[ Page 5507 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 91) . Committee stage

On section 38.

Mr.Cocke –– 5507

Mr. Lauk –– 5508

Ms. Sanford –– 5508

Mr. Wallace –– 5509

Mr. King –– 5511

Mrs. Dailly –– 5513

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5513

Mr. Cocke –– 5515

Mr. Gibson –– 5515

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5516

Mr. Gibson –– 5516

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5517

Mr. Barrett –– 5518

Mr. Mussallem –– 5521

Mr. Gibson –– 5522

Mr. King –– 5523

Division on section 38 –– 5523

On section 2 1.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5524

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 5524

Mr. Wallace –– 5524

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 5524

On section 28.

Mr. Wallace –– 5524

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5525

On section 40.

Mr. King –– 5526

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5526

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents the annual report, 1976-77, for the Alcohol and Drug Commission, which was taken as read and received.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Committee on Bill 9 1, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 9 1; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 2 1.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I notice the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , who is responsible for lotteries, is not here tonight. I have a question to ask and

HON. MR. GARDOM: She'll be here. Would you like to carry on with the sections and return to that one?

MRS. DAILLY: Okay; fine.

Sections 22 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Here again, unfortunately, the minister. is not yet present. I wonder if the House would care to give leave that we return to section 28 later,

Leave granted.

Sections 29 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, you wouldn't be privy to what happened in the House earlier. We had some discussion with respect to what we consider to be the overriding principle in this bill - or certainly one of the overriding principles - and we were dealing at that time with section 38.

Section 38 is where the Minister of Education (Hon. Mt. McGeer) arbitrarily decides in his infinite, elitist wisdom that he's going to deprive the university faculties across this province of having access to the Labour Code of British Columbia. In doing that, he's deprived them of an important freedom and, Mr. Chairman, they're not at all happy.

I said earlier that I had heard not only from university faculties across the province, but I've also heard from the Canadian Association of University Teachers, CAUT. I've heard from each and every faculty in B.C., and there's unanimity in opposition to this particular move of the government. The government, and particularly the Minister of Health ... or ... Education - it's hard to remember because one day he's Minister of Health; another day he's Minister of Education; and today he's acting as Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour has not defended his Code, so it's up to the opposition to say whatever we can to try to bring some sense out of this nonsense.

I understand that the minister met earlier today with the B.C. faculties. Having heard nothing to the contrary, I gather they've lost their fight. It would certainly appear that the minister is not proposing an amendment to section 38 of the omnibus bill. I would hope that the minister and all the people in B.C. will understand when, earlier today, I said clearly that it will be one of our first moves, when re-elected - to take this statute right out of the statute books of B.C., if, in fact, it ever gets'in.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Don't hold your breath!

MR. COCKE: The member mentioned something about holding breath. It's something that member might practise; it would be a great relief to all of us.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, that's our position and will continue to be our position. It wasn't particularly that all the universities in the province were clamouring to become organized as unions. As a matter of fact, it was only one small university that decided to take that course. The minister says that for the most part universities don't take that course.

A third of the faculties of universities across Canada have taken that course and are organized in that fashion. It should not be withheld from the B.C. universities if they ever decide to go that way. They should have the right.

If, on the other hand, they don't decide to go that way, they should have that option available. The minister has no right to decree, saying that professional people should be organized in a different way to ordinary people. We don't appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. We don't appreciate the fact that the minister feels that there is a great deal of difference from one person to another. Even the university professors who are professionals don't appreciate his opinion in this regard.

How much consultation went on with the minister

[ Page 5508 ]

and his ministry in deciding on this move? How much consultation went on? The minister has indicated that he has had consultation on his legislative moves. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has had no consultation on this. If he has, it has been with himself in the looking glass in the morning.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I never thought of that. He's been talking to Mackenzie King's old dog. He just might have been.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Sure. He's scientific.

MR. COCKE: Now, Mr. Chairman, I want the minister to know that what he has done here - just in case he hasn't clued in yet - has been to take away a basic freedom from a great many people in OUT province. That basic freedom is not being fought for by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and we're all sorry about that. This is the Minister of Labour who yesterday gave us those fine speeches -despite his mistakes, he gave us those fine speeches. His colleague today comes in with this piece of legislation that the Minister of Labour is shaking his head about. I'm sure he's saying he's sick to his stomach again tonight. Mr. Minister of Labour, go get yourself a Bromo-Seltzer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. COCKE: You need more than a BTOMo-Seltzer to put you back where you belong.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Were you out on the flight tonight? You appear to be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now may we get back to section 38, please?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, thank you for reminding me. I thought that member was flying high and I decided that I would try to find out. He didn't answer.

Mr. Chairman, I say nothing more than to say that we are inalterably opposed to this section and we will certainly see the day, in the near future, when this piece of black legislation will be removed from the statute books of the province of British Columbia.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I'll just be very brief. The hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , having been discouraged about entry into the treasury benches, is hoping now to get the Speaker's job. He's calling all of the opposition members to order.

I rise to associate myself with the remarks of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and, in addition, to ask the committee to wish a happy birthday to Mr. Bennett, who is the real power behind this government. I understand that Jim Bennett is having his 30th birthday today - is that correct? I wish the committee to wish him a happy birthday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MR. LAUK: I wish, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. minister would ascribe himself some of the pleasant attributes of his executive assistant and see the arrogance and elitism behind this section. In a moment of goodwill - and I understand that it even occurs to the minister every so many years - he might see the wisdom in allowing people who are mature adults and professionals in this society to make a choice and not legislate their organizations out of existence. The minister himself is caught up with the labels of trade union or faculty association. It substantially means the same thing: a group of people who join together in an organization to bargain collectively for their rights, their working conditions ' their wages, their salary. They have that right. It seems to me that the minister himself is caught up in labels. He's pigeon-holing people. They're not doing it, he is. This is an example of it in the section that is presently before the committee. I would urge all committee members to oppose this section, and I would urge the minister in a moment of judgment to withdraw the section.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I was hoping that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) might give us some rationale, other than the one that we have been reading about in the press, for this particular section which will remove the rights of the university professors to organize if they so wish. The only rationale that I have been able to determine for this Section 1s some comment by the minister: "Well, they weren't using the section anyway, so we're going to withdraw it." I find that an incredible approach by this minister. The university professors of this province have chosen up to this point - except for one small university - not to take advantage of the privileges and the rights that are available to them as they are to most citizens in this province. That is the right to band together to become organized and become certified if they so wish.

The minister tells us that because they haven't used that right as yet, we're going to take it away. We're going to - with one stroke of the pen, one short sentence in section 38 of an omnibus bill - take away a fundamental right of a group of people in this province. I'm wondering what to expect next out of

[ Page 5509 ]

that minister. Using that logic, I'm wondering if he feels that because there aren't enough people taking advantage of the provisions of the Human Rights Code, we should take that away as well. Repeal it. Do away with it. Perhaps those people who don't make claims against ICBC should have their insurance policies cancelled because, after all, they're not making use of it. That's the kind of thinking that this minister is using in abolishing this basic right. They might make use of it.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether or not the minister might have other reasons for wanting to abolish that section. Is it just another arrogant action on the part of this arrogant minister sitting in an arrogant government that will simply do away with those rights with one stroke of the pen?

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who's sitting over there in charge of the Human Rights Code and the Labour Code, again sits silent. Do the people on that side of the House think that it is acceptable and desirable to do away with the rights of a group of people in this province - all at once with just a stroke of the pen - simply because the minister says they're not using the rights that are available to them? They haven't done so to date, so we'll do away with it. How can the freedom fighters sitting on that side of the House possibly vote for this? Mr. Chairman, I don't think they can. If they have any inkling at all of what human rights mean, what freedom means, then they cannot possibly support that section of the bill.

I would love to hear those people sitting in the back benches, and particularly the Minister of Labour, get up and justify this section of this omnibus bill. One thing that the people within my constituency - and from other constituencies when I'm traveling in the province - say to me over and over again, is that this government does not understand what it's doing to people.

It doesn't understand, either because they are too wealthy or elitist or they just have not enough experience among ordinary people to know what their actions do to people. They don't understand, Mr. Chairman, what kind of economic hardships they're causing. They don't understand how they're eroding one freedom after another of people in this province. They don't understand what it means to people.

I don't think that Minister of Education yet understands that the university professors of this province and the faculties are saying: "We have not used that right to date but we don't want that right taken away." But I assume the minister is going to proceed in his usual arrogant fashion and do away with one of the basic, fundamental rights that exist in this province.

What justification is there? What fear does he have? Is he afraid that if the university professors of this province band together and become certified they won't know how to be involved in the collective bargaining process? Does he think they can't handle that? Does he think that only people who work in the plants and the factories would be able to go through the process of collective bargaining successfully? Is he afraid to give them that right? Is he afraid that there won't b e responsible leadership within the organization? Is he afraid that the demands that they might make as a certified group are something that the university administration cannot cope with? Why?

Mr. Chairman, I'm just astounded and I fail to understand the thinking of that minister. I fail to understand why the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is again sitting there, not concerned either about the Human Rights Code or the Labour Code. I wonder if they ever communicate.

We had an earlier indication today, Mr. Chairman, that there was no communication between the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who is responsible for ICBC, and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) with respect to a court case. In question period today, the Minister of Education, responsible for ICBC.... There has been no communication there. ICBC is again challenging the courts the provisions of the Human Rights Code and whether or not the Human Rights Code shall apply to that insurance company.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: What! The Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour indicated to us today that, no, there was no communication. I don't think there was any communication in this either because even though that minister has had difficulty with members of that cabinet with respect to intrusions into his jurisdiction, surely he could not sit idly by and allow this, by one stroke of the pen, to deny that basic right that the minister must be concerned about if he is going to be a credible Minister of Labour.

Mr. Chairman, I am dumbfounded. I'm absolutely opposed to it, and I would like very much to hear the backbenchers, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education defend this indefensible section. Thank you.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we had first reading of this bill on September 6 and today is the 14th. Above and beyond the content of the bill, I would think that a bill which takes away something very important in our society - namely the right of employees to decide how they should bargain -should be allowed something more than eight days for the persons most concerned to react. There has been very limited time. Even in that limited time, the response from within British Columbia and within the other provinces in Canada has really been quite

[ Page 5510 ]

impressive.

The minister is probably aware that we have had telegrams from the faculty associations of the three universities. I don't know what the minister has received but I also have at bunch of telegrams from the Canadian Association of University Teachers and from the faculty associations in Calgary, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Ontario and Quebec. We have also received a telegram from McMaster University in Hamilton. All that within a space of a few days at least demonstrates the concern which university faculty members have, not just for their interest in bargaining but for their right to choose. Surely that is what this section so seriously assaults: the right of individual faculty members in universities in British Columbia to choose the way in which they wish to negotiate for their conditions of employment.

I mentioned earlier on, Mr. Chairman, that not only is it a popular sentiment in employee groups in our modern society, but we have certain fundamental ideas enshrined in some fairly impressive national and international documents. I quoted the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was introduced in the federal House by no less a person than John Diefenbaker. I will just quickly say again that Part I of the Bill of Rights under subsection (e) states that one of the fundamental freedoms shall be "freedom of assembly and association."

I quoted also from the United Nations Charter, Article 23, subsection (4) , which says everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interest. That is only outlining the right to choose that route, Mr. Chairman. That doesn't necessarily say that there will be any simple or easy way for them to obtain representation by a union, it just grants individual workers within the charter of the United Nations the right to choose the trade union route.

Without reflecting on votes of the House that have already been taken, Mr. Chairman, it's quite obvious that within this province the particular requirements that workers have to meet in order to become certified have become increasingly difficult, at any rate. But putting aside the actual mechanism by which they seek to be certified, this section takes away even the right to choose that particular form of representation in negotiation with the employer. I can't agree with any government that in such a unilateral way simply removes that right.

Worse than that, it is very disappointing that the minister, who only yesterday was telling us that he believes in giving employees options, should so quickly turn completely around in this bill and deny a certain group of employees an option that they now have. If there ever was an example of the rather traditional politician who says one thing one day and the opposite tomorrow, this would have to be it.

Literally one day ago, this minister was justifying one of his other actions on the basis that he was providing a certain group of employees with options in regard to their relationship with their employer and how they would bargain with that employer. Today we're debating a bill where he takes away one of the options that already exists. Not only does he take away an option, but it's a very highly practical and highly accepted kind of option for something of the nature of 45 per cent of the work force. So this, again, would spell out this government as being anti-union. Out of one corner of his mouth, the minister believes that it is important to provide employees options....

MR. KEMPF: Not so.

MR. WALLACE: How can you say otherwise? He just told us that where colleges and institutes are concerned, he wants to give them options. They can go the Labour Code route or they can take one of two other options. It would almost be acceptable if the universities had never had the right by legislation in the first place to go the Labour Code route, but they have that now and he's faking it away by this section of the bill.

So the member for Omineca interjects "not so." But, Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest the facts and the debate just 24 hours ago, which the member could read in Hansard if he cares to, would show just how completely contradictory this action of the minister is, compared to yesterday's action. When the opposition parties challenged him in yesterday's debate, he said he was going much further than the previous NDP government had gone, that he was giving them an extra option. But tonight, the story is completely the opposite.

Here we have another group of employees in the post-secondary educational field who had the opportunity, if they wished, to seek to be certified, and that right is being taken away from them. Worse than that, Mr. Chairman, this same minister, who has espoused great respect for the process of consultation with the people most concerned by legislation, apparently has only really consulted with them today - at literally the 11th or 12th hour - just before he comes into the House to push this amendment through.

Mr. Chairman, I met with some of these representatives and they were bitterly chagrined to find that not only had they been told some little while ago that amendments to the' Universities Act -would be minor, but they had been assured that consultation was something that this government believed in. They've left Victoria today, not even quite comprehending the fact that as of some hour this evening, this bill would be pushed through, despite the sheaf of telegrams We've all had from within British Columbia and from the other provinces

[ Page 5511 ]

and despite the very articulate protest of someone like Dr. Pauline Hewett, who doesn't really see that it would be a good idea to have unions among faculty staff, but who bitterly upholds the right to choose on the part of university faculties.

It's rather like the old and much-repeated phrase: we can disagree with someone, but we can fight to the death to allow them the right for them to express their point of view. Surely it's the same in universities. What's the minister got to be afraid of if he's so sure that the university faculty members don't want to be unionized? What has he got to fear if he at least leaves them the right to choose? If they don't want to, they won't choose it. So what's so important about taking away the very right to express their opinion on this very important matter of their employer relationship?

As I pointed out, as far as the University of Victoria was concerned some time ago, the vote showed that something in excess of one-third of the faculty members did feel that it would be a good idea to seek to be represented by a trade union and collective bargaining with the University of Victoria. Of course, Mr. Chairman, maybe this government that has such a substantial majority doesn't really respect a minority of one-third. But the important essence of democracy and a truly free society is the legitimate right of the smallest minority to be heard and to have the right to choose. It isn't a question of numbers and it shouldn't be a matter of only a third or only a quarter. If 5 per cent wish to express a point of view, at least it should be heard and respected. Consultation should take place, and it should be meaningful consultation, not some meeting like today at the 12th hour, when it is a mere charade to meet with these representatives, some of whom have traveled from outside British Columbia to try and express a national feeling on this issue. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is listening very carefully because he knows that this is not just a provincial issue. He knows that the labour management problems of Canada can't just be divided into the 10 provinces. As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, it is remarkable that within just a few days of this bill being tabled, we have very clearly enunciated, very logical and reasonable reasons presented by these many faculties from all across Canada. One of them - and I can't find exactly which one; I think it's from Manitoba - states that no other province treats the professional faculties at their universities in this way: by bluntly and in a matter of two lines denying them even the right to choose the manner in which they will bargain and be represented.

I am amazed that we frequently hear this government protesting the public criticism it receives that it's anti-union. How could you be judged otherwise? How can you expect to be judged as anything but an anti-union government when you move in with a bill like this and take away a right that already exists?

MR. KEMPF: Not true.

MR. WALLACE: It isn't a question of having a situation where certain groups have been forbidden to organize in the past and you're perpetuating an established principle. Here we have a situation where this takes away a choice which, up until tonight, existed. In my view, these are some pretty valid reasons why this minister has brought in an amendment to the Universities Act. But he's had the audacity to slip it in under the title of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. As I said earlier, it does nothing to enhance the confidence which the public generally has in any government of the day, when time after time we find this omnibus bill at the end of a session always contains one amendment which, because of its very considerable impact, should have been introduced as a bill on its own merits. I think that's another reason that this particular amendment is regrettable. For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this particular Section 1n the strongest terms.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I can't let this section pass without offering my objection and my views on the matter. I'm not particularly surprised by this approach. Looking at things in total, I suppose we can say that we've come to expect a diversified attack, you might call it, from various elements of this government towards the rights of working people. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , is quite correct when he says it was hypocritical for the Minister of Education to stand in this House, just yesterday, and defend the colleges Act on the basis that it offered a free choice. He said: "It's riddled with democracy, " Mr. Chairman. That's what the minister said. Yet today we have before us a clandestine little one-liner in the statute law amendment Act which strips away the rights of working people whether they be in the academic community or anyone else. It's completely improper. I think the height of cynicism was when this government moved in another bill to deprive the faculty of Notre Dame University of the right to enjoy the benefits of free collective bargaining under the Labour Code of British Columbia. When the storm was generated over that particular action they said: "We're going to be sensitive and we're going to withdraw that provision." Well, wasn't that kind? That was a complete act of cynicism because at the same time they took action to remove the university status from that institution. At the same time they introduce an innocuous little line in the statute law amendment Act which ensures that no faculty of any

[ Page 5512 ]

university in this province will ever be able to become certified again under the Labour Code of British Columbia should the faculty, through their own free choice, seek the method of collective bargaining to represent their interests.

MR. KEMPF: You know that's not true.

MR. KING: Would you believe, that voice from Lord-knows-where. I love the northern part of our province, and most of the people whom I've encountered up there can read. They're quite literate. I think most of them can understand legislation, even.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could they understand we're on section 38, hon. member?

MR. KING: I just wish, Mr. Chairman, that they would send one of those literate people down to represent them for the constituency of Omineca because, clearly, the man can't read if he says it's not true. Mr. Chairman, what I object to here is that special provision was made for professionals under the Labour Code of British Columbia. There was a provision made that they had the right to organize under the full protection of the Labour Code if they so chose. That is on the model of an industrial trade union. Or they had the other option of seeking independent organization under the Labour Code as a unique professional group if they did not want to choose the traditional industrial model. That flexibility was designed specifically to answer the needs of not only university faculty, but professional engineers and middle-management groups, chartered accountants. It may come as news to Atilla over there, Mr. Chairman, but I want to tell you that there are increasing numbers of professional and middle-management people in this province and across the nation who are interested in collective bargaining for protecting their rights.

I agree with this government to one extent. I don't think professional should have it two ways. I do not believe that they should have the right to attempt to trade on their professional status at one and the same time that they enjoy the provisions of collective bargaining like the industrial workers. They've got to make up their minds and take their choice. We did give them flexibility of having their own unit designed in their own way along innovative lines if necessary, and as a unit set apart, and on organized lines unique to professionals rather than along the lines of traditional trade union. That is a right of free choice. They had three options, clearly.

This minister, who stood in the House yesterday and said he had respect for democratic rights of people, and that his legislation was riddled with democracy is making a mockery out of himself, and out of the motivation that his department apparently has. He's making a mockery out of the Minister of Labour, who is too weak to stand for [he rights of working people in the province that he is bound to defend. He's making a mockery out of this whole legislative process, because I know that I can speak till I'm blue in the face and those 35 members over there are going to ram this legislation through anyway. It's quite true that we haven't lost one debate in this session but we haven't won one vote. But the people are going to remedy that problem at the next election, Mr. Chairman. They're going to do that because the people are not as stupid as this gang apparently thinks they are. They're not going to sit silently and watch their rights abridged and infringed on every front by this reactionary self-serving coalition. They are not going to do that. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that tonight it's my sorry duty....

The Minister of Labour has finally come to life. He's scared to get up on his feet and speak because he thinks he might make another mistake. So he sits in his seat, in the safety of his seat, while his colleagues run all over his jurisdiction. Unlike the grey eminence from the Liberal past, he sits there pallidly and anemically and accepts it all. What a weak charade. What a weak caricature of a minister of the Crown, Mr. Chairman. Shame on him!

Interjections.

MR. KING: I wish they would quit heckling me. I'm getting upset; it bothers me. Call them to order, Mr. Chairman. I can't stand much more of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor.

MR. KING: Thank you. I just want to offer a few more very modest and mild observations about this very, very bad provision. It's a terrible section; it abridges human rights. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) made an excellent point - a valid one -when he pointed out the provisions of the International Labour Organization, which is a wing of the UN. That organization measures the modern democratic enlightenment of nations by the degree to which the free collective bargaining measure is extended to all people.

I want to tell you something very serious. The conventions laid down by the International Labour Organization cannot be ratified in a member nation unless all the provinces comply with the standards set by the International Labour Organization. I suggest to this House, Mr. Chairman, that this provision which denies the privilege of collective bargaining -or the right of collective bargaining, indeed - to a substantial group of citizens in this province will disqualify the nation of Canada from conforming and complying with the standards set down by the

[ Page 5513 ]

International Labour Organization. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) knows that. It hurts. He's sensitive about it but it's true. And I want to say that as a lawyer, the Minister of Labour should know. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) should know that law that applies inequitably and selectively is bad law. This government is going to go down the tube on that arrogant basis, Mr. Chairman. ,

MRS. DAILLY: I'll be very brief because I know that everything now has been said. To that minister, as we know, it doesn't matter how long we speak; he's made up his mind. But I do think that most of us who are concerned should at least have an opportunity to express that.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has sent a shockwave not only through the university communities in British Columbia but right across Canada. The minister is well aware of that-, he's well aware of it. He knows the concern of the CAUT; he knows the concern, of course, of the university faculties of British Columbia. But he's paying no attention to it, and he himself is from the University of British Columbia. But, Mr. Chairman, reprehensible as this move is against the universities of British Columbia, the manner which this minister has conducted himself in presenting this I consider reprehensible also.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Reprehensible.

MRS. DAILLY: Reprehensible. Thank you, member for North Okanagan.

This minister, Mr. Chairman, did have communication. Someone suggested earlier that he hadn't had communication. This is perhaps the one place he did have communication with the people involved. But the interesting thing about it is that his communication, from what I understand, was to the effect that there would be no major changes with reference to the Universities Act this session. This is what he told the university groups that he had an opportunity to meet with: there would be no major change. Now how can anyone trust a minister who makes that statement to universities and then comes in here and he brings in one of the most major changes that could affect the employment of the people at the universities in this province? The point has been well made before; it's the principle here. He is refusing to give them their choice. It's a basic principle which he is taking away, and no group in our society should have that principle taken away.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know you're giving me that look: "When are you going to finish?" I'm going to come to one more point before we give an opportunity for the minister in some way - and that I cannot fathom - to explain why he's brought this in. But before I sit down, there is one more question in your amendment here which I want to ask you. It's a very small question but it's rather confusing.

Mr. Minister, in subsection (c) of 38 you are referring to the representation of students on the board of governors, which, by the way, was brought in by the NDP administration - representation of faculty, students and staff on the board of governors. It's interesting to note that the minister hasn't yet moved on removing that from them, as he certainly has shown he does not believe in it for the colleges of this province. But, Mr. Minister, I don't know what this really means. Formerly it said that the students were to be elected by and from the student association. Now according to your amendment here you have struck out "by and, " so that now reads: "to be elected from the student association."

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody else does the election, eh, Pat?

MRS. DAILLY: After what this minister has done in other educational policies we're becoming very suspicious. We don't understand this section or the purpose of it - perhaps it's meaningless. But I must say that this minister's performance to date makes us very, very concerned about any piece of legislation he brings in in education.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, we've had an interesting debate on this particular section. In one sense, it's housekeeping. It involves no change in the present status of the universities and their faculties. It acknowledges the status quo. It could only be other than housekeeping, Mr. Chairman, if some change in the status of the faculties in the universities were being contemplated. It's my view, and it's the view of the ministry, that no such change is contemplated. As I will explain later, Mr. Chairman, if such a change is desired by a university and its faculty, then amendments will be made to accommodate that desire.

Mr. Chairman, the model upon which universities are built is one which has been brought down for many generations. It's descended from the great institutions of learning of the past. There are four cornerstones to this model. The first of these is academic freedom. The second is collegiality and the shared responsibility - the shared responsibility - for management. The third is academic tenure, which guarantees the right of faculty members to pursue ideas. The fourth - and this is the one, Mr. Chairman, which is most important to society - is the pursuit of excellence on an individual basis.

It is this last cornerstone - the great cornerstone, Mr. Chairman - which justifies the other three. It is only this cornerstone that justifies the other three, and the cost of society, because it is this cornerstone

[ Page 5514 ]

which produces the knowledge, the spin-offs, and the benefits to society. Universities have become great because of their traditions, because of this constellation of rights and responsibilities. The great universities of the world, upon which our own are modelled, guard these rights and traditions for their survival.

Mr. Chairman, the trade union model has a radically different history. It grew out of the crucible of the industrial revolution. It became nourished in the world of commerce and industry which evolved from that. The rights of trade union members were introduced largely to provide dignity and protection to workers who otherwise might be placed in a master-servant relationship.

There are traditional restraints to this trade union model. They're the restraints of the marketplace -the restraints that come upon employers who normally profit from the marketplace and who would suffer mutual injury should their workers and themselves be place din a confrontation situation which they could not mutually resolve. This trade union model has become firmly established in our world of commerce and industry. More recently, it has become established in the public sector. It's in the public sector, Mr. Chairman, where the traditional constraints of the marketplace and of employer profit have never existed.

We have heard our Prime Minister speak on many occasions about this particular issue, and the ' e need in this country to enter new balances. Be that as it may,

Mr. Chairman, there's little doubt that a wide gap exists between these two models. It's important that universities and governments and the general public appreciate what is a fact of life.

The Universities Act, which currently stands upon the books of this B.C. Legislature, is based upon the traditional university model. The Ministry of Education supplies the overwhelming majority of funds for the support of these public institutions. Ministerial policy is based upon the presumption that this professional model, which has applied in the past, will continue to apply in the future. But as I said earlier this evening, should the universities and their faculties say that they wish to abandon the university model and instead pick up the trade union model, then this will be their prerogative. If they, by the vote of their faculty members, say: "This is the route we wish to go in the future, " then they can have that route, and we will bring amendments in which will permit them to take that route.

However, it must be understood, Mr. Chairman, that the employees of those new trade unions will come under the jurisdiction of my very able colleague, the Minister of Labour. They will enjoy all of the opportunities that go with traditional trade union bargaining and the Labour Relations Act. At the same time, the Ministry of Education will adjust its policies to suit the trade union model, because ministries of government, too, must react to the realities of the situation of the clients with whom they deal. So if the Ministry of Education is to base its policies upon the university model, then we need to anticipate in the future that universities will themselves choose to operate by that model. Then government can set its policies accordingly. If the universities, in their wisdom, choose to select the trade union model as their course for the future, then so will the Ministry of Education accommodate itself to that change.

It's been pointed out, Mr. Chairman, by the members opposite this evening that some universities in Canada have already chosen to follow the trade union model. It will not be long, Mr. Chairman, before governments that have responsibility for those universities in those jurisdictions will begin to change their policies accordingly. It may well be that other provincial governments in Canada will be the first to make these accommodations.

If our universities choose to remain with the traditional university model upon which the evolution of these institutions has been based, then they may well be observers to these changes which are inevitable in some parts of Canada. These changes that governments will make in adjustment to universities that take the trade union route will bring irrevocable changes. In this sense, Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly agree with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) , when he said that professionals who organize must take their choice. They cannot have it both ways.

This is the circumstance, Mr. Chairman, in our universities in Canada. Obviously, they cannot have it both ways. So we will see what these irrevocable changes that will take place in some of our institutions of higher learning will bring. Perhaps they will bring important new advances for the future. Perhaps they will bring greater things in the realm of academia, and the spinoff benefits that traditionally have come to society from the halls of the great universities. Perhaps they will not. As the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has said, one cannot have it both ways. These changes will take place in Canada. There is a challenge, I suppose, implicit in this section, Mr. Chairman. That's the challenge to our universities to make a decision for change, if that be their wish.

They need to weigh this with all the implications it carries for the traditional values upon which their own education was based. But, Mr. Chairman, they may decide, as they have in the past, to stay with the traditions that have made our universities great, and to cast their lot for the future in that traditional mold. We make no value judgments in this ministry beyond saying that our policies will accommodate whatever choices the universities make.

[ Page 5515 ]

Mr. Chairman, this represents no change for the universities. But it does say to the universities that if they seek change and realize the ramifications of that change, come to us in the full light of that realization and we won't deny a democratic choice. It will be there. I'm sure it would be there for the alma mater of my former colleague (Mr. Gibson) opposite -Harvard University. He spoke so eloquently in favour of the trade union model for universities. But I don't suspect that his former institution will choose that route. We can only wait and see. I'm surprised that the member would advocate that tradition, that new course of action, if you like, for the universities here in British Columbia.

But let it be very clear, Mr. Chairman, in considering this section, that if it be the choice of the faculties of our universities to take the trade union route, this government will certainly not deny them that right. I wouldn't want anybody to have the impression, as a result of the things said by some of the members opposite, that we would deny those faculties such a democratic choice. It's a very significant one for the universities - an irrevocable one - and it should be made with due consideration upon their part.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, never has so much been said and so little come out of it, to defend an indefensible position.

I had to smile when I heard the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) defend freedom and the right of choice, but I didn't hear him make a great play to the universities of our province to select any model. He just said: "Give them the right to take the model they want." I want this perfectly clear: what the minister said tonight was insulting beyond belief to one-third of the university faculties across this country. One-third of the university people ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Two-thirds.

MR. COCKE: ... are now following the trade union model. That's their choice. That minister indicated that they're not, by virtue of their trade union activity, in the pursuit of excellence. One of those great cornerstones. I think it's insulting. I can hardly believe the minister.

I'm going to paraphrase what he said to people recently about how they would approach the trade union model if they wanted to go ahead along that line. I'm just going to repeat, in effect, what he told the unions. Let me suggest this, that he put before them two hurdles that they must cross. First, they have to have a majority decision to certify as a union. Then they must go to the Minister of Education and he will consider putting a special Act forward, and presumably that Act would have to do with the procedures for certification. If you've ever seen a Catch-22 in your life, thank about that one.

In order to conduct the vote, the faculty association has to have a majority in favour of the union. In order to find out if it has a majority, the faculty association has to have an Act to allow it to conduct a certification vote. Right off the bat they're flying into the face of any kind of possibility of certifying, so the minister has them with this Catch-22. He's worried. The word is out.

The University of Victoria had a straw vote where they voted 60 per cent in favour of unionization. That's what's worrying the ministry. They have brought in this very dangerous legislation, Mr. Chairman, despite the minister's convoluted arguments. He's an able speaker - we all know that -but if you listen carefully he said very little in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, he convinced no one except the able Munchkins back in the north 40,

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I have just a simple question of the minister. He was at his best tonight in his remarks. He obviously considered them important remarks because he was using copious notes.

MR. WALLACE: He was in the pursuit of excellence tonight.

MR. GIBSON: He was speaking in that style which is best described in this House as West Point Greyvian suburbanity. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, but it's the other member this time, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: You do not know where I got it.

Mr. Chairman, I have this question for the minister. You could almost see a storm cloud forming over the universities as he described what might happen if the faculties in the universities adopted the Labour Code trade union bargaining model. He said the ministry would accommodate itself to that eventuality and suggested that the accommodations might be of a sort that would not be very pleasant to the faculty and the universities concerned. Mr. Chairman, that seemed to me a little bit in the nature of a threat. Perhaps I shouldn't use the word "threat"; perhaps the world "promise" is better. In any event, it was a forecast of things which would come to pass if the universities and their faculties decided to take a certain route.

I think it would certainly be a favour to this committee, and to the people concerned throughout

[ Page 5516 ]

the province in the universities, if the minister could be a little bit more specific. Could he describe the ways in which that accommodation of his ministry would operate, in the minister's view, improve or work against the condition of those institutions, of the students there, and of the people who work there?

It sounded like a threat to me, Mr. Chairman. The minister made the incredible suggestion that if these institutions chose to follow the Labour Code model, which is open to everyone else in this province with the exception of school teachers, who have had their own Act for many, many years, then they could do that. They could simply apply to the minister and he would give consideration to bringing in a bill which would give them permission to do that.

Then we would have two bills. We would have this bill which would remove the permission, and then we would have another bill later on which would give the permission back. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to cut out the middle man, who is the minister. I think we just ought to leave things the way they are and not pass this particular amendment. I would like the minister to be a little bit more specific about the storm clouds that he would see hovering over any institution that adopted the Labour Code model.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I merely predicted change in the traditions of the universities. I mentioned the four great cornerstones upon which the academic model has been built. Among these are the style of management which implies shared responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of the institution and not the confrontation model of employer-employee upon which trade unionism rests. I mentioned the pursuit of excellence which, of course, is the ultimate justification for expenditures of public funds on our institutions - in British Columbia, well in excess of $200 million a year. This is a very substantial investment which of course requires, as such sums of money obviously do require, forms of management and accountability. This can be done in a number of ways.

We have an Act before us, the Universities Act, which presumes a collegiality technique of management and which, up until this time, has served our universities and our province well. It's too early, Mr. Chairman, to predict what changes will be found desirable or essential in the provinces in Canada that will be accommodating to the new management and operational style of those universities which have developed a new model.

I don't think we will be the first province in Canada that will be accommodating to change. I'm merely saying, Mr. Chairman, that change will appear not alone in British Columbia and that universities must consider the manner in which they wish to be managed in the future.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would hesitate at this juncture to predict all the possibilities. That would be again the kind of exercise in futile speculation which this particular member has a pleasure in indulging - I don't think to the enlightenment of the Legislature or the public, though it makes for enjoyable debate. Mr. Chairman, if the invitation to the ministry is to indulge in legislative debating games and to speculate and to brainstorm on the floor of the Legislature, no, I don't think that would be profitable, With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I will, in the interests of the hour and the more important business that the Legislature has to get on with, decline the invitation.

MR. GIBSON: I'm sorry the minister passed up that invitation to let a hundred flowers bloom and let his imagination roam free in this Legislature. I think he made implications in his remarks that should have been elaborated on.

I just want to say one short thing in rebuttal to what the minister said. He said that the trade union model is a confrontation model that is inappropriate to the university sector. I had thought all along that what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) sitting behind him was working towards was to make the trade union model not a confrontation mode, but a model of co-operation of working together.

MR. KEMPF: How many trade unions did you belong to, Gordie? You never worked.

MR. GIBSON: Would you stand up, Mr. Member, and tell us how you can. . . .

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Ask him how many he's been kicked out of.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, that is possibly the only member in this House whose tongue weighs more than his brain. (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER: It's better exercised, too.

MR. GIBSON: I want to ask the minister if he believes that that's the inevitable result of the trade union movement. Has he really given up on it? Does he think that confrontation is the essence of it? Does he not think that people who choose to adopt that bargaining model can work together too for the benefit of our society? I think they can. I think that what the minister has done is to unnecessarily remove a choice. The faculty associations of this province haven't chosen to go down that line, and that's fine.

[ Page 5517 ]

But leave the choice. Why should you remove the right to a law of general application that applies to almost every other employee in British Columbia? Why not leave that choice? That's all I say, Mr. Chairman.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I did want to have the opportunity to join in this exciting debate. Regardless of the hour, it is so often that we have the opportunity in this House to concern ourselves with subjects of this matter. So often the opposition asks for the opportunity to debate matters which are of significance to this province today and in the future. I only think it's unfortunate that those members of the official opposition who have had so much to say about the subject before, having addressed themselves to the matter, then thought fit to depart, but that may be as they think their approach.

I must say that the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) who spoke, who confused the Human Rights Code and the Labour Code, only exposed her ignorance. I can't comment about that.

But, Mr. Chairman, on the subject of this debate of this section, which was so hotly contested during second reading on this bill, and which promised, I believed, some exciting debate, I must express dismay at what the opposition has done. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will show that he, at least, has done some careful consideration of the problem.

MR. BARRETT: You're anti-labour.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: And that's the usual response of the Leader of the Opposition. I guess that only shows that he hasn't done any thinking about the situation. Although he was Premier of this province, he hasn't given any consideration whatsoever to the distinctions which exist in our educational system in this province. We don't have any trade unions in the public schools either. In fact, they're specifically denied that right, and they were under the Labour Code which was brought in by the former government.

MR. COCKE: At their own request.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It was brought in by the former government; they were excluded from the Labour Code. They're a near trade union, but no one is demanding that the options be extended to them, because they are finding themselves very safe and very well protected under the present situation that they have today.

We have the colleges and institutes legislation that we passed today, and that too is a different sphere of education in this province. It is developed in a different way. It addresses itself to a different nature of education. I'm certain that the opportunities which have been extended to the faculties in those institutions are appropriate to the institutions in which they serve.

But the Minister of Education has clearly set out before this House the distinction which exists with respect to our universities. I'm really surprised that the members of the opposition have not received that major distinction, and I'm a bit disappointed that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) had not taken time to consider the management of universities, the whole concept of the Universities Act, which involves the faculty in the most significant way in the management of those institutions.

The collegiality of which the minister spoke is the every essence of the industrial democracy to which other organizations are presently striving. No question about that. No one wishes to see this disappear unless this is their choice.

Let's consider the four cornerstones that the Minister of Education referred to, and what they will become if we move to the trade union model. This is a very grave concern for the administration of the university and for the faculty itself. The collegiality which they presently enjoy under the employer-employee relationship would become an adversarial system. No question about it. The very nature of the trade union model in North America is based upon that approach. Yes, we're striving to diminish it, but the trade union movement in North America must move a long way before they will achieve the attitudes which are exhibited by the movement in those other countries in the world where industrial democracy has really flourished. A very significant approach, and one of the major barriers to moving to industrial democracy in North America, is the unwillingness of the trade union movement to make those essential attitudinal changes which are necessary.

One of the other cornerstones to which the minister referred was that of tenure, to ensure that a member of the faculty, freely chosen, would have that security to enable him to make his contribution to the university. Under the trade union model there's a form of tenure as well, only it becomes seniority. That's the concept of the trade union model, not based upon necessarily the performance that you make but how many years you've been there. Your rights are based upon seniority.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair. I

One of the other cornerstones to which the minister referred was that of academic freedom: the right to express yourself and to make your contribution as you believe it should be and, within the limits of the university's boundaries, to deliver to those students who've attended university, to the best

[ Page 5518 ]

of your ability, those thoughts and ideas which you deem appropriate. Under the trade union model I would hope that would continue, but there is the possibility that academic freedom under the constraints of the trade union model, could become collective control.

Lastly, the whole basis upon which the minister indicated that the modern university - descended from those big universities of the past - exists, is the pursuit of excellence. Surely there isn't any member of this assembly who would not support the pursuit of excellence in our educational system, at whatever level, and most certainly at the universities upon the product of which the future of this province and this nation in large measure must depend. What do we substitute for the pursuit of excellence? I'll make no predictions. Maybe mediocrity - is that where we are to go? I think that the time has come to give very serious consideration to whether the trade union model is to apply in every walk of life.

There's no question. As the minister says, if the faculties at the university wish to take the trade union model and become organized under the Labour Code, they have all the rights. Then the Minister of Labour will be pleased to ensure that they have fullest opportunity to use the Code, and all the services which government can offer to them in this respect, if that is their choice. What they give up in making that choice is something which very desperately affects not only themselves or their own personal interests but the management and administration of the universities upon which they as individuals depend. This is where the difference rests.

Look, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, at the Universities Act and consider the management and administration style that is placed upon our universities by the legislation. If the faculties wish to organize, surely you would expect that the management of those universities would be able to respond in kind, but they cannot because they are governed by a statute of this Legislature. AD that the Minister of Education is saying is: "If that is your choice, the direction in which you wish to go, indicate that to us and we will give you those rights." At the same time we must ensure that the management of the universities is also equipped, in balance, as the member was arguing yesterday, to deal in a different way than has heretofore been the case in this province.

We will be debating a bill in a few moments, or perhaps tomorrow, dealing with a university in this province. There will be the opportunity for members to consider precisely what happens when you have the conflict between a trade union faculty and an administration which is not equipped or organized to accommodate, in a balanced way, that differing situation.

We are not denying to the faculties the right to make that choice. We are only suggesting to them that they carefully consider, in their best interests and the best interests of the university and those in this province who depend upon it, the full impact of the decision that they make, and afford to the government and the people of British Columbia an opportunity to make such adjustments as the circumstances may require.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be brief. I did not intend to speak. The minister has finally discussed some philosophy in this debate, and I intend to respond on the basis of philosophy and an examination of his statements.

I think that a lot of people felt, "What's the point?", and a lot of people didn't want to talk. I know you're saying "sorry, boys" to your group; I'm saying "sorry, boys" to my group too.

I want to talk to you for a minute about the philosophical statements you've made. Let's put away the fact - if we can just for a moment - that you and I are political opponents. Let's just take a few moments in this chamber to discuss philosophy and some of the statements you've made, and to understand why there is a difference of philosophy, because of the opinions that you state in a way of making them fact.

In my opinion, you have revealed that your opinions have become fact in your mind. That, to me, is dangerous. I fear, sir, that you disclose in your statements a rigidity that does not augur well for forward thinking in this province in the area of human relations. You don't trust the present, in terms of giving people maximum freedom, because of your fear of the past and your fear to look to the future.

I'll explain to you what I'm saying. You said tonight that the trade union movement has a long way to go before it reaches the level of industrial democracy acceptance that other jurisdictions have. That's what you said. But that reveals the point. The minister said it twice, but at no time did he mention that North American management also hasn't reached the point that European management has of understanding industrial democracy. What you miss is that a populist attack on labour becomes your reason for not looking to the future. That group back there responds by pounding the desk when you say labour hasn't reached the point. You should have added, as Minister of Labour, that management hasn't reached that point, either.

MR. KEMPF: How many trade unions have you belonged to?

MR. BARRETT: Don't prove the burden of what I'm saying by opening your mouth.

Mr. Chairman, neither the North American trade union movement nor North American management

[ Page 5519 ]

has reached that point, and there are many reasons for it. But neither of them will reach that point if the man who is responsible for labour in a jurisdiction in North America doesn't recognize that both have a lot of growing up to do, not just one side.

You also went on to say that the choice that they make affects the management and administration. Every choice that workers make or management makes affects the management of administration. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that management and administration only work best when both management and labour or workers, or the two groups, understand that they have made choices - in the widest freedom range possible - and, having made those choices, can live with the rules that those choices bring about. To assume that they may make a wrong choice and make it difficult to manage an administration is patent nonsense.

MR. KING: It's paternalism.

MR. BARRETT: It's not paternalism, it's a basic ignorance of understanding human behaviour.

Why is the Labour Code of British Columbia now being looked upon as the best piece of labour legislation in North America? Why? Because, Mr. Chairman, it is recognized as a fair balance after choices are allowed to be made, and it forces responsibility onto both sides. When you say here that it affects the management and the administration, then I tell you neither management nor administration - or both together - are more important than the basic freedoms to make choices before you get to that management and administration.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You say the trade union movement is a long way and that it would affect the academic freedom. One of the most shocking things you said, by way of opinion, was that academic freedom would come under collective control of the trade union movement. It would be threatened by the collective control of the trade union movement. That reveals, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Labour has the undiluted belief that freely elected trade union representatives become dictators by winning an election.

MR. KING: He doesn't believe in the basic right to strike.

MR. BARRETT: Now I want to tell you: you've won an election; that doesn't make you a dictator.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Well....

MR. BARRETT: Well? Does it make him a dictator?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it does.

MR. BARRETT: It does, huh? Well, there is an admission. We have never viewed the winning of an election as the making of a dictatorship. We have always viewed democracy's judgment in an election as temporary responsibility for a group. What the minister has revealed in his statement tonight is that he has a basic mistrust of the democratic process in the trade union movement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. BARRETT: You also generalize about trade unions in your statements. You said - and I go back to your statement, sir - that the trade union movement has a long way to go. You generalize as if the trade union movement was one single, solid phalanx in the North American economy. You reveal a basic lack of awareness that the trade union movement does not represent one single phalanx. It's made up of a myriad of groups: some conservative, some radical, most in the middle and most of them committed to the continuation of the North American capitalist system. That's a fact. And anybody with any inkling of North American labour history would understand that most people's history in the trade union movement has been a collective coming together for economic power, not political power, much to the regret of some political scientists and politicians. But that's a fact.

Now you want to talk about the trade union movement having a long way to go. There are some models in the United States of trade union participation that are further ahead than what Europe has ever experienced.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Jimmy Hoffa.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, have you ever heard of the Arnana Freezer Corporation and a collective participation on the Christian basis through a trade union movement toward decision-making on industrial democracy, ever since that corporation was formed. In this country, Dofasco Steel, because of government intervention in the economy, forced the trade union movement to recognize that their jobs were at stake and they had to participate in the new dimension. That's not the same as Jimmy Hoffa. They're miles apart, and when you make a generalized statement, you do a disservice to the difference within management and a difference within labour. There are enlightened managements and there are enlightened trade unions that want to move in that direction. So don't cast out that

[ Page 5520 ]

possibility by making the generalized statement that you seemed to believe that they've got a long way to go. Some of them have surpassed Europe.

While it is popular today to talk about the European experience, it is true that the model of trade union industrial democracy exists, of all places, in West Germany. But it was not always so. Earlier in this session, I pointed to an analogy of the Weimar Republic and the social disturbances that are beginning to evidence themselves in this country on the same psychological framework of the Weimar Republic: disintegration of authority; the limiting of roles and opportunities because of the lack of a broad-based educational system in this country; and the political opportunity to master this basic problem by a phony language problem.

We're faced with serious problems of large numbers of unemployed youths, who will go into the Weimar Republic syndrome and will not look upon the trade union movement or management as a salvation within the system. But they will fall victim to the first radical demagogue, left or right, who will lead them as a pied piper.

We must expect leadership from those people in government, and that leadership must be even-handed and fair and must appear at all times to allow democracy to have its way. Your speech tonight is a presumption that university professors cannot have that option of that freedom of democracy, because they may affect the management and the control of the administration and that academic freedom may .come under collective control. Nonsense.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't even listening.

MR. BARRETT: I wrote down your words and they'll appear in the Blues.

The reason the trade union movement in Germany today has collective industrial democracy is simply the fact that after the cataclysmic result of a fascist dictatorship, the whole world got involved in a way that ended - allegedly - all wars. Immediately, at the end of the war, the allied powers - the big five -moved in and made an agreement that Germany would be split.

The western democracies that were responsible for the administration of Germany said: "We cannot have the same friction of the trade union movement and management in Germany that existed during the Weimar Republic. Therefore we must avoid the mistake." It was the British trade union leaders who went to Germany and set up the model in Germany of industrial democracy in Germany that was put into place after the war.

The irony was that the British trade union leaders, who were able to do that for West Germany, admitted publicly that because of the traditions and the experience and the built-in structures they weren't able to transplant that very best advice to their own home country in Britain.

I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) read the Blues, and understand that if he is going to be a good Minister of Labour, he'd better understand the history of the trade union movement and the history of industrial democracy; and understand that it is not only labour that has a long way to go in North America, but management has_ too; but also understand that there are models in North America of industrial democracy that have been further ahead of anything in western Europe and that western Europe did get its answers from the mother of this Parliament - the British trade union movement's own reflection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not the North American trade unions.

MR. BARRETT: No, the North American unions have separate experiences because they have also been at the same trough. The point I made is that they have viewed themselves as consumers, and their bargaining power through collective bargaining is to get as much of the consumer goods that capitalism is pouring out. If they haven't got the money to buy the goods, capitalism doesn't work, so it's absolutely necessary for the balance in a free, capitalist society to have that kind of purchasing power, and trade unionists that don't have the purchasing power can't buy your cars. Okay, so figure that out. So you're both in the swim together.

If you want to make it work and make it last -and we all want our kind of democracy to last -don't single out one side and say that they have further to go; both sides have got a long way to go. My colleagues sitting here established the Labour Code....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, look. He established the Labour Code that is now being recognized in North America, admitted even by government spokesmen as being the best Labour Code in North America. Okay. Never mind the politics. It isn't going to be written in the front pages tomorrow. The fact is, you've got that Code and you can work with it. Don't stand up and make statements that labour is the one to go.

The other comments about academic freedom: academic freedom has been tested, certainly within my lifetime. It has been found wanting in terms of the security of tenure and everything else. University faculty have been fired for political views. They certainly have. I'll tell you that academic professional associations have got a lot to learn about protecting their membership the way trade unions have

[ Page 5521 ]

protected their membership and their free, individual right to speak out.

Some unions have been bad. You mentioned the Teamsters in America. They're a good example of shutting out opposition within a democratic process. But that also exists in North American universities on occasion, even here in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, there were two lawyers right after the war, one of whom was a veteran of frontline fighting against fascism who graduated from the University of British Columbia law school. He was refused admission to the bar because in a free society he admitted that he belonged to the Communist Party. The faculty never went on strike on the basis of academic freedom.

I'll fight Communists. But they have a right to run and they have a right to exist. I'll fight Social Crediters. They have a right to run and they have a right to exist. But if you don't fight for the right of Social Crediters and you don't fight for the rights of Communists, then you're prepared to give up everybody's rights. So don't talk to me about academic freedom. Faculty associations are made up of human beings. Faculty associations do not have to make themselves accountable through their membership.

Now, Mr. Chairman, our free, democratic system has survived because it allows a balance, it allows a freedom of expression and it allows the collective will to be heard. Every time there is maximum opportunity for the collective will to be heard, you find a more stable, understanding community because people are able to say: "Well, I had a chance to put up or shut up." But every time you restrict a bit of freedom, those cranks who want a rationalization for stirring up irrational problems can easily justify it by saying: "We never had access to freedom."

During the United States campus unrest in the last 1960s - and they were a model too because McMaster University, Sir George Williams University and Simon Fraser in Canada had the spillover of that particular social phenomenon. - that social phenomenon was a reflection of a question of the role of academics and academic freedom. It was a pent-up reaction to the kind of mental frigidity that existed in North American institutions after the McCarthy era. It was a natural sociological consequence of that. It was kind of a letting-out of all those pent-up generational feelings.

We now have calm on the campuses in North America. Students have gone back to their books and academics have now "behaved themselves." But I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, the only way you continue that kind of tranquility is when students and faculty feel that they have free access to have their voice and their vote count. Once having had their voice and their vote count, they will abide by that democratic decision.

What you have displayed in terms of a difference of philosophy through your statements is that you do not have confidence in the ability of human beings to be their own best judges of what's good or bad for them. You reveal by saying that one side has further to do, without any mention of the other, that somehow the side you left out has that ability. Your commitment to the words "academic freedom" does not logically follow through when you say collective control in academic freedom. Nonsense. You can't demonstrate that in one instance.

Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed in hearing the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. Williams') opinion. We've waited a long time to hear it. We traded insults all session. You've been good at it and I've been good at it. We've traded insults, but tonight we've traded philosophy. What we've seen tonight is the basic philosophy of the minister who really reveals that he's not prepared to view both sides, and he makes generalized statements based on his opinion. I ask the minister to read carefully what he said, and understand the consequences.

My last comments are: if you truly believe that the choice of any worker or teacher or anyone else could jeopardize or affect the management or administration, I tell you that the administration and management is far less important than the right to make choices in a free society.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): As this House has been treated to probably one of the finest addresses I've ever heard when the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) stood up a few minutes ago. He spoke the finest I've heard him ever speak in this House and exemplified the nature of the situation we're now facing. It was told clearly and precisely. The hon. Leader of the Opposition stood up and made a similar address - not as good, I will admit. He said it was non-political, but I'd like to know when the political stops and the other commences.

However, what I have to say now is indeed that, as suggested, the labour movement is one of the greatest movements that has ever arrived in this nation or the United States. What has made North America great is the labour movement. It is one of the finest things that built our society, continues to build our society, and we're all for it. As I've said in a previous speech here in this House, we are for labour, we are for the union movement, and always have been. But responsible labour unions.

I spoke in this House and pleaded the case of a single man who was mistreated by a labour union -the hospital employees' union. One single man was thrown out of the union because he dared question the vice-president of the union. Do you call that a responsible union?

I say the danger we have in our society today is

[ Page 5522 ]

violent men in charge of labour unions. That is our problem. What we need is responsible labour unions, but we have not arrived at that sense of responsibility. The hon. Leader of the Opposition says we have, but on many sides we have not. What are we facing today within our own civil service? What are we threatened with on Saturday? We're threatened with a powerful instrument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on committee stage of this bill.

MR. MUSSALLEM: All right. I know we are on the committee stage, but the issue today is the responsibility of the unions. The hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) laid it out very clearly. But I say to you, the man whose appeal I brought up on the floor of this House was mistreated and abused, and he has no redress. That is the issue in this bill -responsibility of labour unions. He has no way of coming back except through the courts. He has been mistreated by a single individual, mistreated by one union, and there he stands, not judged, but defeated and beaten. I say to you, if this is responsibility, I'm not for it. This is the essential reason why we have this clause in the Act today.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think if we had more debates like this the province would be much better off. It's an ironic thing that it came up in a small clause in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) made a very powerful speech that British Columbians should study carefully. I think that is equally the case with the speech of the Minister of Labour. I particularly want to express appreciation to the Minister of Labour for standing up. It's all too rare in this chamber that ministers with cross-responsibilities with another minister who happens to be carrying a particular bill do the House the courtesy of advancing their own particular views.

The minister tonight said one of the most important things that I have heard him say during the time I've been in this Legislature. He suggested, as I understood it, that the Labour Code of British Columbia is inconsistent with the full flowering of industrial democracy. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I heard him say that the university model of management does represent the full flowering of industrial democracy - I think Hansard will bear me out in that - and the use of the Labour Code would somehow make this more difficult in that particular context.

Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to debate that particular issue now unless the minister does. It's one that I hope people involved in the labour-management field in British Columbia will study and will concern themselves with over the months to come - in what ways, if any, the Labour Code should be amended to more fully provide for the kind of industrial democracy the minister does see represented in the ways our universities operate right now.

The faculties have shown that they agree with the minister. They have chosen up to now not to avail themselves of the possibilities of the Labour Code, which they could have done. But why deny it to them? That's my question under this clause.

The minister is familiar with bargaining situations. He, knows that every often what you may do can be a lever towards the persons you are talking to. There's no question but that the potential access of faculty associations to the Labour Code as a means of working with university administrations is one of the things that make administrations pay attention to faculty associations outside of the Labour Code. It's one of those things that is kept in reserve, an important factor in the background that is not used but is there. This amendment takes it away.

Now the Minister of Education has suggested that if faculty associations want to use the Labour Code, then they have put to make application to him and he will make that possible. Then adjustments will be required. But why go through the charade of taking away permission, waiting for permission to be asked and then giving it back again? Why not wait and see if it is used, which in view of the statement of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education I doubt will happen? But if it is used, then simply make the adjustment that the Minister of Education speaks of. Why deny the choice available to all other British Columbians, with the exception of management personnel and school teachers, who have their own very strong, particular form of trade union under their own Act? Why deny that choice, particularly to a group of people who haven't particularly seen fit to use it? Why deny it?

That's an inconsistency to me and it bothers me. It really is more important than anything else as an illustration of the potentially evolving thinking of the Minister of Labour, and I have no wish to speculate on which directions that thinking might be going. I suppose I should just say that I'm glad to hear that he is preoccupying himself with ways and means in which industrial democracy might be better fostered by the rules and regulations under which most of British Columbia's labour and management relations operate. So we'll wait with interest and see what happens.

On this particular issue, I have to say that I see no reason for the Minister of Labour to take away a right that is not doing any harm and then say, "And if you ask for it, we'll give it back to you." That seems to me sort of a ridiculous procedure.

[ Page 5523 ]

MR. KING: I just want to very briefly make a few observations. The attempt to mask this issue by discussing industrial democracy is not a very real one, and I want to suggest to the members of the House that you don't legislate industrial democracy. That has to grow and evolve - no question about it.

I didn't hear all of the Minister of Labour's speech. I'm sorry I was absent. I'll read it. I intend to read it, because I'm very interested.

I certainly enjoyed the speech that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) made. I think he was dead on, and I want to associate myself with his remarks. I think it is a serious thing. If some members feel lightly enough about this whole discussion to heckle about it and kid, well, fair enough. But it's an area that I'm very much interested in. The Minister of Labour should recognize that you can't legislate that kind of maturity in industrial relations.

Surely, if we are looking for more sophisticated forms of industrial relationships in this province, one of the areas in which one would hope that kind of relationship would grow would be in institutions of higher learning. Traditionally trade unions were formed where the workers were the weakest and where education levels weren't very high, so that workers didn't have the opportunity individually to fend for themselves. They had to come together collectively to protect their rights. There are more and more groups in society seeking the protection of collective b a r gaining - professional people, middle-management people.

It may well be that by granting the basic right to organize and bargain collectively, new and innovative ideas will grow that will resemble and intermesh very well with the concept of industrial democracy that has grown in Western Europe and elsewhere. Why be afraid of it? Why take away a right? Why not have the confidence to let that kind of thing grow? That's a poor excuse.

The other thing I just want to comment on very briefly is the member for Dewdney's (Mr. Mussallem's) remarks. I think everyone in the House feels that the member for Dewdney is a nice gentleman personally, and we're fond of him. But, quite frankly, twice in the last week the member has got up and spoken about violent men leading powerful unions. I think those remarks are completely unwarranted, I think they're highly inflammatory and I think they're dangerous. I know of no violence in the trade union movement in British Columbia.

If the member for Dewdney is the responsible, mature, elder statesman of this House that he presumes to be, I think he should have enough respect, when he makes that kind of serious allegation, enjoying the legislative immunity of this House, that he should identify the culprits. I know of no violent men leading trade unions in the province. I know of trade union people whom I've had my disputes with. But this is the very thing that we object to in this government.

It's a distorted, one-sided approach that they seem to have. Did that member talk about the used car dealers who have been convicted in courts of rolling back speedometers? Of unfair practices in the marketplace where they conned people out of fair value for their payments? Did he talk about roofing companies swindling little old ladies or all of the sharp practices that are committed in business? Not at all.

The attitude that seems to come across in this debate, Mr. Chairman, is that because we are afraid of some abuse by some elements of the trade union movement, the simple solution is to deprive these workers of the right to organize. Applying that kind of thinking and extending it along in its natural progression, I suppose we should say that because some businesses in this province are unfair to labour, abuse and misuse and fail to pay their employees, swindle the public or private citizens and are convicted in court for doing so, if we're to accept this government's thinking we should do all business out of the right to function in this province. That's their solution towards labour.

The rationalization by the member for Dewdney, is that some trade unions abuse their authority. That's dangerous thinking. It's irresponsible thinking. We know there are abuses on both sides - that is the nature of this civilization we live in - but you don't legislate away human rights because of the abuse by individual situations. That is crass nonsense. I simply could not let those rationalizations pass without identifying them and without saying to you that I think that is a dangerous trend, a dangerous philosophical approach, and that it's happening all too frequently in this House from the government ranks.

Section 38 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 22

NAYS - 16

[ Page 5524 ]

Mr. King requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Earlier in committee, it was agreed that we would pass over section 21 until such time as the minister responsible is here. Since the minister is now here, I would call section 2 1.

On section 2 1.

MRS. DAILLY: We appreciate the chance to go back on this section.

The amendment to section 21 changes it. Before we were aware that through the Lotteries Act the profits derived from it were to go for cultural and recreational facilities. Later on, medical research was added to that. Now we have this section 21 stating that it's further amended by adding: "or for any other purpose consistent with the objects of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation."

My question to the Provincial Secretary is: would she tell us why this has been placed in here? She obviously must have some reason for wanting it in. What are these other purposes which you see consistent?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, the last time the discussion centred around the purposes for the lottery was during the estimates of the Provincial Secretary, and there was no legislation to provide for medical services. This amendment which is before you, by providing that phrase, "for other purposes, " encompasses medical purposes or medical research, as was mentioned in the debate on the estimates of the Provincial Secretary.

Heretofore, cultural and recreational purposes and cultural heritage purposes were the only and the confined uses of the funds which accrue from the profits of the lottery. This gives other purposes which will broaden it so that we are able to have medical research, as was suggested in the debate.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, very quickly, this question was in my mind because the letters patent to the Western Canada Lottery Foundation have been amended to add the paragraph to which the minister refers, and yet despite the many different intents of the new letters patent, there is no mention of the words "medical" or "research." It mentions just about everything else. It says: " . . . patriotic, religious, philanthropic, charitable, scientific, artistic, social, professional, sporting, recreational, social welfare, civic improvement, educational, environmental. . . ." It lists just about every possible way of making the funds available, but the words "medical research" are never mentioned. I presume the legal counsellor who is presently advising the minister believes that these letters patent were decided somewhere else other than B.C. I presume this was a meeting of the Western Canada Lottery board of directors, or whatever they're called.

They've gone to great pains to widen the ways in which the lottery money can be spent. But nowhere does it mention medical research, and that was the minister's own wish in the debate on estimates on her department - that medical research could and should be covered.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the letters patent are listed. You'll note under section 2 1, in the explanatory notes, "scientific, " which is where medical research could come under and was meant to come under. The section on page 5 of the Act, which says: "for any other purpose consistent with the objects of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation, " refers to that section 3, which names the many things they could be used for and broadens it; that of course includes medical research under scientific.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I should like to ask one quick question. Since the word "scientific" can have a very broad scope, was there any request made, as far as the minister knows, by any one of the provinces to include the words "medical research, " which is so specific and clear and unquestionable that you can't argue about it? "Scientific" means a much less suitable word. They've included about 20 different words and left out one of the most important phrases, as I see it.

I suppose this House, of course, cannot change the content of the letters patent - I realize that - but can I be assured that next year at this time we won't be back here asking why there hasn't been any money for medical research?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: From a legal point of view, "scientific" fairly covers the aims and objectives which the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is concerned with, as am 1. As was stated, I can assure you that we will not have to amend it in order to take care of medical research. This is what the amendment is to do.

Section 2 1 approved.

On section 28.

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. The problem is that we have another retroactive bill. The bill is the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative Loan Act. In estimates, I asked the minister some questions about this. I'll just quickly

[ Page 5525 ]

quote from Hansard of August 2 this year where the minister says:

I think that the people of the province of British

Columbia have given by way of loans and grants to this enterprise $12.5 million, but the actual specifics I don't have before me at this moment.

That was the minister's quote; I realize he didn't have all the figures then. But what puzzles me is that this bill is retroactively making the original loan of $3 million to be deemed as though it's $5.5 million. The minister is shaking his head, but I've got the Act in front of me, Section 2 says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may authorize the Minister of Finance to loan to the co-operative out of consolidated revenue, " et cetera, "a total of $3 million as may be required."

Now this amendment is deeming four years later that $3 million to be $5.5 million. I wish I could run my affairs like that. But anyway, apart from this retroactive business, the minister said that in total the province had provided $12.5 million. I've just got two questions. First of all, what about the other $7 million? Was that provided in outright payments? It seems incredible in an enterprise provided with loans to get it started that you finish up giving them outright grants in excess of the maximum loan. We seem to have provided $7 million in outright grants and $5.5 million as loan.

My second question is: if indeed loans in excess of the legislation were provided, under what constitutional authority was that extra $2 million provided over and above what is authorized in section 2 of the original Act? I presume it was by the orders-in-council, and I took the trouble in estimates to give the minister the dates when additional amounts were made available by order-in-council. But if that's constitutional, why do we bother to retroactively amend the Act?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the spring of 1976, in order to meet the obligations of that society, the Minister of Finance, out of funds available to him under his votes, issued a war-rant of $2.5 million to the society. The purpose of this amendment P is to draw that $2.5 million under the Loan Act, because at the same time, the society committed itself by agreements to make that part of the loan, rather than to be a grant. It was requested by the society that an additional grant of $2.5 million be made available to the society but the government was not willing to deal with them on the basis of further grants.

In order to support the security documents, the additional $2.5 million is being brought under this legislation, The legislation goes on to ensure that the security documents, which were entered into by the society originally, and those additional security documents which were entered into in 1976, are confirmed, to provide the security for whatever value it may be to the government for the $5.5 million.

As a matter of fact, the lawyers who were involved in this transaction in 1976, and who were the same lawyers who represented the government at the time of the original loan, were concerned as to whether or not the security documents as originally entered into were themselves adequate. I'm not suggesting they weren't and this is not criticism of the former administration.

But in view of certain changes in the way in which funds were advanced and in the utilization of certain funds which had been set up, as opposed to capital and operating purposes, they were concerned as to whether or not all the documentation entered into earlier was adequate to stand any tests that may eventually be raised as to the security which the government holds. Therefore the amendment to section 4 (2) is to establish legislation that all the securities are in fact ratified and confirmed and therefore deemed to be effective. That's why it's done. So that the only authority it would have to loan is under the statute, and the other $2.5 million was agreed by the society to be advanced by way of loan, not by way of grant.

MR. WALLACE: Can I clarify the situation beyond all doubt? The minister is saying that with the amendment to the Act, the government is now assured by means of the security documents of getting the $5.5 million loan repaid in the course of time. That's my one question. The minister didn't respond to the other $7 million that was spent somewhere along the line, presumably by direct payments, and whether or not that $7 million I've quoted is an accurate figure. I ask this because the minister knows questions have been raised alleging ripoffs and abuse, and false prices being set on the repurchase of boats and so on. I think the sums of money that we're dealing with, albeit late at night and late in the session, are worthy of being documented once and for all.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member's first question, which was: are we assured that in the fullness of time the full loan of $5.5 million will be repaid? I can't give that assurance to the member or to the committee. That will depend upon the ability of the society to meet its obligations and to fulfill its responsibilities under the lending agreements - or if it does not, on the ability of the government if it were to pursue its rights under the lending agreements to recover out of whatever assets there are the sum of $5.5 million. That's speculative and there's no intention on the part of the government, certainly at this time, to enforce its security against the society. The operation is ongoing. It appears to be progressing favourably. We would like it to have a better operating record than it

[ Page 5526 ]

has, but I think that will take some time. That will answer the first question.

The second, with regard to the balance of funds, I apologize to the member for not having the specific details with me now. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has in recent weeks received additional financial reports on the society. I'd be most happy to make copies available to the member which will, I think, clarify that problem.

Section 28 approved.

Section 39 approved.

On section 40.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I understand this is just language changes in the Workers' Compensation Act, and I ask the Minister of Labour's assurance that there is no substantial change in any of the policy reflected in these amendments. It is just simply language amendments, is it not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's to clarify two aspects.

As the member knows, the present legislation provides for a board of three members, one of whom is the chairman. It also provides that there can be a vice-chairman. A question was raised as to whether or not the vice-chairman was, in fact, a fully authorized member of the board. Because we don't have four members, we had to clarify that.

One other aspect that I would point out to the member is the repealing of section 74 (l) and the substitution of that three-line subsection.

As the member will recall, the Act presently provides that with regard to remunerations to officers they're subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That section was in the Act long before the employees of the board became organized. The question arises as to the distinction between employees and officers, and therefore it's made clear that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council doesn't have to ratify the collective agreements that have been concluded.

Sections 40 and 41 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 9 1, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 91. Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.