[ Page 5893 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Ferry Workers' dispute. Mr. Barrett –– 5893

B.C. economic situation. Mr. Gibson –– 5894

Welfare fraud. Mr. Davidson ––– 5895

Essential Services Disputes Act. (Bill 92) Second reading.

Mr. Kempf –– 5896

Mr. Strongman –– 5896

Mrs. Wallace –– 5898

Mr. Wallace –– 5900

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 5905

Mr. Lockstead –– 5907

Mr. Shelford –– 5909

Mr. Haddad –– 5911

Mr. Nicolson –– 5912

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5915

Mr. Lauk –– 5917

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two constituents of mine visiting us today from the town of Merritt in the beautiful Nicola Valley, Mr. John Mulholland and Wally McLelland. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Oral questions.

FERRY WORKERS'DISPUTE

MR- D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Could the minister tell the House under what section of the Labour Code he appointed Mr. McKee as mediator of the ferry dispute?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. McKee was appointed special mediator in the ferry dispute not under the code but under the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act, section 17.

MR. BARRETT: Did you approve of his appointment when it was announced? Approval has to come through your ministry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think if the hon. Leader of the Opposition would refer to the legislation he would find it is not a question of my approval; it is my appointment.

MR. BARRETT: The minister said it was subject to his approval.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. BARRETT: You made the appointment -that's correct.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is: when the appointment was made, was the minister aware of all the conditions that Mr. McKee agreed to in terms of being used as a mediator? Would the minister make those conditions or terms of reference as he knows them available to the House today?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I made the appointment of Mr. McKee and there were no conditions at the time of this appointment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, was the minister aware of the conditions governing the return to work as agreed by the parties and attested to by Mr. Weiler of the Labour Relations Board before his appointment of Mr. McKee?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of Mr. McKee as a special mediator was made by me prior to his taking any steps with respect to the ferry dispute.

MR. BARRETT: That is not the question, Mr. Speaker. The question is: was the minister aware of the conditions agreed to between the ferry corporation and the union, prior to their return to work and prior to his appointment of Mr. McKee?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if there were any conditions or agreements between the Ferry Corporation and the union, I was not aware of them until Saturday of last week. It is my understanding that those terms and conditions were in the documents which members of this House have and which were entered into after Mr. McKee's appointment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if he was aware of these terms and conditions of that document before his appointment of Mr. McKee. Yes or no.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the question - yes or no - would presume that there were such conditions, and I'm not aware that there were any conditions then or at any other time until after Mr. McKee's appointment. Mr. McKee would have had no authority to make any arrangement and I don't believe that he did prior to his appointment. There were no conditions attached to his appointment except as spelled out in the letter of appointment which was signed by me.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of a Section 1n the conditions that I quoted as follows, and if he is, what impact does this section have on the current debate? "Further to the above, should it be alleged that there has been any violation of the terms set out, either party may refer the matter to the Labour Relations Board, it being understood that the board shall assign one of its members to adjudicate upon the issue on an expedited basis." To this moment, we do not know whether or not the legislation will be retroactive. Either party, the Ferry Corporation or the management or the union, can feel, under this section Does the minister interpret that this section has a possibility of being violated?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I must remind the questioner particularly that a question regarding legislation presently before the House is not

[ Page 5894 ]

in order.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct, Mr. Speaker, but the conditions of this agreement may be offended. I'm asking the minister if, in his opinion, the conditions of return to work are being offended.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question involves legislation presently before the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am finished with my supplementary. I've asked the question. You have not ruled the question out of order, and I'm asking the minister if he is aware that any of his actions may indeed be in violation of this agreement.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, any of his actions. I am asking the minister fairly.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the question calls for legal interpretation, not an answer from me.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition cannot presume the floor.

MR. BARRETT: Supplementary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The practice has been that we allow two, three or four supplementaries, , depending on the mood of the day. When there are no other members standing, it is easy for the Chair to recognize them. However, when other members are standing, I must, out of regard for their position in this House, recognize them. Since the member is the only one standing, I recognize the Leader of the Opposition. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your recognition. The minister has stated it is subject to a lawyer's interpretation. I now ask the minister if the lawyer for the ferry union interprets this as a violation of agreement. Does this agreement have the backing of the government - that if the ferry workers' lawyer's interpretation is that the agreement has been violated, they will respect that decision by the lawyer, or is it up to the minister to make this decision?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I had already recognized the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) .

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, do you want me to answer the question? I'd be delighted to answer the question.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre has been recognized.

MR. BARRETT: No, the minister is on his feet. He wants to answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the first member yield the floor?

MR. LAUK: To the minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In specific answer to the proposition placed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I'm not prepared to accept the opinion of any one or more lawyers on the matter. It would require interpretation by a tribunal.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Labour. This is knowledge that he may have come to either before the appointment of Mr. McKee or after. I'm asking the minister: to his knowledge, as of today, was there a condition precedent that if the union accepted the appointment of Mr. McKee as a mediator for the period of, I think, 12 days, the 90-day cooling-off period would no longer apply, and at the end of that 12 days the ferry workers could legally go on strike?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary, I phrased the question very carefully but I'll rephrase a part of it for the minister. Did he or any one of the persons in his ministry, the Ferry Corporation or the Labour Relations Board, to his knowledge give any indication to the ferry workers that they could legally strike after 12 days of mediation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not to my knowledge.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On a supplementary, would the Minister of Labour undertake to file a copy of the letter with the House which appoints Mr. Clive McKee as the special mediator in the ferry dispute?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, forthwith.

B.C. ECONOMIC SITUATION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development. The minister may be aware

[ Page 5895 ]

of a chamber of commerce survey taken during July, while the minister was telling the House what good shape the economy was in, giving various responses from B.C. firms employing 150,000 people, and showing that of those firms planning to expand or relocate, some 33 per cent were going abroad, some 56 per cent were going to other parts of Canada and only 11 per cent staying in British Columbia. This is a very worrisome situation. I would ask the minister if he has any urgent measures put in progress to deal with this situation.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, yes, this government is taking measures and has taken measures. I realize that the chamber of commerce survey identified certain problems in British Columbia - the same problems that I identified a year ago when we made our first survey as to some firms that were leaving British Columbia. While the economy of Canada is deteriorating ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ... and while the economy, indeed, of the free world is deteriorating, we have the economy of British Columbia progressing at a greater rate than any other province in Canada.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister for his explanation. If the economy of British Columbia is doing so well relative to the economy of Canada, how is it that 56 per cent of these British Columbia firms are going to relocate or expand elsewhere in Canada and only 11 per cent here in B.C.? What are you going to do about it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to answer that question. There are a lot of firms that have established in British Columbia and are now locating in the rest of Canada. Indeed I was talking to a group of German industrialists yesterday afternoon who wish to establish their first plant in Canada. No doubt they will be locating in the rest of the provinces once their first plant here gets underway.

WELFARE FRAUD

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Is it true that fraud investigators in Vancouver have detected a massive fraud involving former staff members of the Vancouver Resources Board and welfare recipients? Is it also true that those fraud investigators were deliberately thwarted by some former members of the Vancouver Resources Board in that investigation?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): I have not received the details with respect to what has been suggested may be the case by the hon. member, though I understand there was something on the news earlier today regarding this and the matter of a member of the Vancouver Resources Board or a former member of the Vancouver Resources Board having been involved with this particular situation. It is being investigated.

I also met with the inspectors from the Vancouver area on Tuesday morning, and they did indicate then that they have had difficulties following through some fraud situations because the management stopped them short of being referred to police. So we are aware there is a problem. It's being carefully investigated by the ministry now and I expect we'll bring it to some resolution soon.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary to the minister, have any charges of fraud been laid or are these just investigations?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I personally didn't hear the news report that the member may be referring to, Mr. Speaker, but there have been a number of charges laid. I assume that most of these are now under investigation.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary on the same question to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General knowledge of these charges, and could he report back to the House whether this minister has, within the protection of this House, impugned the character of a member of the Vancouver Resources Board without charges being laid? Could the Attorney-General assure the House that the charges either have been laid or could he report back to the House?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I can't respond to that question. The first I heard of it was in here.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I rise on a matter of privilege. That matter is this: that this House call to the bar of the House Mr. J. Matkin, Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Clive McKee, special mediator, Mr. Paul Weiler, chairman of the Labour Relations Board, and Mr. Len Guy, secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour, in order to clarify to the Legislature the conflicts in statements relating to the B.C. ferry work stoppage made by these people and the statements made by the Minister of Labour inside and outside of this House. I so move.

AN HON. MEMBER: It sounds like Dowding's been around.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the matter

[ Page 5896 ]

of privilege before the House is one that will involve certain consideration and a certain length of time for that consideration. Would the House agree to give the Chair that amount of time to report later to the House, without prejudice to the member who introduced it?

So ordered.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On what basis do you wish the floor?

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on the basis of agreement....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You must gain the floor. On a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: On this ruling - the suggestion that you're making.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I do not know why you wish the floor.

MR. BARRETT: I want to know whether or not it's an urgent matter with you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will have to be determined.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to file answers to questions standing in my name on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't believe leave is required, but shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , I ask leave to file a letter and a document.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 92.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES DISPUTE ACT

(continued)

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief. As I was saying just prior to adjourning for the lunch break, the people of this province are fed up with the labour-management confrontation that has gone on in this province. They are sick to death of this type of labour-management strike. The practice of holding the citizens of the province of British Columbia for ransom must, in my mind, come to an end. In order to end these irresponsible actions by labour and industrial leaders, government must take strong and decisive action.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad, in my mind, and certainly shameful, that it is necessary for government to take this kind of action to intervene with this type of legislation into the labour-management field. It is quite apparent that it is an absolute necessity in the province of British Columbia at this time.

I think the most interesting thing in the debate on Bill 92 which started this morning at 10 o'clock is the way in which we have seen the opposition trying once again to hide in their offices as they did earlier in this session on Bill 33. They're half-heartedly and pathetically debating this legislation. We hear what they're saying here in the chamber, but we know what they're saying to their politically oriented friends in the halls. We, as government, must make decisions and take those actions that will protect our citizens and ensure the workers continuity in the workplace. Again, I commend the minister for his action in bringing in Bill 92.

Mr. Speaker, I would say in closing to this assembly and to all British Columbians that I will support any such legislation which, in my mind, will bring an end - or attempt to - to the labour-management confrontation in this province. I will stand in favour of any such legislation that will, hopefully, take the decision-making process from the hands of a very few ruthless and politically biased labour leaders; and I will stand in favour of any legislation which will return to the union member the power and the decision-making, where it so rightly belongs.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): I rise today to take my place in this debate in support of Bill 92. It seems that we've been hearing echoes this morning of debate that has been taking place in this House since January 13 of this year, where the opposition members - the NDP members in this House - continually avoid the actual issue or the substance of any bill or the substance of any position, to attack people, to attack policies, to attack personalities. But they don't ever get to the heart of the issue.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Give us the heart of the issue, you splendid man.

MR. STRONGMAN: Coming from anyone else, I'd

[ Page 5897 ]

take that as a compliment.

They deal in political or philosophical pap, and that's what you've been doing today. Not once did you seem willing to actually get down to the heart of the bill. Do you support it or do you not support it?

MR. LEA: No, we don't!

MR. STRONGMAN: You don't say why. You just very quickly talk about personalities and things like that; you don't ever discuss the part of the bill and the substance of the bill that is presented by this government.

For instance, this morning, for some reason - and it escapes me why - we had to discuss whether the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was going to take a vacation or had taken a vacation or might plan a vacation. The only thing I could put it down to was that you must have been going on a ferry.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Labour asked the question. He wanted to know.

MR. STRONGMAN: There was also a statement made today that really is one of the most shocking statements I've heard since I've been in the House. It's been two years - not very long. I'm a freshman member. However, it came from one of the most capable members of the NDP, a man whom I consider to be a man with great intellect and obvious intelligence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's that?

MR. STRONGMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) .

HON. MR. GARDOM: Division! (Laughter.)

MR. STRONGMAN: When that member made the statement across the floor in this House that unions would only obey the NDP if they were government, that was a condemnation and an insult to the intelligence of the labour union movement. I just can't understand for the life of me why that member would take that position.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): He suggested collusion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now to the principle of the bill.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Under what standing order do you stand?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): To ask for the immediate withdrawal of a cross-comment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If there is a correction to a statement made in a speech....

MR. LAUK: No, I planned to stand and correct the hon. member in due course, but this was a cross-comment by the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If we are going to have the kind of cross-the-floor banter we have been experiencing in this House today, I am sure that we will have many statements which may be asked to be withdrawn but of which the Speaker will have absolutely no knowledge. As a result, we will have again and again the kind of thing that we asked for this morning, and that is the transcript of tapes, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to that point?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: Because of what happened this morning, you see that the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) is embarking on a speech with a completely mistaken impression of what was said.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I heard it!

MR. LAUK: It's compounded by the Minister of Mines, who just shouted over: "There was collusion." That's what he shouted over, and he will not stand in his place. I know he's an honourable person....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. LAUK: He will not stand in his place and deny saying it, but as an honourable minister he will withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If such a remark was made - and the Speaker has no knowledge of it - I would ask the hon. Minister of Mines to withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say there was collusion. I said there was suggested collusion by what the member for Vancouver Centre had said this morning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, perhaps in the interest of orderly business, that if the minister would withdraw the words "collusion" or "suggested collusion, " it would help us.

[ Page 5898 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the member is that touchy on the issue, I withdraw.

MR. STRONGMAN: Now to Bill 92. 1 believe we are dealing with one of the most innovative pieces of legislation that has been presented to this House in this session. I believe that B.C. is an excellent forum for introduction of legislation of this type. Public service employees in British Columbia are the highest-paid in the world; 90 per cent have absolute tenure - employment for life, security for life - a condition not found in the private sector of any major segment in this country. Public service employees have bargained hard and well, and I don't deny their success; they should be commended for it. As a citizen of British Columbia I'm proud that our public service is as well paid and as well provided for as they are.

But with success like this comes responsibility. Success and responsibility in every segment of our society go hand in hand; no one is exempted from it. Their responsibility - that is, the public service employees' - is not to withdraw essential service and affect the health, life and safety, economy of the province and welfare of most of its citizens.

Most public servants are responsible, but occasionally the collective bargaining process breaks down, as we have seen in the last weeks, and results in strikes and lockouts beyond the control not only of the management side of the issue but also of the organized labour side of the issue. Collective bargaining does break down. We all realize that, and none of us like it on either side of the fence. But it does break down.

Strikes, lockouts and work slowdowns cost everyone in this province dearly. We always talk of losses like this in a general way, but what we seem to often lose sight of is the individual family man or woman who is devastated by a strike or a lockout or a work stoppage or whatever. We must start to address ourselves to the individual problems and put aside some of the positions that we have had. The citizens of British Columbia are asking - in fact, I could likely say that they are demanding - a stop to strikes and lockouts in essential services.

Bill 92 is enabling legislation. When collective bargaining breaks down, Bill 92 will enable the government of the day to settle through arbitration. a sound collective agreement without disruption of essential services. As I said earlier, people in this province are demanding that government do something about the shutdown or the withdrawal of essential services by civil servants.

I urge the opposition to support this legislation. A great number of their supporters wish them to do so. The opposition are on the horns of a dilemma. They have a very difficult choice: do what the majority of their supporters want and vote for Bill 92 or play to the gallery where a few labour leaders are present. Your choice: play that gallery or, most important -and this is what I think you should be considering -carry out the wishes of the silent majority of the NDP. They want this kind of legislation and they're demanding it. We'll soon see: does the dog wag the tail or does the reverse take place in that party? I urge you to show the rank and file of the NDP that you are in charge. Vote for the passage of Bill 92.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and urge every thinking member in this House to do so as well.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): The member for Vancouver South has indicated that the New Democratic Party has not made any valid contribution to this debate. I suggest that we have made just as valid a contribution to this debate as this bill is valid, as it is valid that we are here today discussing something that we could have well discussed three weeks ago before this House adjourned.

There is nothing in this bill that is extraordinary or exceptional or an emergency. It could have been discussed three weeks ago when we were in session here debating other labour bills and other bills. There is no reason to have left it for three weeks and then call us back with a midnight call - a call, in fact, of which I, who live some 70 miles or less from the capital, have not yet had an official notification.

The member for Vancouver South has suggested that the NDP is playing to the gallery and not standing up for the ideas of its supporters. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP has principles and is standing up for those principles. This bill has no principle it has nothing. It has one or two minor changes changes that I do not approve of. For that reason I am intending to vote against this bill. There is nothing specific in this bill of any major nature.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You'll bite the dust next time.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, while we were in session for nine months here in Victoria, the opposition took a great deal of criticism for prolonging the session. But apparently we didn't prolong it enough for the Minister of Labour to have his legislation ready to present, unless it is supposedly an emergency. The Premier has said it is not an emergency. If it is not an emergency and if it wasn't ready three weeks ago, then why are we here today rather than waiting until the House is called into session next January or February or whenever the normal time would be? There is no emergency. There is no reason as far as the labour legislation goes. The only reason is political. It's a political reason, and that is why we are here.

The government has bungled and mismanaged a

[ Page 5899 ]

[illegible] situation. It has failed to use legislation that was already available. Instead, we are here in this kind of situation because the government feels that there is some kind of feeling out there among the public that they can capitalize on for their own particular partisan political purposes.

The Premier keeps talking about full-time MLAs. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that by the words of his own backbenchers.... The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) very recently in a press release was quoted as saying that 95 per cent of his time was spent working with his constituents, and I would suggest that he is no exception. We all work with our constituents. We are forced to cancel appointments, to cancel meetings in order to be here....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the principle of the bill, please.

MRS. WALLACE: This bill has caused us to come back here to pass something that is of no great significance - not nearly the significance that it would have had had we remained in our constituencies to do the work that is also part of an MLA's job.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask you to move to the principle of the bill.

MRS. WALLACE: The principle of this bill is very difficult to pursue, Mr. Speaker, because there is such little principle in it. The mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse, and we are here in an emergency session to deal with this mouse. I would suggest that all of us want to see industrial peace. We all want to see labour peace. I would suggest further, Mr. Speaker, that this government inherited on a silver platter the very instrument ...

MR. KEMPF: A mess.

MRS. WALLACE: ... that was producing that labour peace. We've heard talk from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and others about the terrible industrial strife in this province.

MR. KEMPF: Ask the people. They'll tell you.

MRS. WALLACE: Instead, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the record, the incidence of strikes and lockouts and the incidence of labour unrest and disruption has been improving month after month over the last two years. It has been improving because of the British Columbia Labour Code which this government inherited - a delicate balance in industrial relations. It caused a lot of controversy when it was first introduced, not just from employers but from employees and the trade union movement.

This government says that we are so much under the thumb of the organized trade unionists. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of controversy over that bill. But the bill came into force. It came into practice and it was a balanced bill. It was accepted by both labour and management. It brought about in this province the kind of labour peace that we had not had before. This government inherited that instrument, and now they are out to destroy it.

They seem to overlook a very simple truism of physics, a truism that if you destroy the base'-you upset the balance of the structure. That's what's happening. Little by little, like moles digging and tunnelling, they are destroying the base of the Labour Code of British Columbia. Two years ago we saw the first little molehill rise. Two years ago we saw the amendment that more than any other one thing brought about the confrontation that we have just had with the B.C. Ferries.

In this past session, Mr. Speaker, we had something more, another change in the labour legislation that struck against those people who are unorganized, the low-paid, the poor of this province. It's all related to labour legislation, Mr. Speaker. Now we have the third step, the third molehill. Bit by bit we're undermining the balance in that Labour Code.

You do not achieve labour peace, Mr. Speaker, by regressive legislation. This is regressive legislation. You do not achieve it that way. You cannot legislate people to work; you cannot coerce; you cannot force by penalty. Nothing short of conscription and a firing squad can make people go to work.

MR. KAHL: Do you think the firing squad will make people go to work?

MRS. WALLACE: You cannot force people to work. You cannot force them to do a job of work if they, for principles or-beliefs or reasons of their own, are not committed to doing that job. This is the kind of legislation this is. It's regressive legislation that is forcing people. You don't sail ferryboats with dollar bills. That's the penalty in here. You don't sail ferryboats with dollar bills; you need people. And you need people who are prepared to go out and do a job.

I'm paraphrasing a very famous quote from a few years back: "You don't mine coal with bayonets."

This is regressive legislation; it's destroying the balance of the Labour Code that was introduced by the former NDP Minister of Labour. It's upsetting a climate that was moving in the right direction. It wasn't perfect, but we were moving in the right direction. Unless you have the kind of legislation that creates a degree of confidence and is accepted by both bodies to that legislation - by both parties -you are not going to have the kind of legislation that will bring about labour peace in this province. Bill 92

[ Page 5900 ]

is not that kind of legislation. It's digging away molehills at the base of a very balanced piece of legislation that we're operating under here in British Columbia.

To call us back into session to discuss such a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is nothing short of complete disregard for the responsibilities of a democratic government. It's using this Legislature to promote a particular political bias and to cover their backs in a situation which had become a bit uncomfortable and intolerable.

This bill is not a bill that will bring about the results that we all want here in British Columbia. Instead, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be the beginning or a continuation of those small beginnings, this gradual erosion that's going to bring about the kind of unrest and disruption here in British Columbia that none of us want. It's a complete disregard of the principles of an advanced and forward-looking kind of labour legislation. It's regressive, back-stepping and, frankly, the kind of legislation I would expect from this government, but unfortunately the kind of legislation that will not be in the best interest of the province of British Columbia.

I oppose it completely and I regret very much that we are forced to come back here to discuss this kind of small-time bill when we could be out doing the other part of our job: serving our constituents, meeting our commitments, going to the places we have promised to go rather than coming back here for three sittings a day to work something through that has no real significance to the future of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before the member for Oak Bay proceeds, may I ask for order in the House? Order, please. If there are conferences which must take place, whether they be ministerial conferences or otherwise, may I request that they be conducted outside of the chamber rather than in here?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that on this occasion I am the designated speaker for the party. I would suggest that there's one member of the Fourth Estate who has made the very serious error of leaving my name off the list of 55 MLAs in a recent publication. I know it was not done with wilful intent, but I just want to remind that member that I'm still a member of this Legislature. One of the members over the way has asked me today how many final speeches I plan to make. I would say that that depends on the Premier, who seems rather keen to keep calling the House into session, while one of its members, despite some difficulties within the party, is trying very hard to resign.

Talking about final speeches, I think it would be appropriate to say that I also had a first just last night when I thought I had been afforded a privilege. I was asked to speak to the law students at UBC. But to my surprise, they chose to throw buns at me, and that is a first. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, one of the buns hit the chairman on the nose, and I really felt that my medical advice might well be required, because it hit his nose with a very solid thud.

Mr. Speaker, this so-called emergency session has, in my case, as with other members of the House, interrupted other plans. I regret that some of my patients are being inconvenienced by my absence from commitments I had made to them.

I will debate the basic principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I know you were just about to ask me when I planned to do that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before you retire!

MR. WALLACE: This session is being held at this time, I think without any doubt, to retrieve the credibility which the government lost in the recent ferry dispute. It is also presented now because the government is aware of strong public sentiment which would justify stronger legislation in an attempt to control what, admittedly, are serious problems in the area of essential services. I don't plan to dwell on these two points, but I think it, is quite obvious that this, in the real sense of the word, is not an emergency session, because there is no emergency. I don't plan to dwell on the past or to harangue the government on these two points. I plan to- try and talk constructively, and to look forward in the hope that this bill will result in achieving some of the very difficult goals which it seeks to attain.

I would say, also, that as a person who has a great deal of sympathy for the trade union movement, and I make no apology for that.... Because I believe they are a vital part of our society, I have often been branded as an NDP sympathizer. I am willing to allow everybody their freedom of decision as to my political feelings, but I would say this, Mr. Speaker. The ferry workers of British Columbia did the trade union movement a most serious disservice when they broke the law. Frankly, I was disappointed, because I truly believed that whatever the rights or wrongs of that dispute or any other dispute, the union movement in British Columbia had a greater respect for the importance of the law, and the respect that every single citizen, regardless of his status, must have for the law.

I was equally disturbed when the Premier of the province was quoted in The Vancouver Sun of October 15 as saying that "Victoria" - namely, the government - "was accountable, but powerless to act." There again a kind of disappointment which I had in the ferry workers' illegal action was mirrored by this weak and inexcusable statement by the

[ Page 5901 ]

Premier of this province. Not only did the people of this province realize that certain individuals can apparently flout and break the law at will, but the Premier of this province then turns around and says he can do nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker, the most important issue we're trying to face in this debate is not only labour-management harmony in essential services, but public confidence in the law and in the capacity and capability of this government to see that the law is enforced. It matters little what specific differences of opinion or misunderstandings led to the crisis in the ferry system. What is of overwhelming importance is the fact that the law was broken and that the government of the day, through the words of its own Premier, acknowledged its responsibility, but asserted its powerlessness to act. There's no doubt that this bill and the timing of its introduction relate, intimately if not entirely, to the ferry strike situation, despite the Premier's protestations.

Mr. Speaker, there's no question that the public are deeply distressed over that central, frightening fact - that apparently certain groups in society can break the law. The final indignity seems to be that in order to restore the public service in this case, the offenders are granted immunity from any penalty for that breach of the law.

Many speakers today have been quoting various persons. I think we could even go back to William Pitt, who, in the House of Commons in 1770, said that where law ends, tyranny begins. I believe it is from that point that all our deliberations must proceed in debating this bill. That is not to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all law is good law. In fact, I'm sure we recall the words of Charles Dickens' Mr. Bumble, who was talking about some law. He said: "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass -.an idiot."

Mr. Speaker, we know that sometimes the law in inappropriate. Perhaps the language that Dickens used was a little strong, but surely no one in this House disputes the fact that even with the best of intentions, some legislation is inappropriate.

I see this bill as an attempt to modify an area of British Columbia legislation which, at the present time, has been shown to be inadequate. As the minister mentioned, it is a very complex area of labour-management relations, particularly where essential service is involved. But any law, to be acceptable and to find likely obedience by all parties, has to be fair and equitable. The degree to which the law may be unfair and inequitable increases the likelihood that persons will choose to defy that law.

So, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental principle of Bill 92 is this: does the bill provide some initiatives, however limited, toward providing fair and equitable legislation which reflects the rights of bargaining parties, but equally respects the rights of the public to have uninterrupted access to essential services?

Public pressure would quite readily have encouraged this government to be reactionary and to go much further with legislation at this time.

I was interested in the comments of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , who clearly differs from the Minister of Labour, as he has every right to do, when he stated this morning that the kind of measures that are included in Bill 92 should not just apply to essential services in the public sector, but should cover all sectors. Perhaps the member for Omineca is just as frustrated as many other members of the public at the apparent impotence of the government to solve some of these very difficult problems in the public arena. But I would say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that complex issues of this nature cannot be solved by sweeping, simplistic legislation, which may be responding to the heart rather than the head, and which, because of its content, may not be capable of enforcement. As many speakers have said today, law which cannot be enforced is bad law.

Usually, law that cannot be enforced is law that in some obvious and easily discernible way is unfair and inequitable to one or other of the parties to whom it applies. The government of the day, whether it is this one or the next one, can literally pass any law it chooses, but the only kind of legislation which merits debate and approval in this House, Mr. Speaker, is legislation which to the greatest possible extent will be accepted by all the parties to whom it applies. The fundamental challenge to any government these days in the field of industrial relations is to write legislation which is fair to employers and employees and which respects the rights of the public. I recognize that that is a tall order because it does seek a measure of balance where conflicting desires exist.

The minister, in my view, Mr. Speaker, expressed it well when he said this morning that the bill addressed itself to the rights of a variety of parties and to some of the implications which arise when those rights come into conflict. Essentially, that's the problem and the challenge that faces this government, the next government and the one after that, regardless of its political stripe.

I believe that in rejecting a reactionary position which was suggested by some, namely to take away completely the rights to strike, the government has acknowledged how provocative it always is to take away rights which have already been granted. I'm talking about any right, not just the right to strike. As far as this specific right to strike is concerned, any move by this government today to have taken that route would have been a measure of provocation which could have brought about confrontation in this province between labour and government like we have never seen before. To that degree, I respect the government's attempt to provide a moderate and non-reactionary piece of legislation on this issue.

[ Page 5902 ]

Some would say that government employees should never have been given the right to strike in the first place. That's a debatable issue, and many people would feel that the rights should never have been granted. But we're not up here to debate that issue today. The minister has correctly stressed that the bill does not remove a right already granted.

As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the bill attempts to put together concepts and procedures already existing in other statutes. Some members have said that there is really nothing new in this bill and, to some extent, I would agree that it largely consists of bringing together techniques and proposals already existing in other statutes. There are some parts of this bill which are new, Mr. Speaker, and they're combined with the existing concepts in an attempt to provide better mechanisms for solving disputes in essential services without imposing unjustifiable hardship, including risk to health and life, on the innocent third party, which is the public.

What the House must determine in this debate is whether the bill provides a moderate, reasonable, compromise set of proposals which are fair and equitable to employers and employees who provide essential services and, at the same time, both respect and protect the public interest. I want to make it clear that the Progressive Conservative Party reaffirms without any equivocation that collective bargaining offers the best way of reaching harmony between employers and employees. I also believe that the Labour Code introduced by the NDP government has served and is serving the province well, but not well enough.

Criticism has been offered, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 92 chips away at the Labour Code, and the word "chip" has been used many times already in this debate. I notice the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is getting very agitated over there but it is a different kind of "chip, " Mr. Minister. I may be wrong but I got the impression that this criticism that this Bill 92 chips away at the Labour Code suggests that somehow the Labour Code itself is etched in marble or stone and should not be altered.

I feel the whole area of labour-management relations is such a labile, changeable one, and we only have to think of the whole area of technological change, which literally is occurring daily, to come to the conclusion that perhaps of all the pieces of legislation on our statute books in British Columbia, the Labour Code is the one which most requires review and amendment on a continuing basis. So while I respect the point of view that has been expressed by members of the NDP - and I'll mention in a moment some of the opinions that have been expressed publicly by union representatives - I feel that that criticism is not a valid one. It seems quite clear that of all the difficult public issues facing this province and indeed facing industrialized nations, the issue of labour-management relations is so rapidly changing and so subject to changes which even the most informed individual cannot foresee, that the Labour Code must inevitably be a piece of legislation which will require frequent reassessment and quite frequent amendment.

The criticism has been offered also that collective bargaining should always be the technique by which disputes should be resolved and that the governments should leave the Labour Relations Board to act as the independent solver of these problems. There again, Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very desirable attitude, but it ignores the basic fact that the former government and this government have tried to follow that approach, but in some cases it has failed, and the persons who have suffered immeasurably in a completely innocent way are members of the public who have been denied access to important essential services on a reliable and ongoing basis.

I would say that for all the differences which exist between parties in this House, there is probably one point that we are all agreed upon - that it would be an excellent situation if in fact the provisions of the Labour Code did lead every single time to a solution reached by the bargaining parties without intervention in direct or indirect ways by the government. But that is not happening. Happily, it happens in the majority of cases, but it is not necessary for me to recall that the House had to be summoned in 1974 to resolve an emergency in the lower mainland when firefighters withdrew their services. It was an auspicious occasion, since it was my 45th birthday....

MR. DAVIDSON: Way back then!

MR. WALLACE: Way back then. Maybe that's why it's time for me to retire.

It happened again in October, 1975, when several groups of employees were directed by emergency legislation to return to work. So we can all applaud the success which the provisions of the Labour Code have enjoyed. We can all agree that it would be most gratifying and most desirable if the provisions of the Code always led to a solution without government intervention. But that is not happening, and in certain areas where it is not happening, the people who get it in the ear are Mr. John and Mrs. Mary Q. Citizen.

I see this bill as an attempt to provide mechanisms whereby more effective collective bargaining can take place; whereby strikes and lockouts can either be prevented or at least reduced in number; and whereby the right to strike is maintained, yet at the same time the rights of the public are respected and protected.

Now that is a tall order and I think I would say in all fairness, both to the former government and' to this government, that I'm not sure that these can be reached. Again, I say that simply because the parties

[ Page 5903 ]

involved have conflicting desires for which sometimes Solomon himself could not find an amicable agreement. Industrial relations depend in the ultimate analysis on the good will and honest intent of the parties who are bargaining. The best legislation in the world can never legislate good will and good faith into individuals or their representatives.

The words "bargaining in good faith" are mentioned repeatedly throughout the Labour Code in different sections. As a layman observer of many disputes, I've often come to the sad conclusion that one or the other of the parties really has no intention of bargaining in good faith, for whatever reason. Under these circumstances, how could any reasonable person expect a government to bring about a happy solution if, in fact, one or the other party is not acting in good faith in the first instance?

Much as I support the concept that the government should stay out of collective bargaining as much as possible, I just ask the question: when a serious public dispute rises, possibly because one of the parties is not bargaining in good faith, is the government supposed to stand by and express anguish and dismay but not accept a leadership role of moving in to provide some kind of protection for the public, however unwanted or unacceptable it may be to one or both of the parties? Where that situation arises, Mr. Speaker, it's my firm opinion that it is not only necessary for the government to intervene, but it is indeed the duty of the government as the final arbiter and representative of the public interest.

It is quite true, as my friend for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) interjects, that one method is to summon the Legislature, as has been done on various occasions. I accept that that is one very valid option that governments must always be ready to exercise. But I see this bill as an attempt to provide by statute mechanisms and procedures that may at least reduce the frequency with which this Legislature has to be called into special sitting. I don't deny, despite the inconvenience to many, that there will be times when the Legislature must be summoned into special session. But I still feel that the purpose of this bill is to try and provide a comprehensive list of options and mechanisms to both management and labour whereby the need for special legislation can be minimized and whereby the bitterness and negative consequences of strikes and lockouts can at least be reduced in number and intensity. I don't suggest for a minute that this bill or, for that matter, any bill can possibly look after all the contingencies or provide some absolute assurance that all disputes will be settled without serious damage to the public interest.

This bill has some very desirable goals. The next fundamental question: will it succeed? I recognize that much of the bill is not new. One of my personal reservations about the bill is that some of the provisions in it that exist in other statutes have not worked in the past. In the case of the ferry strike, the reasons the provisions did not work were twofold. The workers chose to break the law, and no legislation can prevent individuals choosing to break the law. The second fact was that the government bungled the situation once it reached a crisis point. I would hope that both these groups have learned something from these events because, as has been said so many times, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it. Mr. Speaker, that is one of my reservations, that some of the provisions have not worked in the past. I hope that by bringing all these proposals together under one single, specific piece of legislation, there may be hope that they will work better in the future.

I can appreciate the concern of union employees when they look at the way in which the scope of reference has been greatly enlarged to include much greater numbers of employees than were previously covered by the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act. I would have to ask whether or not the government has gone too far in covering certain employees. I'm thinking, for example, of ICBC, where we have already had a strike. Admittedly, it was of great inconvenience to many people, but I personally would not consider ICBC an essential service. The tragedy is that it is a monopoly, and the very fact that it is a monopoly gives the government some credibility in including it under this legislation. But I don't think the fact that it is a monopoly is justification to include it under the definition of essential services.

1 think the other area of which I would be concerned about if I were a union employee is the tremendous power which is given to the cabinet to determine the interpretation of the word "essential."

MR. LAUK: On a political basis rather than judicial.

MR. WALLACE: I think it's very difficult for any of us who are politicians to define precisely what is essential. As the member for Vancouver Centre interjects, do you decide on a rational, objective basis or on a political basis? Quite obviously it would be politically suitable for this government to designate ICBC as an essential service. The public pressure on the government during the ICBC strike a year ago or more is ample proof of why / we now find ICBC included in this legislation. Another area of definition in this bill which would concern me as a union employee is the section of the bill which in one word talks about the "economy" of the province. So that we don't just talk in general terms without specifics, I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker: what, for example, will happen after this bill is passed if the employees in our liquor stores would wish to go on strike again? Just how do we define impact on the economy, Mr.

[ Page 5904 ]

Speaker? The 1976-77 figure for revenue derived from the sale of liquor in this province was $162.5 million. I think it's very appropriate to ask if after this legislation is in place and the employees in the liquor stores of British Columbia tried to strike for any substantial length of time, with the obvious loss of revenue to the government, the government would consider that to be of sufficient economic impact to invoke the appropriate provisions of this bill for a cooling-off period or for the Labour Relations Board to designate it an essential service.

Now I see the Premier shaking his head. Now he's smiling. I don't know whether a smile or the shake of a head....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if I can just interrupt you for a moment, perhaps these questions might be better placed in the committee stage, when you can have a response from the minister on your individual questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's got me afraid to move, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you for your kind advice, Mr. Speaker. I've had one suggestion passed to me by an anonymous member, and somebody mutters that I won't have the nerve to mention it to the House. This is no time to dare me, whoever it is. They're suggesting, under the provisions of designation that if there's a liquor store strike, we'll at least designate Scotch as an essential service. I don't drink beer so I think that might be reasonable compromise.

MR. LAUK: That's the only reason you're a Tory.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: But seriously, Mr. Speaker, some of these questions will or should be answered. I expect they will be answered by the minister during the subsequent course of this debate. I'm willing to accept the broad, general principles and purposes which the minister outlined in introducing second reading. But at the same time I can understand why members of the trade union movement realize that, were they to support this bill, they would be taking a great deal on faith, that in fact the government would not abuse some of the measures which are incorporated in this bill, measures which if used wisely and within the limitations which the minister has suggested, will probably achieve most of the goals which the bill seeks.

Some of the new elements in the bill, Mr. Speaker, are the advisory agency and the definition of fact finding, which incidentally goes a little beyond fact finding, I would suggest, since the fact-finder has the authority to make recommendations which are not binding. There is also the fact that when negotiations break down, the union can elect arbitration. I presume that very specific provision, which does not mention the right of the employer to elect arbitration, has some very definite purpose. I would like the minister to elaborate on that either at the closing of second reading or in committee stage. I recall when the nurses of this province were quite willing to go to arbitration, but it is my understanding that until both parties agreed to arbitration, this could not take place.

The issue of penalties has been raised both in question period and debate, Mr. Speaker. While I realize that a breach of the law must result in some penalty - otherwise the law becomes a farce - I hope we will not spend too much time or overemphasize the issue of penalties in order to exact retribution.

I would hope that the whole central thrust of this legislation is to be based on consultation, the widest possible access of bargaining parties to assistance, and, above all, prevention in the form of steps which may ensure that total breakdown in negotiations will not occur or that an atmosphere of such distrust will be created that citizens and workers find themselves persuaded they must break the law in order to get the public attention they feel their dispute demands or merits.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated a little more time to study this bill, because it is quite complicated and it certainly is far-reaching, despite the fact that much of its content is not new. I would hope that the bad example set by the ferry workers in breaking the law has not set a precedent which others will choose to follow. I say that with the greatest of hope and I do not mean to be preaching to anybody, ferry workers or otherwise. But we all stand to lose if one group breaks a law and gets away with it, because it is one group today and another group tomorrow.

But the government has chosen to come to the House at this time and try to present what I think are, perhaps, the best of compromised proposals that we could expect in this very complex situation. While I recognize the views that have been expressed by the NDP, I say, with respect, that they don't seem to be as bitterly opposed to this bill as one had been likely to expect. Probably the government today has surprised everybody, including the member for Oak Bay, by presenting a fairly reasonable, moderate, workable solution to problems in the area of essential services which have plagued this province for many years and will always be a challenge.

There are certainly few areas of government responsibility where it is so difficult to find solution as in the area of industrial relations as they relate to the provisions of essential services. It calls for a most intricate and sensitive balancing of rights of different groups, vis-à-vis each other, and the rights of these groups vis-à-vis the public. I think anyone would be

[ Page 5905 ]

foolish to suggest that this bill has all the answers. In fact, I seem to recall that the minister or someone on the government side admitted in a speech this morning that they realized it didn't have all the answers.

But on balance, this bill appears to offer some very reasonable hope that the kind of situations we have recently encountered in British Columbia will be either averted or minimized. As far as I'm concerned as an individual, MLA in this House, I'm more than willing to give this piece of legislation a fair try, acknowledging that it may have to be amended in the light of experience. To me it does not seriously interfere with rights which already exist, but it is a serious and worthwhile attempt to provide some greater measure of protection for the public interest.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I rise in this Legislature in a special sitting to support this bill. I also want to compliment the Minister of Labour, and indeed the entire government, for the leadership it has shown in bringing in this particular bill at this time, leadership which I feel will be looked at by other provinces in Canada and which I feel will be looked at, indeed, by the federal government.

There has been some criticism of the timing of the bill. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is never a good time when a government has to bring in legislation such as this, because the situation we find ourselves in today is not a good situation and not a happy situation. What I'm saying is that situations deteriorate; situations get better. There is never an opportune time to have to come to grips with a problem that we face here in British Columbia.

The last speaker said that he didn't feel that this would solve all of the problems. I don't think there is any black and white answer to the problem, but I do feel, and I feel very strongly, that the majority of the workers in this province will obey the law. Indeed, I feel that the majority of the workers in both the public and the private sector, deep down in their heart, will welcome this legislation.

I said that most of the workers in this province are responsible. They realize that certain sections of our society can no longer hold the balance up for ransom. They realize that there has to be an end to the situation as it exists. They realize that certain sections of the public sector cannot continue the hijacking of the public purse.

As I said, we must look at the situation in view of today's atmosphere. The days of slave labour are long since gone. We need to stand back and take a good look at the workers in this province. They are well paid, and outside of their jobs they have an abundance of other services provided by the taxpayers of this province. The workers of this province, along with the other population, enjoy hospital insurance today. They enjoy medical insurance. Those who are unemployed enjoy unemployment insurance. The majority of the people enjoy Pharmacare, and we have guaranteed income for the elderly citizens of this province. Indeed, for the less fortunate ones, we have social welfare programmes. These are services that are very essential to those who are receiving them. They are services that must not be interrupted and indeed they are services that are being paid for by the very workers of this province that this bill would seek to serve by creating a better climate in which to work.

There are numerous other benefits to the workers of this province, Mr. Speaker. As I say, the majority of them have good working conditions. They're well paid, they work in a good climate and they have the many benefits that I mentioned just a few moments ago. These services that I mentioned have to be provided, and they must be rendered with certainty. The population of this province is no longer going to stand for the uncertainties that presently exist, not knowing whether that essential service is going to be continued, not knowing whether they're going to be intimidated, not knowing from day to day when an essential service in this province might be withdrawn.

I refer not only to those essential services that are rendered by the province of British Columbia but I refer also to essential services that are rendered by our federal government, such as mail delivery.

Society, over the years, Mr. Speaker, has been very tolerant. Society has been very understanding of the workers' problems. But today this understanding and this tolerance has been stretched to the breaking point.

Another aspect of this bill, Mr. Speaker, which affects the general labour scene in our province, and indeed in Canada, and affects the economy of this province, is the fact that the services that we have must be provided on a continuing basis. If we are to look down the road 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years, I can see the bill for these services, Mr. Speaker, growing every year. Those services must be paid for by the taxpayers of this province, and anything that undermines the economy of this province is going to undermine the ability of the government of the day to continue those services.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that everyone in this province, and indeed the workers who benefit from these programmes, must realize that. I also think, Mr. Speaker, that the workers of this province must also realize that indeed if they are to benefit from the pension plans which they are contributing to today and if they're going to have a secure pension in their old age, the economy has to function and the economy has to grow. I'm sure that the majority of the workers in this province understand this. I know that the majority of the workers in this province who are raising a family want to leave to them a heritage of a growing and expanding economy to give them

[ Page 5906 ]

the same opportunities that we had when we were growing up. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we must come to grips with the problem which we have before us.

Certainly one of the major concerns of investors in the world when looking to Canada and when looking more specifically to British Columbia is the labour atmosphere in the province. I'm not proud to be a citizen of a country that has the second worst - next to Italy - number of man-days lost and strikes of any country in the world. I'm not proud to be a citizen of a country with that record. And it is the actions of this Minister of Labour and the work that he has done in the 20 months that we've been government has has shown a direct improvement in the labour climate in British Columbia. Indeed, while I was in Europe I was able to brag that on Labour D ay in British Columbia there were only two minor strikes. After settling 85 per cent of the contracts in the province this year in the private sector, we had the best record, practically, in the history of this province in the number of man-days lost.

I was able to brag about that because of the way this Minister of Labour has handled the situation in British Columbia. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that it is his leadership in bringing in this legislation, which will be looked at by other provinces and indeed by the federal government, because the federal government is also recognizing that we have some economic problems in Canada as well.

I have never been one to stick my head in the sand and say that we didn't have economic problems in Canada. But I noticed this survey, Mr. Speaker. What did it say? It said the majority of firms were going to locate in the neighbouring province of Alberta because they had the fastest-growing economy in North America. And, Mr. Speaker, I just have to note that the province of Alberta has had a free-enterprise government practically since 1930. They're not faced with the problems of putting the economy back together like we are. You can break that egg with just one drop, but it's a very difficult job to put that egg back together and, indeed, to put an economy that was wrecked by that wrecking crew over there back together.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention a couple of notes from a recent address which was given by Mr. Callaghan, the Prime Minister of Britain, because the situation is similar and very relevant. He was speaking in Brighton, England, to the annual convention of his Labour Party, which is supported by labour unions in Great Britain. The remarks he made were reported in both the right-wing papers and the left-wing press. The theme of his remarks to that Labour Party was, "Back us or sack us, because we're not going to back down on our anti-inflation programme in Great Britain, and we're not going to back down on the 10 per cent ceiling on wage hikes."

I think that man should be noted as a statesman, because he was willing to forego immediate political gain for the good of his country.

MR. LAUK: A socialist will do it every time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That is what is happening here with this bill today, Mr. Speaker. That is what is happening in British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Darned socialists - they're always right.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We faced a situation, we've moved, and we've moved in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, that group over there doesn't know whether to back the bill. They're trying to attack the bill; they're saying very little. Yet outside, when they get together with their political friends, they're attacking it in far greater depth than they are in this Legislature.

Mr. Callaghan went on to say one other thing. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the situation is similar. He told the labour union leaders at that convention what their actions were doing to his and their country. He told them that the Labour government, which was supported by labour, would no longer tolerate such actions because it was ruining the economy of the country. He asked for everybody to act responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for politicians everywhere to show leadership and to give the leadership this country is demanding. That's why I'm so proud to be able to stand here today and support this bill, because that's what this bill is all about. This bill is leadership. Not only did Mr. Callaghan speak directly to the labour union leaders but he said all sections in the country - management, business and labour - must all practise restraint, not just for a short time, but for a long time. As he pointed out, in a situation very similar to what we have here, the reputation and the economy of his country had been so badly damaged that he told them at that convention that it would take 30 years to straighten it out.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, we should be able to learn something from the mistakes of others. We must have a better labour climate in British Columbia. We must continue those essential services without interruption. We must increase productivity. We must improve our machinery. And we must improve our competitive position. But before we ask the private sector to do that, the public sector must be prepared to show the way. That's what we're doing here today. No one owes Canada a living; no one owes British Columbia a living. We must improve or we won't have a living.

Last year when we had that long strike on the British Columbia Railway, that damaged British Columbia's position in world markets for our No. I product, which is lumber. That is not easily forgotten. That damage was done at a time when we

[ Page 5907 ]

were fighting tooth and nail to sell every two-by-four we could abroad. The results of that are not going to be easily overcome. We must be able to sell our products on a continuing basis without interruption, Mr. Speaker, and in order to do that we must maintain continuity in our essential services.

The minister said this morning: "We're going to tell the facts. We're going to do research. Let those who should be exposed, be exposed." I want you, Mr. Speaker, to weigh the impact of that statement. The people of the world are already telling us today what they think of us. They're telling us that they're not going to pay excessive prices for our goods and services while we live high off the hog. How are they telling us that? Just take a look at the value of the Canadian dollar today. I'll tell you, that tells it all, and it tells it bluntly, and none of us here in this assembly can tell where it's going to stop. That's what the Premier of the province said a year ago this fall when the dollar first started to fall. He said: "The people of the world are telling British Columbians what they think of them. The people of the world are telling Canadians what they think of them."

We have in this country, Mr. Speaker, businesses that are protected by tariffs. Some of them have grown fat and lazy and we as Canadians continue to support them by paying excessive prices for the goods they produce. We must come to grips not only with the labour situation but with all of our problems.

We have got to realize, not only in British Columbia but indeed in all of Canada, that it is impossible for us to continue taking more out of the economy than the economy will stand. We've got to realize that we can no longer continue working to put as little back into the economy as we can get away with.

Mr. Speaker, in a democracy there must be an equation between freedom and responsibility. With every freedom we enjoy, there must be a corresponding responsibility to make the system work. When that equation becomes unbalanced, democracy will not work, and that is what we're talking about today in this bill. The workers who have the freedom and enjoy the benefits of our society have a direct responsibility to see that the system works and to see that the economy which is paying their wages is a healthy economy. They have the freedom and they must have the responsibility as well to obey the law.

As I said before, we as Canadians must stand back - way back - and take a good look at all of the benefits we enjoy. We must take a look at all our economy and then we had better sit back and realize that we've got it pretty good, and that there is another way of bargaining for what you want besides some of the militancy that we've seen in this province in the last decade.

Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly, as I said before and I want to close on this note - that the workers of this province understand what is happening. The majority of the workers in this province are fed up with certain segments of the society holding the others up to ransom. Mr. Speaker, the public at large is fed up, I feel the majority of the workers are fed up, and that's why this bill will be accepted. That's why the law will be obeyed. Some people cannot see what's going on; some will not recognize what is happening in Great Britain: some will not listen to what Mr. Callaghan had to say to his party. But we're always going to have, I suppose, and we have to accept some irresponsibility. But the public isn't going to buy it any longer. That's why, Mr. Speaker, this government is showing the leadership that it is showing in bringing in this bill. I support it 100 per cent.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Just a few words on this bill. Here we are again, Mr. Speaker, in an emergency session of the Legislature when there is no emergency, discussing a bill that nobody asked for, nobody wants and nobody needs. It's a further erosion of the rights of the working people of this province taking place in this Legislature today, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 92. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, in my view, this bill is only a start. I expect that this government will be passing further anti-labour, anti-people legislation in this province in future sittings and perhaps in so-called emergency sittings of this House.

What we should be discussing and what is the real emergency in this province, Mr. Speaker, is the economic situation and the unemployment in this province. There are 120,000 people in this province unemployed. The prospects for this winter are extremely bleak. There's 18 per cent unemployment in my riding, and what are we doing? Sitting here discussing a political bill to save the political hide of that government - that's what we're doing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: And you live in Victoria.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I live in Powell River. It's really a nice community as well. They vote NDP 62 per cent in Powell River, thank you. That's where I live, Mr. Minister of Mines. Mr. Minister of Mines, why don't you open a mine instead of closing mines all the time. Open a mine for a change.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Minister of Mine Closures interjects.

[ Page 5908 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now to the bill, please!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really think it was necessary for me to get up and speak on this bill because of the most recent incident involving the Ferry Corporation and the dispute with the ferry workers which really affected my riding to quite a large extent. I wish to respond to some of the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) in a few minutes. But just a short time ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to read a copy of today's Victoria Times, and in that paper was a short but very revealing editorial. This editorial is dated October 20,1977. Mr. Speaker, it is very short and I would like to read it into the record because it is one of the best editorials I have seen on this particular subject in the last few days.

" When the government recalled the Legislature in a rush to deal with the essential service legislation, there was a strong temptation to think that the government was making a political grandstand play . .

There was a temptation, all right.

". . . after badly fumbling the ferry strike. Today that t conclusion is inescapable.

For the Legislature has been dragged back to give the stamp of approval to an unnecessary, unwanted piece of legislation. Most of the provisions of Bill 92, the Essential Services Disputes Act, can be found in existing legislation."

These are the paper's words, Mr. Speaker, not mine.

"Most of the powers the government wants for itself, as conferred by this bill, it already has. It already has. It looks suspiciously like trying to manufacture an election issue."

It looks suspicious, all right.

"Great swatches of the new bill are copies from the Labour Code and the 1976 Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act. From the latter comes a phrase that first had people worrying when they glanced at Bill 92, allowing the cabinet to impose a 90-day cooling-off period when it 'is of the opinion that an immediate and substantial threat to the economy and welfare of of the province' is posed by a public sector strike or lockout.

" It is the intention of this legislation, as stated by Labour minister Alan Williams, to provide for a more diverse system of alternatives in the collective bargaining system 'to diminish the conflicts and cool the passions.' "

Nonsense! All they're doing, Mr. Speaker, is increasing the wrath of labour when it is totally unnecessary, when we have a perfectly good Labour Code in this province that has been working extremely well. To continue with the editorial:

"The bill gives the cabinet a much stronger hand than before in dealing with the public sector in labour and management disputes, supposedly to meet Premier Bill Bennett's concern that the government was powerless to act in such matters. Bill 92 considerably reduces the Labour Relations Board's freedom of action. Essentially it becomes the cabinet's messenger boy in essential service disputes."

That's what you're doing. You're emasculating the LRB. That's exactly what you are doing over there.

"This is serious erosion of the government body which has done much to earn the respect of trade unions and employers in the province. Why tamper with success? The new Essential Services Advisory Agency to be established won't be much more than a research arm."

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, friends of the government. What are you going to do - appoint all your political hacks? That's what you'll be doing, right?

"Presumably, the government desires the trust and confidence of public service sector unions to make the new legislation effective, but its repudiation of the no-reprisals agreement between the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the ferry workers has already badly damaged the government's reputation."

How true that is, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell you that last weekend I signed up some six ferry workers on one shift. I'll bet you there is not a ferry worker who is going to vote Social Credit in the next provincial election. They may not all vote for us, but I bet they won't vote for that Social Credit Party.

Anyway, back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I said earlier in my remarks that I would speak to the bill in terms of the recent ferry dispute. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) suggested to us that those of us who lived in areas affected by that dispute which this bill has covered, by the way, would have to vote for the bill so that we would have uninterrupted service in our areas. I want to tell you the only bill I'm voting for in this House today is Bill King, and he's sitting right over here!

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I don't suppose that there was any other area of the province so severely affected and so dependent on the ferry service as was my riding. Certainly I would be the last one to say that the ferry service is not an essential service. I want to tell you that that dispute, in my opinion, was not brought on by the workers. That dispute was brought about by the direct political interference of this

[ Page 5909 ]

government by not bargaining in good faith with those workers. That government put those ferry workers into a position where they were forced to go out on strike and perform civil disobedience so they could bring in the type of legislation that we're discussing here today. In my opinion, that is exactly what happened.

That corporation and its board of directors, of which we have a cabinet minister as chairman, in my opinion did not bargain in good faith with those ferry workers and forced those people to take the actions they did. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, many people - I would say the majority of people in my constituency - supported the ferry workers in that dispute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to go to the polls at any time with the members opposite in my riding on this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If anybody should be resigning around here, Mr. Speaker, it should be that bunch over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please let the hon. member for Mackenzie proceed.

On a point of order, the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, we are debating second reading of Bill 92. The member opposite has demonstrated to us by reading an editorial that he can read. I suggest he read the bill and debate the principle of that bill rather than the ferry strike.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's no point of order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it is a point of order. However, I would remind all hon. members that in debating second reading we must debate the principle of the bill. It is also irregular to read lengthy sections from a newspaper. Therefore would the member please proceed? I would also encourage hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I would appreciate it if the members opposite wouldn't interrupt. Also, I did not read a lengthy section from a newspaper. I read a short, very excellent editorial from today's Victoria Times which I completed some time ago. If you want to talk about people reading speeches in the House, ask the Minister of Labour, who had a podium. I don't know who wrote his speeches - executive assistants, I assume. However, back to the principle of the bill. The bill has no principle, but we'll try anyway,

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have directly charged this government with direct political interference on the ferry dispute to intentionally bring about that dispute, and I stick by that charge. They brought about that situation so we could debate the type of legislation we're now debating in this House. I suspect in future debates in this House this government will bring further anti-labour legislation to further erode the rights of people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the one question that the minister hasn't answered, probably because he hasn't had the opportunity yet, but I hope that he will answer in terms of this bill, is: will he apply certain sections of this bill retroactively to the ferry workers' dispute which is currently being mediated? I have no intention of discussing those issues but I would very much like a clear answer from the minister to that particular question.

No, Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this bill and intend to vote against it. I will speak further on this bill in committee stage.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): In speaking in support of Bill 92, 1 must say I was mighty surprised to hear my friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) say that he wouldn't support the bill. I would have expected any move to keep the coastal lifeline working would have been supported by all members, certainly from the northern part and also the coastal part of British Columbia.

I would further point out to him that the Prince Rupert ferry was booked full for that Thanksgiving weekend, and I would certainly say to my friend, the Provincial Secretary, that the tourists were not smiling that day. The actions of the ferry workers in this dispute will set back their reputation and the number of tourists coming to Vancouver Island for many, many years. It's a very damaging situation.

I was hopeful yesterday when the bill was introduced that all elected members in this Legislature would support this bill. I don't say it's the final answer, nor does anyone else, but I do think it's a very sincere attempt to try to resolve a very, very difficult issue. But there's not one member in this House who can seriously stand up and say that he will tolerate this kind of action and still remain a member of this Legislature. The same people who get up and say this type of an approach is wrong and that we shouldn't do anything to extend the essential services are certainly not interested in the creation of jobs in this province.

I think it's a sad day when we have to have a special debate to take care of an illegal action by groups not elected by the people of this province, where they wish to take the law into their own hands and do what they like. If these same people went to

[ Page 5910 ]

go into an election, certainly some of them would be able to get elected but an awful lot couldn't. If they disregard the rights of the public in this province, they certainly don't deserve to get elected. Too often in this Legislature I find that too many members are more concerned for the protection and rights of individuals rather than the protection of the rights of the majority.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm extremely concerned with the direction not only this province but this country has taken in regard to obeying laws, whatever they may be. I think it's an extremely dangerous trend that not one member in this province or anywhere else should condone. I've been interested in politics a long time - I suppose maybe a lot will agree for too long - and remember well the coming to power of Hitler and Mussolini, when similar groups led by people with no regard for the laws of the land called well-meaning workers out on illegal strikes, not for the good of the workers they represented but to further their political ambitions, very much like what we see, unfortunately, in Canada today.

Finally, of course, as we can read in history, the people of those two countries got fed up by the inconvenience their people suffered, by the violence on the picket line, inflation running wild, on all other such actions. Finally they got so fed up, they accepted a police state with the loss of freedom. People will finally give away their freedom for protection against inconvenience and rowdiness.

It saddens me in 1977, 32 years after World War 11, where I spent six years, to see the same condition being advocated right here under our nose by so-called responsible labour leaders. It's not the rank-and-file workers, who only want to be left alone and receive a fair and reasonable working condition. I've lots of friends in the labour movement, including two sons who are unionists, and most of these people would like to see longer-term contracts and not be shut off by other actions, so they can finance something, whether it be a boat or trailer. I can't blame them for that.

I have quite a few friends who are labour leaders, and I must say I admire a lot of them. But I say -and I tell them the same thing - that if I were a labour leader in this province today, I'd be extremely concerned with the mood of the general public. I would say that if there was a plebiscite on this issue tomorrow, that the labour leaders who are advocating this type of action would be literally clobbered.

Leaders who openly recommend breaking the law....

MR. LEA: What kind of action?

MR. SHELFORD: Ferry action. You should be the last one to talk, sitting up at Prince Rupert. Shame on you!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: Go to Prince Rupert and find out what they think.

MR. SHELFORD: Leaders openly recommending breaking the law....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I'd like to remind the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that standing orders do not provide for the interruptions of that nature.

Please proceed.

MR. SHELFORD: Leaders openly breaking the law cannot be excused by any elected group, whether they be in provincial or federal politics.

I would suggest that they're doing one of two things. Unfortunately, there are very few of them in this province so far, because I would say the IWA this year took very responsible action and they should certainly be commended for the way they approached the issue. But I would say some of the other leaders are doing one of two things. They are either trying to destroy the democratic system by creating a state of anarchy, or they're simply not using their heads for more than to keep their ears apart.

Some people, speaking of the need for more jobs in this province, happen to be the same group, but I would point out that this same group support actions that put thousands of people out of work. I've talked to quite a number of hotel and restaurant owners on Vancouver Island, and they have had to lay people off. They'll be laid off until next spring because they don't have the cushion of a good Thanksgiving weekend to carry them over. So it does seem wrong that the same group that advocates more jobs tries to do away with far more of those who are already working.

Many leaders are saying that they'll take away democratic rights. I'm not saying political leaders, because I thought the opposition, when they were in government, took quite responsible action in cases such as this. I'm surprised they wouldn't do the same here today. It simply protects the rights of the majority. I want to make it very clear that this type of action takes away the democratic rights of more than those breaking the law. It's very clear that this type of action takes away the democratic rights of more than those breaking the law. It's very unfortunate, but I don't think this should be tolerated by any group, whether they are in government or wherever they are.

Why should any group have the right to frustrate the thousands of people - and I would say mainly union members, for instance, on Vancouver Island -who wanted to come up into the great north country

[ Page 5911 ]

to go moose hunting? I know dozens of them who were prepared to go on the last long weekend of this year, but they were stuck here on Vancouver Island. They will never be able to get up into the north country until the following year, for the simple reason that the season will be gone. I think it's a great shame that any group should have this right. All they want to do is be left alone to work and have a holiday and they have that right and should maintain that.

The government cannot sit back and see this type of thing happen again. This government should also ask the federal government to call a federal-provincial conference and clearly define what can be blocked and what can't. For instance, why is it accepted in our society - and why does the federal government accept this - that the Trans-Canada Highway cannot be blocked? It is accepted that if you or I went out and blocked the Trans-Canada Highway at Chilliwack, we'd soon be in jail, and should be.

The ferry system to either Vancouver Island or to Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island is just an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway, and yet it can be blocked. Surely this is a double standard that no government, federal or provincial, should tolerate any longer. This problem must be resolved once and for all, not only for this province but for any other similar provinces that can have the same thing.

I was really surprised, and I must say that when I started writing my notes, I still expected that the opposition would turn around and support this bill. I still hope that they will see fit to show that all representatives, regardless of party, do want to see essential services maintained, and will see that this bill is at least a step in the right direction.

I think we have to face the facts. I think it's very unfortunate that in some areas of the public service we have moved from a system of collective bargaining to a system of collective blackmail - the reason this bill is unfortunately necessary. Again, I hope that all members will give support, and give no credibility at all to those who wish to break the law and destroy the democratic system that we, as members, are elected to protect.

The main concern must be how to enforce this law, and this is my main concern. If any group can break the law and got away with it, it simply means that all other groups in a similar position will try to do exactly the same thing. We must clearly tell the facts on all strikes, lockouts and plant closures. I'm not sure which department of government should do this, but it should be done.

What should be done? We should clearly spell out what is the cost to you as a worker. Did it cost you $700 or $1,000? Spell out clearly what it cost your community or your town. Spell out clearly what it cost the province in taxes and work time lost, plus the number of people that it put out of work by the action. I think this should be done certainly not more than two weeks after, whether it be a strike, lockout or plant closure, because it's true in all cases, not just strikes. It should be clearly laid out so that the people of the province know exactly what they're doing when they close down a plant, lock out or strike. 1 think it's only by a system such as this that finally people will come to their senses. Believe me, the workers want to work and be left alone just~ like anyone else.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, they're still asking me to stand up. The last time I gave my reply, I got it a bit backwards. However, I'm going to say it again: they measure a man, where I come from, from the shoulders up and not from the ground up.

Mr. Speaker, now that some of the heavies have spoken ...

HON. MR. MAIR: Order!

MR.HADDAD: ... and made everyone aware of all the trials, errors and problems that have been created, I would like to give a little interlude of relaxation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 92, the Essential Services Disputes Act. I must first compliment the hon. Minister of Labour for the introduction of this bill, which will contribute to the protection required by the people of British Columbia for all essential services.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Provincial Secretary, Deputy Premier and Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) conducted- one of the greatest campaigns to bring visitors from all over the United States to beautiful Vancouver Island, and to all other parts of British Columbia. It was a highly successful campaign. It was a sad day, indeed, when a strike by the employees of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation left many hundreds of tourists stranded and disrupted the plans of many hundreds of British Columbia residents from enjoying the last long weekend of summer. It also disrupted the travel plans of people coming to this island paradise, or people going to the mainland.

Mr. Speaker, I must draw your attention to the year 1976 when the tourist industry was badly disrupted for Vancouver Island. There were many contributing factors to this disruption, such as the centennial celebrations in the United States of America, very poor weather conditions and, above all, the continued threat of a strike by the ferry workers. Tourists were afraid that if they got on the Island they might get caught up in a strike by the ferry workers and be stranded here for an unknown length of time.

[ Page 5912 ]

Mr. Speaker, I recall very vividly the hue and Cry from the hon. members of the opposition, blaming the government for the lack of visitors to this island due to the increased ferry rates. It is my opinion that the news media, in reporting and publicizing the threat of strikes and the increase in ferry rates, caused some of the loss in the tourist industry of this island. However, this wildcat strike will certainly once again retard the flow of tourists to the Island. I am sure that it is the hope of all MLAs in this House that Bill 92 will give British Columbia more security from disruptions in essential services.

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of collective bargaining, but I am against our laws being defied by either unions or management to gain their demands. Bill 92 will continue to give employees working in essential services fair and just consideration, and will provide the people of British Columbia with confidence that the laws of the government of British Columbia will not be held in contempt again.

This bill will be of great assistance in safeguarding the hospitals and extended-care units. In my constituency, we have the Cranbrook and District Hospital, which today is the major unit in the constituency of Kootenay. This will also protect the health needs of our people in the Kimberley hospital, the Fernie hospital and the hospital in Sparwood. There's no doubt in my mind that Bill 92 will be a stabilizing factor in the development of my constituency, which is known throughout this great province and is the growth area of British Columbia.

In closing, I ask that all hon. members in this House give their entire support to this bill.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a self-inflicted wound ...

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): You're it! (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: ... contrived by this provincial government as an expedient to cover up the bungling of the economy which has occurred under their management in this province, I think that our being called here and the legislation before us are the very manifestation of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this is part of a total, clumsy, contrived and very expensive piece of action taken by this very desperate government in an attempt to create a cover-up. When I got on the plane to come down for this legislation, I was met by a couple of the business people in the airport. Much to my surprise, rather than them expressing their concern about the ferry workers and the action that was taken.... I won't use the exact words that they used, but they encouraged me to go down and give them heck, Mr. Speaker.

I thought this rather surprising for a moment, but upon reflecting on it I became aware that this is the growing attitude of responsible people in British Columbia - their concern that this government will go to any political length in order to look for a handle to cover up for the economic mismanagement and bungling which has occurred.

They are doing this. They contrived and brought about a strike at a loss to the tourist industry. They created a wound which is not going to heal overnight. They created this. They contrived this at the expense and inconvenience of the residents of this island, at the expense and lost wages certainly of the very ferry workers themselves who have lost wages and who have been turned on by their employers.

Mr. Speaker, this particular Act here is absolutely unnecessary. It is a purely cosmetic cover-up. It's a cover-up for the bungling of that contrived set of circumstances which led to the ferry dispute. I don't want to condone people breaking the law any more than I condone three members of this Legislature who broke the Constitution Act by accepting public money, Mr. Speaker ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: ... and continue to sit in this House in contravention of the Constitution Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member, back to the principle of Bill 92.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, these very members are the ones who will get up in this House and say that the ferry workers should obey the law when members of this Legislature have broken the law which has stood in this province since British Columbia came into Confederation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: How pious, Mr. Speaker, and how hypocritical.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must advise you that the matter has been referred to a committee of this House. It is therefore inappropriate to bring it up in debate on Bill 92.

AN HON. MEMBER: On what committee?

MR. NICOLSON: On what committee, Mr. Speaker? Who are the members of the committee, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 5913 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The principle of Bill 92.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I would like to call to the attention of the House the fact that allegations that this member opposite is referring to are presently being considered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: No, it's not.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Furthermore, he's in contempt of this House, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that may be correct in the case of one member, but the matter is before a committee of this House. I rule it inappropriate for any member to bring it up in this debate or any other debate, except on the particular debate pertaining to that specific matter. Please proceed on the principle of Bill 92.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to go so far as to mention the Minister of Recreation and Conservation or the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) or the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. It is also inappropriate to say indirectly that which you cannot say directly, and you're well aware of the rules of this House.

MR. NICOLSON: But I would hope that they would temper their remarks when they talk about people obeying the law, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Esquimalt.

MR. KAHL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Nelson-Creston has indicated that certain members of this Legislature broke the law, and I'd ask him to withdraw that, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member for Nelson-Creston, you have said something that offends the member for Esquimalt. Would you kindly withdraw it?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to have the offending section of the

Constitution Act repealed forthwith.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, that is inappropriate. Hon. member, that is contempt of the Chair and it must be withdrawn immediately.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask you to withdraw that at once, please, hon. member.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can only deal with one matter at a time, hon. member. I was speaking to the member for Nelson-Creston. I asked him to withdraw the last statement.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. I want to get on to these remarks.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston is making a statement. You have withdrawn it, hon. member?

MR. NICOLSON: That's what I said. I said I withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you kindly.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I suppose there is some sense of relief about this legislation, that it didn't go as far as some people might have feared. But it is nevertheless an erosion of certain principles which, I think, in terms of us looking toward a future in which disruptions arising as a result of collective bargaining disputes could be minimized in this province, this piece of legislation is one which is ironically not going to minimize these disputes but to a small measure will certainly tend to even increase them. For what we are risking here, Mr. Speaker, in this legislation, I think that the possibility of improvement is very, very small. I think we risk jeopardizing some very important principles in terms of what we in the free world have come to consider and talk of as rights - although sometimes people say they are privileges, and that's arguable. I think we are risking that.

The same government over here would jump up and they would argue against anything that would be an incursion into the rights of people to conduct business. But they always seem very ready when it is just an individual, a few people, a small group ready to be plucked off. I don't think this piece of legislation justifies an emergency session. I think that this legislation is really an exercise in PR and coverup

[ Page 5914 ]

of the very confused and inept way in which the minister.... I won't say the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker; I prefer, if you'd allow me, to refer to him as the cabinet minister member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound. This is one minister who puts being a cabinet minister ahead of his portfolio. That minister, I believe, will cave in and. . . .

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Shame!

MR. NICOLSON: It is a shame and I regret that it should be. I do not believe that there would be any incursion into the Labour Code, any taking away of the rights of citizens in this province under his ministry, any erosion of the Human Rights Code on which that minister would stake his cabinet seat and resign from cabinet. That minister would stay in cabinet no matter what.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment please. A personal attack on a member - and the minister is a member - is never in order. I would quote to you from the 16th edition of Sir Erskine May, page 400 at the centre of the page: "A personal attack is never in order." I advise you to continue on the principle of Bill 92 and not on the conduct of an individual member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's a new low, Nicolson, and for you that's something!

Deputy. Speaker rises. I

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to kindly refrain from debate at this time until he takes his place in debate.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat. I

HON. MR. CURTIS: Disgraceful!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, so we see that this legislation, which does have a few constructive provisions contained within it, such as the opting of voluntary arbitration, is before us, but as has been said by other members in this House, these constructive provisions in this legislation are already contained elsewhere. Where there are innovations, they are incursions into the independence of the Labour Relations Board. It is an incursion which will allow direction. It is a very small wedge, but certainly a wedge nonetheless.

The essential services advisory agency will, indeed, be nothing but a new level of, bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker. And with this minor tinkering which is taking place, such as the innovation of, making penalties payable to some sort of a charity, I really wonder what charity is going to want to take the bread off the table of an industrial worker. I think that that is a rather opportunistic and rather tasteless facet of this legislation. It is those minor types of tinkering in this legislation which, I think, have very little potential for increasing industrial peace and have a great potential for destroying it.

We heard the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) say that we cannot continue the hijacking of the public purse - saying this, I would expect, in reference to the recent ferry dispute, but I understand that what the union is asking for is maintenance of the status quo; certainly they are not proposing that they go beyond the guidelines of the AIB. What they're really fighting for, as I understand it, is mainly no change in the more detailed terms of their collective agreement. I can't understand that as being hijacking. But I will tell you that the people of this province can't continue to see the bootjacking cabinet and its influence over the public service, Mr. Speaker.

What the minister was saying in essence, and I would submit to the minister, but I am not going to make this obvious charge....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. There is an unusually loud noise in the House today and I would advise you that the hon. member for Nelson-Creston has the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: The Premier's face is crimson, Mr. Speaker, and so is the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) . Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development said words which could be interpreted to mean that he is not proud to be a Canadian. Mr. Speaker, he was referring to the loss of time which is occurring to labour disputes. He compared Canada to Italy and said that we were No. 2. Was he then looking to countries such as Germany and saying that the climate there is better and we should look there for some answers? If that is what he's saying, then he is looking to a country which is governed and has been governed mainly by a social democratic government. West Germany is a country where certainly over 90 per cent of the labour force is organized into trade unions, where they have systems of co-de termination and such. If that is what he is saying, then I think that he should have brought that out. If he was saying that what we should be looking for in this country as an answer is to bring in a social democratic. government, then he should have gone further and he should have said that and elaborated on that.

The minister referred to the strike on the B.C. Railway, and certainly, Mr. Speaker, if one really

[ Page 5915 ]

looked into the sources of such disputes, you would find that those troubles on the B.C. Railway go way back into the W.A.C. Bennett government. They go back to the maintenance standards which were scrimped upon on the railway - the derailments and all of that history. Indeed, we have a commission of inquiry going into that right now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Lorne, why do you keep showing your ignorance?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, when one looks into the causes that prompt a group of workers to go on strike, one will find that they are not usually financial. They go beyond that. It certainly is not the hijacking of the public purse which I see as the aim and objective of the unions in the public service, Mr. Speaker. I see the aim and objective of those workers as serving the people. They're proud to serve the people. What they have seen, however, is a constant attack on their base. We've seen the public works corporation Act. I was talking with members of the public service in my area only a few days ago, people who don't know what their job plans will be beyond about a month or two from now. That's the type of thing that will provoke disruptions and will upset labour peace..

I would just like to conclude then, Mr. Speaker, by saying....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. NICOLSON: I'm sure that the members opposite will be glad to hear me conclude my remarks; they don't like the truth.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if you'd say something.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this was totally contrived. It is unnecessary. It is a very expensive exercise in terms of the damage which has been done to relations. It is typical of this government and of the previous Social Credit government that they prefer to divide and rule than to co-operate, to discuss and to understand.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Nelson-Creston. He sort of keeps us on our toes trying to understand what he's saying and I appreciate that. He said Mr. Speaker, that we caused the strike and the labour dispute with the ferries. I got a little lost there, because I wonder why the 90-day cooling-off period was brought in if we were so intent in causing the labour dispute with the ferries. I think maybe the member should give that some more consideration.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'd still be mixed up.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise, of course, to support Bill 92. 1 think the thrust of the bill is really contained in the explanatory note, which says basically - and I don't think the members of the opposition have looked too closely at the bill: ". . . to provide for methods of settling disputes." It doesn't say anything about taking away the right to strike. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in his comments said that very same thing - this bill does not take away the right to strike. What it does have, Mr. Speaker, is efforts to reduce the conflicts. It attempts to reduce the conflicts between management and labour. The cooling-off period cools the passions that lead to the strikes and the lockouts that are possible where disputes are involved. It can, and I hope it will, be a positive tool for management and labour in this province to resolve labour disputes in essential services. I also think, Mr. Speaker, it is being brought in at a very appropriate time.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) made the comment that she was a little upset about the fact that she was called back into the session. Other members have commented that it's terrible to come back into this session. But there is no content in their speeches, Mr. Speaker, as to why they're opposed. It seems to be more that they're serving their constituents or they're on vacation and they're upset about being brought back in. But I think, Mr. Speaker, the time is appropriate. For the economy at this time, it is appropriate that we come back in.

It's not just because of the recent ferry dispute, Mr. Speaker. it's to concern ourselves with the economy and the need for the continuation of essential services in this province, so that we can assist and help industry and commerce in this province and in our economy to expand in this province. We must show the public the stability of our economy and we must show them that those essential services will be there when they are needed by the private sector. I think this bill will go a long way towards doing that and will go a long way to encourage and regain the confidence of industry in this province. I compliment the Minister of Labour on the fact.

In doing a little bit of reading for this debate today, I came across part of a speech that was done by Mr. Gabelmann, who was a gentleman of this House before I arrived here. It was on August 9,1974, when he was speaking on work stoppages. He said: "What matters is that men and women who work in those industries and in those jobs are going to leave those jobs when conditions become intolerable." This basically means intolerable or unbearable conditions.

[ Page 5916 ]

Mr. Speaker, we're not talking today about the 1930s. We're talking in the 1970s. I have to ask the question: "Are conditions of work in this province today intolerable in the public service?" I think in all sincerity and all honesty, there is not one member of this House who would say that they are intolerable. The base has been set; the foundation has been set. The wages are reasonable; the fringe benefits are reasonable. What the dispute is usually over is either fringe benefits, vacations, percentage of wage increases and hours of work, but not intolerable conditions. When you deal with essential services, I am hopeful that a bill such as the minister has brought in with its methods of cooling-off periods, with mediation and with arbitration.... Those modern methods should and can settle disputes without essential services going out on strikes and work stoppages. We need those essential services for, as we know, health, life and danger to property, but we also need them for the economy of this province. The Minister of Labour recognized this; this government has recognized it. I'm sure that the labour leaders of this province could also recognize it. These are changing times, but the last thing that government wants, that labour wants and that management wants is work stoppage, because it hurts all in the province. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said, and I certainly agree with him, that lockouts and strikes are a waste.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) mentions that we're chipping away at the Labour Code, but I suggest to her that we are making an improvement in the bargaining process and a constant improvement to the Labour Code, which has been done in the past, and I'm sure will be done in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we know the effect of shutdowns in essential services. I don't think I have to go into the BCR problems of a year ago. We know the effect on the economy on the Island and the lifestyle on the Island as a result of the recent ferry strike. A recent article said that the business community of Victoria was losing $250,000 a day. It's not just the $250,000 a day that the business community is concerned about, or that we should be concerned about. It's the loss of income to those businesses and how it affects the employees and the support systems to those businesses.

The employees who work for those businesses have to make their payments on their mortgages and on their cars. They have to plan for their food and plan for their future. We in this assembly have a responsibility to those working people around the province. When essential services are stopped, regardless of what essential service it is - where it affects the economy, where it affects lifestyle, where it affects health or property - we have to be involved and we certainly have to be concerned about it.

Mr. Speaker, just to give you an idea of the support, as Minister of Agriculture I can tell you that there are two areas which affect agriculture in this province when you deal with essential services, one being B.C. Rail and the other being B.C. Ferries. For the movement of produce, materials and supplies which are needed in the economy, and, of course, which are needed by the agriculture industry in this province, it is important that that railway line be kept open. On Vancouver Island, we have poultry that has to be moved from Vancouver Island to the mainland for processing. We have feed supplies that come on to this island from the mainland - molasses, grain and alfalfa, which is needed, of course, in our dairy industry. We ship cattle to the mainland for slaughter, and, of course, we import, if you want to use that term, from the mainland, fruit, vegetables, meats and milk, et cetera, to go to market on the Island.

I'm sure we have representatives of the Federation of Labour here, and I know we have other labour leaders in the gallery today.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all gone, Jim.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I hope there are still a few around, Mr. Minister. But I can tell you, those members of the labour movement who are here.... The Federation of Agriculture is concerned. That Federation of Agriculture represents 18,000 family farms in this province. When they met at their annual meeting, not this year, not since the ferry dispute.... They met in November, 1976, and they had a resolution placed before them and they passed it. I'd like to quote from it.

"As the B.C. ferry system is an integral part of the highways, it is of real concern to all when this vital link is closed down due to strike action. When such action occurs, movement of perishable and other produce comes to a standstill, thereby jeopardizing the economy and the livelihood of those people directly and indirectly involved in the production and marketing of such products. To this end the Federation of Agriculture respectfully requests that the provincial government declare the B.C. ferry services as an essential service." The Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, is the spokesman for those 18,000 family farms in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we in this province are going to have to stop and take a second look at the methods we use in regard to labour-management disputes. We really have to look, at this time, at where we are going.

This bill only deals with the public sector, with essential services, but I personally think that the private sector may well use this bill as a foundation of a new era, a new approach for labour-management relations in this province. It may well be that private industry can use an advisory agency concept. It may

[ Page 5917 ]

well be that they can use fact finders in trying to resolve some of their disputes, where there can be joint consultation, with both parties and recommendations brought forward so that we don't have a work stoppage.

We're not talking just work stoppages in essential services. I think for the benefit of this province that management and labour in the private sector would be most interested in a new approach to maintain the work force on the job. Those workers would like to stay on the job so they can earn a living, meet their commitments and make plans for their future.

I think if we move towards that avenue, Mr. Speaker, the resolution of labour disputes in this province may be able to be solved in an effective and mature manner without work stoppages. And, Mr. Speaker, as I said, that's a benefit not just to the employers, not, just to the employees, but to the economy as a whole in this province.

At a time when unemployment is high, Mr. Speaker, and the Canadian dollar, I guess, is pretty well at an all-time low we, the people of British Columbia, cannot afford~ to further accentuate our economic problems with work stoppages in essential services. That's basically what this bill tries to accomplish. It tries to accomplish settlement without having those stoppages in essential services that affect our economy.

We in the public service, Mr. Speaker - and I consider ourselves to be in the public service, and those who work for public Crown corporations, those who work for the government, those who work for hospitals, et cetera - should be showing leadership. This bill, I think, can be used as a tool to achieve that leadership and to show the private sector that the public sector recognizes the problem and is prepared to deal with it.

This bill ensures the continuity of essential services to the public who are really our employers, and we should recognize that. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker - and one of the things I don't think the opposition are prepared to concede, but I'm sure they're aware of it - this bill allows for many alternative approaches in resolving the essential services labour disputes: through the Essential Services Advisory Agency, an agency that can attempt to come up with solutions to the problem through mediation or arbitration at the choice of the union; and through a cooling-off period where instead both parties at loggerheads can walk away, give it a second thought, give it a second look and resolve the problem without work stoppage.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Minister of Labour again for his effort to ensure the continuity of essential services and his effort to present a bill before us and a bill before the public service of this province that gives those alternative approaches to the resolution of labour matters. But he has also stated, Mr. Speaker, that the collective bargaining is still there, and there is a responsibility of management and labour to make that bargaining system work. I think that's an important part of the comments that he has made. He is making sure that both management and labour don't renege on their responsibilities and make every effort to make the bargaining system work.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to ask the opposition that if they are going to be against this bill, they'd better come up with reasons why they're against it rather than just making comments that they are upset at being brought back to the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the management and labour leaders of this province in the private sector will consider using this legislation as a tool to fair and reasonable resolution of industry disputes, of essential services dispute in this province in order that our lifestyle, Mr. Speaker, and the economy of B.C. can be maintained.

I think it is important that all members think seriously before they speak in opposition to this bill because I feel very strongly that this is the foundation for more improvement in the labour-management areas of this province.

I appreciate the support I'm getting from the Premier, but I would like to say in closing that I do support the bill and I hope that the opposition members will recognize the need for such legislation.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I think that it's always a treat for MLAs in this Legislature to hear the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture, who is a considerate man and a clever man as well. I could not help but feel some sense of agreement and accord with some of the things he was saying. The only difficulty is that when he proposes - and remember, Mr. Speaker, he used the words "settlement, " "agreement" and "avoidance of work stoppages" -or suggests that this bill is about to do that or has any hope of doing that, I'm afraid he's looking through rose-coloured glasses. I'm afraid that he's deceiving himself. I'm afraid that he's accepted a line fed to him by senior cabinet ministers.

This bill, by its design and its draftsmanship....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The only man in this House who can break me up is the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . He's a man of great wit. He only has half of it some of the time, but in any event it's always a treat to receive cross-comment from the member for Columbia River.

[ Page 5918 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Now where was I?

MR. LAUK: Now where was I? (laughter.)

In conclusion.... (Laughter.)

This bill is not designed, on the face of it and through my reading of it.... The normal legal interpretation of its provisions cannot lead to the kind of beautiful, peaceful valley of labour-management relations that the Minister of Agriculture is arguing for. It is for that reason that I'm opposed to the bill, and for several others which I will come to in a moment, because the minister also quite rightly asked for the considered opinions of the opposition in opposing this bill. I'll deal with those in a moment. But I want to describe to the chamber, because they haven't been described in any order, it seems to me, the events that led up to the non-emergency session.

After a lengthy period of negotiation, the ferry workers were of the opinion.... I cannot provide my own opinion about whether their opinion was correct or not, but I'm just saying that the ferry workers were of the opinion that the government was not bargaining in good faith - that is to say the Ferry Corporation, which has the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) on its board, who was in constant touch with the negotiators, as I'm instructed.

Under those circumstances, as the time approached for them to give proper notice of the strike, they gave such notice. Through those circumstances they let it be known to the Ministry of Labour and to the Ferry Corporation that a strike would take place. When this notice was first given that the ferry workers would take their right to strike, no indication was given either by the Ferry Corporation, or by the Ministry of Labour, or by the Premier of the province, or by any member of cabinet, their ministries or officials, that any action such as the 90-day cooling-off period would take place. There was no hint of this until the eleventh-and-a-half hour. "So what?" somebody may say. Aren't they entitled to bring in a 90-day cooling-off period anyway? Do they have to give notice? What's so great about notice? Why should they tell the ferry workers that they're going to do what they're legally entitled to do, and so on?

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is "the usual course of events." The usual course of events is that the Ministry of Labour, through the deputy or through the minister, lets it be known that the minister will not tolerate a work stoppage, will not tolerate the parties not coming and bargaining in good faith and will declare a 90-day cooling-off period and provide mediation. He must let it be known. It's reasonable, isn't it, that when a policy of law enforcement is decided upon by the Attorney-General, by the city prosecutor, by the local police force or by the RCMP, a policy statement is made so that all good citizens will know clearly what the intentions of the authorities will be under that situation. I charge that it's been done in every case except this one, and I ask why. Why in the eleventh-and-a-half hour did the minister then take it upon himself to provide that warning? Why?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Your facts are wrong.

MR. LAUK: My facts are not wrong. Then what happened, Mr. Speaker? A strike, followed quickly by an order by the Minister of Labour for a 90-day cooling-off period. The strike continued, and there was defiance of the law. And let me state clearly to this chamber and to the people of British Columbia that no member of this House - I certainly hope no member of this House, and certainly no member of the New Democratic Party - is in favour of lawbreaking or lawbreakers. No member is in favour of lawbreaking.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to withdraw the statement that I support the lawbreakers in this province. I ask him to withdraw that statement right now, because that is patently untrue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair did not hear the statement, but if there was an offending statement, would the member for Columbia River kindly withdraw? The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, when the member for Mackenzie was speaking....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want the Speaker to know what the statement was. He doesn't know what the statement is.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. CHABOT: When the member for Mackenzie was on his feet a few moments ago talking about the ferry dispute....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Minister, the Speaker was not aware of the statement nor is he interested in the statement. If you have offended, would you kindly withdraw? Only audible statements can be taken by the Speaker. Would you kindly

[ Page 5919 ]

withdraw?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I haven't offended him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you withdraw if you have? Apparently....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want you to determine, Mr. Speaker, , whether the statement that he made was offensive. '

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, only statements which are audible to the Speaker can be decided upon. We are not here to debate a statement which you may or may not have made.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the record will speak for itself. I will have an opportunity when I speak to make reference to what the member had to say. If he feels offended by his own words, by my repeating words he has made, then I'll withdraw.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, have you withdrawn?

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, before I was nervously interrupted by the front bench, I was pointing out that after a 90-day cooling-off period imposed by the cabinet, on the recommendation, I assume, of the Minister of Labour, the ferry workers defied the order and went on strike. They were clearly disobeying the law. That is not to be condoned. It is not supported by the New Democratic Party, because this party is fundamentally and basically in support of the rule of law.

Now what is the reaction of the government in defiance of their order? What are their actions? First of all, silence. Incredible! The whole province was poised and waiting for the government's response. Silence. The next day what I would call semantic stuttering emanated from the Crown. Following that, words of desperation; after that, panic - complete, unmitigated, almost indescribable panic on the part of a government that's charged with governing this entire province. Cooler heads were prevailing behind the scenes, Mr. Speaker. Certainly not one of them belonged to the cabinet.

The Deputy Minister of Labour was asked to intervene and contact Len Guy at the B.C. Federation of Labour in the usual process.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a usual process.

MR. LAUK: The usual process is for the minister to ask for communication behind the scenes to see if some reasonable settlement can be reached.

MR. BARRETT: Did the deputy meet with Len Guy? Yes or no.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Don't you know?

MR. LAUK: Conversations were had between the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour and the deputy minister to see if the ferry workers could be brought back. After all, at that stage there were two paramount issues: one was disobedience of the law and, secondly, let's get the service going and let's start serving the people of British Columbia. The two paramount were in, I assume, the Minister of Labour's mind.

MR. BARRETT: Is that incorrect, Mr. Minister? Did your deputy not meet with Len Guy.

MR. LAUK: Simultaneously, there were representations to the Labour Relations Board and its chairman, Paul Weiler. Weiler and his board, Mr. Speaker, pulled off what could only be considered a miracle. After the militant, disobedient stand of the ferry workers who, I understand, were solidly in support of their leaders, they were brought to the Labour Relations Board and an arrangement was made whereby they returned to work the next day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Second reading of Bill 92.

MR. LAUK: If nothing else, Mr. Speaker, where the government failed, the Labour Relations Board succeeded. Where the government failed, the Labour Code succeeded. Where the government failed, the parties to this dispute succeeded. A militant group of workers who voted overwhelmingly to defy the law went back to work.

MR. BARRETT: And the minister knew every bit of it.

MR. LAUK: And an arrangement was made, Mr. Speaker. But the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , who denies he knew, didn't like the cost of this arrangement and the Premier didn't like the cost. What was the cost? An agreement by the Ferry Corporation that no on-the-job reprisals would take place. That's on the face of it; no one disputes it. Secondly, no contempt -prosecutions allowed because none were filed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we went through all of this debate

[ Page 5920 ]

during question period. How does it relate to the principle of Bill 92? This is not the principle of Bill 92. Mr. Speaker, you should halt this immediately.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Speaker must first hear a debate before he can decide whether or not it is relevant to the principle of the bill. I would ask the member if he would kindly make it relevant.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it has been argued quite broadly by members of all sides of the House that the Ferry Corporation should be included in the schedule. Indeed, it is included in the schedule of this bill. The events which surrounded the current dispute are being used by way of example, if we want to play that fictitious game in this chamber, for the support, in part, of this bill. I want to give this situation as an example of what may occur in the future. I think I'm entitled to do that.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Minister of Labour was not happy when he understood what the cost of the arrangement was, if I am to believe that he didn't know what the arrangement was prior to its being made. I'll discuss that in a moment and I'll present some of the evidence and perhaps this chamber and the public of British Columbia can make its judgment about whether the Minister of Labour knew.

As I say, the first part of the cost was an agreement by Ferry Corporation officials that no on-the-job reprisals would take place. They were entitled to do that. There's nothing illegal about it. They did it. Okay, fine. You may disagree; I may agree; someone else may disagree with that kind of a cost. Nevertheless, it was done.

Secondly, it was explained to the Ferry Corporation officials....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come off it!

AN HON.MEMBER: You're not the leader yet, Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Is the member seeking the floor on a point of order?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The member continues to speak about the ferry dispute and the particular actions which may or may not have taken place about then. But there's no reference in his argument with respect to the principle of Bill 92. He continues to go on with this, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is well received, Mr. Minister. With great respect, I must draw to all members' attention that to my memory, the bill does include a schedule in the last part of the bill. It seems to me that matters relating to the British Columbia ferries are included in the schedule. I have not viewed it recently, but it seems to me that's what I remember. Therefore, although that does not allow a wide-ranging debate on British Columbia ferries -such as, should they run on Tuesdays and Thursdays? - nonetheless, the remarks which are relevant to Bill 92, 1 think, are in order. I'll watch carefully.

MR. LAUK: Secondly, the cost of this arrangement was that no contempt prosecutions were allowed because none were filed by virtue of an order of the government. There is a provision under the Labour Code by which the Labour Relations Board must have a request by government to file an order in the Supreme Court to prosecute contempts. Now, the chairman of the Labour Relations Board stated clearly to the officials who were there - and I am informed that the Ministry of Labour officials were present, and certainly the board members were....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Name them.

MR. LAUK: I can't name them, but I'm informed that some were.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, who told you that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on, Allan, you knew all along!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Let the member proceed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Name names.

MR. LAUK: I've already said that the deputy minister was meeting with Len Guy.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not true. Name names. He wasn't there.

MR. LAUK: Do you say it's not true? The minister said it's not true. That's on Hansard. That's fine, my friend. You stay with the speech. You've just made a statement; that's fine. You stick with it. Do you want to withdraw it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, if the member is going to refer to officials of

[ Page 5921 ]

the Ministry of Labour who were present at that meeting, then I ask him to advise the House of their names or the name of the person who informed him of it so that we can find out who was at the meeting. We can't have that member being allowed to smear the names of responsible public servants. That's what he's trying to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In answer to that point of order, I would remind the members again that Sir Erskine May in his 19th edition, at page 485, speaks rather pointedly about debate on various stages. He says this: "Debate on the stages of a bill should be confined to the bill, and should not be extended to a criticism of administration."

In yet another reference, he refers to high officials in the department. "These officials are not here to defend themselves, and, as a result, criticism should be held within the boundaries of the principle of the bill and should not wander aimlessly into the administration itself." The point of order is well taken, and the member proceeds.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to explain my remarks and to relate them to the bill....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You don't have to explain them; just get on with your speech.

MR. LEA: Allan, don't be nervous. You'll keep your job.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Let the member continue.

MR. LAUK: I don't regret hitting a sore point with the Minister of Labour. I'm surprised at his overreaction.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Point of order. I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not overreacting. I would just like you in the House to know that if there are smear attacks on members of the ministry, I will protect them in this House and elsewhere.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The king of smear over there, and he used to sit right where you were before he became leader.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I want to assure the chamber that if my remarks have been taken by one or two of them as an attack on the Deputy Minister of Labour or high officials, then they weren't listening. My remarks, rather, were an attack on the government and a praise of the deputy minister for doing what he should do, and the Labour Relations Board for doing what they're supposed to do, and a condemnation of the government for their ineptitude, inaction and fear of governing this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now to the bill.

MR. LAUK: Now to the bill. I'm raising this point to show where the LRB succeeded and why in this statute that success story may not be told today. That's why I'm raising that example.

The cost, as I say, was too great for the Minister of Labour: (1) the agreement by the Ferry Corporation that no reprisals would take place on the job; (2) no contempt prosecutions by virtue of the fact that the government had to file in the supreme court an order for the contempt to proceed, clearly outlined in Weiler's order and statement to the press. "It was understood, I am told, prior to the order being given. No order being filed, the matter is therefore closed."

The government knew. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that any right-thinking, rational, reasonable citizen of this province must have taken the government to know all of these events. The government knew this at the time they drafted the bill that's now before us. They knew it.

An amendment to the filing of such an order is included in Part IV, related to this bill, in section 14 (l) . 1 won't refer to specific sections except to touch upon it to prove to this chamber that that bill which was drafted some time ago was placed in there because of the situation where Weiler in his wisdom precluded the government from proceeding in contempt charges. The block that was used was their failure to file the order in supreme court and request that the Labour Relations Board do its duty in that regard.

Thirdly - we're going down the bill - the cost of the arrangement. Clive McKee was appointed as mediator, and there was an understanding between the Ministry of Labour, by the Labour Relations Board, by officials at the Federation of Labour and by the ferry workers' union, that Clive McKee would be accepted as a mediator for a period of 10 working days, after which - and this is the final cost, Mr. Speaker - the 90-day cooling-off period would not apply and a legal strike could take place. That was the price.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you? It would appear that the hon. member is now seeking to delve into the details of an individual incident rather than by referring to it as an example of what could happen under the legislation. I would remind the member to curtail his remarks.

[ Page 5922 ]

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I refer to it only in passing in any event. It was a great cost, on the part of the government in the interests of the settlement of this dispute, to be able to sell it to a militant group of union workers that the 90-day cooling-off period would come to an end after the mediation period of Mr. McKee. The minister can deny it, and he will ...

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: And I will.

MR. LAUK: . . . and he will.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has.

MR. LAUK: But who is to be believed? I ask the province of British Columbia, the public of this province: would those workers have gone back to work under any other circumstances, having regard for the militant stand that was publicly known at the time? I say no. I say I don't believe the minister when he denies it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Are you calling me a liar?

MR. LAUK: I say I don't believe you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order: I ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw the implication.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre withdraw the implication that the minister of the Crown is dishonest.

MR. LAUK: I withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker. But I ask the public to view this in all good conscience - the right thinking, reasonable people of this province. Can it be so, that on one day there was an almost unanimous vote by this union to defy the law, and afterwards they went back to work because of the intervention of the LRB? They stated to the press at the time that, among other things, it's because if this mediation doesn't work, we have the legal right to strike and the 90-day cooling-off period will not be imposed. Oh, I'm sure that the minister will say: "Perhaps my deputy or officials said that they'll try to convince the government of this, and perhaps the federation officials and the union said we'll do our best to convince the workers." But we in labour-management relations all know that when you say you will be committed to the concept, that's as good as a contract when you're dealing behind the scenes to settle a dispute of such a grave nature.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You under-the-table guys know about it.

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes. The minister said: "You under-the-table guys know about it." There are ways of settling these disputes that are right and reasonable and if you are really interested in settling these disputes and if you are really interested in the public interest like you've stood up in the back bench and in the front bench all day and told us about, you could have settled this strike. You could have settled it before it happened. You didn't have to create the 'confrontation. You didn't have to come here today with this phony bill.

But the truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, they are not interested in settlements of this kind of a dispute. They want confrontation; they want an issue. They want to manipulate an election issue; they want to call an election. They want to manipulate the people of the province of British Columbia. They won't believe it, Mr. Speaker, they will not accept it or believe it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Back to Bill 92, please, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: There are five points that totalled up at the end of the bill for getting the workers back to work. In other words, friends and neighbours, the government totally capitulated - totally and completely and utterly capitulated. Last week they capitulated; this week it is the public interest. Who's going to believe them?

They admitted that they were too fearful to govern. You know, you don't need courage the day after the event. The people at Vimy Ridge didn't need courage the day after the battle; they needed it on the day. They didn't have time to go home and say: "My gosh, I should have charged over the hill."

HON. MR. MAIR: I didn't realize you were that old.

MR. LAUK: I've been listening to you! According to you, you've won every battle in the last three wars.

Now as to the issue of whether the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) knew of this arrangement made by the Labour Relations Board ' there is no question that he was advised. He's a member of the board, but he was advised by Ferry Corporation officials. Just go and ask them; If they haven't been muzzled, they'll tell you.

As for the issue of whether or not the Minister of Labour know of the arrangement, I'm confident that his deputy did, and did so, it must be said, apparently with the minister's instruction. Would the deputy have agreed to a 90-day cooling-off period without consulting the Minister of Labour? Not the deputy I know.

[ Page 5923 ]

MR. BARRETT: He said he was going to investigate it forthwith.

MR. LAUK: If he did consult and the minister has said what he said, then the minister must do the honourable thing and resign. I should remind this chamber: was this not the minister who last month asked the Legislature to believe that he, a corporate lawyer of 20 years' standing in the city of Vancouver - and with somewhat a distinguished career in that regard - missed seeing a major section of the Labour Code amendment before he brought it into this chamber? He defended it at a press conference and said it was all a mistake.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address yourself to the bill, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm saying that he knew all of the details of this arrangement. If he didn't, then what a catastrophic admission of ineptitude. But because of a vocal minority in the community, Mr. Speaker - and I do believe it is a vocal minority -who would rather have confrontation than settlement of labour disputes, he backed down. This bill, if you read it on its face, seems to threaten the arrangement and must be interpreted by all good-thinking people everywhere as reneging on a fully understood agreement. I

The issue of whether the Premier knew is very interesting. Certain members of union staff, certain members of the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Relations Board....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please show how this relates to Bill 92?

MR. LAUK: I'm showing you what can happen when the Labour Relations Board is undermined, as this bill is doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To use an example would be permissible; to go into a detailed study of it would not be permissible.

MR. LAUK: I'm about to conclude and get into the gravamen of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please move swiftly.

MR. LAUK: As I said, certain members of the staff of the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Relations Board assumed, and certainly the public assumed by the actions of the department, the actions of the deputy and by the Labour Relations Board, that the Minister of Labour knew, because there was some suggestion that the Minister of Labour called the Premier back east and reported all the details, Perhaps the minister would deal with that. But never mind; the Premier on his return got off the plane and said that no arrangement was made. The next day he said he didn't know about the arrangement, and the evening before a TV programme a reporter showed him a copy of the Weiler report and quoted parts of it and discussed parts of it leisurely, casually, over dinner.

Now we have the Premier today clarifying himself, further compounding the prevarication. He said he paid no attention to the reporter or the report or its contents, and so on and so forth. Who is going to be believed? I don't believe him, and I'm sure no one else in this province does.

Mr. Speaker, they got into a terrible mess. Their orders were ignored, there was pressure to enforce the law, the Premier called an emergency session of the Legislature to consider the legislation. Then he said: "But it's not an emergency." We're called just three weeks after the longest session in history that accomplished very little in the way of useful legislation, and during a threatened strike continuation of the ferry workers, and after two weeks of absolute bungling and panic on the part of the government, there is no emergency.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's clear that a government should make every effort to settle these disputes and not use them callously, desperately looking for excuses to call an election. The Premier is going up and down the hall, Mr. Speaker - and even spoke to me privately. It wasn't a confidential conversation; it was in the Hansard office. He threatened to call an election on this issue. He threatened to call an election. He said to reporters out in the hall: "The NDP are going to be very quiet" - that's wishful thinking on his part - "on this bill because I'm going to take it to the people on this issue." He said it to me in the Hansard office, and I said, "Mr. Premier, you're not fit to govern. You're a desperate man." He said: "I'll take it to the people and I'll win. It'll be a landslide and you're down the tube and in the dark."

He said it to the reporters, and the reporters have trotted down and put it over the wire, and now the people of British Columbia have the balloon. It's a phony bill - I won't tell you which one - in desperate search of an issue. What issue - that he is not fit to govern and we are? Is that the issue? If a government is fair to all the people in this province, its laws should and will be obeyed.

The issue is this government's abject failure to gain the respect of all of the people of this province, its abject failure in its leadership, the Premier's abject failure as a leader. He has no credibility and has not the will or the courage to govern this province. He's trotting up and down the hall because he knows that economically we're in very bad shape, and nobody delights at that. He knows that financially there are cutbacks in revenue. He knows that he has not

[ Page 5924 ]

properly laid the groundwork for these inevitabilities in a bad economic time. Therefore he has created a silly issue and a phony bill for an election issue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One minute, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: This bill is a zero bill, Mr. Speaker. It does nothing that the government does not have in its hands already in the way of power. It's a desperate attempt for an election issue, a pitiful attempt to draw the Legislature into what was essentially a government responsibility. If certain persons would not obey one law of this government, do they say that these persons are going to obey this one? The problem is not the law. The problem is respect in the government, enforcement of the law and fairness of government. Are they suggesting that this is the solution to their ineptitude - another law?

The NDP does not condone a breach of the law, or lawbreakers. Unlike this government, we believe the law applies equally to all British Columbians. The law must and should be obeyed. We don't run and we did not run to the Legislature to cry that we can't control the situation. If it's reasonable and fair, it will be obeyed. It doesn't matter if it's NDP, Social Credit, Tory or Liberal. It doesn't matter what party. It depends on the government. I know the Social Credit government, Mr. Speaker, that would never have let this happen. I know the Premier of this province that would never in a million years have allowed this crisis to take place. This government is unfit to govern.

I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker, and as designated speaker I wish to continue after the supper adjournment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, there's a conflict because the Chair was advised earlier that the designated speaker was the member for Comox.

MR. LAUK: There must be some mistake. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, time has expired, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in this regard. I have not had the opportunity to deal with the bill. With leave of the House, I'll continue just for two minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time has expired, hon. member. Time provided under standing order 45 (a) has expired.

MR. LAUK: You believe in enforcing the law yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerster moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With the permission of the House, I will deliver the ruling which was required of me earlier today. It's a ruling that was requested out of the motion which grew out of the proposed matter of privilege proposed by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) . Luckily the first decision that I have to make from this Chair is not a difficult one.

I find no prima facie case of breach of privilege in the matter raised by the member, and would cite as my reasoning a decision made by a former Speaker of the House in 1975. You will find his decision in the Journals of 1975 at pages 29 and 35. The decision of that day read this way in part, and I would refer all hon. members to the Journals so that they could study the decision themselves. It says:

"Claims of breach of privilege raised by members relating to the veracity of statements attributed to members continue to plague the records of Hansard in Ottawa; and the numerous claims of privilege to be found there h ave consistently been rejected by the distinguished Speakers of that House whenever they occur."

I refer also to the last paragraph of this decision which says: "Speakers have consistently refused to consider setting aside the order of the business of the House to take up differences of this kind."

I would commend that decision to the House and make my decision a continuation of the same.

MR. LEA: On a point of order on your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't believe there's any debate on the ruling.

MR. LEA: I'm not debating it. I'm thanking you for it.

I would now ask leave to make a motion.

Leave not granted.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file with the Clerk a notice of motion.

Leave granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not even required to be done.

MR. LEA: But they didn't want it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.