurances; I can't speak for the House.

In a slack moment this afternoon I looked up the authorities in May. It seems to me that going for a declaratory opinion would not succeed. The Speaker, his duty clearly outlined in a number of books here, cannot give an opinion before the event. I must leave that question as one that's beyond my competence as a Member of this House.

He did say, however, that this bill, because it included the right to strike, was as phony as a $3 bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, we'll see whether he's going to vote for a $3 bill or not. I reject that kind of debate; I reject that kind of argument. I don't think it does anything at all for the passage or the amendments or the alteration of legislation when one starts in that vein.

I will, however, say to him that I will look at section 27 to make sure that the misgivings he has are proven unfounded. If necessary, I will certainly ask my Civil Service Commission and the legislative draftsman to look at that if it needs any amendment whatsoever.

I will say that his remarks about his own $1,500 and the delays in getting retroactive pay are not things peculiar to the effects of collective bargaining. We've had retroactive pay in this public service for years and years and years and years. It was my duty when I became Provincial Secretary to finalize some of the collective bargaining in the Liquor Control Board. They got retroactive pay and I made it abundantly clear that those people who had left the service but who, in effect, were entitled to those payments were found, That should take care of the misgivings that the Second Member for Victoria had expressed about the length of time it takes to get some of these settlements.

Mr. Speaker, the official spokesman for the opposition (Mr. McClelland) had a number of points. He said that the bill contained no prohibition of strikes. That's true. That perhaps sorts us out.

He said there's no requirement to bargain collectively. I ask him to look at section 9.

He says there's no requirement to take a vote before striking. I ask him to look at section 17.

He made remarks about section 27 which I've just dealt with under my remarks to the Member for Victoria.

He asked me to explain why I had rejected some of the Higgins recommendations. It's simply a question of value judgments. Had we put all these structures that the commission of inquiry was looking at, we would have had, in my view, more employees looking after the public service than were housed in the Department of Labour. I had to look at that aspect of it.

But more importantly, I thought, having had so much experience over the years in management, in personnel administration, that my thoughts were entitled to be looked at as the Minister who is going to carry the can, if you like, on some of this.

I had the input from the union; I had the input from nurses and professional people; I had briefs by the dozens. Then my cabinet colleagues got to work on it and on me, and this is frankly the best distillation of the information and the advice and experience that the Treasury benches and the government Members can offer to you. We'll stand and fall, I guess, on that.

I will say that the particular remarks he made about the definition of an employee are really the differences, I suppose, in the definition section between this bill, which seeks to deal with public servants, and a bill that would deal with the private sector. He has put his finger on something that is quite accurate: there will be far fewer exclusions from the collective bargaining process in the public service than ever the private sector would experience.

That's a view I think is in line with providing the benefits of collective bargaining. It's a view that's in line with our ideological stance. It's a view that's in line with the Higgins report, even though they call for the exclusion of managerial people.

The definition, I think, that should be looked at in this is that we should exclude those people who are engaged in labour-management relations. After that, the benefits of collective bargaining should be available for the maximum number of people. I'm pleased to say that the reports from the working committees are that we've reached the level of exclusion which is considerably smaller in number than some of the pessimists ever thought was possible.

I, however, must reject some of the intemperate language — it was a little while ago, so I've cooled off a bit — about inviting people to strike. The unholy preoccupation with two or three Members on the opposite side about strikes seems to me to be not starting this kind of process off in the best light.

I remember very well when I used to be called

[ Page 974 ]

from time to time a prophet of doom and gloom, but I don't think I ever took the advantage of the introduction of second reading of a bill to thrash around so much in the negative aspects of a bill as I saw some of the Members do on the other side. However, that's part of the role of opposition and I don't reject it out of hand. I just say that perhaps signifies the difference between a group that is only prepared to give way a little, in the sense of the Liberal argument; to not give anything at all in the sense of the Conservative argument; and to be recently repentant on the part of the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 42

NAYS — 2

PAIRED

Bill 75 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon at the beginning of the proceedings I brought to your attention a matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I'm still considering the matter, because it is a matter that deserves considerable study. I intend to, I hope, by 8:30 when we meet again this evening, deal with the question that you've raised.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.