[ Page 5871 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting

Routine proceedings

Essential Services Disputes Act (Bill 92) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5872

Ms. Sanford –– 5876

Mr. Cocke –– 5879

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5881

Mr. Gibson –– 5882

Mr. Kempf –– 5888

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: The House is informed, pursuant to standing order 12, that owing to the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker the Deputy Speaker has taken the chair.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to clarify an answer made in question period yesterday

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier means to clarify a remark made?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The clarification of a remark made in answer yesterday.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Ask leave!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is not required that leave be asked in this particular instance. However, perhaps in order to keep the House

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd be pleased to ask for leave, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I must say that in answer to a question from the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) yesterday, in the shortness of my answer I may have inadvertently misled the House. The question was: was I aware of the LRB document? The answer would have to be yes, but I had not read the contents. That was the way I had understood the question. But I would point out that I did attend in dinner with Mr. Mickleburgh, who was there to receive a statement in advance of my press conference the following morning, and he has suggested that he mentioned the document during the dinner. While I cannot recall the contents of what he said, it must be said that I was aware that the Labour Relations Board did have a document. For that the answer would be "yes." Had I read it and did I know the contents? The answer would be "no" at that time.

MR. BARRETT: I ask leave of the House on a point of clarification.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, leave has been asked. May I just for the clarification of the House say this? When a ministerial statement is made, it is traditional that a response be allowed. However, on matter of clarification this tradition has not applied. It is the obligation of every member to clarify remarks made at the first possible opportunity. Normall, that clarification is accepted by the House without further debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could just handle it by saying this: does the Minister of Labour intend to take advantage of the same opportunity to clarify his statements yesterday? Does the Minister of Labour intend to clarify his statements made yesterday?

[Deputy Speaker rises. I

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would suppose that it would be the intent of all members of the House to retain the dignity of the House by observing the standing orders, and that would include the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

(Deputy Speaker resumes his seat. I

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave for what?

MR. KING: The government to please clarify the truth.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking for leave to make a statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition asks for leave to make a statement,

I hear several noes.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Who was it, Mr. Speaker? I didn't hear a no.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): If I understood correctly, Mr. Speaker, I think you said that the questioner could clarify the question which has just been reported on. Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I'm sorry, hon. member,

[ Page 5872 ]

that's not what the

MRS. DAILLY: I understood I could respond.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Presumably there would be an opportunity at the next question period.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to make an introduction at this time to the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: By all means.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would be very pleased if the House would give a warm and hospitable welcome to an outstanding community worker, Mr. Cliff Oswald, who is here from the great constituency of Burnaby North. He is the president of the Social Credit Party of Burnaby.

MR. BARRETT: I would like to take the opportunity of welcoming half the truth today. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, snide!

MR. BARRETT: No, correct!

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I move that the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 92, Mr. Speaker.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES DISPUTES ACT

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): In rising in second reading of Bill 92, 1 would at the outset move second reading of Bill 92.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Taking note, Bill?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's in the interest of the rights of the opposition to recognize the matters which are under debate - they seemed to have some difficulty in the past. In speaking to that motion, Mr. Speaker, I without hesitation would remind you and members of the assembly that Bill 92 and the debate which surrounds it addresses itself to rights of a variety and to some of the implications which arise when those rights come into conflict.

We are dealing with the right under the laws of this province of employees to bargain collectively for the attainment of terms and conditions of their employment which fairly and equitably match their contribution to the enterprise in which they are employed. We are dealing as well, however, with the rights of the employers, or those who are cast in the role of employers, to the effective management of that enterprise upon which the employer itself and the employees depend.

Under the laws of this province, through the system of free collective bargaining, the rights which are extended also produce a corresponding obligation on each of these parties to make the system work and to exercise their rights in good faith and in the fullest recognition that the failure to do so and the clash of those two rights produces an effect of major impact upon others not directly involved in the process.

To this end, the government of this province - as in other jurisdictions - over the years has introduced itself on behalf of those not directly involved and, as well, on behalf of the two parties who have the right and the responsibility, for the purpose of assisting in the attainment of the end which the parties seek and the reduction of those instances when the clash to which I refer and the resulting harm will occur. This matter has been recognized by many persons in this House. It was stated in debates in this House on October 7,1975, by the then Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King):

I have said on many occasions publicly to the trade union movement and management groups that no right is absolute, that every right that a citizen holds in this province must be tempered and weighed against the consequences of its exercise to the ultimate on innocent parties and on people directly involved.

MR. BARRETT: Don't you wish you were half as good?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's a statement to which, I'm sure, the hon. member and those with whom he is associated still adhere, as do, I suspect, all members of this House. He went on to say on that occasion:

We have never stated, although we adhere to collective bargaining principles, that there is an absolute right to indulge in economic warfare which in many cases threatens and jeopardizes the basic safety, comfort and health of citizens of this province.

In the context of the circumstances which were before this House for debate on that occasion - in the circumstances which obtained at the time that debate was conducted in this House - perhaps we could all agree that there is no absolute right. But I suggest that there is - and this was recognized at the time - one instance where a right is absolute, and that right was then and is today to have essential

[ Page 5873 ]

services, upon which the public depends and for which the public pays, maintained without interruption. The recognition of this absolute right in turn casts upon government the obligation not only to introduce itself into the process, but if need be to interfere and interrupt that process for the purpose of ensuring that essential service is maintained.

The increasing complexity of our society, the resulting interdependence of people and the necessity of the reliance of one upon the other bring with them a corresponding decrease in the ability of the individual to provide on his own those services essential to his existence. With that comes the demand that government discharge in the fullest measure the obligation to which I referred. But that same obligation, Mr. Speaker, of government to ensure the continuation of services carries with it the obligation, again in the public interest, to ensure that the measures taken are balanced by the need to produce terms and conditions of employment which are fair and equitable, and are seen to be so, for those who produce the service. It is to this end that this government and this bill is dedicated. To this end, this government and preceding governments have introduced measures from time to time which were designed to achieve this balance and which have enjoyed some success; not perfection - none of us will achieve that - but at least the reduction of imperfections.

We have today, in the laws of this province and in the Labour Code of British Columbia, provisions which deal with a limited definition of essential services. It's limited to aspects of health, life and safety. In a limited way, we have in the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act limited to the services provided by two of the major Crown corporations another parameter of essential services -that of threatened harm to the economy of the province and the welfare of its citizens.

Recent events have brought into clear focus the need for further measures, also designed to achieve the balance for which we strive and of which I have spoken, and, more importantly, the urgent need to design and bring into play methods and mechanisms which, on a continuing basis, will not only facilitate resolution of specific problems as they arise, but, of far greater importance, will also root out, investigate, examine and offer solutions for the basic causes which underlie those specific problems and give rise to the disputes and disruptions we seek to avoid. Experience has shown that in the resolution of specific problems, basic causes are rarely perceived. Often, if perceived, they are, with greater rarity, ignored.

It is to this important area that this bill directs itself in a novel way. I commend it to the members for their most careful consideration. In so saying, I would remind the members that this mechanism does, in a limited way, exist in the laws of this and other provinces today. There are rights under the Labour Code, but they're limited. They were exercised by a former administration in problems which arose with British Columbia Railway in the appointment of Mr. McKee as a special officer, but the conduct of his commission and the discharge of his responsibilities was indeed interfered with by an industrial dispute.

We have in a limited way, under the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act, functioning today, steadfastly and, I believe, effectively, the Strand commission. But it, too, deals in a limited way with matters of industrial relations significance as they apply to that one Crown corporation.

In other jurisdictions - the province of Ontario, for example - there is a specific mechanism, which is limited, however, to industrial relations problems as they affect the educational system of that province. But, as I say, these instances are limited in scope and the direction they may take. It is the view of the government, and the intention is clearly expressed in this bill, to move to establish on a permanent basis an agency that will undertake a number of major tasks directed to the resolution of those basic, root causes.

The agency will be authorized to deal with specific disputes in essential services, and to offer assistance in the settlement of those disputes. More importantly, as I say, it will be in a position to consider, examine and recommend, with respect to the root causes of the seeming inability of some elements in the public service to conclude a resolution of their differences. I'm not speaking only of the employees in those public services.

Further, the agency will be charged with the responsibility of determining the extent and nature of the impact that the withdrawal of essential services would have and, through that process, identifying, in greater particularity than has been the case before, the essentiality of services upon which we all depend.

We have in our laws, and there is incorporated in Bill 92, the broad parameters of health, life, safety, the economy of the province and the welfare of its citizens. The government is not satisfied with those broad parameters. Greater refinement is required, and it will be the task of this agency to embark upon that exercise.

But I think, Mr. Speaker, important as all these matters are, the mechanism that we propose in Bill 92 will achieve its objective by the fact that it will work with the parties of interest for the purpose of arriving at means by which labour-management problems in these essential services areas can be managed through the processes of joint consultation. This function involves the development of strategies and plans for effective long-range continuing joint consultation, away from the heat of particular moments of conflict.

When I spoke in the debates earlier in this session

[ Page 5874 ]

concerning the modifications of the Labour Code of British Columbia, I indicated to the House that it was my desire and the government's intention, in dealing with matters of significance in this field, that we would seek, through the use of independent agencies, the opportunity for full consultation with the parties involved directly in industrial relations matters.

I gather that since yesterday there has been some criticism of the fact that we are bringing Bill 92 before the House at this time without undertaking such a consultative process. To those members who may have expressed this criticism I would ask that they attend very carefully to the words I have just placed in this debate and, in particular, to the provisions of Part I of this bill.

This agency will be the independent agency to carry out that examination and joint consultation, an agency that is established in this province for the very first time - appointed by government and financed by the people. It will function independently of government. It will report to government, but it will publish its own reports independent of government. Through the use of the one process outlined in Part I - that of fact-finding - it will be enabled to call the shots as they are and let those who would deserve criticism be exposed and let them adjust their attitudes and the conduct of their responsibilities accordingly. The agency will function independently. It will publish to the people of this province what is going on in this area of essential service industrial relations, and the government and this Legislature will be able to deal with those recommendations to bring about such changes as they may indicate are necessary.

Now I would like to deal with other aspects of this bill. The members who are aware of the laws of this province today will recognize - and I make no apology for this - that in this essential services legislation we are drawing together legislation that already exists on the books today, but which, by reason of the manner of introduction, is not drawn together and is disjointed. Some rights can be exercised in some areas under one law but cannot be exercised in other areas.

The suggestion has been made that with regard to the recent interruption of service in the ferry system the designation technique provided in section 73 of the Code should be used. But to do so would be to abuse that Code because the opportunities under which that process was available were not clearly spelled out in the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act. That has been cured in this legislation.

In so saying, may I however make it perfectly clear so that no one need be confused as to the scope of this legislation. I read in the press this morning the suggestion that under this legislation the essential services dispute resolution techniques were being extended to the public service and to the Crown corporations that exists in the law today, and I trust that no one is confused about that. What this legislation does is to limit its application of the provisions of this bill to those essential services that are provided by the government of this province, its Crown corporations and its several agencies.

We are not interfering with the private sector. We expect it to manage its own affairs, and to do so in accordance with the law. But in so doing, I would remind the private sector to attend very carefully to section 73 (7) of the - Labour Code of British Columbia, because in that subsection the right of the government to involve itself when private-sector disputes result in the interruption of essential services still exists. It has been the law and will continue to be the law, but the government and this assembly, with respect to the affairs that are our joint responsibility to manage, must attend to that responsibility. We must recognize that as the assembly and the government is in one sense the management, we must exercise those management responsibilities, clearly placing the broader public interest in the position of primacy, and it is to that that this bill is directed.

It has been suggested by some that this legislation takes away rights, interferes with existing processes. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that nothing could be further from the truth. I hope that those who are concerned about these aspects will give the most careful consideration to the bill. It is complex; it is intricate; it may even be cumbersome. But the complexity of the problems with which it must deal leaves us no alternative but to deal in this way. There are no simple solutions to complex problems. We recognize that. We wish there were. Therefore in this bill, which you must read most carefully, we have approached these complex problems, attempting to provide fairly and equitably the opportunity to overcome those complex problems.

I would say that in this area of essential services -and this is one of the reasons that the bill itself has the complexity - we recognize some of the problems that present industrial relations practices present in the area of essential services. They present the opportunity to manipulate the laws to the advantage of one party or the other in the belief, I must say with regret, that somehow or other the government or indeed this assembly may be compelled to exercise this responsibility and to take the parties off the hook. It is our wish and our desire that such game-playing end, because the consequences are too serious for the parties themselves and for the public generally to allow them to continue.

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that this Act takes away things which we presently enjoy, as I say, is not the case. It does not take away the right to collectively bargain; indeed it preserves that right and casts an even greater responsibility on those parties

[ Page 5875 ]

who are obliged to discharge the obligations under free collective bargaining. If they have difficulty in discharging those responsibilities, we are offering in this legislation some mechanisms, and increasing the mechanisms, the methods and the whole arsenal of weapons that may be available to the parties to reach their resolution' without the necessity of work stoppages.

We are preserving the opportunity that exists for the withdrawal of services, but in the responsibility of government we are also reserving the obligation and the authority of government to protect the public interest in the preservation of essential services which are or may be threatened by the inability of the collective bargaining processes to produce the settlement of interest disputes.

We are preserving the rights which have been given to trade unions under the laws today involved in areas of essential services to elect at their choice the resolution by arbitration, if that is their wish.

In speaking about that, Mr. Speaker, may I compliment those areas in industrial relations, those areas of essential services who have been given this right, for the ready matter In which they have utilized that right. I speak of the policemen and the firemen and the health-care unions in this province. Recognizing their public responsibility, they have readily acceded to the opportunities which the law provides for them. It is our hope that in extending the right - and by this law, we do extend that right to trade unions to which it is presently excluded - that those same attitudes will be disclosed in the resolution of disputes in other areas.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation also preserves one further right or responsibility, and that is the ultimate responsibility of this assembly to deal with those situations where, in spite of all the opportunities there may be and all of the assistance that can be provided by law, the resolution of disputes in finality must be imposed. It is not, under this Bill 92, the right of government to impose the final settlement. We can suspend for a limited period of time the withdrawal of- services or the locking out of employees. We can, in a limited way, provide for the continuation of services with a partial stoppage of work.

But in the final analysis, it is not the right of government, and we do not ask for the right, to impose the final solution. That will be done in this assembly with the rights of all of the members of this assembly to debate the issue and make the final determination. That has been the case in the past, and it's been used in the past - rarely by governments in this province, I'm pleased to say; more often by others. But in the recognition that that ultimate responsibility rests here, as I say, the government under Bill 92 does not propose to diminish that final result.

The government proposes through Bill 92 the adoption and achievement of the principle of fair employer-employee concepts. As government, with respect to those employees directly in government, and as government with responsibility with those Crown corporations and agencies, we must demand that such concepts be understood and adhered to. Bill 92 ensures that this will take place. We expect in response that those employees of government and of the Crown corporations and agencies will do likewise in their approach to the discharge of their responsibilities. We are offering the opportunity in Bill 92 for this to be encouraged and achieved.

We believe that careful attention to this responsibility on both sides can and will preserve industrial harmony in the public sector and will serve as an example to the private sector, which, I must say, is making it abundantly clear at this moment that the discharge of their responsibilities and obligations is above reproach. They are to be congratulated for that. With these two examples in the public sector and in the private sector we will be providing with the assistance of those parties the opportunity for harmony, for progress and for advancement to the benefit of those who are directly involved and to all the citizens of this province.

In conclusion I must say just a few words about the question of enforcement. It is not the intention of Bill 92 to terrorize or be retributive in the matter of enforcement. Rather it is for the purpose of inducing compliance. Retribution is not the way our society functions and should not be encouraged, but it must be clear that if there are laws in this province they must be obeyed.

The sanctions, therefore, must be achievable and understandable. Indeed, those parties directly involved in industrial relations cannot enjoy their rights and carry out their responsibilities unless the law is obeyed. It interferes with their particular responsibility; it diminishes their ability to undertake the task which is theirs. Therefore, in the interests of management, in the interests of the employees and their representatives, and in the interest of all the citizens of this province, the sanction provisions are included in this provision not to terrorize or to force, but to induce.

Mr. Speaker, I have read the debates in similar legislation when similar legislation has been introduced to deal in an ad hoc way with emergent problems in this area. I have read and carefully considered the remarks of members who sit on all sides of this House. I can only conclude that as the debate on second reading of Bill 92 terminates, this legislation will receive the unanimous and wholehearted endorsement of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair

[ Page 5876 ]

could not help but observe the courtesies that were extended to the speaker who has just taken his place. This is commendable, and I trust that I can anticipate this through the rest of the debate.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments and I anticipate that the members will indeed afford the same courtesy to all of the other members who will be participating in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 92 is typical of the other kinds of labour legislation that this , government has introduced. It further erodes the Labour Code; it makes further incursions into the rights afforded people under the Labour Code. It's really very similar, Mr. Speaker, to the Labour Code amendments that we saw in 1976 and again in 1977. Of course, it is very similar to the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act that we saw a year ago. It extends the 90-day cooling-off period beyond the ferry and railway workers to include other government workers or those who are working for Crown corporations.

But, Mr. Speaker, this bill hardly warrants calling the Legislative Assembly together at this time in order to deal with Bill 92. There is no justification for a special session at this time to call everybody back in order to deal with a bill the provisions of which are mostly included now under the Labour Code. The reason, Mr. Speaker, that we are here today is not to discuss Bill 92 and the fine words that the Minister of Labour used in presenting the bill about public interest and maintaining essential services. Mr. Speaker, what we're here for today is to try to gain some credibility for that government. That's what we're here for.

They have lost all credibility in the eyes of the public in the way they have mishandled the ferry situation from the outset. Now, because they are getting all of that flack from the public, the Premier in desperation had to show that he was strong, authoritative and concerned, and therefore called the House back to discuss a bill the provisions of which are mostly included now in other statutes. That's what we're here for.

I'm sure the Minister of Labour is very embarrassed this morning. He tried to tell us what a fine job this advisory council was going to do. Mr. Speaker, section 122 of the Labour Code already gives him all of the powers of this advisory council, or all of the authority and abilities and the capabilities that he can carry out under section 122 of the Labour Code. In glowing terms he talked about how this advisory council was going to look into the problems, criticize, if necessary, both sides, and advise him on industrial disputes and on the ongoing problems between management and labour in the public service or in the government service. But, Mr.

Speaker, he can do that now. It's there - section 122. Maybe I should read part of it for the minister. Section 122 says this:

"The minister may, either upon application or his own motion, make or cause to be made such inquiries as he considers advisable respecting industrial matters; and subject to this Act and the regulations may do such things as he considers necessary to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to settlement of disputes." It's there. What was the matter with that section?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): He never read it.

MS. SANFORD: Doesn't the Premier know that that Section 1s there as well? The Premier doesn't seem to show much understanding of the Labour Code or industrial relations based on the statements that he's been making in recent times. But it's there.

Mr. Speaker, it's rather amusing to hear the Minister of Labour talk about the true independence of a board which he appoints to advise him. That board is not going to be any more independent than the directors of the Ferry Corporation are now. They're all appointed. No one in this province accepts that that Ferry Corporation is acting independently of government. And he's trying to tell us with such fervour this morning that we're setting up the first truly independent advisory board to look into industrial matters. That's a laugh, Mr. Speaker.

But why are we here? We have no emergency, we have no crisis, we have no situation which warrants calling this House back into session at this time, except as cosmetics for the government to cover up the mishandling of that ferry strike situation.

From the outset they have bungled on the ferry situation. There were no meaningful negotiations taking place, and it wasn't until after the ferry workers had been on strike a week and the mediator, Clive McKee, was appointed that any kind of meaningful negotiations started to take place.

Mr. Speaker, we had before us legislation which required a 90-day cooling-off period for ferry workers and railway workers. When that bill was introduced last year, the opposition pointed out at that time that the 90-day cooling-off period does not assist in bargaining. It does not assist in the collective bargaining process at all. It simply postpones the time in which the two parties will get together and will discuss a contract meaningfully. We said that at that time. Mr. Speaker, instead of negotiating in good faith, the corporation had been sitting on its hands knowing that there was that 90-day cooling-off period, knowing that the government would say, "We will now have a 90-day cooling-off period, " and never did get down to any meaningful negotiations with the

[ Page 5877 ]

ferry workers.

Now the problem is, Mr. Speaker, that when the crunch came and when the strike vote had been taken by the ferry workers, there was no way that the president of that union and the executive of that union could hold back those ferry workers. There was no way. They had reached the end of their tether because of the lack of negotiating that was taking place by the Ferry Corporation.

So it's because of the bungling of that Ferry Corporation negotiating team that we are here today to discuss this bill, the powers of which are already mostly contained in existing legislation. It's stupid to call the House back into session at this time to deal with this piece of legislation.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.

You know, we have problems with the government over there, Mr. Speaker. They've been running off in all directions making statements, in spite of the fact that there was an agreed blackout on any press statements during the period of time when Clive McKee was negotiating. They agreed to this, the Ferry Corporation did and the workers did so that Clive McKee could go ahead and act as negotiator. But they were running off in all directions making comments. One was on Jack Webster; the Premier was making statements; they were going to prosecute -all of these things.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: The bill is Bill 92. Mr. Attorney-General, and I'm telling you why we're here discussing this today. It's because of the incompetence of your government, and, Mr. Attorney-General, you know it. I'm sure you are embarrassed that you have to be here today in order to discuss this bill. You're probably almost as embarrassed as the Minister of Labour who had to introduce it and do second reading today.

There's so much fighting and arguing over in that cabinet - they're all running off in different directions, all arguing with each other, one fighting with another - that they get themselves into a state where the only thing they can do is try to cover up by bringing in legislation such as this.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other things that this session today is doing, in my view, is jeopardizing the work that is being carried out by Clive McKee. The minister knows how delicate the situation is once hostility has been reached to the extent where ferry workers are prepared to go out on strike. He knows how difficult it is for a mediator to come in, to bring the two sides together and to get some meaningful negotiations started. He knows that.

To bring in legislation at this time on the subject of essential services, to try to cover up their bungling, is jeopardizing the work of the mediator, Clive McKee. He knows how difficult it is. He knows how one simple statement can upset the whole balance that he's trying to establish. He knows that by bringing this House together today, the ferry workers are watching very, very carefully that anything could spark again a walkout. Why didn't they wait until spring to bring in this legislation? Why now? Why are you bringing this in today? It can't be for any other reason than to try to cover up your own ineptitude and bungling.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's a cheap shot. That's the cheapest shot you've ever produced, and you're a master at it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Comox has the floor. The members of your own benches, hon. member, are actually prolonging the.... Perhaps if you would extend the same courtesy to the member for Comox as was extended to the Minister of Labour, we could continue with the debate.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was one of the ones who was not listening to the news the night we were called back into session. Someone phoned me to say that the House had been called back into session.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Premier just said we're full-time members. Let me tell you that the people within my constituency yesterday and today were expecting me to attend meetings on Quadra Island and Cortes Island. Those meetings had to be cancelled because we were brought back here in order to discuss a bill, the powers of which you already have, in order to cover up your own ineptitude. Where I should be, Mr. Speaker, is back with my constituents, discussing some of the very serious problems that they have.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Their good fortune is. our loss, Karen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on second reading of Bill 92. Perhaps if we stuck to second reading of Bill 92, it might be more appropriate.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): This bill is a make-work project.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the phone call I received said that we were going to be called back

[ Page 5878 ]

into session. I immediately thought, Mr. Speaker, that the government had recognized that there is a crisis in this province. That crisis, obviously, is that there are thousands and thousands of people who are looking for work. The economy is in such a state that that was the crisis which we were being called back for.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know. I'm just relating to you that this is what I assumed we were being called back for. There was no other crisis; the ferry workers had gone back.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your assumption is not relevant to this debate. We are on second reading of Bill 92.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, if perhaps we would allow the member for Comox to continue in the debate, uninterrupted, and she has discussed second reading of Bill 92, then we can continue. Please continue, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: What I'm trying to explain to you is my surprise in being brought back here for this particular bill, because the ferry workers had gone back to work. There was no immediate threat that I could see in terms of dealing with essential services. The only threat I can see in this province at the moment relates to the economy, the government's mishandling of the economy and the fact that there are thousands and thousands of people out looking for work. That's what I thought we were coming here for, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): There are 120,000 people unemployed in this province today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign and give one of them your job.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, if the government were interested in avoiding strikes by Hydro by any of these groups, they would ensure that the collective bargaining process takes place effectively during the period of time that it should take place. This "cooling-off period" is only going to encourage the people not to bargain collectively in good faith during the period of time when they should be doing so. They will simply postpone it for another 90 days; and then another 14, if the minister so decides. It doesn't solve the basic issues and the basic problems that are involved in the collective bargaining process now. It only postpones it.

The irony is that after the 90-day cooling-off period and the additional 14 days which the government may impose, we may still come back to the House in order to deal with the specific situation And that's what we should be doing. If there is a problem in the essential services of the province - the negotiators have not been able to reach any kind of a collective settlement - then we should be brought back to this Legislature to deal with that situation at that time.

One of the very serious aspects of this bill is the fact that the government is now going to be tinkering with the work of the Labour Relations Board. During the last week the House was in session, the Minister of Labour himself complimented the fine work of Paul Weiler as chairman of the Labour Relations Board. I have the quote from Hansard, but I don't think I will read it today. But it was just during the last week that we were in session that the Minister of Labour was in fact saying: "Yes, they are doing a good job." But now, because the government has got itself in such a mess over this ferry situation with the statement signed by Paul Weiler and the statement signed by Clive McKee as to his role as a mediator . . .

MR. BARRETT: Send him a copy. He doesn't know about it.

MS. SANFORD: ... it is beginning to attack and undermine the work of the Labour Relations Board, and that is serious. Mr. Speaker, the whole Labour Code and the whole labour law of this province is predicated on the fact that the Labour Relations Board is independent to act. The government now wants to move in in order to erode and undermine the Labour Relations Board and direct them. This is the first step. You said it yourself, Mr. Minister. It's right there; I have read the bill.

I was interested to note that the Premier did make a correction today just before we went into second reading of this bill. He made a correction on a statement that he made yesterday with respect to the whole ferry situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: We should have a "correction period."

MS. SANFORD: It has been suggested that we should have a correction period each day in the House. Perhaps we could have a correction period this afternoon so that the Minister of Labour might make some corrections as well.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill the minister said that the private sector is above reproach at this time in the way it's handling its own collective bargaining process. "It's above reproach, " he said. One of the reasons - the most important reason -that there has been relative peace is that the Labour Code has been effective. Bit by bit by bit these

[ Page 5879 ]

people are chipping away at that Labour Code. They're now interfering with the Labour Relations Board itself, which is serious.

If the Minister of Labour and this government expect there to be relative labour peace.... We're never going to achieve complete labour peace; everybody recognizes that. But if we're going to achieve any kind of relative labour peace, then we must have a Labour Code that remains in place without the kind of erosion and chipping away that this government is involved in.

They're asking for trouble, Mr. Speaker, by chipping away. Every opportunity they get they chip a bit more, and you keep wondering who's going to be next. He talks here about the private sector. Are they going to be next? Are they going to be included under this schedule and have a 90-day cooling-off period as well?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a number of specific questions in committee stage. We in the opposition are opposing this legislation. The reason that we are here today....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we indicated very clearly when we initially had the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act that we were opposed to the 90-day cooling-off period at that time because of the fact that you do not encourage collective bargaining to take place. You are simply postponing it and you are simply encouraging people not to get down to the business of collective bargaining. They then rely on the 90-day cooling-off period as a time in which, well, maybe they can start.

The most effective way of dealing with these problems is to ensure that there is fair collective bargaining taking place. If there is a crisis situation in this province as far as essential services are concerned, the Legislature then gets called together and we discuss that specific issue at that time and deal with it. But this kind of chipping away at the Labour Code is serious and it leads to trouble. The minister knows it's going to lead to trouble. They're inviting it,

But, Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are here today is not because the government suddenly is going to deal with essential services; they're not doing much more here than they already have power to do. We are here today as a political salvation for that group which has bungled from day one on the ferry situation.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) had some discussion with respect to the bill. Mr. Speaker, this was a great surprise. We expected the Munchkins to jump up, one after another, praising this empty government. We expected the Premier at least to get up, defending the Minister of Labour for bringing us over here for this particular piece of empty legislation, Mr. Speaker.

As a matter of fact, the notes that I have on this legislation are still in my caucus room, but I don't really need them because I looked at them last night. Certainly there is no way that we are going to let the Minister of Labour close debate at this point.

Mr. Speaker, let me first go through what I consider to be the aspects of the bill that we cannot support. We cannot support further erosion of the collective bargaining process.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The government benches, particularly the cabinet benches, are being rather noisy at this point. The member for New Westminster is in second reading. I would ask that you extend him the courtesy of a little silence so that we can listen to second reading on Bill 92.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't expect very much from them; they haven't delivered very much in the past and I don't expect much in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the erosion of the collective bargaining process is what we are worried about. Naturally, the bill certainly wasn't of significant character. It is insignificant in terms of what the prospect was. We heard that there was an important sitting of the Legislature to be held on Wednesday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and who knows how long. We returned to find a piece of legislation that just does this, Mr. Speaker: it worries everybody in this province and it worries them from this standpoint - who's next? What's next? Where is the next significant piece of erosion going to occur? That's what worries me, Mr. Speaker.

The bill itself is just that - a bill giving the Minister of Labour just that much more power to interfere, and, Mr. Speaker, giving his appointees this new board, this bureaucratic little effort that the present Labour Relations Board would have done free. Now we're going to be paying some more hacks to be snooping around in terms of what they consider to be essential industry.

Mr. Minister of Labour, speaking of hacks, there has never been such a hack-supported party in the history of this province than that government over there. They used to criticize our party for having an executive assistant apiece. Now those people over there have a multiplicity of hacks, as many as one can possibly afford, and they are going to have more in this bill. More, more, more.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How about the Cocke-and-Foulkes act.

[ Page 5880 ]

MR. COCKE: The contribution that Richard Foulkes made to this province was more than you will ever make if you live to be 100, or 1,000.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We are on second reading of Bill 92.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Chabot) of that disaster bill - the Minister of Mines now - would have difficulty reading the Foulkes report but I would sure like him to do it. I'd sure like you to do it if you can. If is the finest report ever written in this province in medical and health terms.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): A quarter of a million dollars for nothing.

MR. COCKE: No. Go back to your mine pit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: HON. members, I trust we'll get back to second reading of Bill 92.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, he amuses me.

I just want to go back to what I was saying on, this matter of erosion. There is no question that they do it a bit at a time. We went through a session recently - a long, long session in this House - and there was the rippling of a good labour situation in this province. Things were happening rather nicely in this province for a change, as a result of a darned good Labour Code. Then the Minister of Labour in the dying hours, no doubt at the behest of the Premier and some of the other awkward hawks in that party, brought in another bill on labour - an erosion, a bill making it very difficult to put together collective bargaining units, particularly in the area of secondary industry and service industry.

Now the minister has come forward, and don't ever think, Mr. Speaker, that this is his idea of timing for this bill. I doubt very much if this bill is his idea at all, because it's the First Minister who thinks up this kind of proposition in knee-jerk response to his own constituency, which I hear on the radio kicking the government around because they don't like the way they are handling labour relations.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's the strangest thing that when they are having relatively good times in labour and relative labour peace, they keep inciting disaster. Why would you do it now, for instance, when there is mediation going on in the ferry industry? With the good services, for heaven's sake, of the mediation committee of the Labour Relations Board, we got them back.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he doesn't know anything about it.

MR. COCKE: He didn't know anything about it! He wasn't part of the promises that were made. That's what he indicates to us. But, Mr. Speaker, that's the situation in B.C. right now, and the Premier had the audacity to say the climate is right today to bring in a piece of labour legislation. What are we to expect next?

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of approach that makes the responsible, thinking people in this province feel that they cannot trust this government. They cannot trust this government, because what's going to happen next? How about the schedule? With a simple stroke of the pen.... Do you know where it would occur, Mr. Leader of the Opposition? In the Omnibus Act. In the dying hours of some session, sneaking in an amendment to this particular Act, to the schedule of this Act, hoping that maybe it could fly away, like the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) sneaked in the amendment to the Universities Act, which was an intolerable kind of setting for that particular significant change.... But this is the kind of thing we all worry about from a government we cannot trust.

We know perfectly well that there are conflicts just around this situation. We hear the Premier having to get up and excuse himself today....

MR. BARRETT: Correction period.

MR. COCKE: It'll be correction period from now on. We're going to have two. We're going to have the question period and then in the very next possible time during the sitting we'll have the correction period.

I would hope that the Minister of Labour will be the next to take advantage of the correction period, because if there are any conflicting answers, they were coming from the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thunderous applause again!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's good, because you're not getting it.

MR. COCKE: That's right. I won't get it from any of the Munchkins who are brought over here to jump and dance at the Premier's will around a piece of legislation that wasn't worthy of presentation at this time. As a matter of fact, it's not worthy of presentation at any time, as far as I'm concerned. I don't support it, but what's the significance of it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I trust you will get back to second reading of Bill 92.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that all it does is incite distrust, certainly in the ferry

[ Page 5881 ]

system. They're wondering about it. Naturally they're reading it, reading it, reading it. They say to themselves: "Where does it affect us?"

One thing the Minister of Labour has to answer is whether there is any aspect of this bill that will be retroactive. In closing debate on second reading, and if not there, certainly in committee stage, we want to know if there is any aspect of this bill that is going to be retroactive, because if there is, that would have great significance.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this: were I in the trade union movement, I would be watching the antics of the Minister of Labour very carefully and I'd be watching the antics of the Premier of this province, who will use a significant sector of our population to try to clean up his political act. I think it's a disservice to the trade union movement. I think it's a disservice to the ferry workers. I think it's a disservice to all the public servants in this province for him to use them and to use this House as a political device of this nature. I think it's unfortunate; I think it's unfair and a great disservice to the Legislature in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Did we bring you back from your vacation, Dennis?

MR. COCKE: I hope that the Premier will come in here and try in some way to dignify this tremendous disservice.

The Minister of Labour talks about my vacation. I haven't been on a vacation. I don't plan to have one in the near future, but I do plan to have one one day - possibly around Christmastime. But it's none of the Minister of Labour's business. You know something? We work as hard over here as you'll ever work, and we'll continue to do so. Ask the people. And Allan, if what I say gives you a little bit of discomfort, take comfort in this: we won't be here all that long. It will only be a few weeks and we'll be out of your hair again. But don't call us back next time unless you've got something to call us back about. We know that you're uncomfortable. You know, the first I've ever seen the Minister of Labour take a podium to hang onto during his presentation of second reading of a bill was today. I asked him today who wrote his speech. Normally he speaks from notes, but today he has his podium up there and he's reading that speech word for word. Oh, Mr. Speaker, I worry about that Minister of Labour.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind you that we should be on second reading and that personal attacks are not in order.

MR. COCKE: All right. The Minister of Labour has shown us that he didn't need it for the reading of his speech; he needed it to hold himself up. I'd be a little weak in the knees too if I had to put this bill into second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I trust, hon. member, you are not involving yourself in a personal attack and that you will get back to second reading.

MR. COCKE: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I would never involve myself in a personal attack. I just want to give him some healthy advice as to how his behaviour should be in this chamber. After all, it's a focal point.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this: for those on the government side who expected us to support this bill, we cannot support erosion. We will not support this kind of erosion. We will not support this kind of disrespect for the many important public servants in this province. We don't like the fact and we don't support the fact that the bill has brought in [illegible] of the Crown corporations. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, in passing, how you can possibly under any circumstance bring ICBC into this mix. Why is it included in the schedule? Very interesting, Mr. Speaker, but anyway, we certainly don't support the fact that they're creating another bureaucracy where they can pay off more of their friends. No, Mr. Speaker, we don't support this bill.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.[

HON. MR. MAIR: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, if he takes his place in this debate standing up instead of sitting, I don't find it necessary to make my remarks to the gallery. I don't think anybody on this side of the House needs to emulate the performing seals. Mr. Speaker, our bosses aren't in the gallery; our bosses are the people of this province. I stand here trying to make my remarks over the seated hollerings and bleatings from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) .

I wonder when the debate begins, Mr. Speaker. When do we hear the traditional bleatings of the monopoly on virtue? When do we have the opposition trot out their usual litany of their guardianship of the liberties of the people? When does it all start, because we heard nothing in the first two speeches.

Having heard nothing, however, Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I may, take a moment to speak of the liberties that we cherish. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will tie this into the debate on the principle of Bill 92 because we're talking about a liberty. We're talking of the right to withhold services or the right to refuse employment. There are many such liberties that we cherish: free speech, freedom of worship, freedom of association, freedom to hold political beliefs, and the freedom to withhold services or refuse employment.

[ Page 5882 ]

But, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Cardozo, a famous American jurist, once said that the right of free speech does not carry with it the right to holler "Fire!" in a crowded theatre - although in the Legislature that happens frequently enough, God knows, Mr. Member. The freedom of worship, I suggest, does not carry with it the right to burn heretics, although there are those opposite who perhaps would disagree. The freedom of political beliefs does not carry with it the right to overthrow institutions by force. And, Mr. Speaker, the sacred right to withhold services or to refuse employment does not carry with it the right to endanger life or health. It does not carry with it, Mr. Speaker, the right to endanger property or liberties or rights of our citizens. Indeed, it does not carry with it the right to imperil the general economic well-being of our society or any significant portion of it. Mr. Speaker, it does not carry with it the right to withhold life-giving or health-giving services in hospitals; it does not carry with it the right to refuse to tend a fire; it does not carry with it the right to encourage lawlessness.

One thing seems to be lost on the critics of this bill, Mr. Speaker. We're not talking only about the right to strike; we're talking about the right to lock out.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the contract of employment in its basic terms, it would seem rather simple. One party wants services; the other is prepared to provide them for a price to be negotiated. And if agreement cannot be reached, either a strike or a lockout is the result. If it were only that simple, Mr. Speaker, this Legislature would have not spent so much of its time over the last 50 or 60 years debating matters of management-labour relationships. But regrettably, Mr. Speaker, when strikes and lockouts occur, the public is not a spectator but indeed is part of the game. They in fact become the football.

I think the public accept as part of the dues they pay for democracy a great deal of inconvenience resulting from strikes or lockouts. They accept that. They realize that in accepting it, it is a sacrifice. But it is a sacrifice made to ensure that the democratic rights of all of us continue. But society does not accept as a price of strikes and lockouts burning houses, looting or rampant public disorders, as we have seen in Montreal not too long ago, or the removal of life-giving and essential services. We have over the years, Mr. Speaker, recognized that where the right to lock out or strike interferes with the general right of the public to law and order, the state will interfere.

The question which faces this House, I suggest, is whether or not this right extends to apprehended economic disaster as well. I suggest that the case is clearly that it does. The precedent set by this chamber in October of 1975 in Bill 146 clearly establishes that the economic well-being, the economic life of the province, indeed, is something that must be sustained by this Legislature when it is threatened by strike or by lockout or by both - a bill, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, which had the support of this entire chamber with the exception of three members of the government of the day.

Now will the opposition to Bill 92 stand in this chamber and debate, Mr. Speaker, and say that the ferry system is not essential to Vancouver Island and is not essential to the other islands and other areas of the province it serves? That's what we must hear if we're to hear any meaningful opposition to the bill before us.

I call upon the opposition, Mr. Speaker, to stand in their places today and say that cessation of the ferry service is not a disruption of fundamental economic need to the areas it serves. I call upon the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) , who has so eloquently supported the continuation of ferry service in the past, to stand up today and say it doesn't matter if that service is disrupted by strike or lockout. I call upon the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and upon the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , who made a brief appearance from San Francisco a moment ago, to stand in their places and say that these services are only essential when government funding is involved or when ferry rates are involved, but they are not essential when strike or lockout is involved. I call upon them to reverse their stand and in all honesty stand before the people of this province and say: "No, it doesn't matter; they're not essential at all."

I say to you that this government makes it perfectly clear here and now that to the people of Vancouver Island, to the people of Saltspring Island, to the people of Bowen Island, to the people of the Sunshine Coast, to the people of all of those areas serviced by the ferries, it is a fundamental economic service, the deprivation of which will not be lightly tolerated.

Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically endorse and support Bill 92.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, two or three times every session there comes along a bill that troubles the spirit. It's generally the kind of bill where desirable ends are -sought by controversial means. In my view, this is such a bill.

The Minister of Labour spoke, as usual, with clarity and logic in introducing it. He noted that the bill was very complex, and he said that we must read it most carefully. That is correct. Indeed, I don't know what the House Leader was doing when he suggested we proceed with debate last evening; it's been difficult enough to comprehend this piece of legislation overnight.

[ Page 5883 ]

Mr. Speaker, let no one question the political climate of the day in which we are looking at this bill. The public overwhelmingly wants some such legislation. A large number of the public, perhaps even a majority, would like to see legislation which would be repressive to the trade union movement. In such an atmosphere, I believe this House must move with a great deal of care in considering this kind of bill.

I noted that in the minister's speech as he moved second reading, the most sustained and prolonged applause came on a single statement by the minister: "The law must be obeyed." Of course it must; that is the reason for the concern and outrage in the public mind in this province. Those not obeying the laws must accept the penalties provided by law to the extent that they are imposed. I can understand the frustration of many members of this House and of the public in that regard, because in many instances, the government has failed to move with the provisions and sanctions of the law that it has.

One of the reasons for this bill, I take it - I'm referring to section 138 of the Code - is to add to the sanctions that are to be imposed on persons who disobey the law in this context. I put it to the minister and to the House that it is not sufficient to simply have laws; the laws must be accepted by those who would be governed by them.

Perhaps a good start in debate or in labour relations is to search for areas of agreement. I have some areas of agreement with the government in this legislation. I agree, as I said, that it is a most serious event when there is a significant defiance of law in a widespread fashion, and that, I believe, was the immediate trigger for this bill - the defiance of the cooling-off period by the ferry workers. I will discuss later on in the debate whether or not this law, were it in place at that time would have changed the situation.

I agree that the concept of providing additional options in dealing with labour disputes is a good thing. In that sense, this bill goes in the right direction. I agree that further codification and bringing together of essential-service legislation is required. I agree, subject to definition, with the extension of the concept of the word "essential" beyond the areas of life, health and safety, to the new words of the bill: ". . . the immediate and substantial threat to the economy and welfare of the province and its citizens."

We have only to look at the recent experience of Premier Davis in Japan and the extraordinarily harsh things that the Japanese said to him about the reliability of Canada in general as a supplier to understand the consequences that prolonged and usual industrial disruption can have on the prosperity of the citizens of this province.

I agree with the concept articulated by the Minister of Labour and now by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) that third-party suffering and disruption in labour disputes should be minimized where at all possible.

Those things said, I hope we can agree on one further thing which has not as yet, to my recollection, been advanced by any government spokesman, and that is that a fundamental component of good labour law is acceptability. Because compliance must be voluntary. All of the sanctions one may wish can be put into the law, but in the end it must be self-policing, in the main. Compliance must be voluntary.

You cannot put 1,000 people in jail except with greatest difficulty, and you can't put 10,000 people in jail at all. You can't force someone to work quickly, and you can't force someone to work effectively, and you can't force someone to work in ways that they say are not safe. So unless people agree to accept the circumstances under which their labour is supplied, I care not what the law says; it will not operate.

Not to draw any comparisons in British Columbia, I take an example further afield. In Toronto the air-traffic controllers are ordered back to work by the Parliament of Canada some months ago. Anyone who flies into Toronto knows that their aircraft is delayed by perhaps up to half an hour. Take-off's delayed by the same time because the air-traffic controllers, while they have gone back to work, are working to rule and are effectively frustrating to a large degree the intent of the Parliament of Canada in ordering them back to work. They are using up previous energy supplies and using up the time of a great many people because they do not accept the circumstances of their labour at the moment. I don't wish to discuss the merits of that case one way or another. I'm just using that as an illustration to say that good labour law must be acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to agree with these basic elements and agree that this bill is a sincere attempt to approach a problem that is vexatious to this province and all over north America. I hope the government will accept the concerns I'm going to express in the same way, because I have fears that parts of the bill may be counter-productive to the purpose of the government. In that context, let me examine first of all the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the bill, because in many ways, when one speaks of acceptability, the process by which law is arrived at is as important as the content of the law itself. In other words, was it achieved with some participation by those whom it will govern, and was it brought in at a time most propitious for its favourable consideration?

This bill was brought in in the hot climate of the immediate aftermath of the withdrawal of services by the ferry workers. It was a time of intense

[ Page 5884 ]

confrontation and a time, I think, of intense embarrassment to the government. There was a climate and there is a climate of public outrage at what happened during that withdrawal of service. The government is still claiming - I still think in embarrassment - that there exists the possibility of prosecution of those who disobeyed the laws during that time in spite of the fact that certainly they can't go via the LRB in view of the decision of the chairman. I suppose they could go via section 138, but the government has chosen not to do that.

The point is that the climate in which this bill is brought in is a climate of heat and emotion, and not a good time for the calm consideration of legislation affecting labour relations. I turn to the procedure by which it was brought in. The minister expressed great hopes in his remarks for the Essential Services Advisory Agency, and I share those hopes. He said that they would in future provide the consultative vehicle that is required for the initiation of new labour legislation. But this too is new and important labour legislation. A few more days or weeks would have sufficed to make good the pledge that the minister made to this House on September 13 of this year. He was replying to the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , who had suggested that legislation of this kind should be subject to consultation. I'm quoting the minister now: "Others have suggested that somehow or other we should have gone through a process whereby all the parties in the industrial relations community would be involved in designing these amendments." I think he's right. Because of the emotion which amendments to labour legislation produce, I think he's right.

Later on, there are further words. Here is his pledge:

As a result, with respect to other significant amendments which are obviously needed in the Labour Code - and I'm not prophesying that they will be here next year - it is my intention to establish a mechanism where we will use some other technique. There will be the fullest opportunity for consultation in advance of legislation being brought on the floor of this House.

Mr. Minister, I suggest that this instant legislation should have been made subject to exactly that same consultation procedure. I hope that even now it may not be too late for you to meet with many of the parties involved to attempt to make important amendments to the content of this bill - not to its thrust, which I think will see general acceptance, but to the way and means by which these ends are to be achieved.

Turning now to an examination of the substance of the bill, part 1, which sets up the Essential Services Advisory Agency, generally speaking has my support. The minister has very high goals and expectations of this agency. I would suggest that if they are to be achieved, the minister must work and the agency must work with the trade union movement in this province. I would hope that the minister, in closing debate on second reading, might assure this Legislature that the trade union movement will have the right to nominate a significant proportion of the members of this agency in order that there should be a working relationship with the trade union movement, because we never want to see again in this province the kind of situation where the mediation commission, so-called, was boycotted by the trade union movement and thereby rendered completely inoperative. I suggest that this agency and the minister would be wise to work closely with the movement from the beginning.

The publication provision of the research of the agency is good. The fact-finding procedure that is provided for here is good too. But why is there not, in the case of the fact-finding, the same guarantee of publication that we have with respect to the other research of the agency or persons operating under their authority? For a fact-finding commissioner to have real influence, to have real moral suasion, his findings must be public, and here not only do we have in this bill no guarantee that they be public, but we have, in my view, a completely improper infringement on freedom of information and the freedom of the press in this province when it is made a specific offence of the unauthorized publication of the findings of a fact-finder.

We have the curious anomaly that a newspaper or a radio i station or a television station would apparently be subject to a severe penalty in the case that they published such a document that had been leaked into their hands or had found its way there in one way or another, penalties that they would not find had they published a cabinet document. To me, this is a completely inappropriate penalty Section 1n this bill.

As we move on to part 2, there are new provisions for arbitration and new guidelines, and I think they're good. The unilateral election for arbitration by the trade union side of the dispute is retained. I think the government is wise to do that. There are those who are arguing that the election should be available to both parties. I think it is better to keep it this way.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It balances the removal of the work stoppage possibility.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I don't know that it balances that, because you're just leaving that provision there unchanged. We'll come to balance in a moment.

I note that the government is the final authority on who the arbitrator is to be. That will become more important in the future, because there is a possibility under another provision of this bill for arbitration to fairly frequently be made applicable to the immediate employees of the provincial government, where the

[ Page 5885 ]

Minister of Labour will be in a much more difficult conflict of interest than he is right now when he is appointing arbitrators to essentially municipal or local disputes. I point that out purely as a possible difficulty for the future. I have confidence in the established group of arbitrators in the province of British Columbia, but the possibility of particular selection in the future cannot be avoided.

The real problems in this bill, Mr. Speaker, come in Part III. The first big move of Part III is to expand what is essential to the public economy and welfare sections. I agree with that, as I said earlier, but it should be realized that this has immense implications. It will expand the essential services jurisdiction of the LRB to at least thousands of persons who are not presently covered. That is important.

The essential service designation is first of all by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council saying that such and such a sector is essential and important, and then it is up to the Labour Relations Board as to which persons within that sector are essential and important and must stay on the job. That is all right "if" and "but." There is a change in balance here. This Section 1s designed to remove most of the third-party injury and disruption that a public service-sector strike now causes to the general public, but it also changes the balance of power very significantly. There is a possibility that the strike weapon will be virtually emasculated in many public service areas because you can't pressure a government economically except in revenue areas or in areas that cause such public discontent that the government has to do something.

The second pressure point is largely removed by the essential services designation, and I see no way around them. But in looking at this legislation, we must also understand that the right to strike could be virtually removed from such bodies as, for example, the British Columbia Railway which, in a literal reading of the legislation, is essential to the economic well-being and welfare of the province. So the LRB might well find in interpreting this section that all of the running trades on the BCR had to keep going, which is in essence an elimination of the strike weapon among the running trades on the BCR. Similar findings could be made in British Columbia Hydro in the electricity supply, the natural gas supply and the transit operations, all of which are clearly necessary to the economy and welfare of the province and citizens of British Columbia. The B.C. ferries clearly fall within this category, the B.C. Systems Corporation probably, and any area of government-related health and welfare.

So for tens of thousands of employees in the public sector, it is very possible, depending on the interpretation of this section by the LRB, that the strike will be totally removed as an economic pressure point. Almost irrespective of the way the LRB chooses to determine, it will certainly be removed as an essential service pressure point in terms of great inconvenience to the public.

My position is that that is good; it should be done, but it has to be balanced off. When you proceed in this way, you remove a great deal of the bargaining power from the public service unions. The balance that I suggest and ask the minister to consider is the addition of the arbitration election for this particular settlement route as well. The minister has placed arbitration election in this bill as a possibility for the trade union side of the dispute when a cooling-off order is issued. I think he could add an enormous amount of balance to this bill if he would add that election option to this section as well.

I will not discuss the cooling-off section or the special mediation; they are reasonably standard. One hopes they will work. The cooling-off section certainly did not work during the ferry dispute and is another example of how we can pass all the laws we wish here, but reality must be considered.

I come now to the enforcement provisions of this bill. The minister dealt with these measures with some delicacy, and I can understand that. He said that they were not designed to terrorize - and I think I am quoting his words correctly - but rather to induce. I suppose hitting one over the head with a hammer could be described in similar ways. It will be interpreted by members of the unions that are subject to this legislation to be very threatening.

The provision in this bill that allows the firing or demotion or suspension of any employee who disobeys an order of the cabinet or the LRB in respect of the continuation of essential services is a penalty that in my opinion is too sweeping, too severe and too open to abuse.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Without lawful excuse.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, without lawful excuse. That's right.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's right, it's too open to abuse. It gives the possibility of, let us say, the B.C. Ferry Corporation, that wanted to get that guy, whoever it was, for reasons entirely unrelated to the current dispute....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Don't create more problems....

MR. GIBSON: Read the bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You should be very careful what you say because you've got to get some advice before you make that kind of statement.

[ Page 5886 ]

MR. GIBSON: There's an ability here to dismiss people.

MR. LAUK: You've boxed yourself into a corner, so don't whimper about it now.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, give him some advice. Don't stand there and.... You know the law better than that.

MR. GIBSON: The words "without lawful excuse, " Mr. Minister, refer to the actions of the employees.

HON. MR. MAIR: Damn the legalities, back to the bill!

MR. GIBSON: The employer may, without let or hindrance, suspend, demote or discharge a person in breach of the orders issued under section 8 of this bill, and they may do so selectively, and they may do so for reasons quite unconnected with the dispute of the moment, and there's no appeal.

Where's the appeal section, Mr. Minister?

MR. WALLACE: There's no appeal.

MR. GIBSON: And furthermore, the protections currently in the Labour Code do not apply.

The next sanction in the enforcement Section 1s one on which there are two sides of the case. It's a judgment call. It's the provision that for every day a person disobeys an order, their wages that would have been earned that day shall be deducted by the employer and forfeited to a charity. I'm a little confused by the drafting, but my reading of the provision is that not only does the employee not get paid for that day, which is reasonable, but that in addition, from the money that may have been owed to him up to that time or money to be earned after the strike is concluded or the unlawful withdrawal of services is concluded, the amounts will be paid into the charity by the employer. The government made this obligatory. I can understand why. They are suggesting that if it is there as a matter of law and there is no argument with it, it will act as a stronger deterrent.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate very much the comments of the member, but he's dealing very specifically with sections of the bill, and I thought we were dealing with the principle. Statements are being made that I have no opportunity to respond to until second reading is complete. If we were in committee stage it would be different.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I would remind all hon.

members that in second reading we must restrict our debate to the principle of the bill rather than to particular sections. Would the member please proceed?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly have an opportunity to return to this in committee stage.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: All right, let's do it when you can get the answers.

MR. GIBSON: It seems to me to be one of the important principles of the bill that there are non-optional sanctions provided for.

Under the current law, the LRB has an ability that is flexible. It can impose sanctions according to the needs of the case and the needs of the day. In a dynamic situation they can move at a timing that seems appropriate to them and it is in their discretion to move or not to move. They always have that negotiating ability to say: "We have other things that we can do." When sanctions are made obligatory, that is removed.

It is my prediction that this particular obligatory sanction section of the bill, coupled with the other sanction that I referred to earlier, is going to give rise to confrontation at such time as a dispute does occur that gives rise to persons being out in defiance of the law. It is going to make it harder to get things back together. It may, as well, after things are back together, give rise to a kind of slowdown and work-to-rule that no law can prevent in this province.

So the overall effectiveness of this situation and this enforcement section, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, is the danger of serious concern among the trade unions affected, a probability of fewer legal strikes in the public sector - I will readily agree to that - but, on the other hand, a much greater use of work-to-rule or slowdown as a pressure tactic on the government to the extent that the strike tactic is stopped. Such strikes as do occur as a result of these sanctions are likely to be much more serious.

I hope that another effect of these provisions taken together will be a wider recourse to arbitration in the public sector. I think that the minister can make that even more likely by ensuring that arbitration becomes an option under the essential services definition section of the bill.

The final part of the bill gives a new and important power to the government to insist on the filing of an LRB order with the court, and therefore on its enforcement. I don't like this because it reduces LRB flexibility in dealing with these cases. I predict, Mr. Speaker, that it will be a power that will be embarrassing to the government to have. They would have been better to leave themselves without this power. There is, as well, a possibility in the enforcement of this power of retroactive application

[ Page 5887 ]

from the date of the filing to the date of the making of the order. It's clear in the bill. We'll get further into that in committee, but it backs it up.

The offence Section 1 will not deal with in detail; I referred to it before. To me it is an odious thing that there is a specific provision and treatment of the press in terms of the fact-finder's report. Again, in committee we can handle that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask if this bill would have made any difference in the event that triggered it, which was the ferry strike.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It didn't trigger it.

MR. GIBSON: The minister says the bill didn't trigger it. That's interesting. Let me then simply say: would this bill have made any difference in the ferry strike that we've just seen? It may have. Members opposite can argue that it would have avoided it, that members of the trade union involved would have been so concerned about the personal effects upon them of the sanctions provided in this bill that they would have not proceeded with an illegal work stoppage. They should not have proceeded with an illegal work stoppage, and it was wrong. But I'm not certain that this bill would have solved it. They might have gone out in any case, and then been faced with a case example of the operation of the sanctions that I've just described: the marching of time of several days of penalties, the possibility of being faced with severe disciplinary action. They would have said: "There's just too much danger in going back now without getting around these provisions somehow." In that way, this legislation, had it been in effect, could have been counterproductive; it could have extended that strike.

As the minister is aware, one of the important matters which assisted in the settling of that strike was the understanding reached that there would not be not just on-the-job reprisals but there would not be prosecutory reprisals going through the LRB. We have the statement of the chairman of the Labour Relations Board, a part of the set of statements issued at the time of the agreement, saying that the labour board, speaking through its chairman, would consider that matter closed. I'm sorry that I don't have the exact language in front of me. But that was an important part of reaching a settlement ...

HON. MR. WILLIAMS- On certain assumptions.

MR. GIBSON: . . . on certain assumptions. It was an important part of reaching the settlement.

Mr. Speaker, with this legislation, that could not have been done. There would have been no way that the chairman of the labour board or anyone else in this province, short of the Legislature itself, could have said, "If we can get a return to work here, the sanctions of this bill won't apply, " because the sanctions are obligatory.

So I say to the minister that there is a possibility that once an illegal stoppage is in progress, this bill could be counterproductive in terminating it. It may be productive in preventing them from starting in many cases in the first instance. But once they are underway, it could have a destabilizing influence. Alternatively, of course, is the possibility of very extensive work to rule. You can only stand so much of the extensive work to rule on the ferry system or any other operation of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I have here, through the courtesy of the parliamentary staff, the text of the release made by the chairman of the LRB. It was filed yesterday in the House. And the operational words - the minister may wish me to read more into the record - are:

"Accordingly, in the special circumstances of this case and on the assumption that the trade union forthwith directs its members to return to work and that the union members do in fact comply forthwith with the board's order of October 8,1977, the board would be of the view that this matter is and would remain closed."

"Is" and "would."

He was saying that in reference to a request to file a copy of its order or a request to consent to sue pursuant to section 32 (4) .

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No request.

MR. GIBSON: He said he'd received no request, and accordingly....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What if he receives one? Would he change his view?

MR. GIBSON: If he receives one, he says: "The matter is, and would remain, closed." There was a possibility under existing law of the chairman of the LRB giving his word to the parties in the dispute as to how he would proceed. Under the new law, if it is passed....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Are you sure you aren't suggesting that?

MR. GIBSON: These are the words.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Are you saying that Weiler... ?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, , please.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Allan, don't get so nervous.

[ Page 5888 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. In the ordinary flow of debate, the member who is speaking will address the Chair. Please, let's not have any interruptions.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm just taking the clear words of the chairman and saying that at the moment the chairman has flexibility in the imposition of sanctions. Under terms of this bill, the chairman will not have flexibility in the impositions of the sanctions provided for in this bill. I think that's a mistake and I think it's destabilizing.

Mr. Speaker, what we have in the end is a good initiative, I think, sincerely made by the government. I think the timing is bad and I think the ideas brought forward in this bill may not get a fair trial by the trade union movement because of this timing. I think that may also be the case because of the fact that a consultative route was not followed. I think that there are some very bad defects in the content of the bill in the means that are sought to achieve the ends on which we all agree.

I would suggest to the government that it use this bill as a kind of a White Paper and say: "Here are our thoughts in detail. We're not all-wise. We haven't consulted beforehand. What advice can we get from the trade union movement, from the Employers' Council, from anyone else who wants to have their input?"

The minister said earlier on the situation was not perfect and he was seeking to reduce imperfections. I want to suggest to him that there are imperfections in his bill that can be reduced, if he wants to take the time to consult with those in the community who are affected. I've made my specific suggestions as to what he should do, and others will have theirs.

My suggestions were removal of the offence with respect to the fact-finding publication; the addition of an arbitration election to the essential services designation section; the elimination of, or the addition of an appeal to, the section providing for dismissal or other disciplinary action of those in contempt of the specific order; at least some reconsideration of the obligatory sanctions and amendment of the power of the government to require filing of an order of the LRB.

Those are my views. Those are ways in which I think the legislation can be improved. Others will have different views and it's up to the government to balance them. I hope that they will be open enough in terms of this particular legislation to make some changes, because I think a conciliatory approach in this regard could retain for them the political kudos which they will most certainly receive from the public for having introduced this legislation and, at the same time, make it a workable document, insofar as the realities of labour relations are concerned.

In committee I will oppose certain sections where, in my view, they would work against labour peace, and I'll propose constructive amendments, I hope. On second reading, because some such bill is required and this is the one we have put before us by the government, I will, with misgivings, support it in principle on second reading.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate to speak in favour of Bill 92, on behalf of the many thousands of citizens of this province in every walk of life - labour and management, union and non-union alike - who are fed up and sick to death of the labour-management strife in the province of British Columbia and the hardships which strikes and lockouts inevitably bring not only to those directly involved. Because whether they're involved or not, those who live and work and play in the general area of such unfortunate circumstances become involved.

Mr. Speaker, I stand on behalf of the families of the workers so involved, who, after having their wage-earner on strike or locked out for any length of time, feel the very disastrous results of not receiving a regular pay cheque with which to buy the food, pay the mortgage or make the payment on the family car.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of this type of legislation as seen in Bill 92 because it is my solemn belief that it is not just the general public but also the union member and his or her family who truly wish to see this government or any government, for that matter, accept its role of leadership and its only true role - that of governing and through positive action attempting to put an end to such labour-management confrontation in this province. My only regret is that Bill 92 relates only to essential services in this province, when what we really need is legislation which encompasses all sectors of our economy, legislation which by law requires both sides in any dispute in this province to sit down with a mediator, if necessary, in continuous compulsory arbitration while still operating, while still at work and until an equitable contract settlement is reached.

MR. WALLACE: That's not what the minister says.

MR. KEMPF: I'm on my feet, Mr. Member. Bill 92 will, for the workers in essential services at least, ensure such stability and continuity in the workplace; ensure, as one ferry executive put it not long ago, bread and butter on the table for the workers.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 92 will not meet with the approval of or ever be accepted by the more militant and politically oriented labour leaders in this province, for if disputes can be settled in a civilized manner without the headline-grasping confrontation of strikes, lockouts or all-out war on management, then they would be hard-pressed to justify to their

[ Page 5889 ]

members the need for their $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000 a year positions.

Mr. Speaker, there are those who, due to the fact that I speak in favour of the Essential Services Disputes Act, would suggest that I am anti-labour. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that I have, in my lifetime in this province, been a member of four trade unions.

MR. LAUK: As an infiltrator?

MR. KEMPF: In all of which I have been an eager participant, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: That's not what I heard.

MR. KEMPF: There are none in the opposition benches who can claim that accomplishment.

MR. LAUK: No union would keep you.

MR. KEMPF: There are few over there, Mr. Speaker, who can claim to truly understand the working people of this province, for they have never had to really go out and earn a living. It's very interesting to me to see how they in the official opposition run to the big union bosses, screaming that t this administration is anti-labour in its deliberation and bent on doing it to the working man of this province.

It's interesting, as well, to see the big labour bosses leap to their support, as we have seen them in the galleries so many times in the last few months and as we see them here in the debate of Bill 92. Their memories are short, hon. members. They have very quickly forgotten Tuesday, October 7,1975, and Bill 146, introduced by the then socialist government of this province. What did the Minister of Labour in that sociaIist government, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , who is not in his seat at the moment, do on that day just a short two years ago? Why, he brought in legislation ordering people back to work in this province.

MR. LAUK: Was he obeyed?

MR. KEMPF: What did the minister say back in 1975? I'll tell you what he said, and I'll read it into the record from Hansard, Mr. Member, if you'd only be quiet for half a second.

MR. LAUK: You can't even enforce the law.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon.

members!

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members! I think the standing orders provide that if the Speaker is standing, all members are seated. Hon. members, we have an indication of what happens when there is a departure from the standing orders. I would require that the hon. member who presently has the floor - that is the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) - would please keep his remarks in keeping with the principle of the bill. I'd also remind all other members that this is not the forum for verbal abuse.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the course of debate the Premier of this province, in response to me when I said that this government could not govern and therefore....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If you'll be patient, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. members, we must hear the objection, or at least the point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the point of order?

MR. LAUK: The Premier of this province said: "Do you have a special deal with the ferry unions so that they would not obey the order?"

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Point of order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I must have the point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is that I ask.... That is an outrageous suggestion - an absolutely outrageous....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: I demand that the Premier withdraw that charge immediately.

AN HON. MEMBER: What charge?

[ Page 5890 ]

MR. LAUK: Make it outside this chamber, at which time I will sue him for libel and slander. That is a false statement.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He said that right in this chamber.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it appears that the point of order is a request for withdrawal of a statement which was not made by any member on his feet. If there was objection taken to a word spoken in the House to which the member takes objection, perhaps in order to restore good order in the House, the hon. Premier would withdraw.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat. I

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, no statement was made that needed to be withdrawn by me, but I will be speaking later in the debate and I will recall the remarks made by the member for Vancouver Centre to him during that speech. Mr. Speaker, nothing was said by me that needs to be withdrawn. I would think that member is very carefully reconsidering what he said in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The request was for a simple withdrawal.

Order, please! Hon. members, if we are to proceed with orderly business in this House, we must come to order. The request was for a simple withdrawal. The Chair did not hear an objectionable statement being made during the mayhem. Therefore I have only to conclude that objection was taken to a statement being made. I must ask that if any statement was made which would impugn the character of any member of this House, that would be withdrawn. I'm not aware of any statement, but if there was, would it be withdrawn?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The only statement made that might impugn a member of this House was the member's own statement. I made no statement about him and I have nothing to withdraw, but I will recall his statement in debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that should conclude the matter. Order, please.

On the same point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I clearly heard the Premier's allegation. I would ask the Speaker to refer to the Blues and make a decision later, and conclude from the Premier's remarks on the face of them whether a withdrawal would be required at that time. I would ask the Speaker to do so.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the first member for Vancouver Centre please take his seat? We must conclude this matter. The fact is that the Chair is unaware of a statement that was made, since I did not hear it. The word of the Premier is that he did not make a remark which....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the first member for Vancouver Centre for the final time to come to order. Standing orders provide for certain remedies and I would not like to have to resort to them. The matter would be concluded by the fact that the Chair is unaware of a statement made which would impugn the character of the first member for Vancouver Centre. The hon. Premier has denied any such statement. Therefore, since all of the words and all of the statements made by hon. members must be accepted by this House, it could not possibly be concluded by the Chair that such statement did take place. However, that will conclude the matter.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat. I

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding of the rules that whether or not the Chair hears an offending remark, if the member asks for a withdrawal, it is expected that because the member says that he has been offended, that withdrawal would be given. One member's word is not any greater than another's.

As a consequence, the member has said that remarks were made that he wants withdrawal of. Another member has said that he made no such remark. As a result, both opinions are equal, and the matter therefore is not resolved. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is simply asking that a reference be made to the Blues. No member, whether he be Premier or backbencher, has superior right to have his opinion overrule the rules of the House. The member for Vancouver Centre is making a simple appeal to the Chair on the basis of what the record is. I suggest that that appeal be the one that's followed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, perhaps we could refer to the Blues and the Speaker could identify what statement was made that was objectionable and deal with it at the time. Would that be acceptable? Thank you.

[ Page 5891 ]

MR. KEMPF: As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted by that other side of the floor, I think it's very pertinent at this point, Mr. Speaker, in speaking on second reading of Bill 92, that we read into the record the remarks of the then Minister of Labour back in October, 1975, when introducing a bill, Bill 146, into this House.

This bill seeks to come to grips with those problems and provide a mechanism for relieving the impact and the hardship to the citizens of the province while continuing the collective bargaining process to ensure that settlements are found without further disruption and without further hardship to many of the citizens throughout this province.

Is it, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite forget so soon? Have they forgotten that day back in 1975? I'm sure it is not that they have forgotten. Or is it that they, in conjunction with some of the labour leaders -- the militant labour leaders, the politically oriented labour leaders - have a collective motive in opposing this bill? Is it truly only political? Do they really care about the citizens of this province? What's even more important, Mr. Speaker: do they really care about the union members whom they both claim so adamantly to represent.

Some would consider their position on this bill that's before us now as hypocritical and very similar to that which we saw them take earlier this session in regard to Bill 33, Mr. Speaker. I would not call them hypocrites, because that's unparliamentary, as we all know, in this assembly. The decision I leave to the people of the province of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that you cannot say indirectly what cannot be directly said in this House. I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw the word "hypocrite."

MR. KEMPF: I'll withdraw any implication, Mr. Speaker, and again I say I'll leave it up to the people of the province of British Columbia to decide.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have withdrawn?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I have. Mr. Speaker, Bill 92 will not only ensure that there will be no loss of wages to the workers while disputes are being arbitrated, but it will also protect the general public from devastating work stoppages that have, as late as the very recent past, cost the public many thousands of dollars and caused untold hardship to citizens and visitors to this province alike.

Strikes and lockouts are a waste, Mr. Speaker. They are useless, blatant attempts by a few to show their authority at the expense of many and, as such, can no longer be tolerated in our society.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad, and it is certainly shameful, that it is necessary for a government - any government - to intervene in this area and to have to legislate labour and management rest. Certainly that is all Bill 92 is designed to do.

But, Mr. Speaker, it would appear from events in the recent past that neither labour nor management are able or prepared to show such accountability to the citizens of this province, and therefore the need for legislation such as Bill 92.

Mr. Speaker, the practice of holding the citizens of British Columbia for ransom must come to an end. In order to end such devastating and irresponsible actions by labour and industrial leaders, government must make strong and decisive remedies such as Bill 92. 1, for one, Mr. Speaker, must support the move in the strongest and most definite manner. We must, as government, make decisions and take action which will protect our citizens and ensure our workers continuity in the work place. I commend the Minister of Labour and his cabinet colleagues for bringing in Bill 92.

Mr. Kempf moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.