[ Page 2575 ]

CONTENTS

Seating of new member

Mr. D. Barrett (Vancouver East) seated in the House — 2575

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2575

Mr. King — 2576

Mr. Gibson — 2576

Mr. Wallace — 2576

Mr. Barrett — 2576

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Food price increases. Ms. Sanford — 2576

Mount Stephen property. Mr. Wallace — 2576

Transfer of BCR to the federal government. Mr. Gibson — 2577

Ferry fares for senior citizens. Mr. Macdonald — 2577

Disposal of government forest product companies. Mr. Skelly — 2577

Safety regulations for fairground rides. Mr. Wallace — 2577

Minister of Labour on Swan Valley Foods board of directors.

Mr. Nicolson — 2578

Ladysmith Harbour report. Mrs. Wallace — 2578

Fares on Sechelt Queen. Mr. Lockstead — 2578

$15 fares on ferry routes. Mr. Gibson — 2578

Review of grazing permits. Mrs. Wallace — 2579

Discussions on humane trapping. Mr. Skelly — 2579

Food standards on Sechelt Queen. Ms. Sanford — 2579

Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 58). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2579 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2601

Mr. King — 2584 Mr. Gibson — 2601

Mr. Gibson — 2588 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2601

Mr. Wallace — 2591 Mr. King — 2602

Mr. Kempf — 2595 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2602

Hon. Mr. Williams 2595 On section 7.

Division on second reading — 2598 Mr. King — 2602

Committee stage. Hon. Mr. Williams — 2603

Amendment to section 1. Mr. King — 2603

Mr. King — 2598 Mr. Lauk — 2604

Mr. Chainnan rules out of order. — 2598 Mr. Lloyd — 2604

Amendment to section 1. Mr. King — 2604

Hon.'Mr. Williams — 2599 Mr. Lauk — 2604

On section 2. Hon. Mr. Williams — 2605

Mr. King — 2599 Mr. Barrett — 2605

Mr. Lea — 2599 Mr. King — 2606

On section 3. On section 8.

Mr. King — 2599 Mr. King — 2606

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2599 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2606

Mr. King — 2600 Mr. King — 2607

On section 4. Mr. Lauk — 2607

Mr. King — 2600 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2607

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2600 Mr. Wallace — 2607

Mr. Lea — 2600 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2607

On section 5. On section 10.

Mr. Wallace — 2600 Mr. King — 2607

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2607

On section 11.

Mr. King — 2608

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2608

Mr. King — 2608

On section 14.

Mr. King — 2608

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2609

Amendment to section 15.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2609

On section 15 as amended.

Mr. Lauk — 2609

Amendment to section 16.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2610

On section 16 as amended.

Appendix — 2613

Mr. Wallace — 2610

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2610

Mr. King — 2611

Amendments to section 17.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2612

On section 17 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 2612

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2612

Amendments to section 22.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2612

On section 22 as amended.

Mr. King — 2612

Report and third reading — 2613

Royal assent to Bill 58 — 2613

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, from the great constituency of Coquitlam, are some very special guests, Mrs. Waring, Mrs. Sheren and Mrs. McEachern. I would ask the House to make them welcome, please.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon is Mrs. Marlene Smale, a constituent from the riding of Vancouver Centre. I would like the House to welcome her.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, we will also have in the gallery this afternoon the students from Mt. Klitsa Secondary School in Port Alberni, under the supervision of their teachers, Tom Paul and Russ McLaughlin. I would like the assembly to make them welcome.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the gallery this afternoon a group of some 12 constituents from Cowichan-Malahat and, if I may, I would like you to especially welcome my husband Robert and my son Gregory.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to welcome to the gallery a lady who has spent many long-suffering hours sitting in this gallery, Mrs. Shirley Barrett.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery today we have Mayor Boothe of Surnmerland, accompanied by the recreation director and a member of city council. I would ask the House to welcome them.

CLERK:

Office of the Deputy Provincial
Secretary
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, British Columbia,

June 14, 1976

Mr. Ian M. Home, Q.C.,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly,
Parliament Buildings

Dear Sir:

RE: By-election, Vancouver East electoral district, June 3, 1976

I enclose herewith certified copy of the certificate of Mr. K.L. Morton, Chief Electoral Officer, representing the election of David Barrett to represent the Vancouver East electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours very truly,
(Signed)
L.J. Wallace,
Deputy Provincial Secretary
Chief Electoral Officer,

June 14, 1976

Mr. L.J. Wallace,
Deputy Provincial Secretary,
Parliament Buildings

RE: By-election, June 3, 1976, Vancouver East electoral district

Dear Mr. Wallace:

The resignation, effective February 27, 1976, of Robert Arthur Williams, the second member for the Vancouver East electoral district, caused a vacancy to occur in the Legislative Assembly. A writ calling for a by-election to fill that vacancy was issued on April 29, 1976; polling day being June 3, 1976.

From the writ now returned to me, I hereby certify the election of David Barrett as the member to represent the Vancouver East electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours truly,
(Signed)
K.L. Morton,
Chief Electoral Officer and
Registrar- General of Voters

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the letter of the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificate of the chief electoral officer of the result of the election of the member be entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, having been declared duly elected, having taken the oath of allegiance and having signed the parliamentary roll, please take your seat.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure on behalf of the government to welcome the new member, the second member for Vancouver East, to this House once again. Our second member for Vancouver East has served this House well in the past. He has in the past many years in this House contributed to the political life of this province in no small measure.

I would say to him that we welcome him back on two accounts. We welcome him back because it

[ Page 2576 ]

certainly will be a load off the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who has had a double load to carry these past few months. I know it's been very strenuous on him.

I say, through you, to the new member for Vancouver East, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome him on behalf of the Premier, who is attending a first ministers' conference in Ottawa, along with four other members of our cabinet. On behalf of them and all members of our House, I bid you a very warm welcome.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I just want to say on behalf of the official opposition and as the interim House Leader of the official opposition how gratified and pleased I am to turn over those duties formally to our leader, the second member for Vancouver East. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the warmth of the government's welcome is in no way dissipated as the weeks roll by in this House. (Laughter.)

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party and following an extremely close contest in Vancouver East with the Liberal candidate, I want to express warm personal regards to the Leader of the Opposition, returned to articulate so forcefully his deeply held views for the benefit of the province.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition in his tremendous victory at the polls. I feel that regardless of one's political philosophy it is important in a democratic system to have a strong opposition, especially when we're all outnumbered two to one.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Oh!

MR. WALLACE: The undemocratic member for Columbia River thinks otherwise, but I do believe that strong opposition is important. I have the greatest respect for the Leader of the Opposition and I look forward to the style and flair and the good humour that he so frequently brings to the House. Although I say all these nice things about him, that doesn't mean that there's any kind of coalition developing. (Laughter.)

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, since everybody else is out of order, I suppose I can continue being out of order. I hope that I can respond as positively to my constituents as my colleague, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and my predecessor, the former second member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams).

I wish to thank all the members for their very kind welcome. I appreciate the well-thought words and well-chosen comments. I would only ask one favour, Mr. Speaker — that during my maiden speech I not be heckled.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents a report, the opening statement of the Province of British Columbia to the federal-provincial conference of First Ministers taking place in Ottawa.,

Oral questions.

FOOD PRICE INCREASES

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer Services.

The minister has reported that he sent a letter to the chairman of the Anti-inflation Board asking "exactly what he intends to do" about the huge increase in food costs in B.C. The minister is reported as admitting that B.C. has the authority to control food prices. Will the minister please tell the House exactly what he intends to do and when he intends to get around to doing it?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend at this time to relay to the House what future government policy may well be in this field. I confirm that a letter is about to go to Mr. Pepin. I had thought it had actually left the office when that report was given. But it has been signed. It has not yet left the office. It is going today.

We will continue to monitor food prices. We will continue to insist that the Government of Canada do what it set out to do in its inflation controls in the private sector. As far as the government's policy is concerned, I'm not prepared to make a statement about that at this point.

MS. SANFORD: On a supplementary question. Well, Mr. Speaker, on Friday, for instance, increases were announced in the price of bread and chicken and turkey that were about to take place before the end of this month, and I'm wondering if the minister could advise us if he is taking any action in those three specific areas.

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer is no.

MOUNT STEPHEN PROPERTY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing, and perhaps the minister was intending a

[ Page 2577 ]

statement, but I'll ask this question anyway.

Can he confirm that the so-called Mount Stephen property close to Hillside and Fernwood, which was purchased from the city of Victoria in 1974 for $190,000, is now being offered for sale to private developers at an asking price of $600,000?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Oak Bay, as well as to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who raised this matter last Thursday: I take the question as notice. We'll have comments later.

TRANSFER OF BCR
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Economic Development. On June 9 I asked the minister if there were talks going on inside the government with respect to the possible transfer, one way or another, of the BCR to the federal government or the CN. The minister apparently took my question to mean talks with Ottawa. I meant talks inside the government, and I'd like to follow that up.

Could the minister tell us if there have been, or are in progress, any studies of the costs and benefits of such a potential transfer and, if so, whether that study will be made public?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, not to my knowledge.

FERRY FARES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications is he aware that in fact senior citizens travelling from Vancouver to Victoria, or back the other way, do not, Monday to Thursday, get a free ride on the boat, because in fact they pay more for their bus ticket when they don't buy the ticket on the boat? In other words, if they pay the $4, they get that bus ticket for $2.25, from downtown to downtown, but if they are riding free they pay $3.50 for the bus ticket. The result is that they're really paying $1.25 for what is supposed to be a free ride. Is the minister of that?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes, and it's under investigation.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary. If you're advertising that it's free for senior citizens, and in fact they're being done this $1.25, is that not under the Consumer Protection Act?

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT
FOREST PRODUCT COMPANIES

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Forests: have there been any correspondence or discussions between the government and MacMillan Bloedel, or any other company, concerning a management contract to operate B.C. Cellulose, Canadian Cellulose or Twin Rivers Timber?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question, not to my knowledge.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Have there been discussions or correspondence concerning disposal of the government's equity in any of these companies to MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, no.

SAFETY REGULATIONS
FOR FAIRGROUND RIDES

MR. WALLACE: To the Attorney-General: in view of the near tragedy which occurred in Colwood at the weekend, when one of the scrambler rides at the fairground caught fire, I would assume that the Attorney-General has some responsibility under the fire marshal's office. If not, perhaps the Attorney-General could direct my question to whichever minister is responsible.

I understand there are absolutely no licensing or permit requirements to operate such highly risky pieces of machinery. I'm wondering if the provincial government, through the Attorney-General or the appropriate minister, is taking any initiative to review the need for regulations in order to assure public safety.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the hon. member for the question. I'm unaware of the matter he has referred to. I'll have it looked into and give him a report.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the cooperation of the Minister of Labour, who has just raised his hand and wants to answer the question. I gather that the Minister of Labour has some responsibility in this matter and perhaps he could help the Attorney-General answer my first question.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay: The matter of safety of devices used at fairs in the province — merry-go-rounds, ferris wheels, scramblers and the like — appears to follow the purview of the Factories Act, which is the responsibility of the Department of

[ Page 2578 ]

Labour.

Several weeks ago instructions were given to the associate deputy minister in charge of that part of the department to examine into the appropriateness of regulations which might be imposed to ensure that just such accidents as this do not occur. I hope that t we will very soon be in a position to provide regulations which may preclude repetition of such incidents.

MINISTER OF LABOUR ON SWAN
VALLEY FOODS BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour: has the Minister of Labour been appointed to the board of directors of Swan Valley Foods, and if the answer is yes, is he still on the board of directors?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is yes.

LADYSMITH HARBOUR REPORT

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. I wonder if he could yet tell me the date he expects the Ladysmith Harbour report finalized, and also whether or not he intends to file a copy with the House when it is complete.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): I'm afraid I do not have a specific date, but certainly a copy will be filed.

FARES ON SECHELT QUEEN

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Highways: is the minister aware that the fare structure on the Sechelt Queen, which is operated by the Department of Highways, has been doubled since June 1 of this year?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, to the member, yes, I am aware.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplemental to the hon. minister: in view of the fact that B.C. Ferries has reduced fares to residents in the Powell River and Sunshine Coast area regional area, has the minister any plans to reduce fares on the Sechelt Queen to residents of the Powell River–Comox area?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

$15 FARE ON FERRY ROUTES

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications: will any of the vehicles paying a $15 fare on routes one and two of the B.C. Ferries, on the grounds they take up more space, be parked under or on the ramps of the ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member means will they be parked under the wings, those special wings that were installed in the stretch ferries, the answer is no.

MR. GIBSON: What I mean, and the question I would now ask the minister, is why certain camper vans that will fit underneath the ramps, even though they're technically over the height limits, should be charged extra on the grounds that they take up more space when in fact they take up less room than a full-sized standard North American car. Some of the small camper vans.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the regulation has to do with height, and there are areas in the larger vessels in which height is a limitation. That is the only proviso at the moment. Investigations have been made as to the feasibility of measuring length of the vehicles as well, but that is difficult; the apparatus isn't available at the moment, and it's under consideration.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, to put the question in another way, and I hope the minister can answer this in the affirmative: will he guarantee that any vehicle, irrespective of the measured height, that will fit under those ramps will only be charged the ordinary fare?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, before the minister answers the question I would just like to draw to his attention Beauchesne and point out to him that it's out of order to repeat in substance a question already answered.

MR. GIBSON: He hasn't understood it yet, I don't think.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the criterion, essentially, is that of height. There has to be an allowance for vehicles to clear that height; if they are approaching at different angles there has to be some latitude given. One figure had to be chosen — that of six feet, five inches was chosen. It does allow, for example, a Volkswagen van to just get under the height; similar vehicles are all paying the $10 fee and not the $15 fee.

[ Page 2579 ]

REVIEW OF GRAZING PERMITS

MRS. WALLACE: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Forests in his capacity as Minister of Forests. I wonder if he could tell me whether or not he is contemplating a review of the grazing permits as presently issued to ranchers and whether or not he has, in fact, instituted any changes in the requirements in order to obtain those permits during his tenure of office.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member's question, a consultant has been employed by the Department of Forests for some time now. In fact, he was engaged prior to the change in government. He has been studying possible ways of making the range management more effective. He has not yet concluded his work. However, there are some moves being Made into fuller management of the range on a cooperative basis by various ranchers. No significant changes have been made to this time.

DISCUSSIONS ON HUMANE TRAPPING

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry. I understand that the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals has wired her asking that the issue of humane trapping be referred to a select standing committee of the Legislature. Has the minister responded to that telegram? If so, what are the contents of the response?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as to the contents of the telegram I have received from the organization involved, I have visited with them about a week and a half ago. We are trying to arrange yet another visit because our visit was interrupted and we didn't get all of our business concluded. My office is attempting to get a time with them so that we can directly involve ourselves with the matters at hand. I was able to give them 45 minutes of my time, but we were interrupted by the visit of the Governor-General of Canada to Victoria.

FOOD STANDARDS ON SECHELT QUEEN

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Highways. Last week I asked the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) a question with respect to the food standards aboard the Sechelt Queen with respect to the food that is being dispensed there since the cafeterias have been done away with. I am wondering if the minister is aware of any complaints that exist on those ferries with respect to food and, if not, if he would kindly investigate the situation.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), when the question was directed to the Minister of Health last week, I did look into it. I am not aware of complaints, but I did find out that the food that is placed on those vessels is prior-inspected where it is packaged, and I believe that is in Campbell River, where it is supplied. But I will look into it further.

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the question period today, Hon. Members.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 58, by leave.

Leave granted.

RAILWAY AND FERRIES
BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to place Bill 58 before the House for second reading and to commend it to all of the members as an important piece of legislation for all of the citizens of British Columbia who rely to any degree on the maintenance of efficient transportation systems in this province.

Bill 58 has been specifically designed to achieve two distinct purposes. First, it employs binding arbitration to bring an end to the existing dispute between the United Transportation Union and the British Columbia Railway. This is the effect of Part II of the bill. I draw to your attention that this part will expire when it has served its purpose of restoring normal operations to the railway. All members are aware of the long saga of the dispute which this bill will bring to a conclusion. I will provide some details of this later in my remarks.

The second purpose of Bill 58 is to provide some new legislative measures that will assist collective bargaining — free collective bargaining — in these two paramount public transportation services of provincial significance, the ferry system and the railway.

Taken together these measures offer the negotiating parties what has been aptly described as the choice-of-procedures approach to public interest disputes. Labour relations experience has provided ample evidence that genuine negotiations are hampered when there is the certainty of government intervention. In those cases neither side wishes to make necessary compromises because the hope exists that the intervention of the government will better their positions — one or the other of them.

As the former Secretary of Labour of the United States once observed: "One possible conclusion from

[ Page 2580 ]

the debate about whether an emergency labour dispute should be handled by injunction, seizure, compulsory arbitration, fact-finding or mediation is that the Answer to this riddle lies perhaps less in any one of these devices than it does in all of them."

It is my feeling, Mr. Speaker, that the choice-of-procedures approach encourages collective bargaining and genuine negotiations at the same time it preserves uncertainty about any role which the government might play.

Under Bill 59 the choices provided to improve industrial relations in the railway and ferry service are several. First, there is the provision for the establishment of a special commission whose function it will be to take a long thorough look at the basic relationships between the employer, the employee and his union and to make recommendations regarding methods to improve those relations. I consider this to be a paramount objective of this bill. With particular respect to the British Columbia Railway, I would like to refer to you, Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by Mr. Owen Shime Q.C., the chairman of the three-man board of arbitration which recently brought down a binding award in the case of three of the four unions which have outstanding disputes with the railway. Following the conduct of the arbitration hearings, Mr. Shime concluded:

"The industrial relations condition of the British Columbia Railway was chaotic and unstable, and, where it was not implicit in the submissions, it became not only a reasonable but an obvious inference to be readily drawn from the submissions. The main source of the difficulty appears to be the fragmentation by separate unions with the inherent problem of each bargaining representative vying with the other to demonstrate its prowess in the collective bargaining arena."

I find that to be a telling quote, Mr. Speaker. From it the members may well conclude, as I have, that personalities as well as conditions are a contributing factor to the unhealthy labour relations climate which exists today and has existed for some considerable time on the railway. Indeed we can conclude that something is very seriously out of joint. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the members that in recent history labour disputes affecting this railway have been remarkable by their frequency and by their effects. If I may just refer very briefly to dates going back through September 1973, there was a dispute between the railway and the United Transportation Union involving 450 workers and 1,350 man-days lost; in October 1973 the shopcraft union — 383 workers, 3,064 man-days lost; again in November of 1974 to January 1975 the shopcraft — 550 workers, 18,150 man-days lost; August of 1975, United Transportation Union and CUTE — another 70 man-days lost; the same two unions later in the same month, August 29, 1975, there were 60 man-days lost; the same two unions again in September of 1975 — 90 man-days lost; the United Transportation Union again on September 12, 1975 — six man-days lost; the Teamsters in January of 1976 — 290 workers involved, 1,450 man-days lost; the Teamsters again in March of 1976 — 290 workers involved, 5,510 man-days lost; and more recently, since May 6, by reason of action taken by the United Transportation Union which has been characterized by the Labour Relations Board as a strike, responded to by the railway in laying off those employees who are not required because of the action of the trainmen's union, we have had a strike and extensive layoffs which still continue.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 58 empowers a special commission to develop and implement a job-evaluation scheme for the railway because of the need to remove any inequities that have developed over the years from the fragmented bargaining which has taken place in this transportation service, together with political interference in the management and the operation of that railway service which is so essential to the economy of this province — political interference which this government has, as a matter of policy, determined to end. The British Columbia Railway will be run by railroaders, and not by politicians. I have made that clear through all my involvement over these past six months in my discussion with both management of the railway and the representatives of the unions who are involved in this operation.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): How about the board of directors?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the board of directors will be people who are equipped to manage a railway in a businesslike manner — for the first time.

MR. LEA: Any politicians?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: And there will be no politicians on the board of directors.

MR. LEA: Or ex-politicians?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: And no ex-politicians on the board of directors.

Mr. Speaker, in referring to the responsibilities of the special commission, while I do not wish to be out of order, I think it appropriate to direct your attention and that of the members to the provisions of section 3 of the Act, where the special commission will be charged with an inquiry into all matters pertaining to the relationships between an employer and its employees or their trade unions, and the

[ Page 2581 ]

disputes and differences arising between them, with a view to securing and maintaining industrial peace and furthering harmonious relationships between them. It will apply both to the railway and to the ferry service as may be required.

It will not, however, Mr. Speaker — and I emphasize this — be the function of the special commission to involve itself in the problems that arise during the negotiation of collective agreements. This kind of assistance will be provided by other methods, one of which is the appointment of a special mediator. I regard the provision for the use of special mediators as the second basic measure in the choice of procedures offered by this bill.

I shall refer to that in a few moments, Mr. Speaker, but first I wish to draw to your attention a parallel that exists between the appointment of a special commission under the terms of this bill, and a step which was taken by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) when he was Minister of Labour in May of 1975. At that time the former minister saw the need to do something to help straighten out the labour mess on the B.C. Railway. His answer was to appoint a special officer, Mr. Clive McKee, with the following terms of reference:

"To examine the conduct of industrial relations by management and by the certified trade unions of the British Columbia Railway.

"To make recommendations to management and to labour for improving the climate and the structure of collective bargaining and the administration of collective agreements in the British Columbia Railway.

"To make such orders as he considers necessary or advisable pursuant to section 114 of the Labour Code of British Columbia.

"To report on developments of collective bargaining procedures by the railroad to the Minister of Labour as soon as possible."

Mr. Speaker, the generality of the terms of reference given to the special officer are not different to the duties outlined for the special commission which is provided in this Bill 58. We may use different language and different numbers, but the similarity in the objective must be quite evident to all members.

I point out to you, however, that unfortunately the work of the special officer appointed by the former minister came to nought. Through no fault of Mr. McKee's or the minister's, his appointment was pre-empted by the immediate and overwhelming problems of contract negotiations that the railway was then and still is experiencing. The labour relations mess that Mr. McKee was to confront was so chaotic as to bog him down from the outset due to the negotiations then underway, and his work was therefore aborted. No report or recommendations were ever received. The Labour Code of British Columbia is obviously inadequate. Once the contract expires, then any special officer appointed into such a dispute cannot discharge his responsibilities.

I believe the former minister had embarked on a proper course of action in attempting to find a way of bringing order to industrial relations on the B.C. Railway. He may recall that I welcomed the appointment of the special officer at that time.

However, nothing was achieved, and in fact the situation continued to deteriorate, as the former minister recognized in October 1975 when Bill 146 was put before this Legislature. The purpose of that bill, entitled the Collective Bargaining Continuance Act, was to permit negotiations to continue during a three-month cooling off period, during which no strikes or lockouts would be allowed, and the people of British Columbia would be assured of the continued operation of the railway.

I remind the House that the British Columbia Railway and its unions were included in the back-to-work order of Bill 146, even though there was no general work stoppage on the railway at the time of the introduction of the bill, yet the former government was obviously concerned about what might happen on the railway in the weeks and months ahead, for the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) said during the course of the debate of Bill 146:

Some people may ask why, since there is no general and widespread work stoppage on the railroad at the moment, we have included the railway and the two unions involved in the bargaining and, incidentally, in a legal strike position — the United Transportation Union and CUTE which now represents the engineers on that property.

I must say that we have had work stoppages. We have had rotating strikes on the railway, and when we look at the history of negotiations on the railway over the last number of years, we have to be concerned that the distinct possibility of a further and prolonged work stoppage does exist.

Mr. Speaker, how prophetic the member for Revelstoke-Slocan was when he made that statement in this Legislature. This bill is designed to eliminate the consequences which have arisen since his prophecy became true.

Mr. Speaker, the former minister went on to say:

I had, just a few days ago, appointed an industrial inquiry commission to investigate into and make recommendations regarding a collective agreement between the United Transportation Union and the B.C. Railway. Yesterday, I received a telegram from the chairman of the bargaining committee for the UTU, Mr. Glenn Bowes, requesting that I withdraw the appointment of Mr. Sherlock and attacking the manner in which Mr. Sherlock had initiated his investigations.

The former minister continued:

I can say that I am saddened and upset by this turn of events. I can say that this is the first time since I

[ Page 2582 ]

have been Minister of Labour in this province that the integrity or the approach of any third party that I have ever appointed has been attacked.

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with those remarks for, as the members will recall, I also had occasion to appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner into the B.C. Rail dispute. The commissioner was not Mr. Jack Sherlock; it was Mr. Justice Craig Monroe of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And he, too, was attacked by the same person who attacked Mr. Sherlock. You may recall that I expressed my sense of outrage at those remarks and solicited an apology; that apology was never forthcoming. So the former minister and I have that, at least, in common; our shared regret that the independent third parties whom we had separately appointed have both been the subject of unwarranted, incomprehensible attacks and, more importantly, we share the desire to make right the labour-management situation on the British Columbia Railway so that its service can continue for the benefit of the provincial economy in general and for those individuals and communities who are dependent upon its services.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, in third reading of the bill dealing with the hospital disputes, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) rose to express his appreciation to those people in our community of skill and experience who make themselves available as third parties in labour-management disputes. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and all the members, that we are very limited in the number of people of skill and experience in this province who will make themselves available for the very difficult and challenging task which is placed before them in attempting, as a third party acting independently, to resolve serious differences between management and labour.

I would also remind you that unwarranted criticism for the job that they do, to the best of their ability, only limits the number of people who will stand forward for this service and, indeed, discourage some from ever doing it again. The loss of that kind of assistance is to lose one of the most valuable tools, and there are so few of them available to us in this difficult field.

Mr. Speaker, let me refer once more to a statement made by the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) during Bill 146 debate:

In the light of past history, in the light of these developments

— and he was then referring to the history which he had experienced with regard to the British Columbia Railway —

I have little confidence, quite frankly, that unless this dispute were included in the bill that is before this House

— that was Bill 146 —

that I may not be back here within a short time asking for remedies to a vital link with the northern part of British Columbia, the railway which provides needed supplies and needed commerce to isolated areas of the province.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I am here introducing this bill today. It is because we must have a remedy for this vital link with the northern part of British Columbia which provides needed supplies and needed commerce to isolated areas of the province; and it is so essential to the economy of this province, the regrowth that we require and the cure to serious unemployment situations which are affecting us in all parts of this province.

It could hardly be more clear that even at the time of the imposition of the no-strike, no-lockout cooling-off period on the British Columbia Railway, the former minister realized that some other remedy might be needed to ensure the future operation of the railway.

The question is: what remedy would he have in mind which, as he stated, would necessitate the recall of the Legislature? It is apparent there is only one obvious and workable answer to that under all the circumstances, and that is a provision for binding arbitration by legislative enactment.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there have been four disputes unresolved since the end of Bill 146 — four contracts with regard to the railway. Three of the unions, following discussions with the Minister of Labour and with the management of the railway, saw fit to use binding arbitration as a method of resolving those issues. The one union still remains unsettled, with no mechanism for the resolutions between it and the railway management.

This bill provides, in Part 11, for the settlement of the UTU dispute with the BCR by binding arbitration. I emphasize: Part 11 provides for the settlement of the UTU dispute with the B.C. Railway by binding arbitration. I have concluded that there is no other way out of this impasse, and I am sure this must be recognized by every member of the House.

In turning to the other long-range objective of this bill, may I remark, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 146 served a worthwhile purpose in that it put thousands of members of our labour force back to work at a time when the existence of four separate disputes in the province was threatening the well-being of the economy of British Columbia. In that sense, Bill 146 was welcome. Yet Bill 146 was a failure as an industrial relations measure, for after the expiration of the 90-day cooling-off period and the subsequent 14-day extension permitted under the legislation, every one of the four disputes covered by that bill, and outstanding in October, were still outstanding in January — every one. Not one was resolved: pulp wasn't resolved; food wasn't resolved; rail wasn't resolved; and the propane dispute was not resolved. Four of them.

[ Page 2583 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the IWA?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: One part of the forest industry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But the significant part was the pulp — still not resolved.

The bill we have before us today also provides for a 90-day cooling-off period, but with one essential difference. Should the government decide to enforce a cooling-off period in the case of a dispute on the railway or in the ferry service, then the Minister of

Labour would be required by cabinet action to appoint a special mediator to inquire into the dispute.

I referred earlier to the importance of the role of the special mediator, for it will be his function to mediate the dispute and, if the mediation fails, to consider and recommend to the Minister of Labour an appropriate method for the resolution of the dispute.

The special mediator's role places emphasis upon flexibility as the essential quality in any effective government approach to the crisis resulting from a I collective bargaining stalemate in vital public services r such as railway and ferries. The special mediator will be able to recommend a remedy that is tailored to the particular dynamics of the dispute.

Mr. Speaker, this is a new approach in our law. It s recognizes the threat to the public interest caused by t a strike or lockout, but at the-same time it supports free collective bargaining as the best method of resolving labour-management disputes. It provides the government with an objective proposal for any future action which it might take, whether that action might emanate from the office of the Minister of Labour, from the cabinet or in this Legislature itself.

I would hasten to add that if we had such a provision in our statute law today, perhaps Part II of r this bill would, have been unnecessary.

One of the prime choices that special mediator will consider in proposing remedies will be what is referred to in the legislation as fact-finding.

All too often labour disputes are fought over a I misunderstanding about the basic problems that I confront the party or a difference of opinion as to c the facts which must be brought to bear upon the I resolution of those problems. So personality r situations and rhetoric have so often been substituted I for fact and reason. When this happens everyone loses. Therefore a special provision has been inserted a in Bill 58 to allow for the report of a fact-finder to be published in such manner as the Minister of Labour I considers necessary. The fact-finding option will rely on the power of persuasion, which is, in my view, a most significant power in our society today.

There are other choices which are available to the I special mediator. He may also recommend t arbitration, final-offer selection, mediation to finality or any combination of these. Unless it is agreed, however, these procedures will not be binding upon the parties.

Mr. Speaker, from the foregoing it should be evident to every member of the House that Bill 58 restates this government's support for the principle of free collective bargaining. Throughout Bill 58 emphasis is placed on the uncertainty of governmental intervention and the flexibility of having a choice of procedures available to the parties. This bill also recognizes quite clearly that there is no single answer to the problem of a breakdown in collective bargaining. Each dispute is different, and therefore a multiplicity of remedies must be designed.

Mr. Speaker, when we discussed the subject of the hospital dispute a few days ago, it was indicated by members on both sides of the House that there was a need, a desperate need, for measures which would avoid the effect of crippling strikes, work stoppages and all their consequences in those services which are deemed to be essential in this province.

The definition of essential services is not easy. But t can be clearly stated that the operation of our railway is essential to the economy of this province. The consequences of work stoppage on that railway are devastating to the industries and the employees of hose industries throughout this province which are served by this railway. Similarly, with respect to hose communities in this province which depend upon the ferry service for their transportation link, for them such service is essential. So the government, at this time, is directing its attention to methods by which work stoppages can be resolved or, indeed, whether those services can be continued without any work stoppage at all.

But at the same time we are obliging the public employer who is involved and the unions who represent the employees — providing them with assistance to resolve their differences on their own. With the special commission technique we can, over a continuing period of time, resolve some of the deep-seated problems that exist in labour-management relations in the railway and, indeed, in the ferry service. With that we hope to create attitudes which will ensure that free collective bargaining in subsequent disputes will be able to resolve speedily and quickly, without any intervention, the difficulties between the parties. But we must give them assistance, and that's what we are asking the Legislature to do in Bill 58.

So saying, let me assure you that there is nothing n Bill 58 which can or ever will diminish the power of this House and, just as the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) said in Bill 146, then I repeat, in respect of Bill 58, that if these methods do not work, f there is not the willingness to make them work by he parties who are involved, then this government or

[ Page 2584 ]

any future government may have the need, as it has the right of obligation, to return to this House for the final resolution of that difficulty.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Revelstoke-Slocan. Before the hon. member starts, are you the designated speaker, Hon. Member?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. KING: I hope Mr. Speaker wasn't clarifying that because he anticipates me going on for three hours. I don't intend to go on for that long — but yes, I am the designated speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I've listened with a great interest to the presentation from the Minister of Labour, and I must say with all modesty that the highlight of his speech was the quotes he read from my former statements to this House.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition recognizes....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have some others. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he didn't get any tapes of some of the comments from my office.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition do recognize that indeed a serious problem does exist on the British Columbia Railway. It's a problem that has been going on for some number of years, and the Minister of Labour indicated...he traced the background of it very well on the basis of disputes that have taken place, of man-days that have been lost over the past number of years. He indicated in the whole thrust of his remarks, recognized that there are deep-rooted problems on that property which manifest themselves in conflict between the unions involved and management.

I want to say that that kind of deep-rooted hostility and conflict, that kind of mistrust, that kind of acrimony between a group of workers and their employer does not develop in a short time. It develops over a period of years also, and quite often it is a matter of conflicts of personalities, not only at the bargaining table, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, but on the various divisions and divisional points upon that property under which the workers are placed under the supervision of the company officers. Quite frequently the kind of acrimony, the kind of insensitivity that is exercised at the local level, ultimately ends up being expressed at the bargaining table, with devastating results. No question about it.

But I'm concerned about the approach that the minister's taking to this dispute. He has quoted at length from my remarks when I introduced Bill 146, I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 146 was one-shot legislation. Bill 146 was an interim step to deal with a specific economic problem that this province faced at the moment, and it did indeed serve its purpose — which was to provide a cooling-off period for 90 days.

It should be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that at that particular time we had, being thrust into the realm of industrial relations in British Columbia, superimposed upon our system of collective bargaining, a programme initiated at the federal level — the federal wage and price controls, which has put extreme additional pressure on the collective bargaining system in this province. It was in its embryonic stages at that time.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the terms of our government expired before the 90-day cooling-off period expired under Bill 146, and as a'consequence the new Minister of Labour was unable to pick up the pieces and conclude some of the collective agreements that had been frozen for 90 days, and I regret that. But I would say, Mr. Speaker, it's a subjective matter to determine whether Bill 146 was the failure, or whether it was the new administration. However, be that as it may, that is really not the point. The point is that we do have a problem before the province at the moment.

I have said many times in this House that we as a party, the New Democratic Party, are committed to a system of free collective bargaining. That implies the right for employers to lock out when a dispute arises. It implies the right for a trade union to strike, within the framework of the law that's provided, and when the exercise of those powers and those rights reach the point where they threaten the overall interests, either economically or in terms of safety, health, life and limb, then obviously the government has an obligation to move in.

But our position has always been, Mr. Speaker, that government intervention should be when that point is reached and an emergency confronts the province, and not before. It should only be on an ad hoc basis, because the Minister of Labour has said himself, and he said it correctly, that part of the strength of government intervention comes through the uncertainty of what they might do.

If we find on the statute books of this province a mechanism for the continuing involvement of the government into that process, if we find a mechanism that serves only to absolve the parties to collective bargaining — labour on the one hand, management on the other — of their primary responsibility to solve their own problems, then I suggest that they are in a position where they can simply shrug off those responsibilities, secure in the knowledge that there is a statute on the books of this province which

[ Page 2585 ]

provides for inevitable government intervention. Hence there is no inducement upon them to accept their full measure of responsibility and solve their own problems. They'll walk away. They'll walk away secure in the knowledge that all they have to do is hang tough and the minister's 90-day freeze is going to come in because it's provided for in a continuing way — not a one-shot approach just to solve the dispute that is before us and the problem that is before us but, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, something that shall remain on the statute books, something that shall act as an interference with the collective bargaining structure on that railway for all time.

That grieves me, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that this is not a politic al-philosophical difference. It's a matter of those people being involved in industrial relations.... You can look to most experts in that field and find agreement that where there is continuing provision for statutory interference by government, it does a disservice to the collective bargaining system. It provides the parties with an escape hatch from their own responsibility. I think that is extremely ill-advised.

There are those people who argue with the need for calling the Legislature to deal on an ad hoc basis with labour disputes when they achieve emergent proportions in the province. I say that part of the strength of the system is demonstrating the government's and this Legislature's dedication to the collective bargaining system, with all its imperfections, as being the best system that there is. One can only dedicate that reliance and that respect for the system by providing a structure under which the free collective bargaining system functions without threat, without a statutory and continuing mechanism for government involvement and interference.

I want to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, that I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister of Labour in terms of the statements he made about the conduct of some of the parties involved in this dispute. I want to associate myself completely with this proposition of a trade union negotiator or, indeed, a management negotiator shooting the messenger. That is, in effect, what they are doing when they quite often ask for a third-party appraisal. They are unable to bargain a settlement, which is perhaps some reflection upon their proficiency as either a representative on the management side or on the trade union side. They get themselves in trouble because they can't solve the problem and they inevitably involve a third party. Then when he brings down a report which fails to provide all of the things they happen to believe in, they immediately launch a public attack on that third party. I completely agree with the Minister of Labour, but I'd go one step further and I'd say it's absolutely unprofessional conduct on their part.

I suggest that when people in the realm of industrial relations — it's becoming more and more a discipline than an art — do that kind of thing, their own qualifications should be seriously looked at by those people whom they presume to represent. I have no hesitation in saying that there have been occasions, both in the railway and in others, where management on one occasion and a trade union representative on another have made a public attack on the third party who did a good, impartial job. I think that it is regrettable. It is an indication of their ineptitude and an indication that perhaps their own membership should be looking at their qualifications more closely.

But the whole point of this bill that is before us now is that in the first instance, Mr. Speaker, it violates some of the basic premises which I hold. As I indicated to you, it is less on a political basis than it is on a sound industrial relations basis because it does appear to me subject to questions that I will be asking in the committee stage on this bill. It seems to me to contain some extremely dangerous concepts — some new concepts, indeed. I am not opposed to new concepts if they are equitable and fair but in the first instant, Part I of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely redundant and unnecessary as far as I can see.

The Minister of Labour went to great lengths to point out the need for some continuing commission to investigate the bargaining structures on the railway to try to come to grips with some of those underlying conflicts that are apparently creating havoc at the bargaining table. In case he hasn't done so, I want to read to him section 122 of the Labour Code of British Columbia, and it says this:

"The minister may, either upon application or on his own motion, make or cause to be made such inquiries as he considers advisable respecting industrial matters and subject to this Act, and the regulations may do such things as he considers necessary to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to settlement of disputes."

Mr. Speaker, section 122 of the Labour Code was designed specifically to give the Minister of Labour the authority to look beyond the conflict at the bargaining table. It was designed to provide the necessary powers to set up an inquiry that was not confined just to the collective bargaining issue, but that may continue on after to come to grips with some of the root causes of that dispute that created the problem in the first instance.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

As far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, Part I of the bill that the minister has presented before this House is completely redundant. It wasn't necessary. He had

[ Page 2586 ]

those powers anyhow and was empowered and entitled, subject to 122 of the Labour Code of British Columbia, to pass an order-in-council or a regulation specifically setting out the terms of reference and the ground rules for any commission which he wanted to serve this function for him.

I wonder why then Part I of the bill is before this House at all. Why do we not have a bill that is before this House confined to the problem of solving the dispute? That's what the minister should be proposing to the House in clear and concise terms, a resolution to the dispute.

I don't want to abuse the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I find that the language in Part I appears to remove from the realm of bargaining some of the issues which have traditionally been there. I wonder if that is part of the reason for drafting this whole section which was already provided for in the Labour Code in general terms — I wonder if there was some extra provision that the minister was trying to seek and dress up in all of the redundant language of Part 1.

I'm going to have a lot to say, Mr. Speaker, about this bill in committee stage, and again I don't want to get very specific in second reading. But I want to say to the Minister of Labour that never in the history of industrial relations before have I heard of the kind of involvement or the kind of statutory intervention by government which removed issues from the bargaining table that by custom, by practice, and within the framework of law have always been bargainable issues. That appears to be another consequence of the bill that is before us today.

I have taken the position, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes when a government does act on an ad hoc basis, when a government concludes that a dispute has reached the proportions where intervention is necessary — and that's a matter of judgment on a day-to-day basis — when they make that judgment sometimes it's appropriate to tailor the remedy to the responsibility of the parties.

I find it interesting that the Minister of Labour made an assumption from one of my comments that if it's necessary to convene the Legislature it's only for the purpose of compulsory arbitration. That assumption indicates, Mr. Speaker, that it's the workers who must be hammered in every case. The natural consequence of compulsory arbitration is to militate against the rights of workers to a far more serious degree than against the rights of the employer. The workers inevitably suffer more from compulsory arbitration because they are stuck in the position where they must live with the existing contract that they have, the one which they have gone on strike for, or into dispute for in the first instance to renew and improve.

To take away their strike right by introducing compulsory arbitration is to interrupt their powers to exercise economic sanctions against the employer so he might respond. The employer, on the other hand, conversely can sit and wait it out; he's not suffering. He's getting away with the same rate he paid last year, but the workers' ability to exercise their economic power has been severely restricted. Of course, it goes without saying that in this bill, as I read it, the right of the employees to pick up retroactively that which they have lost is arbitrarily eliminated. I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether that's the minister's intent or not. I suspect it is not, but it certainly appears to be the only interpretation that can be placed upon the language of the bill. I wonder who the draftsman was, because it seems to be incredibly poorly drafted, but we'll get more specific about those points when we get into committee stage on it.

I have to say that I regret the fact that the ferry workers have been thrown into this particular bill. There's no strike on the ferry system now, and while the minister went to lengths to point out that we took action in the case where a strike was not in effect, it seems to me to completely fly in the face of propriety for the minister to come into this Legislature, as he did a number of days ago, and report that he had an agreement with the union and the ferry management for no interruption in the service of the Ferry Authority. He had an agreement for 30 days, and then to come in here and drop a far-reaching bill which ties them in with the railway people.... There's no dispute underway in the ferry system, and it seems to me that it might be viewed as an act of bad faith by both the management and the union in the ferry system when they had given the minister an undertaking and then he arbitrarily comes in and ties them into a bill of this nature.

So I hope there are no repercussions from what appears to be, Mr. Speaker, a bit of a stab in the back by the minister to parties from which he had gained a responsible agreement. I hope we don't find that this bill turns out to be a red flag to secure industrial relations in the ferry system rather than a realistic and useful mechanism for bringing about more stable relations.

The other thing that bothers me about introducing the ferry dispute into this bill is the fact that the government is much more directly the employer with the ferry system than is the case on the railway. The reason for that, I suppose, is the fact that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) has imposed himself into the scene by announcing huge layoffs of manpower on the ferry system unless the workers agreed to reduce their wage demands or their overtime demands in contract-renewal discussions.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour where he's been on that issue, because that is known in labour circles, and pretty well throughout the nation, as an unfair labour practice — to use layoffs, to use

[ Page 2587 ]

economic sanctions against the work force as a device in bargaining has historically been viewed as an anti-labour practice and a violation of legislation. Certainly it is in the case of new bargaining units, and it's certainly questionable in terms of the morality of this government, which I think has an obligation to demonstrate that they are not only a responsible employer which respects the spirit of the law, but also has the responsibility and obligation to go further and demonstrate that they are beyond any doubt an enlightened employer, an employer that would not attempt to use a doubtful legal club to take advantage of the ferry workers at the bargaining table. And I say doubtful not only from the proposition of being a device that in labour law generally is frowned upon, but apparently, under the specific Public Service Relations Act, it is also questionable in terms of its legality and certainly questionable from the viewpoint of the collective agreement that union has with the Government of the Province of British Columbia.

So I think it's indeed unfortunate that the ferry workers have been thrown into this bill. I appreciate that they are excluded from Part II of the bill, I believe it is, but nevertheless the terms of reference of the commission give me pause for great concern as to what their purpose is.

I appreciate that the minister stated that it's just to get at the root cause of problems, but I find their terms of reference intruding on areas that have been traditionally issues that were recognized for solution at the bargaining table. In that sense they are being subjected to compulsory arbitration, as I read it, on issues which they used to have as an option to going to the bargaining table with.

I hope that in committee stage of this bill the Minister of Labour will get up and give a much more detailed explanation of precisely what he means by some of these sections. I hope I'm interpreting it rightly, Mr. Speaker, in believing much of it is sloppy drafting rather than intent and design by the Minister of Labour, because I'm certainly going to have many questions to ask about these specific problems.

I'd have felt much better, Mr. Speaker, if the minister had come in here with a clear, concise bill that sought to remedy the dispute that is threatening the economic life of the province and had put forward his appraisal of some of the responsibilities for the impasse, and then provided a simple, short, one-shot recommendation for bringing about a solution. Instead of that he's brought in quite a large bill of nine pages with great conflict within some of the sections of the bill. It's a bill that certainly, on the basis of legal advice I have had, has been difficult to interpret as far as intent is concerned.

I find it a bit regrettable that the minister came in with a rather sloppily drafted bill, a rather lengthy one — a nine-page bill — and presumed to ask this House to pass that bill through all stages after a perusal of only a couple of hours. I think that would be an abnegation of the responsibility of every member of this House if we let a bill of this nature, which does have the effect of curbing and curtailing the rights of citizens in this province, go through with such cursory appraisal.

Mr. Speaker, even declarations of war receive full debate in the parliament. When I hear statements from government members suggesting that a bill of this nature should pass all stages of debate in one day, after being introduced the previous evening, then I think it's a bit of a contemptuous gesture on the part of the government.

I'm not going to speak too long on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm looking forward, quite frankly, to a more detailed discussion when we go into a committee appraisal of sections of the bill. I do want to restate, though, briefly, that if this bill — as I understand it does and I must interpret it on the best legal advice I've been able to obtain so far — does contain continuing mechanisms for intruding into the collective bargaining system, I cannot support that bill. I support the right, and indeed the obligation, of this Legislature to come to grips with specific disputes when they reach emergency proportions, and to provide resolutions, but I think it's improper and ill-advised of the government to seize an opportunity for continuing intervention and continuing curtailment of the rights of either trade unions to exercise their rights to lockout.

The parties do, under a free collective bargaining system, have the responsibility for resolving their own contracts. They also have a right — and it's implied in every free democratic country in the western world — to fail to disagree. It's the area of private contracts, and it's very difficult — I agree with the minister and I sympathize with him in his dilemma. I think he's aged a couple of years since he took over that portfolio a couple of months ago. He seems to be a good deal whiter than I am even, now.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You both got grey hair in that job.

MR. KING: Well, I'm not sure that was the grey matter that member needed.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is the basic difference that we seem to hold with the government. We agree that it is the government's responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens of the province, because even in the realm of private contracts and private negotiations, while the parties have a right to disagree and exercise the powers given to them under legislation, they do not have the right to override the interests of all the people in the province. So occasionally, in emergency situations, it is necessary to intrude and to protect the rights of all of the

[ Page 2588 ]

people of the province. When that occurs it should be simply on an ad hoc basis. It should be in the light of that dispute. It should not be some continuing threat to the process and the system, and that appears to be what we have before us today. So certainly I do not intend to vote for this bill on second reading.

I do hope, though, quite frankly, subject to the close scrutiny that I'm sure all members of the opposition will be giving it in committee stage, that the necessary assurance can come from the minister and perhaps the necessary amendments that will remove some of the really serious concerns that I have, Mr. Speaker, and that perhaps we'll find it more palatable under those circumstances.

I have a couple more remarks I wanted to make. The main concern I have — I just want to stress once again — is that if some statute books of this province which poses the threat of government involvement, whether it's specifically for compulsory arbitration or even if it's for a 90-day cooling-off period, it presupposes problems. It presupposes that those parties are going to be unable to resolve their own differences, and I think it should remind everyone in this House of the reason why the mediation commission of old failed in this province. It failed because it was seen as the last step in the process. Either the employer or the union could perceive that all they had to do was sit tight and improve their image as a tough bargainer, score the political points with their own principles, secure in the knowledge that Big Daddy was waiting down the road to impose a settlement for them.

Sometimes it's necessary to experience and live with some public inconvenience, to let the system itself discipline the parties to it, because it's not a pleasant thing to go through a strike. It's not a pleasant thing for the members. It's not a pleasant thing for the employer, and usually, even though they may be rather irresponsible at time and rather anxious to exercise the powers they hold, you usually find that after the sobering experience of being involved in that kind of conflict for a few weeks has occurred, then their own interest, their own self-interests and the interests of their principles start to take on a different perspective. There comes about a reassessment and usually the next time around they're a little bit more responsible and a little bit more sober about determining whether it's advisable to get down to the task of solving the problems or to just go out on a dispute for the sake of exercising those powers they hold.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister when he closes debate, and again in committee stage on this bill, is able to answer many of the real concerns I have about it. I'm not sure that I'm interpreting it all correctly, because it's somewhat of a confused bill. Had he completely left Part I out — because he already holds those powers — it would have been much easier to determine precisely what his objectives are.

So I'm just going to leave it at that for now, Mr. Speaker, and look forward to hearing the minister close the debate.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would compliment the minister on his opening remarks. I thought he covered the bill very well, and I was particularly glad to see that he found it possible to trace some thread of continuity between the labour relations philosophy of his government and that of the former government. One probably shouldn't put too strong a point on that, but it seems to me that the Labour Code introduced by the former government has generally worked well and that the flexible ad hoc responses, as the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) referred to them, worked well also.

The minister, in introducing the bill, paid great attention to the need for flexibility in the response of the government to the various industrial relations conditions that might arise. Certainly in that context, this bill, Bill 58, is an enormous improvement on Bill 22. Bill 22 addressed itself to the same problem of the British Columbia Railway but sought to solve it in a way that was wholly unsatisfactory and, I trust, as a result of Bill 58, will be allowed to die on the order paper.

There can be no question in my mind that the British Columbia Railway and the British Columbia Ferries are essential services for this province. They are essential for different reasons, the British Columbia Ferries being an essential service because they are the lifeline not only in terms of the flow of commerce, but even the flow of essential services such as foodstuffs. There can be no doubt in my mind that the ferries, except for short periods, have to be kept running.

The British Columbia Railway is perhaps something that admits of slightly more flexibility in the short term, in the sense that a strike of even a month's duration, as we have effectively had during the last month, doesn't totally cripple the province's economy, but it does almost totally cripple the economy of some of the towns along its route. For that reason, it is no less essential to that sector of the economy than are the B.C. ferries themselves.

But the BCR and its continuity are essential in a longer-term aspect than that, Mr. Speaker, and that has to do with the reliability of British Columbia's reputation in this world as a supplier, which has been very seriously injured over the last three or four years, during which time the BCR has been down something like 10 per cent of the time.

It has made it difficult for manufacturers to plan their operations in a way that allows British Columbia to be a reliable supplier to the world and allows those

[ Page 2589 ]

manufacturers to be a reliable provider of employment in their own operations. There are some services to the economy which have such ramifications throughout it that the lack of their continued operation is disrupted far beyond the number of persons directly involved, and such operations must always be given special consideration by this Legislature — and the BCR is one of those.

While this legislation, it seems to me, considers the BCR and the B.C. Ferries as essential services, it does not at this time go so far as to provide for continuing binding arbitration — binding arbitration beyond the existing specific dispute in the BCR; and in that omission I think the legislation is wise. I think it is good at this stage that, without a great deal more study, no attempt should be made to put together a general binding arbitration package in this area, and I'll get into some of the reasons for that later.

Following the minister's opening remarks, the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) Made what I thought was a most reasoned and constructive statement, and I think that this House is well served to have two such knowledgeable spokesmen on labour matters. I share the concern of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) on any kind of continuing machinery which would, in effect, put the settlement onus for industrial disputes on the government. But if I understood the opening words of the present minister, he shares that concern as well. It seems to me that a cooling-off period, which is the essential question we are looking at in this context, in no way guarantees that the government will, in due course, intervene. It simply provides a way of stopping the clock for 90 days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read section 14.

MR. GIBSON: Section 14. Well, that's a matter of possible interpretation of language. But that relates to Part II, not Part III. I am talking now about Part III, Mr. Member. The cooling-off period does not seem to me to be the kind of thing which would lead the parties to a dispute to say: "Well, we don't really need to settle, because the government is going to step in and do it eventually."

All that the cooling-off period does is say that the government will eventually step in and stop the clock for 90 days and say: "Talk about it some more." A maximum of 90 days. It doesn't say that we are going to impose a settlement of one kind or another and thereby encourage the party which thinks it might benefit from a government settlement to hold off from settling in any other way. It seems to me that the flexibility of the government remains open even with this cooling-off period, and I think it's an additional handy tool in the minister's workbag for dealing with industrial disputes.

The former Minister of Labour said that sometimes in almost every area a strike is required to bring about an educational process to the parties concerned. That may be, but I suggest to him that this legislation does not foreclose that possibility.

Dealing with the bill, Part I, which provides for a special commission, it seems to me largely unobjectionable with one exception. It may be, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan says, that this section 1s redundant. But I don't think it is out of line, with respect to such an important part of the province's infrastructure as these two transportation services, that a special procedure should be set out in addition to that contained in section 122 of the Labour Code.

What bothers me far more about Part I is the very extraordinary powers conveyed to the special commission in section 5 whereby they have the rights to make findings and make them binding and a part of the collective agreement — absolutely with respect to anything else that is not otherwise treated in the contract or collective agreement.

That seems to me to be a very wide barn door, and I hope that the minister either at second reading or during committee stage will give us some assurances as to how this apparently very wide power might be circumscribed either by this bill or by amendment.

The next part, Part II, relates to arbitration of the existing situation on the British Columbia Railway. Once again we are getting into a short-term solution for a long-term problem. I fear it's a short-term solution that for the moment is unavoidable, but sometime, somehow, we have to grapple — or preferably the railroad and its employees must grapple — with a long-term change from confrontation to cooperation in the operation of that line. For the moment, four out of the eight unions involved have reached an accommodation and another three have agreed to arbitration of a binding nature on a volunteer basis, leaving only one, the UTU, as odd person out. In view of the great difficulty this is causing to literally thousands of people around this province, I think that the short-term solution of arbitration, as imposed by Part II, is correct for the moment.

The arbitrated solution clearly must be such as to be acceptable to both parties. There can be no doubt about that because the job action, in terms of work to rule of the UTU some weeks ago, makes it very clear that in a legal way the unions on the BCR have the power to make it very difficult for that railroad to operate in an acceptable way. Any agreement, even one that's imposed by arbitration under this Act, must be one that has the good faith acceptance of the parties concerned.

The minister, during his opening remarks, decried past political intervention on the railroad, and I believe this is right and his philosophy is right in respect of operating practices, but I would ask him as a philosophical point whether in a money-losing

[ Page 2590 ]

railroad that is unavoidably so for the time being and perhaps for the foreseeable future, where the deficit is made up, either year by year, or eventually by the taxpayer via the government, the government can in fact avoid responsibility for wage settlements any more than they can avoid responsibility for wage settlements in the area of health services and the Hospital Employees Union, which matter we had to do last week.

It seems to me that there is a general, continuing and unavoidable duty for the government to act as the custodian of public funds, and that arbitration sidesteps that duty. It can be used from time to time, and if it is used as a matter of general practice it may bring general labour peace, but the cost may be unacceptable. I don't know what the answer is to that, Mr. Speaker. The minister cited in evidence last week the case example of the Public Schools Act, which provides for arbitrated settlements between school districts and teachers. The Public Schools Act has unquestionably generally given rise to a history of labour peace in that area. The minister mentioned that the other side of that coin was a rate of settlement which was higher than otherwise might have been the case. I don't know what the facts are on that, and I hope that the minister will cause a study to be made or make public such evidence as he has available.

What puzzles me is material that I have seen distributed by the BCTF which would seem to show that settlements paid to teachers over the past few years have not gone above the general rate of industrial increases in British Columbia. So as I say, Mr. Speaker, I'm perplexed on this point, but it is a question that absolutely must be addressed before any long-term essential-services legislation can be reasonably contemplated in this province. But I am concerned that if we go too routinely to the answer of arbitration it has two problems. It has first of all the problem of a denial of the right to strike on behalf of the employee or to lock out by the employer, and secondly, where it relates to public services, it is an avoidance of responsibility by duly elected officials for their stewardship of the public purse.

Part II contains section 8, which I think probably gives rise to the concern of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) that the terms of any new agreement might not be retroactive. I see the minister shaking his head; I would be glad if he would clarify that when he closes second reading, because section 8(1) does read, Mr. Minister, that the term of the collective agreement — that is, those which have previously expired — is extended until the new agreement starts up.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Good, that's what we want to clarify.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Moving on now to Part III, I think the general concept of a cooling-off period is a good one. The minister, in his opening remarks, suggested that it hadn't worked all that well under Bill 146. But I wouldn't write it off that quickly because, although at the end of the cooling-off period the disputes were still in question, most of them were settled shortly thereafter. This may have been as much through the operation of the federal AIB as anything else. But a cooling-off period is not to be despised simply in and of itself; it's a useful tool. The concept of a special mediator and of fact-finding in this section as well I believe to be a good one.

I am surprised that nowhere in any of the parts of the bill is provision made for a bargaining council. Perhaps the minister considers that this has been sufficiently effected by the voluntary action of the eight unions and that this will remain a continuing and stabilizing influence on the bargaining scene on the BCR. Failing that, perhaps he has power under the Labour Code to make that designation if required. I compliment his general choice-of procedures approach, as he calls it, and the objective of preservation as to uncertainty on the eventual role of the government which can only operate in such a way as to bring the parties directly affected closer to a resolution of their own accord, which is to be preferred to that which might be imposed otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few general things in conclusion. There is a need in our economy, right across the labour-relations field, for a spirit of cooperation and not confrontation. We are becoming uncompetitive in the world. Our economy is one that simply must export to live; our export industries are becoming thoroughly uncompetitive. Capital costs have in the last five or six years doubled and in some cases even tripled. The only way that that can be overcome is for higher productivity to pay for those extra capital charges which are unavoidable and to pay for the fact that we have the highest wage and salary scale in the world in these industries, something we should be proud of but something we have to deliver the productivity on or we will lose it. That productivity is only going to come about by a spirit of cooperation.

In the general economy, I hope we can see more and more a meeting of minds between the government, labour and management at senior levels on a regular, routine basis in a non-crisis atmosphere gradually to generate the kind of understanding and agreement at least on where we are in the economy and what the statistics are as a basis for intelligent

[ Page 2591 ]

discussion throughout the labour-relations field. Is there not some way on the British Columbia Railway, with its sad history, that we can turn the thing around and show the way to this kind of model labour relations in this Crown corporation, show the way in terms of unified bargaining, and there we get back to the bargaining council necessity, show the way in terms of continuous talks between management and labour on the British Columbia Railway throughout the year, talks normally in a non-crisis atmosphere so that when you get into a crisis atmosphere you've got the foundation and the background you need to deal with it intelligently and with as little unnecessary conflict as possible, and show the way on the BCR in terms of worker representation in the decision-making process?

By that I am talking about the corporate board level, and I'm talking about the operational level. The details are complex. Other countries in the world have experimented in these areas. One thing I know is that British Columbia's productivity, both on the BCR and in every industry in this province, is capable of substantial improvement if those who manage those enterprises and work in those enterprises wish it to be so, and that is only going to materialize if they work together.

The workers in every operation have ideas about how those operations can run better. That ranges from the simplest type of operation to the most complex. The people who live there and work there have a great deal to contribute to how it should be done. I would like to see the British Columbia Railway, a Crown corporation, being one of the institutions in this province which might lead the way in that kind of cooperative decision-making process.

Mr. Speaker, human relations, industrial or otherwise, can go two ways: they can go the confrontation route which we've had on the BCR for many years, or they can go the cooperation route which I hope we will have for many years to come.

I hope that this legislation will be seen as the watershed where that transition started to take place. I devoutly hope that to be the case. It's certainly not guaranteed by what we do here today, but if the way is opened up by what we do today, then I think we've done a good thing. I intend to support Bill 58 on second reading.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This bill is like my old Latin textbook that said that "all Gaul is divided into three parts." I apologize if I can't recite the Latin at this late stage in the game.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est. I appreciate the help from the Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, it's a bit like mutatis mutandis, I guess.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's introduction to this bill. As we've stated on other bills in this House, a scholarly introduction by the minister piloting the bill can often prevent misunderstanding by the opposition and, I think, diminish the acrimony that sometimes develops in this House when opposition members are not quite clear exactly what the minister's driving at when he gives a very brief and cursory introduction of a bill. So I very much appreciate the fact that the minister on this bill has given us a clear outline, at least, of the goalposts that he's functioning under and telling the House and the public the reasoning behind the provisions of the bill.

There is no question whatever that on the record the B.C. Railway is a sorry sight, both in terms of its inefficiency and the apparent inability to sustain any kind of labour-management peace, particularly if you look at the record which the minister quoted in second reading. He went through and recorded the various strikes that have occurred since September, 1973, up until the present date. So first of all it would seem inevitable that all parties in this House should agree that there is indeed serious trouble on the B.C. Railway. Furthermore, I would suggest this is not really the time to look back — other than to learn how we can do a better job in the future — and lay blame or to stir up old political battles; it is simply a time to learn what went wrong rather than why it went wrong, and to attempt to spell out, as the minister has attempted to do in Bill 58, some of the new directions which might be followed. I welcome his statement that the railway in future will be run by competent people who know something about railroading and that they will not be politicians or ex-politicians on the board of B.C. Rail.

As a layman and citizen and taxpayer in this province, in conversation with individuals around the province I have often heard at the layman's level of the terrible inefficiency on the railway and of the bad blood, or the lack of harmony and trust and mutual respect which seems to exist between management and employees. The minister mentioned in his comments that rhetoric and politicking are no substitute for facts when two parties are trying to hammer out an agreement that's mutually acceptable.

The impact of strikes on the BCR has been emphasized and does not need to be repeated. I would like to associate my remarks in support of the comments of the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) that while two parties to collective bargaining have every right to expect fair play and every right to try to reach the best possible agreement they can for their own particular interests, there has to be a point at

[ Page 2592 ]

which somebody says that enough is enough. When we are faced with the tremendous economic damage along the railway line, unemployment of related workers whose work depends on the functioning of the railway, and the matter of keeping our commitments to our customers who should have every reason most of the time to expect that we will deliver on our commitments of goods, instead of being able to rely on us most of the time, it looks to me as though the record shows quite clearly that they cannot rely on British Columbia most of the time where the B.C. Railway is the key to the delivery of raw materials or manufactured goods.

I believe that on the record the time has come when, despite some of the provisions which may be debatable, the bill in essence is timely, and like the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), I would like to hear some questions answered in committee stage. Some of the language in sections like section 8 is a little difficult for a person not close to the collective bargaining field to understand.

Basically the minister seems to be tackling a short-term and a long-term problem. The long-term problem is tackled in section I in Part I of the bill, and it seems to depend on giving very considerable powers to the special commission and whatever number of commissioners might be appointed. In committee I would hope the minister would tell us a little more about section 5 and the degree to which in principle the special commission has the authority to bring in matters that are not included in the collective agreement, which seems to me to be asking the special commission to take a very substantial wide-ranging look at the situation, which in some circumstances may be all right but in other circumstances the two parties may not be brought any closer together by an outside body bringing in some issue which they're not particularly interested in having in the collective agreement. The minister may have some specific examples which will clarify the question on section S. And the fact that the special commission can make its recommendations final and binding for 90 days is also something that I would like to hear discussed in committee.

The short-term problem is solved clearly enough in Part II, but once again I would, with respect, hope we will have some explanation about the full impact of section 8 in that part of the bill, particularly under the paragraph dealing with the extension of collective agreements. As one interpretation of the bill, it seems to me that it prevents any further strike or lockout action at the expiry of the agreement that we're now about to implement through the provisions of Part 11. In other words, one of the interpretations that can be placed on this part of the bill is that when this present agreement expires, and in the absence of a new agreement at expiry date, the provisions of this bill would prevent any strike or lockout at that point in time.

I don't know if that is the interpretation the minister has in mind, but it has such far-reaching significance, if that's what he does mean, that it brings us back closer to the concept of Bill 22 which prevented strikes and lockouts for four years. The mention of Bill 22, Mr. Speaker, has me wondering just exactly what the priorities of the government were earlier on this session on two accounts.

First of all, we really all recognize that there are certain essential services. It was very surprising to me that when the government did take some action and introduced a very strong bill, Bill 22, to deal with the problem of the B.C. Railway while at the same time we were embarked on a strike and withdrawal of services — or a partial withdrawal of services — in the hospital field.... I would just put forward the comment that one has to recognize that there are certain essential services, and some of them obviously more essential than others. One would also have to wonder whether this government maybe considers that commitment to the economy and the essential nature of the economy is even more important than essential services being provided to sick people.

But at any rate, Bill 22 contained this very far-reaching provision that strikes and lockouts would be prevented for four years — or would be made illegal for four years, and certainly Bill 58, which we're now debating and which the minister has said replaces Bill 22, is much more moderate and seems to illustrate the very essence of the minister's conviction that there has to be a wide variety of alternatives in dealing with labour-management disputes.

It's quite clear, as the minister mentioned right at the end of his comments, that each strike or each dispute is a little different and that there must be the greatest range of choices for both parties and some alternative choices for the government. But I do wonder if the minister would at least enlighten the House as to why Bill 22 came in like a clap of thunder, was not proceeded with and now we have a more more moderate bill. One has the uneasy feeling that the government was really trying to show the labour movement in British Columbia that it meant business, and if pushed, it could go to the extent of a bill such as Bill 22 which, in my observations in this House, is quite foreign to the nature of the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams.)

I can't recall the present Minister of Labour, when he sat on this side of the House, ever supporting or suggesting the kind of principles that were embodied in Bill 22. We were told that the province was facing a great difficulty and an urgent situation on the B.C. Railway, and yet that bill was left to sit on the order paper for some weeks. Now we see a much more reasonable and much more moderate bill in the form of Bill 58. It seems to me that it wouldn't be unreasonable at this stage in the game that when the

[ Page 2593 ]

minister closes debate on second reading he could explain just what kind of strategy the government was trying to implement in Bill 22, and whether there's been some substantial change of direction with the bill that we now have before us, which I certainly feel is a vast improvement over the former one.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Simple blunders.

MR. WALLACE: There are questions which seem to be surfacing in the media these days which, perhaps based on Bill 22, are asking if this government wants a confrontation with the labour movement in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, we are discussing Bill 58, not Bill 22.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to discuss it intelligently without referring to another bill for the same reason, or the same kind of content, which is still sitting on the order paper. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you wouldn't be so restrictive as to try and pre-empt any opposition member from at least passing lightly over Bill 22 as we debate Bill 58.

The reason I think that's very important, Mr. Speaker, is that, as I was just mentioning when you interrupted, there are many questions being asked in the province as to what this government's basic, underlying approach to the labour problems appears to be. Judging by earlier events and earlier legislation, the impression was fast developing in this province that this government, concerned at the fact, as we've all accepted, that there are very serious problems — repeated strikes causing hardship to innocent parties and the economy — felt that something had to be done.

But what has happened within the space of a few weeks is that we had a very strong, punitive measure introduced or proposed. And now, within a relatively short time, the government seems to have either backed off or seems to have recognized that its initial steps were a form of excessive government action and would have very serious long-term effects on any confidence the labour movement might have in this government to the degree that it would expect to be treated in fairness and equality with management.

That's why I found the minister's earlier, initiative so surprising in the light of many years in this House when he's made it very plain that in labour-management relations, a little bit like in the courts, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Unless the ground rules and the philosophy of the government and the legislation that the government brings in clearly makes every attempt to ensure that both sides are given every possible access to fair play and to even-handed management in the various techniques the government puts into legislation, then it just can't possibly work. This bill seems to go much further in that direction in an attempt to provide both parties with the various alternatives.

Another element in the bill that the minister commented upon was the importance of government uncertainty — and I think that was precisely the word the minister used, uncertainty of intervention — and the type of intervention and the degree of intervention. Well, once again, Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the minister's comments, but I can't completely agree, for the simple reason that one of the factors that I think has prolonged recent disputes, rightly or wrongly, has been the public perception that the government isn't keen to take decisive action and give some leadership.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There's been a feeling, particularly in the several days that the hospital strike lasted, where the man on the street or the person who contacted their MLA clearly had come to the conclusion that this government, for whatever motive, was not prepared to show some decisive leadership and say, "enough is enough, " and that the third party concerned, or the public, or the economy, whichever is being seriously damaged.... . that the government in these circumstances was not prepared to take strong action.

Now while it may be just as bad, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) mentioned, for parties to a negotiating situation to know that sooner or later the government is going to take a certain step, while that may be bad also, I think it would be even less desirable to have the situation so uncertain that the parties make no serious attempt to finalize an agreement and the government sits on the fence and, on its part, does not take some kind of decisive action to protect in this case the economy, and in the case of the hospitals, to protect and provide service to sick people. So I am not sure that the uncertainty as to what a government may or may not do is, in fact, the advantage which the minister claims, and which the speaker for the official opposition (Mr. King) mentioned.

One of the other areas of this bill which is very interesting, since it again relates to the debate we had on the hospital legislation, is the emphasis the minister places on job evaluation. The essential function of the special commission will be to pay great attention to the whole matter of job evaluation because, indeed, it was that particular element, not wages, that brought the hospital situation to an impasse, as the minister well knows.

I might say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibility of special commissions or special

[ Page 2594 ]

mediators I think is such that it entitles these third parties themselves to be free to make public statements. We heard in the minister's comments that he was perturbed at the attack on an industrial inquiry commissioner — in that case, Justice Munroe — and I would agree entirely with the minister that a third person functioning in that very difficult capacity just cannot succeed under public recriminations by one or other party. But on the other hand, I think that because the third party has a very difficult job there is scope for that third person to be more articulate in public in explaining to the public the nature of the dispute.

We have a well-established and worthy tradition that, for example, when cases are before the courts there should be no public debate. That's when you are dealing with a matter of civil or criminal content, and I agree with that entirely. But it isn't quite the same where you've got two parties very often causing serious public disruption and perhaps actual physical or mental suffering to individuals — in the case of the hospital strike — and the facts of the situation are not always articulated by the third party.

I took great exception, for example, to an almost full-page ad that appeared in the newspapers over the weekend inserted. by the Hospital Employees Union, at some considerable expense, to castigate the HLRA and to leave out of that great big ad the most significant reason that there ever was a strike, and that was job evaluation and the fact that the government has come up with $6 million to solve that part which HLRA couldn't do.

It's just an example of how there can be a very one-sided articulation of some very basic issues in a dispute. I was angered when I read that ad, because any person who had not had any real association with the hospital strike would read that ad and it would sound completely reasonable because it left out a very, very key part of the whole story. I often wonder, from a lot of the skilled people in this House who talk about labour disputes and how personalities and rhetoric and misrepresentation of facts lead to a serious confrontation or an impasse.... I listen to that and I wonder what kind of image of disputes the public gets when they read either misrepresentation of fact or incomplete presentation of the facts.

In the ferry dispute that we had, I met with the union representatives and there was a lot of apprehension on my part as to what was appearing in the press, for example, as to the real nature of the dispute and some of the basic commitments which I am told the union was prepared to make. So where public awareness and knowledge is pretty important in this kind of dispute, it seems to me that it would not be unreasonable to consider that the third party who is called in should perhaps take more initiative in informing the public along the way as to what the issues really are and perhaps even correcting the misrepresentation of facts.

When I first read this bill, Mr. Speaker, again as a non-professional person in the labour-management field, I was amazed at the emphasis on the words "fact-finding." I would have thought that with all the highly priced, highly paid help that very often management and unions both have.... It staggers my imagination that maybe after weeks and months of negotiations and all kinds of collective efforts by the parties and the government with a mediator or whatever, we have to come up with this bill with such a specific proposal that there be a mechanism to establish the facts.

Again, I make no claim to understand the highly skilled discipline that has become bargaining in our modern society, but it really did jolt me to think that this agreement, as I recall, expired in July. The reason why we are here debating this bill is that the preceding agreement expired many months ago. We have had all kinds of negotiations and offers of help from the government for a third party, and apparently one of the fundamental things that this bill has to emphasize and try to bring in to greater importance is fact-finding. I can only conclude in that case that a lot of the time that has been spent around the negotiating table in recent weeks and months didn't go anywhere, because one or the other or both sides weren't even presenting accurate facts. I regret to say that the same seems to have been somewhat the case in the ferry dispute.

The ad that I referred to a minute ago by the Hospital Employees Union refers to the very expensive salaries paid to those negotiating on behalf of hospital management. They quoted some inclusive figure of the annual budget for HLRA. I am not here to get...

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going.

MR. WALLACE: ...back onto the hospital debate, Mr. Speaker. I am just trying to make some of these points that we have the two sides of these very important disputes spending a great deal of money, being highly paid, being in a position of power to cause great public disruption, and we find that in this bill half the time, or a lot of the time, they're sitting around the table and they are not even debating accurate facts.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Inaccurate facts.

MR. WALLACE: They're debating inaccurate facts. As a physician, I have to wonder how ridiculous it would be in the medical field, for example, if when you started making a decision about how to deal with a problem, you didn't make every effort to at least get your facts straight first. Admittedly, often in the

[ Page 2595 ]

medical field we still prescribe the wrong treatment, but at least in good faith we believe we are reaching a conclusion based on the facts as we can determine them.

MR. BARRETT: That doesn't help the patient.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill does emphasize fact-finding and it emphasizes the advantage in providing various alternatives, both to the parties and to the government, seems to me to be the best thing that can be done at this particular juncture. In fact, one could be a little cheeky, I suppose, when I sit here and listen to various well-meaning members trying to contribute to this debate and getting uptight about binding arbitration, or implying that that isn't really a very good solution.

I suppose what I would like to ask every member in this House is: has anybody else got a better idea at the present time? Whatever's been going on has been a miserable failure. Perhaps the cause for the failure, as I said a moment ago, is even as basic as the fact that the parties haven't even got their facts right before they start to argue about them. If this is the case, while it would be, I suppose, much better if we could avoid this kind of imposition of binding arbitration, the more I try to learn about this whole field and the human problems involved, I have to say that I'll listen to anybody who has a better idea.

But within all the circumstances that the minister has described and in the debate that I've listened to — the speeches by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) — I haven't yet heard anybody coming out with some dramatic alternative to the basic proposal of Part II, which of course is binding arbitration. That might sound like a somewhat negative approach to the problem, but sincerely, Mr. Speaker, it isn't intended that way at all. I think the problems are enormous. The record is there for all of us to see. As the minister said, there's no one simply black-and-white approach that will solve all labour-management disputes. Since we've reached the point where the economy of the province is very seriously damaged, and since the two parties have had lots of time to try and work out their own satisfactory arrangement, this kind of attempt in this bill, we hope, will solve the immediate problem. Through the proposals in Part I and III we may also be starting on the road to providing the various mechanisms that in the long run will give us some kind of continuous peace in the ferry system and on the B.C. Railway.

There are some specific questions that I think must be answered in committee stage. I'm sure that these will be asked by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), but unless I find something very unusual in committee that doesn't appear in this debate today, I will certainly be supporting Bill 58.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): In rising to speak in favour of Bill 58, I will relate my remarks solely to the British Columbia Railroad and I will be very, very brief, as I want in no way to delay the passing of this legislation today.

The people of Fort St. James and the areas in my constituency and, in fact, all of the people in all of the areas served by the British Columbia Railroad have suffered long enough. Mr. Speaker, any delay whatsoever will only prolong that agony.

For far too long now, stoppages and slowdowns on this railroad have been financially and psychologically devastating to all of the families of the railroad workers and to all those directly or indirectly dependent upon the operation of that railway. Some of the damage, Mr. Speaker, is irreparable. Due to the length and sporadic nature of the slowdowns and stoppages on that railroad, much financial hardship has been experienced, both for family units and commercial and industrial operations. Damage in some cases has been instrumental in families being totally uprooted and broken up and in businesses and operations going bankrupt — in some cases totally losing life savings.

As well as that, Mr. Speaker, many social wounds have been inflicted on the communities involved, wounds that will not easily heal but will commence to heal with the commencement of operations of the BCR.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) indicated a few moments ago in this House, I believe, on behalf of those affected in my constituency and in fact in all areas served by this railroad, that we do have an emergency in the BCR dispute and we must have legislation such as Bill 58 immediately.

Mr. Speaker, not only do I fear for those whom I have mentioned, but I fear also for the total economy of British Columbia. The BCR is a lifeline to over one-half of this province and provides, directly and indirectly, many hundreds of jobs for our citizens. We must as accountable, sensible legislators, totally concerned for the people of British Columbia, pass this legislation today without further delay.

I call for the cooperation of all members of this Legislature, from both sides of the House, to immediately allow passage of Bill 58. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation for the comments which have come from all sides of the House concerning this

[ Page 2596 ]

bill. I took very careful notes of what was said by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), in his great experience. I was particularly pleased to note that he said, "I'm not sure I'm interpreting the bill properly, " and I have to agree wholeheartedly with those words.

I find it a matter of surprise.... When Bill 146 was brought in last fall we were given 30 minutes to make an assessment of that bill and prepare ourselves for debate. Mind you, the opposition had a little higher calibre in those days than is the case today. Mind you, the official opposition has some very....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That was referring to Bill 146. I appreciate that the official opposition has some very distinguished legal talent available to them — and that's probably why the member for Revelstoke-Slocan is confused about the bill, because I think if he just read it as a labour-relations document he would have had no difficulty in understanding what was taking place. I must say I was a bit confused to hear the member for Revelstoke-Slocan say that he and his party are committed to free collective bargaining. I understood from none other than the paragon of parliamentary practice, procedure and propriety, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in the press over the weekend that that was not the position of the NDP and because they were in favour of a completely controlled economy, collective bargaining was something that they weren't going to support. I thought he would have risen in this place to have assured us that we weren't being confused by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

I would just like to address myself to a couple of matters that each of the members in speaking have contributed to this debate. I appreciate that section 122 of the Labour Code has extensive powers and enables the Minister of Labour to appoint people to make some rather extensive inquiries, and we could certainly have adopted that course of action so far as the railway and the ferries are concerned. However, in light of the difficulties that the member himself recognizes, the fact that it has been a matter of continuing problems, division by division, a great deal of research to be done, and that attention has to be focused upon this particular activity, it was deemed to be appropriate to provide for a special commission, highlighted by this legislative process so there would be no doubt that as that continuing commission did its work, it would have far greater effect than would otherwise be the case if there was simply an appointment under section 122 of the Labour Code.

It has been found as a matter of experience in other jurisdictions that when you have a continuing commission, identifiable with a particular problem, that continuing commission being accountable for its actions even to the parties with whom it must associate, it does a far more businesslike job than is otherwise the case, and therefore it was deemed to be appropriate to highlight this commission in that way and to enable it to discharge its responsibility more effectively.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan touched very lightly upon Part 11. I'm sure he recognizes that after the lengthy involvement of government in the disputes of B.C. Rail some definite assurance has to be given that that railway is going to function. Of course, there are times when strikes are appropriate and the parties have to recognize the consequences of their actions, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this government will not stand idly by when the consequences of that game-playing — because that's what it is — have very, very serious effects upon the economy and upon people who are completely innocent.

To understand the depth of concern there is in this regard — and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) touched upon it very briefly — as well as having difficulty competing on a straight price basis with regard to our major resource industries, those suppliers of wood products who depend upon B.C. Rail — these are some of our major pulp producers — are finding that when they are going out into the international marketplace and attempting to settle contracts, they are being met with the question: "Can you deliver?" Customers abroad are becoming increasingly concerned that their supplies which they contract for from this province are unreliable. They are getting tired of being given the answer: "I am sorry; we can't deliver, because there is a strike on the B.C. Rail."

We are going to see that that doesn't continue to be the case in every way we can by offering every possible assistance to the company and to the unions to resolve their difficulties through the collective bargaining process. It should also be a matter of interest that the hon. Minister of Mines and Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has just today received a letter indicating that since 1974, forest operations.... The Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association, since 1974, again in 1975 and again now, are asking the B.C. Forest Service to give them special consideration with regard to appraisals because they are obliged to rely upon the inconsistencies of B.C. Rail. So the extent to which work stoppages affect not only the railway and its employees but all of the industries and the communities along that rail line cannot be under-estimated.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) said he regretted that the ferries were included in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the member, and in that way to assure the people who are currently negotiating for the employer and the employees in

[ Page 2597 ]

the ferry service, that it is not the intention of the government to proclaim Part III of this bill until such time as they have had every opportunity in the ferry service to resolve their current dispute using the services of the industrial inquiry commission which was announced last week. I have met with representatives of the union and of the Public Service Commission who are currently involved in the inquiry. I am assured that significant progress is taking place and there is no intention on the part of the government to interfere with that process.

But I should also say that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan raised the question of layoffs, saying what a terrible thing it was that the layoffs were drawn into these negotiations and that the government had some responsibility. I should point out that the matter of layoffs on the ferry service was drawn into the negotiations by the unions in the full knowledge that the subject of layoffs was already covered under the master agreement which was concluded between the unions and the Public Service Commission last year.

I wish to thank the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) for his major contribution to this debate and for his perceptive comments with regard to the consequences of arbitration. Arbitration is a serious problem. Contrary to the view expressed by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, arbitrations do not hammer the worker at all. Studies have taken place with regard to the school system in British Columbia, and I'd be happy to make available to the members the results of those studies, showing that just the opposite is the case.

As I said in the course of a debate last week, in major international labour conferences recently held in San Francisco, we found the unusual situation where the national representatives of labour were saying that they demanded the right to have binding arbitration as a method of resolving their disputes. It was the employers who were resisting it. I would be happy to make that material available, too, to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan who, with his duties as Leader of the Opposition, has, of course, not been able to attend to some of the more modern developments in labour matters. (Laughter.)

I also commend the member for North Vancouver–Capilano for talking about the need for cooperation between the employer and the employee and the concepts of industrial democracy which he touched upon very briefly. This is the direction in which we must go; this is the direction in which this government is prepared to go. But we have to have from public employers and from the union leaders in the public service a clear indication that they are prepared to demonstrate the qualities of leadership which are required in order to make industrial democracy function.

I sincerely believe that given the opportunity available to them under section 58, Part I and Part 111, that leadership, that cooperation, that willingness, will disclose itself. In that way, labour unions will be able to achieve a status in our collective bargaining process and in the economy of this province heretofore denied to them. But it is a leadership problem.

With regard to the special commission, I would also like to remind the members that I met with all of the unions on B.C. Rail. They want the special commission. They know that things are not right in B.C. Rail; they want to help put them right. They are looking forward to having the opportunity of a special continuing commission to assist them and management to clear up some of the major difficulties which continue to bother them day after day and produce serious problems when it comes to the collective bargaining time.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) spoke about a bargaining council. I would like to advise the member that on April 2, in response to a request from three of the B.C. Rail unions — the maintenance-of-way, the operating engineers and the teamsters — I directed the Labour Relations Board to undertake necessary examination under section 57 of the Labour Code to determine whether or not it was appropriate that bargaining henceforth take place under a council of unions, or perhaps two councils of unions — operating and non-operating.

Again I can say that at a meeting at which representatives of all the railway unions were present, they said they would like to have one single council of unions to deal with bargaining problems in the B.C. Rail. It seems appropriate, in view of the nature of that particular operation, that such should be done. That will be done under the auspices of the Labour Relations Board. Currently there is a council of B.C. Rail unions which is a voluntary council. There's only one problem with the voluntary council, which is that if you can volunteer in you can volunteer out, and therefore too much power is given to a dissident participant in such a council. You can destroy the effectiveness of the council by simply saying you don't want to play any more. But under section 57 a council being formed in that way and certification being adjusted as necessary will ensure that there can be continuing use of the council approach to the resolution of these disputes.

To the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I don't propose to review the reasons for Bill 22. It's still on the order paper and it can still be called someday. Perhaps it may be required. Sometimes you have to startle people in order to get their attention.

Dealing with third parties, yes, there is good reason why third parties should be free to make public statements and that's why, in the fact-finding aspect, while the fact-finder reports to the parties, the Minister of Labour after a period of time is able to

[ Page 2598 ]

make those facts known publicly. This will in so many instances, I'm sure, encourage the parties to r address themselves more responsibly to the resolution c of the dispute based upon the facts rather than by using rhetoric and pressure and personality play. I certainly think that that is wise.

The other aspect with regard to third-party use that I have considered and believe would be appropriate for consideration by the special mediator t as one of many tools that he might use, the special mediator is not limited in the techniques that he may recommend in the resolution of the dispute, and there is one which is currently being used today in Nanaimo. It is a five-man third party, in effect, with a qualified chairman, a representative from each of the t parties on the commission in order to ensure that any representations are properly translated, but also two members of the community who are directly affected, who have the beginnings, perhaps, of a jury system whereby those members of the community who are s directly affected and maybe have to contribute to the cost of any final solution are themselves members of s the third party.

I think that for perhaps too long labour and management disputes have been resolved when the t only players are from labour and management. We can perhaps introduce in this way, through the I third-party technique, other citizens who have a direct interest in the resolution of the dispute.

Mr. Speaker, I took forward to having the opportunity of discussing with the members concerns which they may have about sections of this bill. Accordingly I now move second reading of Bill 58.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 17

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 58 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 58, Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

RAILWAY AND FERRIES
BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Veitch in he chair.

On section 1.

MR. KING: I believe I have an amendment standing in my name on the order paper, an amendment to section 1. I move the amendment standing in my name. It wouldn't be on the order paper but I provided it for the Clerk.

I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and that is to remove the ferry corporation from inclusion in this bill. That is the intent of the amendment, and, as Indicated earlier, the minister has really failed to provide any justification for including the ferry dispute in this bill. He has failed to indicate where an emergency does exist.

The ferry is operating and I understand the minister has a commitment that it will continue to operate without any interruption of service for a period of time, and I think it might well under those circumstances rely upon the collective bargaining process with the necessary assistance from the Department of Labour to bring about a negotiated settlement rather than to subject them in any way to the provisions of this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe your motion is not in order, and the proper procedure would be to vote against the section.

MR. KING: Why is it not in order?

Interjections.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order, the inclusion in the section 1 refers not only to a non-severable paragraph. One cannot vote against the entire section, because there's one statement that the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) wishes deleted. That one statement is reference to the British Columbia Ferry corporation, and how do you say that taking that out, that amendment, would make the rest of the section 1noperative? That's nonsense. It's a definition section

[ Page 2599 ]

and it's the only way we can go about amending it. I think the Chair should reconsider its position. It's not out of order at all. As a matter of fact, it's the only way the hon. member could reasonably approach this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, if I may explain this. The amendment which I have before me deletes all of section 1, lines 1 to 13. That would, in effect, delete the whole section. This is the amendment which I have here.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, perhaps I can assist the members by saying that the government would not accept the amendment in any event, even if it had been in order. I guess that's what you would call sloppy draftsmanship.

On section 1, Mr. Chairman, I move that lines 8 and 9 of section 1 be amended by deleting the definition of employer in its entirety and substituting the following, a copy of which you have:

"Employer except in Part II means the British Columbia Railway Company and the British Columbia Ferries Division of the Department of Transport and Communications or the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, as the case may be."

The only change is to include the present operator of the ferries, which is British Columbia Ferry Division o f the Department of Transport and Communications, against the possibility that the House may deem it appropriate not to pass the bill which is currently before us to establish the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, to ensure that we have the operator of the ferries included in the definition of employer, and I so move.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, a question to the minister on section 2. In light of the fact that he acknowledged the powers that Part I of the bill does provide to him were already contained under the Labour Code, I wonder why he uses the permissive language in section 2: "the minister may." His explanation in providing justification for putting this before the House, these precise powers in the statutory way, was to highlight the circumstances in the present dispute.

That being the case, I wonder why he uses the permissive language "the minister may" rather than "the minister shall." Permissively, he had all the authority and all the powers under section 122 of the Labour Code which were necessary to accomplish the setting up of a commission, which, I agree, is needed on the railway, even though I disagree with some of the particular powers held by the proposal contained under this statute.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the "may" is in there because it's going to work in very well, possibly, with other parts of the bill.

I'm thinking it was section 2; it's my mistake. I thought it was Part II.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. KING: Again, on section 3, I put the same query to the minister, and I hope he will respond and explain why he has taken this permissive role. Surely if it were necessary to highlight the need for a commission, then it should have been a compulsory requirement of this section rather than a permissive one. Otherwise his whole argument about needing to highlight the need for this commission is completely destroyed. It seems to me that he should have no option if he felt it necessary to come before the Legislature for the authority to place such a commission in operation by statutory permission of this House. The minister, in my View, needs no flexibility in that; he should have been required. Yet all the way through this particular part we see the permissive power extended to the minister, rather than the obligatory one. I wonder if he'd care to respond to that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think it must be quite obvious to the members why it is permissive, both in section 2 and section 3. If it had been obligatory, then the Legislature would have been put to the almost impossible task of specifying precisely when the commission would start, who the commission would be and when its appointment should expire. And that, as the members well know, is not something with which this House can easily direct. Therefore there has to be an element of discretion left to the minister or to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in order to achieve these matters.

To suggest in section 3 that it is permissive is not the case at all- It only extends, in very broad terms, what the special commission may do and the manner in which it shall report. To be mandatory in what the commission shall do would, again, put this House in the position of having to specify item by item by item the responsibilities to be undertaken by the commission. I can assure the members that the extent of the problems, particularly in the railway, are such that we would be here some considerable time debating the specifics of the nature of the inquiry the

[ Page 2600 ]

commission will undertake.

Now with regard to the ferries: there seems to be some confusion that the ferries don't need to have the opportunity of using the special-commission technique. But I would remind the members that in the appointment of the industrial inquiry commission, which is currently doing its job in the present dispute, it was a request from the unions that specific instructions be given to the industrial inquiry commissioner to look into other matters than those directly related with collective bargaining. The same problems — not as extensive — exist in the B.C. Ferry system, and we intend, upon acquiring the people we need to do this job, to ensure that an active look and a proper look is taken at both these transportation systems.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the official opposition does not object to a commission to study the relationship that exists within the ferry authority. I appreciate the minister moving the amendment to bring the part up to date in its proper application, because he was anticipatory of the title that was contained in this bill — another indication of hurried and rather inept draftsmanship, and I attribute this to the political rather than the technical problem, Mr. Chairman.

But the answer the minister gives on the permissive nature is not very well taken, quite frankly. The minister has the authority to set up a commission in any realm, and to set out by order-in-council the full and precise details of the terms of reference that such a commission would operate under. It wasn't necessary — nor would it be necessary if it were mandatory in this bill — to set out all of those precise terms. That could still be done by regulation, and the minister well knows it. I'm surprised that he gave that kind of lame excuse.

It seems to me — and I'm just a bit concerned — that all of the window-dressing, all of the redundant language contained in Part I of this bill, which is completely unnecessary, is an attitude, an aim and an intent to inject something positive into an otherwise questionable bill, and to confuse issues rather than to give to the minister any meaningful power and authority which he lacked. So, quite frankly, it's a redundant bill, but the section that I'm really concerned about is section 5, so we'll continue on to that.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on section 4, I just can't help but observe that it's rather ironic that we find the Minister of Labour coming in with this precise language contained in section 4(c) which provides that the special commission "may determine its own procedure." I can recall, Mr. Chairman, that under debate on the Labour Code of British Columbia, the now Minister of Labour was at that time extremely concerned and exercised that any agency should have the authority to determine its own procedure, and he held that to be extravagant and excessive powers, as did, I believe, the current Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

I just want to observe and take note that apparently they have found that, within the realm of industrial relations, sometimes it is necessary to take a fresh look.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I thank the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) very much for those comments with regard to section 4. I wish to assure you that I am prepared to allow the special commission to determine its own procedure, because I can be fully satisfied that one appointed b this government can be trusted to do its job.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, the way this section 4(c) is written leaves the opportunity for political interference with the commission, and the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan is quite correct. If it said "shall" it would relieve the minister of having charges in the future that there may have been political interference. If it said "shall, " then it determines its own procedure. With "may, " it means sometimes it will be allowed to. Other times the minister will tell them you are not allowed to, or at least it leaves that inference in the air.

You know, the minister seems to be under some misapprehension. He feels that how he interprets an Act is how it is going to be interpreted, when he knows full well, as a lawyer, that that isn't the way it happens. The law has to stand on its own. This is going to be law. So why shouldn't it be "shall" and remove any doubt from the mind of anyone that the minister or government are going to interfere? I don't think it is good enough for the minister to stand up and say, now that they are in, everything they do will be above-board. It has to be fair in the eyes of everyone and it has to stand up in a court of law at some time, probably.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just have a simple question on 5(1)(b), where the special commission may inquire into "any other matter affecting relations between an employer and its employees not included or referred to in a collective agreement." And later on in the subsequent part of this same section, the commission has the power for

[ Page 2601 ]

90 days to make some of these recommendations final and binding. I can't understand what kind of issues that are not included in a collective agreement would be of that kind of importance, first of all, that the commission would be asked to look into them and, secondly, that they would be given the power to make them binding. If so, why for 90 days?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Section 5(1)(b) is there specifically to ensure that the special commission does not involve itself in those matters which are made the subject of collective agreements and therefore negotiations for collective agreements by the parties. If the commission is to be continuing.... It is not to cease its work during the time that negotiations take place. Therefore it is to remain aloof from those issues which become involved in collective bargaining, and, as the members know, what is made an issue and placed on the table is for the parties to determine, and if they debate those matters and if they decide to put them into a collective agreement, then that is something that the special commission will not address itself to. That's the concern that we have there.

But with regard to the binding aspect, one of the clearest examples of the need to make binding for a period of 90 days decisions outside the collective bargaining procedures is one of jurisdictional dispute. In such a case the special commission could — it's not obliged to, but could — make recommendations which are binding, and these are provisions similar to what you find in the Labour Code of British Columbia with regard to the powers of a special officer. But his power with regard to binding matters only extends for 30 days.

MR. WALLACE: I can see the second part of the answer, but I just can't understand the minister's answer about matters not included in a collective agreement being apparently the primary interest of the special commission. I agree that a special commission is not intended under the bill to become involved in negotiations when there is an impasse or a breakdown and that it is more of a longer-term inquiry. But surely if we take the railway as an example, when the special commission is set up, am I wrong in assuming that a great amount of the issues that that commission will have to study will not be matters that are presently in the collective agreement? If that is the case, would the minister perhaps, for my information, or the information of the members, tell us then what are the main areas, in the case of the railway just as a specific example, that the special commission is going to delve into in great detail which are not presently part and parcel of the expired agreement?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think it is fair to say that the first task that will face the,, commission will be those matters dealt with under section 5(1)(a), which is job evaluation. This is one of the major problems which is causing distress on the railway as between various employee groups. That will be where they will address themselves first.

But then we begin to look at other aspects of the railway operation, the whole question of the conflict between long-standing rules of railroading and the conflict that is developing when we have other non-railroad unions becoming more closely allied with the railway operation, the conflicts between the concept in which railways have been run in the past and where similar services are now being performed in other aspects that apply with regard to trucking. The railway is into trucking as much as it is into the hauling by rail, so there are very serious conflicts with regard to the way in which the railway looks at its operations, including the use of trucks, truck drivers and so on, and the way in which those services are provided in non-railway industries. There'll have to be a considerable amount of study and evaluation made into the rationalizing of those problems.

You have now in B.C. Rail the teamsters in the B.C. Rail and the teamsters in industries not in B.C. Rail. The teamsters have great difficulty in being convinced that somehow or other the railroad is a different kind of operation, that trucks on the railway are different from trucks anyplace else. That's one of the matters which has to be resolved.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the minister's answer just now, would questions of this kind not normally be handled under the existing Labour Code without any need to transfer to this special commission? That's my first question.

My second question is concerning the job evaluation, part l(a). The exact language here says that the commission is to report and make recommendations on the procedures to be followed in implementation of job evaluation. Does that mean that the special commission is responsible only for the procedures and not the actual undertaking of the job evaluation itself, or are they to bring in a report that says that this job, as related to this job, is underpaid and should be upgraded or downgraded, and so on? Are they to do the specific detail or only design the procedures?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't envisage this special commission as being the one which would actually undertake the job-evaluation procedures. Job evaluation is a highly technical problem and there are in this province probably half a dozen companies or organizations who are skilled and qualified in carrying that out. It is the intention that this special commission will concern itself with the procedures to be followed and the implementation of it. It is for

[ Page 2602 ]

that reason that the commission, as far as job evaluation is concerned, may make recommendations binding. Of course, they're into the collective agreement so that we don't run into the same problems with the railway as we have recently experienced with the hospitals.

MR. GIBSON: The special commission then would design the job-evaluation procedures and the work of actually doing the job evaluation would go to a technical specialist. Would the commission then have the power under section 2 to implement the specific job-evaluation levels that were reported back to it, or would that be a matter of negotiation between the parties?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is provided in the legislation that it can be either way, but if the commission, having received a report, wishes in its report to provide that all or part of it can be part of the collective agreement, then the commission can, in fact, open the collective agreement, put in the job-evaluation study requirements, and that becomes part of the collective agreement between the parties. But hopefully we're not going to get into lengthy dispute in the processes of collective bargaining as to whether or not the job-evaluation programme is going to be implemented or not. This is a subject, I believe, which is within a matter of general agreement between both the unions and the company.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I understand what the minister is trying to do here, but I'm a bit concerned, though, about the application of this particular section. It concerns me that the parties, the union and the employer, have no veto or have no authority with respect to those issues that the special commission might take under advisement and subsequently introduce as binding on the parties. I think the minister would recognize that quite frequently there are issues left over from rounds of bargaining pertaining to working conditions, pertaining to a whole variety of things that might have been the subject of continuous discussion at bargaining rounds, such as pension plans, such as sleeping accommodations, boarding accommodations on the job.

But section 5 now provides that the commission at its own discretion may perceive that one of these issues is the source of some discord on the job and might seize to themselves that issue and arbitrarily provide a solution, and introduce that solution into the collective agreement, which would mean that that issue which by tradition and by law generally, has been a bargainable issue.... That's the difficulty I have with the section, if I read it correctly.

The commission is empowered to take under advisement not only a job-evaluation programme but any other matter, as I understand it. Let me read section 5(1)(b): "...any other matter affecting relations between an employer and its employees not included or referred to in a collective agreement."

Well, perhaps this is an issue they've decided they could not resolve at the bargaining table — it's a holdover issue. It would certainly be in the company's favour, in some instances, to indicate to the commission that this was a problematic issue on the job, and therefore to refer it to that commission for a binding decision which would subsequently become incorporated in the collective agreement and used to meet the next round of bargaining with an advantage in terms of their posture on this particular issue that, as the minister would know the old saying, possession is nine points of the law. They could certainly find themselves in a preferential position by seizing themselves of that opportunity. I'd just like to hear his response on that; that seems to be a possibility under the section.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's not a possibility under the section, and may I make it perfectly clear that the only matter the special commission can insert into a collective agreement, and make final and binding, is the matter of job evaluation. It's only with respect to matters under subsection l(a) — and that is limited to the procedures for development and implementation of job evaluation — that that can be inserted in a collective agreement and made final and binding. Other matters not involved in the collective agreement may be final and binding, but only for 90 days. And the member for Revelstoke-Slocan knows full well the reason why that is applicable in some cases.

May I also point out that even if the commission does, through its job-evaluation power, put it into the collective agreement, subsection 5(2)(c) still leaves in the hands of the parties the right to vary their own collective agreement. We are not taking away from the parties the right to bargain collectively and settle their own agreements. Even if the commission is able to force something on them for 90 days, or in the case of job evaluation, on a final and binding basis, the parties can subsequently make those adjustments.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the reference to "normal operations" in section 7(1)(a)(ii) is a new phrase, I think, in industrial relations. I see no interpretation under this section as to what precisely "normal operations" means. And being somewhat familiar with the railway industry, I wonder how the minister and/or his agency proposes to determine normal operations on the railway. The railway is very,

[ Page 2603 ]

very much subject to the fluctuations of shipping demand, and the work force accordingly fluctuates on a 10-day basis quite frequently; their staff, in most railway operations at least, is adjusted on a 10-day basis. In addition to this, of course, the railways t operate by a very, very complicated system of uniform code of operating rules, which on the railway is are very intricate, very extensive and exhaustive. It just wonder how the minister proposes to enforce the intent of section 7(1)(a)(ii) where it refers to the resumption of employment and employees required for its normal operation. How will that "normal operations" be determined?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, "normal operations" is specifically defined in section 6 which we just passed. Am I to understand that the member didn't read section 6 which defines specifically, normal operations? I'll read it: " 'normal operations' means such operations of the employer as require the employment of not less than the normal number of employees employed during a period specified in an order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." It will be the responsibility of the Lieutenant-Governor-in council in making the specification to determine from the railroad when its last period, as in the present case, of what they would consider to be normal operations would apply. The railway must within 48 hours return to work not less than the number of employees who were normally engaged at that time.

I fully recognize — and I appreciate the comments of the member — that it is not easy because of the nature of railway operations. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the railway is very concerned as to its ability to meet this stringent test. They are concerned they are going to have too many employees on the job with not enough to do. But I might also point out that in taking away the rights of the employees to strike, under Part 11, for 30 days, we believe that it is not inappropriate that the company take on some very special responsibilities in that regard.

MR. KING: That's the point, Mr. Chairman. I know what the minister means. I am quite aware of the interpretation placed on the section 1n this part but I find it particularly useless in terms of any reasonable application in the circumstances. If it is his intent as I now understand, that normal operations will be determined to be that level of operation that obtained when the dispute took place, that's a different matter. But I don't think it indicates that in the section. If that's the minister's intent then I think that should have been said rather than the term "normal operations," because normal operations, as I indicated briefly at the outset, gives the employer extreme flexibility in determining his demand based on a shipping obligation, which naturally is going to be at rock-bottom immediately following any dispute. So there would be very little obligation on an employer under those circumstances. I think if the minister meant that the operation should be restored o its normal level when the dispute occurred, that's precisely what the legislation should say. It does not ay that. It leaves great flexibility for the employer to take his sweet time about building his operation back up to whatever level traffic demands at the time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am pleased that the member recognized the difficulty. We chose the definition which we thought. was the easiest one to implement. It is not the intention of the government to appoint a period which gives the railway any special rights and favours over its employees. But I am sure if the member would consider the tortuous history of this railway over just the past few months so far as its operations are concerned, the selection of a period is one very difficult. For instance, to select one when you have so-called "slow wheels" is to select a period when perhaps in certain areas your employee levels are very high; in certain others, it is very low. All I can do is to assure the members, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the intention to play games with the employees of the railway during the imposition of this 30-day period for binding arbitration.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not given a clear indication that it will be his intention and his clear commitment to restore the operation to what it was when the dispute occurred. I don't think that it is all that difficult. The minister obviously reread Bill 146 again recently. I think if he looks at the language contained therein, he will find that it's not too difficult in legislative terms to frame and draft legislation which extends some protection to the employees also. I am aware of the slow wheel that has been in effect on the BCR. I know that the Minister of Labour would not want to place himself in the position of assessing blame as to whether or not the dispute and its effects, whatever they are, are the fault solely of the employees., or the fault solely of management. I think the responsible thing to do is to try to make sure that legislation, when it is necessary for the government to intervene, mitigates the impact to the employee as well as the railway. I find no protection under this section whatsoever. If the minister is willing to give the kind of commitment to the House that I suspect he intended — that as soon as the bill applies all of those employees who were within the employ of the company at the time the dispute was initiated will be returned — then I think they are getting some equal protection too, but there is nothing in the statute to protect them other than that kind of commitment from the minister at the moment.

[ Page 2604 ]

MR. LAUK: Just one further comment in associating myself with the remarks of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), Mr. Chairman. We would otherwise be comforted by the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor would be making this kind of judgment. It seems to me that the minister is his arrogance suggests that he in one breath as a member of the opposition — the Liberal opposition — would not approve of wide-ranging powers for the government of the day, but because he is a member of this government, well, it's all right; the people can trust him.

Well, I don't think so. I think that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in this apparently innocuous section, just referring back to section 6 — the definition which applies in 7 here.... The Lieutenant-Governor, depending on the cabinet, depending on what decision they make, can make or break the trade union on the railway, and that's the point, I think, that the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is trying to make.

It's not just an "Oh, well, the cabinet will decide fairly and reasonably," because their decision could break the trade union on that line and be a total power-stroke on the part of the management of the railway to do so. That's why we're trying to impress upon the minister the need to specifically outline in the section exactly what period of time will be chosen so the trade unions will not be placed in such a disadvantage.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I think that normal operation is probably as specific as we can get for the labour conditions in B.C. at this time. I'm quite sure a lot of the customers would like to see that normal operation be a lot more specific than it is in the definition here.

MR. LEA: That's what we're saying.

MR. LLOYD: I think they'd like to see that normal operation means that it's going to be operated on a continual basis for them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe we've canvassed section 6. We're dealing with section 7.

MR. LLOYD: Yes, this is 7(a)(i), "resume its normal operations."

Again, to strike up the operations of the railway and resume a full normal operation is extremely difficult when a large number of the customers have been shut down due to the lack of service. So I think it's completely irrelevant to expect it to be cranked right up at full capacity right off the bat until the customers are assured that it's going to be operating continually.

MR. LEA: He doesn't agree with you, Allan. He doesn't agree with you.

MR. KING: Now, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that it's going to be difficult. It's going to take time for the demand on the work force to be increased by shipping demands. That's true. But if we do not impose that obligation on the company, we are saying, "Look, the whole responsibility and guilt, if indeed you classify it as guilt, for this interruption rests on the employees." They are the ones who have been laid off. Large numbers have been laid off, and surely, when there's this kind of intrusion into the right of free collective bargaining, the government has an obligation to ensure that it's an even-handed intrusion, that the company bears some responsibilities for the conflict and the interruption of services as well as the employees.

I think it's time that this government, indeed any government, departed from the old smug approach that when it's necessary to intrude, the employees lose their right to strike and the employer has all these options open of leaving them out in the wilderness in terms of employment until it's completely profitable again for him to restore them to his work force. I think there's an equal responsibility here for the interruption in the railway.

I think it's fair and rational that the Minister of Labour should give an undertaking to this House that those hundreds of railway workers who have been laid off will be recalled immediately when this bill becomes law and that the employer has an obligation to pay them their wages and in that way the employer understands as well that he is paying some of the price for the breakdown in collective bargaining on the property. He is not going to be able to sit there, secure that some paternalistic rightist-looking government is going to bail him out and ask the employees to bear all the guilt and all the sacrifice for the disruption. So I hope the minister will give us that kind of undertaking.

I never heard the minister give us that kind of undertaking. I want to see this bill get serious and speedy consideration, but I expect the minister to answer. This is a simple question. He danced around that subject. He seemed to imply it.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I wish I knew of some way of assisting him further and injecting a bit more sand into his system so he might spring to his feet and give that kind of firm undertaking on behalf of working people in this province.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, we haven't impressed upon the minister the seriousness of the opposition requests in this matter. I think we do understand the

[ Page 2605 ]

problem, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister. We do understand the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Listen to who's talking.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: We got somebody playing a junior Van Home on the BCR, who fires 1,200 people with a stroke of the pen — 1,200 who are going without income for their families and you say we don't understand the problem. No, Mr. Minister, we understand the problem only too well. You are taking the side of management against those families.

We want to outline in this legislation...at the very minimum, undertake to hire those people back so families can be fed and clothed again. You refused to do so and you have the arrogance to say "Trust us." No, sir.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm sorry that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has to become so incensed in this matter.

As a matter of fact, the re-employment of those people laid off would have started last Friday morning if you hadn't filibustered the bill through Thursday. Let's just have some clear understanding of why we're here at this particular time debating this bill. Those employees would all be back working today and that railroad would be running if the NDP had allowed it to go ahead on Thursday.

You talk about junior Van Hornes — you were a director of that railway and the executive vice-president, and you should know better what the problems are in that railway because you caused them to a very significant degree by interfering with the way management was conducting its affairs.

Now to answer the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), I think I gave him the kind of assurance that he knows can be given in this particular case. I asked him to consider quite carefully what period he would suggest over the long range of difficulties that there have been.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Would you like to tell me what it was? Would you take May 5?

MR. KING: Sure, I'll tell you what it was.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Would you take May 5, which was the day before the layoffs?

MR. KING: If I give you the date, will you agree?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I won't agree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not your decision, it's the decision of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Mr. Chairman, the selection of a period for the implementation is one that is very difficult. You might take one just before the dispute, which is what the member for Revelstoke-Slocan would have us accept. As a matter of fact, at that particular time there was severe difficulty with regard to car shortages, and that would be the worst time to take, because that would be the very worst time for the employees on the railway. The government is very concerned at that.

MR. KING: When did the layoffs start?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The layoffs started on May 6.

MR. KING: What's wrong with that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I told you. The day before May 6 was not a very good time to pick, and this government is very conscious of that. I said we were not going to play games with the employees on this matter, and we would select a period which was fair to the employees. That's the only commitment I can give in this regard.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I was much impressed with the vigour with which the minister defended his position, and perhaps it's worthwhile reviewing exactly what has been said in the House in the last two minutes. The minister said that those employees would all be back to work if the bill had been passed last Thursday.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: All right, Mr. Minister, if we accept the weight of your argument, then you're blaming us for them losing four days' work. If they would all have been back the day after if the bill has passed last Thursday, we want a commitment that they'll all be back tomorrow if the bill is passed today. You cannot come into this House and say in the heat of one moment that it's the NDP's fault that they weren't all back at work last Friday, but when we ask for a commitment that they go to work on Tuesday — "Oh, well, that's different." You can't have it both ways. You can't get up in the heat of excitement or anger at my good friend the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who does not deserve that kind of verbal abuse, or the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)...and I'm shocked

[ Page 2606 ]

that two worthy fellows like that would exchange heated words. But I appreciate the fact that you've made this statement clearly to the House. You said clearly to the House that if the bill had passed last Thursday all these people would have been back to work. If the bill is passed today tell us that they'll all be back at work tomorrow, or otherwise you're playing politics.

MR. KING: I just want to make this point, too, Mr. Chairman. As acknowledged by the minister, he has had the authority, ever since he assumed the office of Minister of Labour, to get his commission going. He had that authority, and perhaps had he exercised that authority at an earlier point, some of I the underlying problems that have caused disruption on that property would have been dealt with by now. That's a possibility, but to suggest that the opposition interfered with the passage of this bill in an I unreasonable way is so much nonsense.

I have every reason to believe that the Premier of this province and the Minister of Labour had that bill prepared at least two days before it was ever introduced into this House. The Premier gave that kind of indication. If it was that kind of an emergency to bring these people back to work, why didn't you introduce the bill when it was prepared and ready? That was the indication you gave to the House, so that's playing politics with the thing, and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this bill does deserve reasonable and detailed scrutiny in this House. This and every other bill is going to get that kind of detailed and responsible scrutiny. We have a responsible opposition in this province, and after the next election we'll have a responsible government once again.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this section 8 is one of the most objectionable — if not the most objectionable — sections of the bill. This is the section that I interpret as eliminating the question of retroactivity from the realm of bargaining.

I want to say that I have received some pretty impressive interpretations and opinions which agree with me on this point, and I sincerely say to the minister that if it is your intent that retroactivity should be left as an issue to the parties to bargain for, then you'd better have a serious second look at this section 8(1), because it states: "The term of every collective agreement to which this part applies is extended to include the period beginning from its expiry date and ending on the date on which a new or revised collective agreement comes into effect." Now that means, in short, the continuation of the old collective agreement.

Historically when a collective agreement expires, it sometimes takes a matter of months, even up to a year, to achieve a collective agreement renewal, and the retroactivity issue pertains to that interim period between the time the old contract expires and the new one is signed and executed. And that has always been a matter subject to negotiation between the parties; they've bargained as to whether there is full retroactivity of the new rate signed to the date the old agreement expires or not — sometimes there's a portion thereof.

But the language contained in section 8(1), as I interpret it — and I can tell you that I have had at east one very, very distinguished opinion which supports that point of view — you are completely, by statute, eliminating retroactivity as a bargainable issue. Now that would be a first in industrial relations law in Canada; it has always been bargainable.

I hope that the minister will get up and explain his intent, if that is indeed his intent, Then I have to oppose that in the strongest possible terms and point out that it has nothing to do with solving this dispute. That's a side issue that is in no way necessary, and I don't think the minister would want to put that kind of additional inflammatory provision in the statute when it's not necessary to solving the dispute before us. It will only inflame the matter and convince the workers that they have been shafted in this issue. I don't think it will be conducive to creating more harmonious industrial relations on the property. So I am very interested in hearing what the minister has to say, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, and to have it clearly recorded, that there is no intention in section 8 to take away any of the rights of retroactivity that any of the unions on B.C. Rail may have. The three agreements which have already been dealt with by binding arbitration have had their rights of retroactivity preserved, and that is the case with regard to the union that will be dealt with under Part II of this Act.

As a matter of fact, I have had equally distinguished opinions as to the meaning of subsection (1), and it only makes it certain that until there is a new or revised collective agreement, settled by binding arbitration, that there is no uncertainty as to the conditions of work that is binding upon the company and upon the union. That is why it is there: to codify what the common law is, as I understand it to be.

When the collective agreement comes to an end and employees continue to work, they then are deemed to work under a common-law agreement, and the common law will import the terms of the previous existing agreement. Now all we want to

[ Page 2607 ]

make certain is that there is no argument about the matter in this particular case.

If I might refer to another dispute which is currently going on — the one in Nanaimo — one of the issues that prevented the union from agreeing to a binding award of the RIC in the Nanaimo dispute was that the union said: "We want one of the conditions to be that our previous collective agreement is extended during the time this is taking place and will continue to be in force and effect, because we don't want our workers on the job with any questions as to whether they have the right to grievance and other matters which might be of very serious concern during the period of the settlement of the agreement."

So just let me make it perfectly certain that the only intention is to codify what my advisers tell me is the common law extension of the effective agreement; it is not to take away any of the rights of retroactivity that this union has in the course of its collective agreement, or to limit the board of arbitration in dealing with it in that particular way.

MR. KING: I just want to say briefly, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate the minister's statement. It's a clear and concise statement and I certainly appreciate him making that to the House. He's a lawyer and I know he has good advisers, and I accept that. I hope that he can be that forward and that frank in terms of the undertakings I think are required on the various other sections too.

MR. LAUK: I realize that the minister is under a great deal of pressure. The bill was drafted and brought forward last week and is being debated this week and the situation is grave. I didn't mean to encourage the rather spirited exchange that took place on the previous section. I do suppose, though, that after the minister, on section 8, has confirmed to us that it does not eliminate retroactivity, there doesn't seem to me any reason why this would be in here other than what would be the normal operation, which would be that the collective agreement continue.

I don't consider that enough of an earth-shattering point, on my part, to require an answer, but I am just puzzled by section 8 in itself.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to remove the puzzlement. We don't want any question to arise during the period that the arbitration is continuing as to whether or not the existing collective agreement applies or doesn't apply in whole or in part. We don't want any other issues to interfere in the quickest possible resolution of this contract.

MR. WALLACE: I just want clarification on 8(3)(a) where section 7 applies during the extension period. That means that when the agreement that will now be hammered out by arbitration expires there will be no strike or lockout situation until the next new agreement is written, however long that period of time might be. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. It's to make certain that there is no strike until we have a new collective agreement resolved under Part 11.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not quite clear. I haven't expressed it well, I guess. I'm thinking about the situation that applies when this present agreement is written, the one that the arbitration will result in. As I read the very convoluted wording in subsection (1) and then go down to 3(a) and find that section 7 then applies, it is my reading, and maybe I need legal advice, that the new agreement will expire, let us say, in a year from now, and if there is no new agreement the day after that agreement expires, section 7 applies, which means they cannot go on strike or cannot be locked out at the end of that period of time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no. That is not the meaning of section 8 or any other of the sections in Part II.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, again I wonder why the minister felt it necessary to introduce section 10. Again, it seems to me to be a redundant section, because the obligation to bargain is already provided for in the Labour Code. I just wonder why we find a lot of language in this bill — a bill which the minister has indicated to us is necessary to meet an emergency — why it contains so much redundant authority which is already conferred upon the minister and obligations which are already imposed upon the parties under the provisions of the Labour Code.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We considered this matter very carefully, Mr. Chairman, and with the introduction of binding arbitration it is arguable whether the provisions of the Labour Code requiring the continued bargaining in good faith still apply. To make absolutely certain that there could be no question raised in this regard, we put section 10 in, because we do not wish the parties to continue to negotiate before this board.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

[ Page 2608 ]

MR. KING: Again, Mr. Chairman, I am looking for some clarification from the minister under section 11(2): "The board of arbitration shall remain seized of and may deal with all matters in dispute until new or revised collective agreements between the employer and the trade unions affected are in full force and effect."

I wonder if the minister has really considered the effect of that language, because it is frequently — indeed, usually — the case that a collective agreement is not in full force and effect until the last phase of the term of that collective agreement. In other words, if it is a two-year collective agreement, there are frequently, very often, provisions that only come into force and effect on the last month of that collective agreement — phased-pay wages and a variety of other matters such as pension adjustments and COLA clauses. This section 1ndicates to me that the arbitration board would then be remaining seized of and in control of all of the relationship between the employer and the union until every aspect of that collective agreement came into force and effect, which could be two years hence. I think the minister might well consider that. I doubt whether that is the intent.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate what the member for Revelstoke-Slocan says, and that's precisely why it was put in. It's because of the difficulties that have been encountered over so many meetings with these parties. We decided that in settling the terms of this agreement we were going to make certain that nothing was going to come unstuck between the time that the agreement was settled until it was in full force and effect. Now so far as the period is concerned, this agreement will be in full force and effect until about July, 1977.

There is another reason that subsection (2) is there, and that is the advent of the Anti-Inflation Act of Canada and the Anti-Inflation Board. The members will recall that following the submission of the pulp dispute to the Anti-Inflation Board, various adjustments were made, and then ensured a long and sometimes difficult negotiations between the employer and employee as to how you implemented the rollback. Then they had to go back to the Anti-Inflation Board and finally work it out. Well, if the parties have difficulty in resolving any action that the Anti-Inflation Board may ever have to take with regard to this contract, we want to have it resolved by this same arbitration board if they can't agree. Therefore there remain shades of the matter, but nothing ever prevents the management and the union from reaching their agreement.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is ad libbing on that one. I doubt that he would really intend to set up not only an arbitration board that looked at dissolving a dispute settlement, as it were, a commission to look at the underlying problems on the railway, but contained in the same bill a continuing arbitration for a collective agreement administration. And that's what he's really saying.

You are talking about yet a third function here: you are talking about a special commission to look at the underlying problems on the railway; you are talking about a board of arbitration to deal with the dispute per se and come up with dispute resolution; and now you are suggesting to us, and suggesting through the language contained in section 11(2), that another function of the arbitration will be for contract administration.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, that's the effect of it; that would be the only conceivable purpose for them remaining seized of all the issues until every provision in the collective agreement has been executed and come into full force. I think this is nonsense; I think it is sloppy drafting.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, again the minister seems to come up with language that is certainly unaccustomed in terms of legislative statutes. section 14 is very simple: where a new or revised collective agreement comes into effect, pursuant to this part, this part ceases to apply to the parties to that collective agreement. Now I don't know whether that means — it certainly could be interpreted to mean — that the current collective agreement, once achieved, is exempt, and that all future collective agreements are subject to this part, which would certainly mean that continuing compulsory arbitration is in the wind and is the norm for the railway industry from this point on. I would ask the minister to comment on that. That section appears to be in great conflict with section 11(2), I believe it is, Mr. Chairman, which gives a different impression as to when the duration and control of the board expires.

Section 11, as we've just discussed, indicates — and the minister agrees — that they'll remain seized of the issue until possibly the last month in a two-year collective agreement. Down the road two years from now section 14 provides that where a new collective agreement comes into effect, pursuant to this Act, this part ceases to apply to the parties to that collective agreement. Basic conflict there, and a question as to whether or not the particular word "that" collective agreement infers and implies that this compulsory-arbitration mechanism will remain in effect through all future collective agreements.

[ Page 2609 ]

Terrible drafting, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister will respond. He should have asked his deputy for help.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm perfectly happy to respond. I'm sorry that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has difficulty in reading clear language and necessary intendment: "that" collective agreement in section 14 is the new or revised one.

I read it in the press and I have heard it in the corridors that the official opposition is very disturbed because this is going to continue on and on and on. But it's quite obvious that no one has cared to address themselves to the very specific definition in section 6, which applies only to Part II, and makes it perfectly clear that there are only two collective agreements to which Part 11 can apply: one with the UTU and one with the typographical union, which is a small unit of five printers — and that's in the process of being wound down because that operation is going to cease.

So, in effect, Part II by definition can only apply to the UTU, and when the UTU and the railway, with the assistance of binding arbitration under Part 11, have a new collective agreement, then Part II ceases between those two parties; it's as simple as that.

MR. KING: I appreciate the minister's response with reference to section 6. It does not, however, answer the concern I have and the question I have with respect to the tenure of the arbitration board. There is quite an indication of conflict between section 11(2) and section 14.

The minister has supported my understanding of section 11(2) that they may well stay in place and remain seized of any of the matters involved until the last day of a two-year collective agreement. Yet section 14 says that where a new collective agreement comes into effect, this part ceases to exist. I don't think we can have it both ways. I think the arbitration board will be wondering where their authority starts and ends. I think that the minister should have a hard look at that and come up with some amendment that makes the tenure of the arbitration board consistent and clear and concise.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: May I just say, Mr. Chairman, that the arbitration board continues to be seized of the matter until the agreement is in full force and effect, and when it is in full force and effect partly disappears at the same time, so Part 11 and the arbitration board disappear at the same time. Nothing could be clearer than that.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there is a drafting error in section 15. The word "section" should be "part." Therefore I've already given an amendment which I move for section 1S.

Amendment approved.

MR. LAUK: I'm having trouble in reading 15 with section 16(1)(f), I believe it is. I need a Philadelphia lawyer for this one, because in section 15, Mr. Chairman, it says: "In this part 'normal operations' means such operations of an employer as require the employment of not less than the normal number of employees employed during a period specified in an order made under section 16." section 16(1) (f) says: "The terms and conditions of employment shall be those terms and conditions prevailing with respect to the employees of that employer during the period specified under section 15, except to the extent that the employer and the trade union affected agree to vary them." I think they're going to have to agree, Mr. Chairman. What period are you talking about? You have the same period. section 15 says the period mentioned in section 16; section 16 says the same period mentioned in section 15. No one gets around to mentioning a period.

MR. BARRETT: That's how you guys make money.

MR. LAUK: That's right. I was just going to say that this is going to assure my pension plan if I go into labour law.

Maybe the minister can answer that. In any event, section 15 takes us to the same problem that we had before, Mr. Chairman, which is this: What are the "normal operations"? They say the normal operations will include what the employer really requires. We have to rely greatly on executive council order for this kind of a situation. This can be used as an economic clout against the trade unions.

The minister has already made a commitment that all 1,200 people laid off on the BCR will be rehired shortly after the passage of this bill, and I expect that he will make the same commitment with respect to, let's say, the ferries, when they come under section 15. Would the minister be making any such commitment with respect to section 15 as he made previously to Part II of this Act? I think it's important that ferry workers who have been laid off are assured of their jobs. There's no emergency situation with respect to the ferries, Mr. Chairman, except one emergency caused by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis): he raised the ferry rates so high, nobody can take them. That's the emergency. It has nothing to do with labour-management relations, but with respect to the people that are employed on these ferries and have

[ Page 2610 ]

been, a great many of them, upwards of 15 and 20 years, what is the commitment of this minister that there won't be holus-bolus layoffs? Because the ferries are practically idle because of the outrageous fares that are being charged, will they not fire all of the ferry staff except for a skeleton crew to handle a few tourists we're now getting from Utah?

Section 15 as amended approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I have placed on the table an amendment to subsection 2(a)(1). I don't think the members know, because I just placed it on the table today and I want to explain, if I may. I ask the members to turn to page 8 of the bill. The bill as originally drafted made provision that every person, when an order is made, must immediately give notice to the employees that any declaration, authorization or direction to go on strike has become or is invalid. That's in the third line of page 8.

We considered that very carefully and we recognized that the effect of that might be to nullify strike votes, et cetera. Therefore I propose to delete the words "has become or is invalid" and substitute instead "is suspended for a period described in the order." So any action which the union may have taken with regard to taking a strike vote or having declared a strike would not be invalidated but would merely be suspended so they wouldn't have to repeat again the actions which they have already taken. I move that amendment.

Amendment approved.

On section 16 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like some clarification or confirmation by the minister on what I think is a key phrase in this bill that has been missed. It reminds me of the Criminal Code on abortion where the health of a patient is likely to suffer. You don't have to prove that the person is going to suffer. In this case, the wording reads that the cabinet being "of the opinion that an immediate and substantial threat to the economy and welfare of the Province and its citizens exists or is likely to occur...may, by order," prescribe 90-days cooling-off. Now I am a little puzzled how you can cool something off before it gets heated up.

The implication in that wording is that before an actual strike happens, if the cabinet deems that damage to the economy is likely to occur, this 90-day period could be imposed prior to any actual strike or lockout action. That surely is a momentous decision in the labour relations field — to, in effect, impose a cooling-off period before a strike actually happens. It means that, in effect, you are taking away the right to strike in a rather subtle and roundabout way. But that phrase "is likely to occur" is a conditional phrase predicting that something is going to happen.

The biggest problem I've encountered in trying to follow the recent debates on these disputes in this House is that we all have differing opinions as to how much damage a strike is doing once it is started, whether it be in the hospital field or a slowdown on the railway or a slowdown on the ferries. In this section 1t seems to me that that is a pretty dramatic assumption that the cabinet would have the power to make — that a group is threatening to strike and if it occurs there would be damage to the economy or to the welfare of citizens. Therefore the cooling-off period, so-called, would be imposed before the strike every started. Would the minister just like to confirm that for the record?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That is a possibility, and we had to take that into account. It is less likely to be perceived in the case of the railway but certainly, if we were threatened suddenly with a complete closure of the ferry service, then the welfare of the citizens, certainly of this island and of theSunshine Coast, would be in immediate jeopardy. The cabinet would have to take into consideration whether or not during the expiry of the strike notice this action should or should not be taken. So it is a cooling-off period, recognizing, as I'm sure the member does, that we only reach this stage after rather lengthy negotiations and a realization that the parties are so far apart they are not going to be able to settle their contract dispute without the assistance of some third party. It is for that reason that this extraordinary power is being given to the government.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister just said that this is an extraordinary power. I am surprised that the debate hasn't given more attention to the fact that the minister has just acknowledged, that it is an extraordinary power and that, in effect, it takes away the right to strike. Because the government is giving itself the power to consider what is likely to occur and to prevent a group of employees exercising what in a modern society they consider to be the ultimate weapon. It is surprising to me that this House and perhaps the official opposition doesn't seem to realize that this section, in fact, takes away the right to strike.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Suspends it.

MR. WALLACE: The minister interjects that it suspends the right to strike. Nevertheless, it is a very dramatic, strong move by the government to place within the authority of the cabinet the right to

[ Page 2611 ]

prevent a legitimate union set up under the statutes of this province from exercising what all unions consider the most important part of all their authority. I consider that this again is overkill or overreaction, that the government.... I accept the minister's statement that you don't get to this point until you have gone through a lot of negotiation in attempts to avoid a strike, but I think we might be a little more blunt and open and fair with the unions — if we are saying to them: "You have the right to strike but as soon as it looks as if you are going to strike we are going to cool you off for 90 days."

I have always felt that in the whole field of labour-management problems the whole concept of a cooling-off period is to intervene when the established consequences of a strike are consequences of a strike are developing. To be fair, Mr. Chairman, this same minister answered many of my questions over the period of time that the hospitals were on strike. When I was hoping that the government would perhaps intervene to a greater degree, he kept assuring me that the evidence available was that there wasn't any serious danger to the welfare of the patients, yet in this bill dealing with transportation, which is not the lives of patients....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, ferries and railways — the government wants to have the power to even stop the strike before it gets started. Now that's a remarkable.... I am not saying that's bad from the position I take, but it's not the kind of implication the minister gave when he introduced this bill this afternoon for second reading. He talked about flexibility and a variety of options. There's no flexibility to the union here; the union threatens to go on strike and the cabinet deems that there will be these things happen. They can thwart the legitimate right of the union to even embark on a strike for one hour, presumably.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Suspend it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister keeps interjecting the word "suspend" — for 90 days, I suppose, is what is intended. But whether it was for nine days or 19 or 90 days, the point that seems to have got lost sight of is that the government, in this section of the bill, has given the cabinet the authority to take away the right to strike. Now I'm not saying that that particularly concerns me where there is the possibility of serious public suffering, whether it be the economy or the welfare of people who depend on transportation, but there is a very crucial principle in this section that I think we have not really debated adequately this afternoon.

When we get into the whole field of labour-management problems, the right to strike seems to have an almost sacrosanct, holy, etched-in-stone kind of attitude taken to it by anybody I talk to who is a union member. The one fundamental, all-pervading thing about their union agreement is the right to strike, and here is this little section with about three words, where the cabinet deems that certain conditions are likely to occur.... It's the words "likely to occur" that are conferring a tremendous amount of authority on the cabinet on something that has not yet happened. The thing that has not yet happened is the legitimate exercise by the union of its right to strike.

I just think that it's very unusual that the minister would go to this length when, in point of fact, surely it would sustain confidence in the unions to know that the government is willing to judge events as they happen and not go to an unreasonable extent on the one hand to say, yes, you have the right to strike but, on the other hand, we can stop you from even embarking on a strike.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the member for Oak Bay for his comments. I would just like to say to him that if he would consider the other words besides "likely to occur", there has to be an opinion that there is an immediate and substantial threat. That threat can either arise out of action or impending action, and all the government desires is to be free to take that particular action as the case may indicate. I fully comprehend what the member's concern is, and we appreciate that we are suspending the right of employees to strike. We are suspending the right of employers to lock out as well. We are forcing employers to continue their operation for a period of time while this assistance is being given to them. There's no question that there is some reduction in the rights of the parties in this particular case, but when you have essential services such as railways and ferries, and there may be others that we'll have to consider in this regard, the employer and the employees have to understand that they may sometimes be under some restraint.

MR. KING: Yes, I just want to make one point, and perhaps it is a philosophical difference that the minister and I have, but he concludes, apparently, that because there is an interference by government or an interruption of the strike right and the lockout right, that it is even-handed, which I disagree with. After all, the parties are seeking to obtain different things. The employer is seeking to maintain the status quo; his employees are seeking to advance in terms of wages and in terms of working conditions. Any delay — and the minister, who is a lawyer, should well know — in what they conceive to be in obtaining justice is justice denied in the minds of many of those people. Certainly in most instances, due to the

[ Page 2612 ]

dynamics of collective bargaining, delays and intrusions of that kind strengthen the hand and the position of that party which is seeking to maintain the status quo — and that, of course, is the employer.

I just wanted to make that point, and I want to say that in terms of the 90-day cooling-off period that the minister is seeking to obtain, which is a substantial means of interference, I think that the minister should be prepared to come before the Legislature to obtain that kind of authority in an industry such as this. I think he should be prepared to come before the Legislature when an emergent situation arises rather than taking unto himself those kinds of very significant powers which, in my mind, are questionable, certainly in terms of relating it to the kinds of problems which are faced in the hospital industry, the police and the fire departments, where obviously life and limb could well be endangered.

One can argue that the railway is an essential service, but one can argue that virtually every industry in the province is essential. I think, generally speaking, that before major intrusion is undertaken, it has been confined to the areas that would generally jeopardize the health, the safety and the very lives of citizens.

Section 16 as amended approved.

On section 17.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, section 16 provides for a cooling-off period exceeding 90 days. After the introduction of the bill, I became concerned that in section 17(4) we've prescribed a specific period of 40 days in which the special mediator would make a progress report. Then in subsection (6) we prescribed a 50-day period within which he would make his final recommendation. I want to make it perfectly clear that in saying that the cooling-off period may be up to but not necessarily 90 days, we don't want to put any limiting provisions in other sections of the bill which would interfere with that. Therefore, in those two cases I propose two amendments, one to subsection (4) to delete the words "40 days following" and substituting instead "a date prescribed in," so when the order is made establishing the cooling-off period, we can also establish the date within which the special mediator must make a progress report and when he must make his final report.

There are some disputes where this could be done in a very short period of time. We will, however, with regard to fact-finding still leave that 20-day period there because that's a very special task.

I would move those two amendments to section 17, subsections (4) and (6) .

Amendments approved.

On section 17 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: This is important. Mr. Chairman, I was just puzzled why in subsection (5) it so clearly says that the special mediator shall not recommend the terms and conditions of the settlement of the dispute, but 10 days later, if there's no further progress, subsection (6) says that he does recommend. It seems there is the implication that the first report should simply be a report without recommendations about the way to settle the problem, but 10 days later, if the dispute is still unresolved, then he should make recommendations.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's a distinction between subsection (5) and subsection (6). Subsection (5) deals with recommending terms and conditions of settlement; subsection (6) deals with recommendations as to procedures that should be followed to achieve a collective agreement.

The principal purpose of the mediator is not to settle.... If he can settle the dispute, that's great, but if he's unable to then he recommends methods of achieving settlement.

Now the reason that under subsection (5) he's not to recommend terms and conditions of settlement of the dispute, unless he thinks that they'll be successful, is that experience shows that when that action is taken you establish a floor from which people start negotiating again. So it destroys the effectiveness of the mediator if he is obliged to recommend terms of settlement of the dispute. So we only put that provision in if he's certain it is going to work.

Section 17, as amended, approved.

Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend section 22 by deleting it in its entirety and substituting the following section 22:

(1) This Act, except Part II, comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

(2) Part 11 comes into force on June 15, 1976.

Amendments approved.

On section 22 as amended.

MR. KING: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make the observation that had the minister taken some initiative at a point earlier and perhaps commissioned the kind of inquiry he is entitled to do under the Labour Code, perhaps we wouldn't be dealing with a bill that obviously has been

[ Page 2613 ]

hurriedly drafted, a bill that the minister has had to come into the House and make a number of amendments on, and a bill that still is questionable in terms of its application. I wish the minister had taken some more time, and perhaps he could have obtained that time for himself had he taken some initiative earlier. But to come before the House and attempt to criticize the opposition for delaying a bill which obviously he and his department have had to rethink is somewhat difficult, Mr. Chairman.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, reporting the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 58, Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 58, Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I believe the Lieutenant-Governor is at hand, and we'll just stay in our seats for a few moments until he is available to come into the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK: Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act.

In Her Majesty's name His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.

APPENDIX

29 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following questions:

1. Have any Executive or Administrative Assistants been appointed in any Cabinet Minister's office since December 23, 1975?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what are the names, previous occupations, qualifications, and remuneration of those appointed?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. Names of appointees have been published in the Order in Council Resume, Volume 2, No. 50 to Volume 3, No. 25, and continuing issues. Remuneration of appointees have been promulgated in the Orders in Council referenced and precised in the Order in Council Resume. Records of previous occupations and qualifications are not maintained in the Department of the Provincial Secretary."

30 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following questions:

With reference to Government appointments to Boards, Commissions, Councils, authorities, Courts of Revision, Crown agencies, Crown corporations, and businesses in which the Government has direct or indirect control—

[ Page 2614 ]

APPENDIX

1. Have any appointments been rescinded since December 23, 1975?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what are the names of the persons involved'?

3. Have any appointments been made since December 23, 1975?

4. If the answer to No. 3 is yes, (a) what are the names, previous occupations, qualifications, and remuneration, if any, of the persons appointed and (b) are any of the persons appointed related to any member of the Legislature?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. Names of appointees rescinded have been published in the Order in Council Resume, Volume 2, No. 50 to Volume 3, No. 25, and continuing issues.

"3. Yes.

"4. (a) Names of persons appointed by Order in Council have been published in the Order in Council Resume, Volume 2, No. 50 to Volume 3, No. 25, and continuing issues. Unless specifically stated by Order in Council, records of remuneration to appointees are not maintained in the Department of the Provincial Secretary. Records of qualifications are not maintained in the Department of the Provincial Secretary. (b) Records of relationship to any member of the Legislature are not maintained by the Department 6f the Provincial Secretary."

66 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following questions:

With reference to the 1975 Provincial General Election—

1. What election expenses were declared by the Social Credit Party, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Communist Party of Canada pursuant to the Elections Act?

2. What election expenses were declared by the candidates representing the relevant parties pursuant to the Elections Act?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy (Provincial Secretary) stated that in her opinion the reply should be in the form of a Return and that she had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.