[ Page 5865 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Essential Services Disputes Act (Bill 92) Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 5865

Oral questions

Ferry employees strike. Ms. Sanford –– 5866

Mr. Barrett –– 5866

Mr. Gibson –– 5867

Mr. Barrett –– 5867

Mr. King –– 5868

Mr. Gibson –– 5869

Mrs. Dailly –– 5869

The House met at 4 p.m.

Prayers.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I know that all members will be extremely sorry to hear of the death of Norman Bortnick, the chief executive officer of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia., On behalf of all of the members of this assembly, we would like to express our most sincere sympathy to his family, friends and associates and, indeed, express our appreciation for the prodigious efforts rendered by Mr. Bortnick under difficult circumstances and his most valued contribution to the citizens of this province.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, as a former member of ICBC I would like to extend our condolences to Mr. Bortnick's family and his wife, Carol. We certainly understand the hard work that possibly, in some way, contributed to this unfortunate accident of illness.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. members, on behalf of Mr. Speaker, I could make these expressions known to the family.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today, all the way from the beautiful Bella Coola Valley, 14 students from the Sir Alexander Mackenzie High School, accompanied by their principal, Mr. Walter Gotzy, Miss Elizabeth Cox and Mr. Jim Herperger. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce today to the House George Johnston, president, and a number of representatives from the B.C. Federation of Labour. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): In the gallery today we have a former member of this assembly and a former minister, a man who is presently, as a matter of fact, my landlord. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Leo Nimsick.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I don't think there are any amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act coming in today.

I would like to thank the Speaker for allowing me to introduce the former Speaker of the House, Mr. Gordon Dowding, as a guest of the House on the floor today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to add my own personal warm welcome to the former Speaker of the House.

Introduction of bills.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES DISPUTES ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Essential Services Disputes Act.

Bill 92 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the bill will be distributed to hon. members after adjournment. I would move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order? Can we interrupt in the middle of a motion on a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: I was on my feet before the motion. Mr. Speaker, a bill has been introduced, and to inform the House that it will be distributed after the House adjourns is highly improper. Secondly, there is a courtesy - although it is indeed a message bill - of a question period today. I do not believe that the House should be dealt with in this manner. There are orders of the day and we should proceed with orders of the day on that basis. You cannot interfere on that basis and the courtesy of the bill in front of us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken.

The Attorney-General on the same point.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We would be quite happy to have question period. It Was proposed that we have question period between these usual two motions, Mr. Member.

MR. BARRETT: No, you were adjourning the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I was only setting the time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the edification of all

[ Page 5866 ]

members, there customarily are two motions. The one motion is to establish the time at which the House will come together again. Then following that is the formal adjournment of the House. Sometimes some business is transacted between those two motions. Is that acceptable?

MR. BARRETT: All I wanted was the assurance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR. G. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I wish to debate the motion, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is for the House at its rising to stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, statements were made by the Premier that this was not an emergency session. I would ask for some explanation from the member of cabinet, as the Premier is inconsistent in his remarks, as to why this emergency session has been called when there is no emergency. Secondly, why do we have to meet at an unusual time tomorrow, considering there's no emergency?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we are now in a year-long session of which there'll be several sittings. The idea of a 10 o'clock start for debate was not started by this government in this assembly; it was started by that party when they were government. They created a precedent which I think is one of the better ones they created, and that is to allow the members to get on with an issue that is of prime public importance.

The 10 a.m. debates we had during the Barrett years were not related to any emergency but were a very necessary opportunity for members of the House to get on with the public's business. We're following in that precedent, and the public expect - in fact I would expect the public would demand - that we get along with their business. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that it's not unusual; in fact, it is a practice started by that party during their term as government. It wasn't related to an emergency, Mr. Speaker, and as such it is only there so we can carry out the wish of the public of British Columbia, and that's to get on with the people's business.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to delay the proceedings; I would just like to point out that the Premier carefully failed to note that there is in fact an emergency. This House has been brought back on very short notice, and we're all glad to be here, Mr. Premier and other members of the House.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We are?

MR. GIBSON: I say that, Mr. Speaker, subject to a reading of the legislation which has just been tabled, but we're all glad to be here. I would just like to make this point, and I think it's a fair point to make: in the absence of some explanation by the government as to why these highly unusual sequences of timing have been followed, I think that members opposite have to draw the conclusion that the House at this time is being used as a political convenience for the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved.

Oral questions.

FERRY EMPLOYEES STRIKE

MS. SANFORD: My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. I'm wondering if, as part of the agreement with the ferry workers before returning to work, there was an understanding between you, officials of your ministry and/or the Labour Relations Board that there would be no prosecutions against the ferry workers.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): No.

MS. K. SANFORD: Was a commitment given by you or anyone in your ministry to the secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour that there would be no prosecutions?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not by me and not by anyone with my authority.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that's the case, were you aware that anyone in your ministry gave that authority?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MS. SANFORD: That assurance?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister inform this House that if his deputy gave such an assurance, the deputy gave the assurance without the authority of the minister and the deputy will be dealt with for dealing with it without having authority from the

[ Page 5867 ]

minister on that basis?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the charge implicit in the question is of most serious and far-reaching consequences and therefore I will take the question as notice to be dealt with forthwith.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on a similar matter to the Attorney-General. The Minister of Labour, quoted in the Vancouver Province of October 15, stated that the question of action for breaking the law by staying out in defiance of the cooling-off period remains up to, as he put it, "the corporation or the Attorney-General."

Now, Mr. Speaker, since it's very clear as a result of the statement of the chairman of the Labour Relations Board signed on October 12 that no prosecution or no authority for prosecution of any kind will be entertained by the Labour Relations Board....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Read the statement. Be accurate!

MR. GIBSON: The Minister of Labour asked me to read the statement, Mr. Speaker. I'll be glad to do that. "Accordingly" - and this is the final sentence and the operative sentence of the chairman's statement....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Read it all.

MR. GIBSON: I'll read every bit of it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please move quickly to the question?

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm endeavouring to comply with the request of the Minister of Labour that I read the chairman's statement. It's quite short.

The fact of the matter is that among other things the chairman said: "The board would be of the view that this matter is and would remain closed."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Read it all.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano is asking a question, I believe.

MR. GIBSON: I am asking a question, and my question is this: since action through the LRB, according to the statement of the chairman in this report, which published a text.... It . says: "Following are the texts of the three key statements." This is the Sunday Colonist of October 16. Since it is stopped through the Labour Relations Board, and on the evidence of the Premier of this province that prosecution is still a possibility, I'm asking the Attorney-General if he has any plans to mount such prosecution. It is a very simple question, if the Minister of Labour would have allowed it to come out more quickly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are aspects of the question that are not in order, but the Attorney-General is on his feet. Please proceed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to just mal~e this point, if I can, in response to the hon. member. There seems to be a degree of controversy concerning the substance of the text to which the hon. member is referring. In view of that, hon. member, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time, but I will take your question as notice.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the question of the text is only a matter of information for the Attorney-General. I asked him whether he proposes, pursuant to the Premier's statement, that there is a p possibility of action being taken. Does the Attorney-General propose to take any action? It's a very simple question. Is he going to do that or is he not? What are the government's intentions in this matter?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's been taken as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I would like to ask whether or not before a recent television interview dealing with the matter of the ferry strike the Premier was shown any document or informed verbally that there was an agreement between the ferry workers and the LRB that if they accepted Mr. McKee they would not be prosecuted if they returned to work. Was he shown any document or informed of that possibility by anyone before that inter-view?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if I answered the question in its entirety I would have to say no, because I wasn't shown anything or told anything before the interview. However, during the interview a reporter made mention - I can recall that part - of an agreement which I hadn't seen or heard of. I accepted their statement subject to my having verification.

MR. BARRETT: If such an agreement exists and it was given forth by a government agency, does the Premier intend to honour it?

[ Page 5868 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it is a hypothetical question.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker it is not a hypothetical question. The document does exist. I'm asking if the Premier is prepared to back up the agreement that we will table with this House, signed by an agency of the government on behalf of the government, with the ferry workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

MR. BARRETT: We will table it a document that you say does not exist.

I ask the Premier if he will back up any agreement made by a government agency regarding this strike matter. I ask the Premier if he's prepared to back up a government agency that signs an agreement on behalf of the government with working people or anyone else. Is the government's word, through an agency, acceptable or not? Yes or no. Answer the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question suggests its own answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: He's the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In any event, hon. members, we cannot, according to Beauchesne, press for an answer. The question can be asked but the answer need not be given.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Premier a question. Is his silence an indication that he refuses to answer? The question is: is the government prepared to back up an agreement signed by an agency of the government with a group of employees of the government outlining conditions that are related to their return to work? Yes or no.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, no government should ever inhibit its ability to act on behalf of the people of the province.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier saying that no matter what a. duly delegated government body is authorized to do, the government is indeed not bound by that agreement or contract and it is prepared to break that contract if it feels necessary? Yes or no. That is exactly the situation. The Premier is saying that no government agency can make any contract because this government is saying....

HON. MR. BENNETT: What was the question?

MR. BARRETT: Is the Premier saying that no government agency's word will be backed up when written in an agreement by the government? Yes or no.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I have a question for the Minister of Transport and Communications. The minister has indicated publicly that prosecution would probably flow towards the ferry workers. I want to ask the minister, as chairman of the Ferry Corporation, whether or not he was familiar with the agreement signed between the Ferry Corporation and the ferry employees' union which specifically precluded any reprisals by management or any discipline to the ferry workers. Was the minister further aware of the statement issued by the chairman of the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Paul Weiler, which precludes any prosecution directed at the ferry employees' union? Was the minister aware of those agreements?

HON. MR. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, the only conditions that I'm aware of are those relating to actions on the job. I understand also that action on the job by management is precluded by law in any case.

MR. KING: I wish to read into the record, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Well, I wish to refer to a document that I will table with the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We must keep this period for questions, hon. member.

MR. KING: I'll be very brief and concise, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Don't be afraid. It is very obvious that the veracity of the government is very much in question here today.

Mr. Speaker, I refer to a document over the signature of Paul Weiler issued with this notation: "Issuance of this statement is contingent upon the signed agreement on return to work by the parties in this case." It's part and parcel of the return-to-work agreement. Is the Minister of Transport, who is chairman of the Crown corporation, a party to that return-to-work agreement, saying he did not know of this statement issued by the chairman of the Labour Relations Board? Is that what the minister is saying?

[ Page 5869 ]

MR. BARRETT: Doublecross anybody, anytime!

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Isn't he going to answer the questions?

Interjections.

(Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. May I remind all hon. members that the question period is only 15 minutes in duration and if we wish to serve the question period perhaps we ought not to take the time in the bantering that we have witnessed here today.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat. I

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. The minister is reported in the press as having said on the weekend, I think last Friday evening: "A contempt action is presently being pressed by the corporation at the supreme court level." I wonder if the minister could describe to the House what that contempt action is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I refer you to guidelines for questions. There are several of these guidelines that I would like to draw to your attention, if we just could stop the clock for half a moment. This doesn't take time out from question period. Questions cannot ask whether statements made in newspapers are true; questions cannot be asked which might prejudice a pending trial in a court of law; questions cannot be asked which contain or imply charges of a personal nature; questions cannot be asked which contain inferences or which contain imputations. These are all facts of which every member is aware, and I wish you would keep these in mind when you're asking questions.

MR. GIBSON: I was not asking whether the statement in the newspaper is true. What I asked the minister to describe is exactly what contempt charge is currently being pressed by the corporation at the supreme court level, because my knowledge is that there is none.

No answer?

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): To the

Premier. Was the Premier aware of the Weiler document the evening before he went on public television?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. COCKE: Rod Mickleburgh says he showed it to you the night before and you talked to him about it the night before.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: In accordance with the standing rules of this House, I ask leave to make a statement and file a document.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't hear any noes. I ask leave to file a document and make a statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, I did hear noes, and leave is not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I then ask leave to file a document.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the comment on this document is that. . . .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Leader of the Opposition is aware that there is no debate on filing.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind indulgence.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We nearly got right across the canal there, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:37 p.m.