[ Page 5925 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Essential Services Disputes Act (Bill 92) Second reading

Mr. Kerster –– 5925

Mr. Levi –– 5928

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5931

Mr. Stupich –– 5933

Mr. Bawtree –– 5937

Mr. Lea –– 5938

Mrs. Jordan –– 5942

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate when I was speaking, several points of order were raised. On one or two occasions the same point of order was raised and the same ruling was given by the Chair. It took a considerable period of time, and I checked with colleagues and found that indeed it did shorten the time available for my speech, which is why I was unable to complete my remarks. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would consider it fair that the other side of the House can, by the use of points of order, diminish the time available for a speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may just pass on an observation, this same question has been of concern to me.

MR. LAUK: I got gonged!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It has been the observation of the Chair that whenever a point of order is cited by an individual listening to a speech, it is usually provoked by the person who is making the speech, and as a result could be considered to be a part of the time consumed. I don't know of any standing order that would allow the Chair to extend the time of speaking. I don't know of any provision of the standing orders that would allow an extension of the time. I know that in question period there is time allotted for it. Perhaps the members would leave it for consideration and maybe I can report to the House later.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to join me in welcoming to the Legislature and to British Columbia two visitors from Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. and Mrs. Jack Turner are visiting Mrs. Turner's relatives in Victoria. It seems the fame of our Legislature has spread to the United States and they're out for an evening's entertainment. I'd ask the House to join me in bidding them welcome.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, with leave, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 92.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): On a point of order, I know the House Leader asked for leave, but you didn't, Mr. Speaker. So I would therefore request that you ask leave in this particular instance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please refresh my memory.

MR. COCKE: This is private members' day, Mr. Speaker. The House Leader asked for leave and you didn't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, once again, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 92.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES DISPUTES ACT

(continued)

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): I should thank the hon. member for New Westminster for affording me the opportunity of having twice as much applause as I normally get.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill 92. In doing so, I rise in support of the rights of labour, the rights of management and the rights of the people of this province, because that's what Bill 92 is all about.

Bill 92 in its broad principle not only protects present rights or privileges under the Labour Code, but encompasses policies which go far beyond such myopic legislation as we witnessed in August, 1974, with Bill 164, the Essential Services Continuation Act, which was aimed very specifically and directly at firemen in this province, and October, 1975's Bill 146, the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, a scatter-gun approach to legislation by the former government, which was designed to wound a few of our labour-management problems, but not really kill them or prevent them. Unlike Bill 92, those two bills were band-aid legislation, introduced and proclaimed after the worst damage to the province, its people and its economy had already been accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 92 offers further opportunities to those responsible persons in leadership positions in both labour and management to settle disputes before they feel compelled through frustration to take the final action, one which I think we all agree is a devastating action - the strike or the lockout. We know that everyone suffers under those conditions, and they suffer most when negotiations break off and strikes or lockouts are taken as a result. Those who suffer most are the union member and his family, business and the economy. But in the case of essential services, such as those scheduled in Bill 92, the people of this province suffer equally for something - in this case a ferry dispute - in which they have no personal involvement. They don't have any control; they just

[ Page 5926 ]

suffer.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard statements by the official opposition members to the effect that Bill 92 is an erosion of the Labour Code or an incursion into the rights of unions under the Labour Code. I don't think responsible labour or management representatives or leaders can agree with that distorted nonsense, since exactly the opposite is true, as has been recognized already by some of the leaders in both sectors.

Mr. Speaker, so far in this debate we've seen NDP critics of Bill 92 who don't choose to debate the principle of the bill. They insult the intelligence of working men and working women, all union members, some non-union members, and their union leaders, who recognize that Bill 92 actually offers expended alternatives to reach settlements in a dispute without hardship being suffered by anyone.

Mr. Speaker, they know, as well as you and those members on this side of the House do, that the unions aren't losing any bargaining rights and management is not being given any preferential treatment. This is not anti-labour legislation - no way. Although there are some leaders in labour and in management who will irresponsibly criticize Bill 92 for their own selfish reasons, be they political or power motivated, I think that responsible leaders in both sectors, once the initial emotional garbage is out of the way, will recognize that this bill expands their opportunities to reach agreements without having to turn to the final resort, the strike or the lockout which is a definite hardship on everyone.

Mr. Speaker, this is positive legislation and I'm proud to associate myself with it. I commend our Minister of Labour and our government on its willingness to take bold and innovative steps for the good of all concerned in labour-management negotiations and, generally, the public at large.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 92 confronts the immediate problem, but unlike the former government's bills, 164 and 146, it doesn't stop short right there. Bill 92 not only considers the nature and the impact of the withdrawal of essential services; it opens up new, innovative opportunities for government, labour and management to enjoin in three-way planning of the long-range policies, removed from that individual dispute itself. This is a definite innovation.

The agency established by this bill has the opportunity to probe, to report to the minister, and then make public its findings. It can get to the real root of the problem and simply and plainly tell it like it is.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to touch briefly on one thing, which is a most important consideration on the debate on Bill 92, but one which has received no attention from those opposite. It's one that they'd like to disregard completely. It is the effect that rational labour relations can have on our economy. In the past, work stoppages have had serious economic repercussions - ones that we're still reeling under, ones that we're still recovering from. Further interruptions must not be permitted to detract from this economic recovery. Stability in this area through new initiatives in labour management relations made possible by Bill 92 will help restore confidence in the economy and confidence of people who would like to invest in this province.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the final resolution of any dispute which reaches a total impasse, when all other efforts have failed, rests with this assembly. Bill 92 simply offers broader opportunities to labour and management to reach a settlement. The matter of respect for the law now arises in many disputes and I think that responsible union leaders and members in management all agree that we cannot any longer tolerate any defiance of the law.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Do the honourable thing - resign.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Member, if you were concerned at all with essential services, and you should well be, you would be concerned if the garbage people went on strike because you would no longer have any speech material available.

Now, Mr. Speaker, during the member for Omineca's (Mr. Kempf's) remarks before lunch today, I think I heard one of the saddest statements ever made in this House, in the form of an interjection by that first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) when former NDP bills 164 and 146 were mentioned by the member for Omineca.

Mr. Speaker, he interjected: "At least they obeyed our laws." That's a pretty sad commentary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh. Did you say that, Gary?

MR. KERSTER: When the Premier asked that member for Vancouver Centre if he was saying that they only obey the law depending on who is the government, Mr. Speaker, that member took exception. That member demanded a withdrawal. But, Mr. Speaker, that kind of statement, made so irresponsibly by the member for Vancouver Centre, leaves open to question the area of who should or should not obey the law.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the grass-root members of the labour movement in B.C. are too intelligent to associate themselves with that kind of thinking. Only irresponsible people in any sector could subscribe to that kind of thinking. Mr. Speaker, the public, labour and management are not going to accept defiance of laws on any basis. Bill 92 clarifies for those who would orchestrate strikes or lockouts for political reasons, at any cost to this province and at any cost in

[ Page 5927 ]

hardship to the people of this province, that they no longer will get away with any blatant, selective violation of the law.

All sectors in these disputes should understand that the law must be obeyed or the offenders will suffer the consequences. Mr. Speaker, those consequences are very clearly defined and spelled out in Bill 92, and it's about time they were.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , I'll consider the source and completely ignore the comment, considering the source.

Mr. Speaker, this is not punitive legislation, as the opposition claims. They claim that in a kind of offhand sort of way; they don't really speak against the legislation. They're upset about being called back into the session. They're upset about being called back from California. They're upset about being interrupted in whatever they were doing in their time off during the adjournment of the Legislature. But they don't really get down to the nitty-gritty of this legislation. The fact of the matter is that it is not, and they know it's not, punitive legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, one thing it is....

Mr. Speaker, they're so bereft of any opposition over there that really they have to resort to all kinds of nonsensical and offhand personal criticism of members while they're speaking, so as to try to detract from the content of the remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the principle....

MR. KERSTER: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Nelson-Creston - he's so devoid of any content in his remarks I'm surprised he can muster up enough ability to even interject. ,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. KERSTER: Before I was so rudely interrupted....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. May I encourage the member to move to the principle of Bill 92.

MR. KERSTER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've attempted to stay on the principle of Bill 92, but those opposite have had, I think, very wide-ranging debate from ... in fact, from here to High River. I think I've been much more to the point than they have,

I will reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that this is not punitive legislation, and they know it, but it is a clear demonstration that this government and the people of this province will no longer tolerate attempts of labour or management blackmail, just because those disputing parties can't get their acts together.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that this is not anti-labour legislation. Bill 92 can be better described as pro-people legislation, and I can't see how the NDP opposition can, in good conscience, oppose this bill. They're going to ride the fence; they're not going to oppose it. They're not going to take a position. They're going to ride the fence because that's the easy way out, and that's the only way they've ever found out, except in December, 1975, when they got thrown out.

But they all have constituents who are similar to mine - they're all working people and they're all business people. They all have constituents who are, quite frankly, fed up with these disputes and the interruptions of services, and want no more of it. Those who oppose Bill 92 will have to answer to those constituents, Mr. Speaker. For the sakes of those who oppose the bill, I hope those constituents have more clout than a few militant, selfish and irresponsible labour leaders who lead that opposition party around by the nose.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Coquitlam made a statement saying that in cross-comment I had said that at least they obeyed our laws. It's not my statement.

HON. W, R. BENNETT (Premier): It is so! We heard it.

MR. LAUK: What I said is clear in Hansard on the tape. It is on the record. It is on the tape, and if you would like to go down and listen to it, be my guest.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We cannot dispute what was said or not said; we have to accept the hon. member's words. Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: The statement that I made was: "Did they obey the law?"

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, you didn't. We heard it.

MR. LAUK: Will you stake your seat on it, Mr. Premier? Will you stake your seat on it? You come with me now and listen to the tape. Stake your seat on it. You're a big mouth!

MR. NICOLSON: Coward!

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Gary, why are you so frightened?

[ Page 5928 ]

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we cannot enter into dispute this evening as to what was spoken and what was not spoken. It is on the record and the record is clear. If a correction needs to be made it is the obligation of the member to stand, as the first member for Vancouver Centre has done, to make the correction, and the House must accept that correction on the basis of the hon. member's word as corroborated by the record.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish you would have that member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) withdraw the statement he made.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. minister please identify the statement?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, it wasn't necessary for identification this afternoon when the statement was made. I have had to withdraw statements I have made without identification. I think many members of this House heard what he had to say. He suggested that a member of this House was a coward. I wish you would have that member withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for Nelson-Creston withdraw the word "coward"?

MR. NICOLSON: I withdraw the word "coward." I also rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Premier to withdraw the statement "it isn't true, " which he made all the time the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was making the correction under standing order 42. He was, in fact, impugning the honesty of this hon. member. I ask the Premier to withdraw that, as by impugning an hon. member of this House he impugns us all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the hon. Premier if he was imputing any improper motive.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston has not withdrawn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the member withdrew.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, he hasn't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the satisfaction of the Chair the member did withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, he rose on another point of order. He never withdrew that "coward" statement. I wish you would have him withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will just have the member for Nelson-Creston indicate whether or not he withdrew.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do first of all is offer some rather desultory congratulations to the back bench on the Social Credit side. It seems that what we have to have in order to get these members to participate is one single issue, and that issue is the Essential Services Dispute Act. All they have before them is one piece of paper that doesn't tax their minds so they will be able to address themselves to it.

In the last session we have not had so many backbenchers up since any time in my memory, all of these people vying, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Essential Services Disputes Act in a kind of political musical chairs to see which one can sit further to the right of Genghis Kahn. All we have had is these people getting up and telling us, as the last member did, that the opposition is going to go down the middle on it. He obviously hasn't been listening to the debate. We are not going down the middle on it; we're going to vote against the bill - quite clearly.

That government over there, when they were in opposition, said: "When we're the government, if anybody's on strike and we say you've got to go back, you'll go back." The first major test and they chickened out! What do they do? They have to come back because that Premier, Mr. Speaker, completely miscalculated what he was supposed to do.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Where's the money?

MR. LEVI: Ah, he wants to know where the money is. We're talking about your miscalculation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Where's the back of the truck?

MR. LEVI: We waited for the Minister of Labour to make his mistakes a month ago; now we have the Premier making his mistakes on the most essential area in terms of labour relations. What do we have? We have them coming into the House and each protestation from the other side, including those of the minister, who should know better, tells us that this is progressive, bold legislation.

[ Page 5929 ]

That really is garbage. It's absolute garbage for him to suggest in any way that this is progressive legislation. We can well understand why the minister of economic disaster has to get up and speak on this bill, because he has nothing else to speak about.

If we come back in an emergency meeting of this House, we should be coming back to talk about the state of the economy and the creation of jobs, not how you're going to reduce the power of the trade union movement and management in order to be able to bargain collectively in a reasonable way. The minister has made no contribution to that, and now we have to deal with the Minister of Labour, who was responsible last month for a terrible effort. Now we're dealing with the Essential Services Disputes Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, may I just interrupt you long enough. . . ? Would the hon. members of the House please come to order particularly the member for Burnaby - I can'; identify immediately whether it's Willingdon or the other one. But it's difficult for us to hear the debate, even when we're this close to the debate.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for Vancouver-Burrard continues.

MR. LEVI: We've been sitting in this House for almost 10 months, We have yet to debate the most reasonable and responsible issue that we have to debate - the economy of the province. What we're doing as a ploy is to have this government come in with a piece of legislation which they tell us is progressive. Now....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Oh, your Grizzly Valley! We haven't finished with the Grizzly Valley, Mr. Minister. You wait until your estimates are up again. We'll go into that one again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Minister of Economic Development....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, you didn't remember. What are you getting so upset about? You couldn't remember anything.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind all hon. members of a basic standing order, and that is, when the Chair calls for order, debate ceases immediately and the member who has the floor will take his seat. This is so that order can be maintained in the House. I would also ask that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) please state to the House on what basis he believes he can interrupt the debater at any point.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LEVI: Tch, tch. Settle down, Don.

Mr. Speaker, to go back to the principle of the bill, which is the question of essential services, we have had an opportunity in the last four years to watch the Labour Code of this province develop in such a way that it's gained the admiration not only of the trade union movement and the management in this province but of other people interested in the welfare of this province. It doesn't work 100 per cent, but it works. That was the intent of the legislation when it was brought in.

A month ago, we had an opportunity to witness a reduction in the effect of that kind of legislation with other amendments. What we have now is a brand new piece of legislation under the guise of Essential Services Disputes Act, which goes even further to reduce the effectiveness of the Labour Code of this province, because within this bill are sections which affect the Labour Code.

One might very well ask why. Well, I can only come to one conclusion. It's not the conclusion the people over there come to - that somehow, this is a piece of progressive legislation. Rather, this is part of a piecemeal plot in this province to move towards right-to-work laws. We know the kind of battles that are going on over there in that cabinet and in that back bench about what they think about the right-to-work laws and what they want to see happen.

Here we have a perfect example of the complete undermining of the Labour Relations Board within this legislation - the setting up of another commission. They've done nothing but set up commissions since they've been in. Now they're going to set up another commission and the suggestion is that this commission will be impartial. Yes, it will be impartial; it will be appointed by the cabinet. How impartial is that going to be? There is a plot on that side, Mr. Speaker, to move towards right-to-work legislation in this province, and they have demonstrated it over the past several months with the kind of legislation they've brought in.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Utter nonsense!

[ Page 5930 ]

MR. LEVI: Utter nonsense? This is the beginning of the end of any reasonable kind of labour legislation in this province. You're suggesting that you're going to bring in a commission that is going to designate what essential services are. What's wrong with the cabinet? That's what the NDP did when they had to make a decision about sending people back to work. These are the people who make the decisions. Don't appoint some committee or hide behind the skirts of some committee. You're moving towards right-to-work legislation and that's why we're opposing this kind of legislation. We didn't spend 40 years fighting the battles of socialism in this province to see you people dismantle the kind of legislation that it took that long to build.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Address the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Oh, how long have I been in the province? What do you want me to do, go back to where I came from?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LEVI: Yes. Ohhh.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: Well, it looks like me and Bill Vander Zalm are in the same boat. Take it easy there, Bill. That's the kind of right-wing Genghis Khan thinking that goes on there: "How long have you been in the province? "

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, isn't that remarkable? I happened to arrive in the province the same month that the former Social Credit government came to power, and had 25 years in the province. Oh, what does that do - give me some kind of bona fide? You don't need "bona fides" if you've got some kind of powers to observe what goes on here. On the basis of how long I've been here and on the basis of what I understand took place, it took the best part of 70 years to get to some reasonable legislation. It was introduced in 1973 and 1975 and in less than two years, you've started to dismantle the only legislation that's recognized around the world as being reasonable legislation in terms of collective bargaining.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): On a point of order; this member has now been babbling for about 10 minutes and he has not yet addressed the bill under debate in this House. I wonder if he could possibly address himself to that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it is a valid point of order. We will ask the hon. member to please address the principle of the bill.

MR. LEVI: The principle of the bill? That's what I've been addressing myself to. Unfortunately, the minister hasn't read it, so he doesn't understand. He's convinced it's a progressive piece of legislation. My argument is that it's not a progressive piece of legislation. It's part of a plan that's going to take place in this province over the next few months, during which time you're going to dismantle the reasonable legislation in terms of collective bargaining. That's all it is; that's the principle. I don't have to agree with the principle that you tell me about essential services. The principle in this bill is to start you well down the road in terms of right-to-work legislation and don't ever fool yourself that that's not it.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Nonsense. Oh, nonsense! Well, when the minister gets up he will tell us exactly, Mr. Speaker, that the Essential Services Disputes Act is not right-to-work legislation. He will tell us, as the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) told us before, that yes, he made a mistake when he brought in a series of amendments under another Act and that he should consult people. Well, whom has he consulted about this legislation? We don't even know and we're not even sure whether he consulted the Premier. We're not even sure whether the Premier consulted the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. LEVI: We don't know anything about what went on back there, we don't even know for instance, if the minister, in his keenness to do good ... and this is the group that talks about the voluntary sector and they've popped over and had a word with the United Way people and said: "Look, we may have a few bucks coming our way because we're going to be taking it away from these workers - would you like it?"

Have you had a discussion? did you consult with the voluntary sector on that particular point? No, you didn't. You don't consult with anybody. You simply cook up some kind of bill which you think looks good. It's purely political. You bring it into the House and you say to the public, who already distrust you because you were not able to act in the kind of peremptory fashion that was needed a couple of

[ Page 5931 ]

weeks ago ... so you come in two weeks afterwards. Then, right in the middle of the delicate discussions that are going on in terms of the ferry workers, we have to deal with this, Mr. Speaker.

We know that the ferries are essential services. We know what this bill intends to do. This is the kind of thinking and planning that goes on, that we are told on a 48-hour notice: "Come over to Victoria. We have an urgent piece of legislation to deal with." So we wait and we wonder what we are going to get - a big hammer or a little hammer? We get this piece of legislation, which is a continuation of the theme of legislation that's been brought into this House since that group has been in power. It has nothing to do with making the labour relations climate of this province any better. It will only exacerbate the situation and they know it! But what they've had to do is come in at the last minute and try and save themselves because of all the desperate kind of criticism that they've been receiving.

Well, if that's the way you're going to legislate -and that's the way you've been legislating - then you are going to create in this province the kind of labour climate that will lead us to untold kind of chaos. You will have completely repudiated more than four years of reasonable effort to maintain peace.

Mr. Speaker, even though this deals with essential services, it is not going to create the kind of climate that they hope for because if they think that they are going to be able to send people back to work with threats, if they think that's the kind of climate the people are going to negotiate in and they're going to maintain some kind of stability, then they obviously have no idea at all about what the climate is like out the re.

In the midst of all this, when negotiations are going on, this is the kind of thing we're dealing with. When he sums up, the minister is going to have to be very frank with us about why it is he suddenly finds, right now, the need to come in with this piece of legislation which is lost in the fact that we have to talk about essential services, when he has it within existing legislation. If he wants to use it, then use it boldly. But no, the boldness comes afterwards. When they could have faced the issue, they didn't. Now, afterwards, when the damage is done, they're going to come in and do this.

We're into a very serious scene with this thing. This is not just a piddling piece of legislation that they've brought in to cover up their own political mistakes. There are inherent dangers in this bill for the future of the whole province in terms of its economics and in terms of its labour relations. That's what's serious about it. They should have no doubts about where we stand on this bill, no doubts whatsoever.

This is a piece of regressive legislation. It's in the same kind of spirit as the old Bill 33 and Bill 88 that that former Minister of Labour.... He knew what kind of trouble he got from that. It's the same kind of spirit, the same kind of reaction. No thought, just immediate reaction. The kind of trouble you got from Bill 88 and the trouble you got from Bill 33 -that's the kind of trouble you're going to get from Bill 92. It's of your making, not of the making of the trade union movement or the people out there. It's because of your inability to rule and your inability to understand when there's need for action.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: I find it incredible, Mr. Speaker, that every one of the members that gets up has no understanding whatsoever. This afternoon we had the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) tell us how many people over there have worked with their hands. That's the new criterion. You can't discuss labour unless you've worked with your hands. Over there there's another criterion. You have to be born in Canada, otherwise you can't discuss labour. I think we have to go beyond that kind of narrow-minded prejudice and really look at the kind of situation that that Minister of Labour and that Premier are getting us into, because those are the two key people.

They're getting us into a situation in this province that is going to create a greater degree of confrontation than we saw two weeks ago. Why? Because the secret agenda of that party is not only right-to-work legislation, but they are dying to send somebody back to work and if they have to create confrontation to do that, then they think they will be able to explain to people by saying: "At last we've shown you how able we are to do it."

That's the kind of thing that they've been building to. It's implicit in all of the legislation that you've brought in. So all of you have no doubts: we're not voting for this kind of legislation. We are not prepared to be part of confrontation and possible bloodshed in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Bloodshed!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the House willing to listen to further debate or shall I declare a recess?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs) ~ Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 92, and I do so thinking back over the often' tumultuous debate we've had on occasion today and some of the words which have been stated in this

[ Page 5932 ]

chamber, which I think are to be regretted. Most particularly - and I say it quite frankly - I refer to the closing words of the speaker who has just taken his place, with reference to something which will lead to "bloodshed" in the province. That sort of inflammatory view is just that. It is to be regretted and it does not help our efforts as a Legislative Assembly to serve the people who sent us here to do certain work, some of it easy and some of it very difficult.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now to the principle.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I expect the latitude, Mr. Speaker, which has been offered to other members,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we cannot continue to latitude the latitudes. Therefore somewhere along the line we must come back to the standing orders. I will seek to do that for you, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: When I'm through, Mr. Speaker.

I participate in the debate not only as a minister, but also as a representative of a constituency which was very vitally affected by the interruption of service just several days ago.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened quietly when the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) spoke today, Mr. Speaker, and I would expect a similar approach. I listened also this morning, and have had an opportunity to reread the statement made by the Minister of Labour in opening second reading.

Mr. Speaker, his job is not an easy one. No person carrying the portfolio of Minister of Labour in this province or indeed any other province has an easy job. It's one of the more difficult tasks in any cabinet. I have had for considerable time, and have still this evening, and expect to have for a long time to come, the very highest regard for the Minister of Labour. In this dispute and in others, I support him fully. As a colleague I have some knowledge of the many hours and the continuing consultation that he has had in this particularly difficult situation, and I restate my full support, not only for his bill but for his actions throughout the situation leading to our coming into this session.

Cry as they might and blather as they might ...

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): And twist. .

HON. MR. CURTIS: and twist, Mr. Minister of Finance, as they may, the situation with respect to the other side is that they tend to overlook that in the super-heated atmosphere which has existed in the province of British Columbia since the ferry service was interrupted on the day before Thanksgiving weekend, in a period of very widespread frustration, and public anger, and the demand for blood on the part of some citizens of British Columbia - blood in the context of punitive action - this Minister of Labour and this government have reacted calmly, carefully and with great consideration to produce Bill 92. There has been thoughtfulness, restraint and extreme care. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that in the atmosphere that has existed in these intervening days, a less responsible minister, a less responsible Premier or a less responsible government could well have found the excuse and could have seized the opportunity to introduce punitive legislation which, indeed, would have created the situation which our official opposition, those members opposite, would have us believe exists at this particular time.

I think also that it is worth reviewing quickly some of the very careful and thoughtful comments made by the Minister of Labour this morning. It seems a long time ago, but it was in fact just this morning. In speaking about the bill, he said: "It is complex; it is intricate." And then, I think in response to an interjection, he said: "it may even be cumbersome, but the complexity of the problems with which it must deal leaves us no alternative but to deal in this way." Then I heard him very clearly, and understood as one who has not had heavy involvement in the labour movement or the management movement, other than in municipal politics, say that there are no simple solutions to complex problems.

I continue to quote the minister this morning: "We recognize that. We wish there were. Therefore in this bill, which you must read most carefully, we have approached these complex problems attempting to provide fairly and equitably the opportunity to overcome those complex problems." So I congratulate the Minister of Labour.

As I said earlier, I make no apology to members for having some difficulty in fully understanding all the complexities and convolutions of labour-management relationships - relationships between the employer and the trade union. I say that frankly. But as an MLA for a part of southern Vancouver Island, the Saanich Peninsula and the southern Gulf Islands - Galiano, Mayne, the Penders, Saltspring, Saturna and the smaller islands - I know that there was extreme anger and frustration with respect to the sudden interruption of what they consider to be, and what I must identify, as an essential service. I know that the majority of our citizens throughout British Columbia experienced anger and disappointment. Some of it was directed towards the trade union and some was directed towards management. But what I do know, and what

[ Page 5933 ]

1 am able to say without hesitation, is that the citizens in my constituency cannot and will not tolerate management-trade union disputes which suddenly introduce a cessation of what they know to be an essential service.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of where we sit in this chamber, regardless of where we sit in the continuing controversy between trade unions and management, whether in the public sector of the private sector, with all the sincerity that I can muster - and I feel so very strongly about this issue - there must be a better way for both parties in order that the citizens never suffer in this way again.

I could cite for you, Mr. Speaker, very genuine hardship which was caused by the several days' interruption of the British Columbia ferry system -hardship, first of all, of citizens, because they rank, as far as I'm concerned, ahead of the union, ahead of management, ahead of government, ahead of the opposition. There was hardship for the citizens who suddenly found that a routine and casual shopping trip from one of the Gulf Islands to greater Victoria turned into a five-day wait, in terms of getting a truck or a vehicle back to a particular island; hardship for the small business people on those islands; hardship for employees in greater Victoria and elsewhere who were told by management that it was necessary that they be laid off for an indefinite period because of the interruption of service; hardship also - let's face it - for many ferry employees, a number of whom were in touch with me to say: "Something has to be done. We don't like the situation. Try and get us back to work." There was hardship for the community.

Mr. Speaker, there are those situations in British Columbia and in other provinces where the public interest, in the broadest, most readily understood sense, must come before the rights of an individual who is employed by the private sector or before the rights of someone who is assigned to management in the public sector. These people, management and union, in the public area are paid for by public funds. Our citizens deserve better, they expect better and they must receive better.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are those who will argue that transportation in some areas under certain conditions will be considered non-essential, and indeed some people in greater Victoria will admit that really the interruption of service for a few days by the British Columbia ferry system vessels didn't create a hardship for them, not in a direct sense at any rate. But that certainly cannot be said of many coastal residents, Gulf Island residents - Sunshine Coast residents, Mr. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) - and residents of Bowen Island, where there is no alternative form of transportation other than float aircraft and light floating craft which can only operate safely during daylight hours.

On those islands, Mr. Speaker, as we hear comments....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This is not a trio, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Let me remind the hon. member to please restrain himself. Please continue.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it was difficult for all British Columbia. Travel plans were frustrated; wedding anniversaries were interrupted; pay was lost by individuals who, I'm sure, would have preferred to continue working. But on the Gulf Islands, those islands served by British Columbia Ferries, virtually total isolation was experienced, again with the exception of private aircraft, charter planes and water taxis, which are only useful during daylight hours. There was total isolation, with dependence on almost any other means simply not open to them.

In these remarks I've tried to identify more from a constituency point of view than a ministerial point of view how I view the events - and these are not the only events - which have led to the introduction of Bill 92. 1 sympathize with those people who have been inconvenienced and I sympathize with those employees of the ferry service who found themselves not working when indeed they wanted to work.

Again, to paraphrase the Minister of Labour, no legislation put together by a group of individuals is perfect, and I don't think anyone pretends that Bill 92 is perfect. What it represents, as the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said in his very thoughtful comments earlier today, is that this moves us a little further along towards a situation where perhaps we can say: "We came back to Victoria. We participated in heated debate, but we produced legislation which will make this province just a little better place for all concerned in which to live." I have no hesitation in supporting the bill.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) suggested that the members of the opposition would have some trouble with this bill if we would choose to speak against it, and have some difficulty in deciding how to vote on the question. He went further and said that anyone opposing it would have to answer to his constituents for his voting that way in the course of this debate.

I'd like to reassure him that the members of the opposition will have no difficulty deciding how to vote. Personally, I would far rather explain to my constituents why I shall be voting the way I will vote on this bill than have to answer to some of my

[ Page 5934 ]

constituents for some of the things that that particular member will have to answer for to his constituents.

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

MR. STUPICH: With respect to the legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) did ask a question or two, and said these questions should be answered. Why, for example, are we dealing with this particular legislation at this particular time? Perhaps it's not exactly part of the principle of the bill - the question of the timing of this bill - except when you consider that the Premier did say something to the effect that we're dealing with it now because of the recent disputes that have been referred to many times during the course of this debate and no doubt will be referred to by every one who speaks.

But looking at the content of the bill itself and the points touched'on by the Minister of Labour in his very brief summary of the bill, I suppose that it does set up an agency; that it does tamper with the right to strike to come extent; that it does interfere somewhat with the operation of the Labour Relations Board.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult for us to imagine the opposition voting for legislation that will set up another government agency that would be appointed by this particular government, in light of its record of appointments to various government boards and agencies. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of their record of such appointments: the Land Commission, almost all of them, with one possible exception, replaced by active members of Social Credit, and that's all they had going for them in those appointments; regional college boards reappointed and filled with active Social Credit members, and that's all they had to recommend them; hospital boards not only appointing just Social Crediters but even dropping some who had been reappointed by the NDP and appointing more active members of Social Credit, and that's all they had going for them. Mr. Speaker, we are sure that this agency will be nothing other but a haven for some more Social Crediters to be appointed. We can have no faith in that kind of an organization that is an extremely essential part of the legislation before us, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is in order to be taking about the kind of' agency that this particular government will establish, because that is a serious part of the legislation and it is a serious question. We have certainly had no assurance at all from the members opposite that this will be anything other than the usual kind of agency appointed by this particular government in the almost two years it has been in office.

Mr. Speaker, why it is necessary at this particular point in time to tamper with the Labour Relations Board? I think that is a question that should be answered. The Labour Relations Board seems to have been accepted, seems to have been looked on favourably by labour, by management and even by this government. The Labour Relations Act was passed by the New Democratic Party government and the Labour Relations Board has been credited with the relative peace of labour-management negotiations in this province in the past year or year and a half. Even the government has been proud of the record; even the government has said that in part it is due to the legislation passed by the previous administration and to the work of this Labour Relations Board. Why, then, Mr. Speaker, at this particular point in time are we called back in a special sitting to deal with legislation that does little more than tinker with the right to strike, set up a new Social Credit-appointed agency and also tamper with the authority of the Labour Relations Board? Why at this particular point in time? I think that question should be answered.

Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to the ferry dispute. The hon. member from Saanich, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , made some reference to that, as a member representing an island constituency - not only Vancouver Island but part of the Gulf Islands as well - and as a member representing an island constituency, I, too, knew, from personal knowledge and from my constituents, the effects of that unfortunate dispute.

I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there was not a cessation of ferry operations simply because the workers did not want to work. There was a cessation because of a breakdown in meaningful negotiations between the Ferry Corporation and the ferry workers, and both parties have to take some responsibility for that. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can't stand back and say it was all the workers' fault, just as the workers can't say that all of the fault was on the other side. There has to be some weighing of a collective responsibility, but certainly there was a responsibility on the part of the Ferry Corporation to enter into and continue meaningful negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious from the record of this particular union. Some unions have a reputation, whether deserved or not, of using almost any excuse to embark on wildcat strikes or illegal or legal strikes or whatever. This particular union doesn't have that kind of record, Mr. Speaker. This particular union doesn't have the kind of record that would lead one to suspect that they were ready to stop work on a moment's notice on almost any issue. Mr. Speaker, they must have been terribly frustrated to have come to the point where they had to

[ Page 5935 ]

withdraw their services completely.

Mr. Speaker, the cessation of ferry operations was not just the responsibility of the ferry workers. That's the point I'm trying to make. Mr. Speaker, the failure of the ferries to continue operating was not a failure on the part of the Labour Relations Board, yet this legislation now before us tinkers with the responsibilities and the abilities of the Labour Relations Board to operate in the way it thinks that it should be operating in the interests of the people of this province. It does tamper with those powers and with those responsibilities, and yet it was not the Labour Relations Board that failed the people of British Columbia; it was the Ferry Corporation. It was this government, if you like, but not the Labour Relations Board itself. Mr. Speaker, it was the Labour Relations Board that got the ferries moving again.

The hon. Minister of Labour would lead us to believe that he didn't know of the negotiations that were going on or about agreements that were made by ferry workers, as I heard the questions that were asked in the House yesterday and as I read the answers to those questions and as I read what went on today. As an hon. member we have to take his word; we have to accept that he is telling the truth when he tells us that he doesn't know that some agreement was being reached.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Read the questions and answers.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has invited me to read the questions and the answers, and I'm quite prepared to do that. Yesterday one of the first questions asked was: "My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. I'm wondering if, as part of the agreement of the ferry workers before returning to work, there was an understanding between you, officials or your ministry and/or the Labour Relations Board that there would be no prosecutions against the ferry workers?" The hon. Minister of Labour answered: "No." There was no understanding. Mr. Speaker, documents were tabled in the House that same day showing that there was an understanding. We can only assume that the Ministry of Labour didn't know.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not true.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to read from the documents that were tabled yesterday.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, HON. member. Just before you continue, these matters which you're canvassing now might be better covered under question period, and questions directed to the minister might be better handled in the committee stage. I trust you will relate your remarks to second reading of Bill 92.

MR. STUPICH: Certainly I will, Mr. Speaker, because I think almost everyone speaking in this debate, including the Minister of Labour, has referred to the recent ferry dispute. The Premier, before the House met, when he announced that the House would be meeting to deal with this legislation, said that while it was not necessarily related to the ferry workers' dispute, certainly that was part of the reason for the timing of introducing this legislation. So I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the ferry workers' dispute and the results of it are very germane to the discussion that is going on today.

I believe that the Minister of Labour would like an opportunity in winding up debate on this to comment on some of the points that are being made in the debate including his conduct, the conduct of people under his authority....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I will not.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, he says he will not. I would think he would want to, but in any case he has said that it is not true that there was an agreement reached; that the documents tabled in the House yesterday did not show that agreement had been reached.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not the question that was asked and it wasn't the answer that was given. Now read it again, if you can understand plain English.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the interruptions, I'd get through my remarks much more quickly. I'll draw my conclusions from the questions, and, as I say, if the minister chooses not to comment on them that's his right. But I think that reading these questions and reading these answers, one has to come to the conclusion that an agreement was reached; an agreement that there would be no reprisals; an agreement that Mr. McKee would be the mediator. These agreements were reached.

One also has to accept that the minister didn't know about any of these agreements. One also has to recognize that all of these people - the Labour Relations Board, people in his ministry who might have been involved, and the B.C. Ferry Corporation -would have wanted to talk with the Minister of Labour and government ministers about what was going on. So if the minister didn't know about it and if the Premier insists he didn't know about it, one can only assume then that the Minister of Labour and all the rest of the ministers involved in this in any way at all had asked that they not be informed about what was going on.

Everyone in the province knew that something was

[ Page 5936 ]

going on. If they didn't know the details, it could only have been because they had asked that they not be told what the details were. 'they wanted to be ignorant of everything that was going on so that they could dissociate themselves from anything that had happened during the course of these discussions. I find that just a little hard to accept, Mr. Speaker, but it would seem to be the only explanation of the only people in the province who didn't know that an agreement had been reached.

The only people in the whole province who didn't know that this was going on seemed to be the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the Premier, because they're the only ones in the whole province who have said that they didn't know that such an agreement had been worked out and didn't know the details of that agreement. Everyone else knew it. Everyone else in the province knew that this was going on, but not the Minister of Labour, the Premier and the Minister of Transport and Communications. That could only have been if they had asked that they not be informed. There's no other way that they could have been so completely uninformed in light of the knowledge that was going around in the province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Is that the way you handled the LRB when you were in government?

MR. STUPICH: Why this attack on the Labour Relations Board at this time, a Labour Relations Board that did get the ferries operating I think there's no way out of that; a Labour Relations Board that has kept the ferries operating in spite of the ministers of this government denying that there was any agreement reached?

Now that must have been provocation. I'm surprised that the ferry workers kept operating in the face of that provocation on the part of this government. But they did, and it could only have been because of the work of the Labour Relations Board. They shouldn't be attacked by this legislation. Their powers shouldn't be curtailed in this legislation. If anything, they should be strengthened and given more responsibility, because they're the one organization that does seem to be clean in this particular dispute. Certainly the ministers of the government are not.

Mr. Speaker, there's perhaps something even more serious that has come out in this discussion. I think it's germane to this whole question as well. Since question period yesterday and question period today, and the discussions that have gone on have been all part of this special sitting of the Legislature that was, according to the Premier, called to deal only with this one piece of legislation - a piece of legislation, as I said earlier, that simply tampers with the right to strike, sets up a new Social Credit agency and also interferes with the Labour Relations Board....

But there's something else. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that there was agreement reached. That's obvious. The whole community, except for those three ministers, knows that an agreement was reached. But the Premier has said that even if such an agreement was reached - and I can read this out of the Blues too, if required, Mr. Speaker - "no government should ever inhibit its ability to act on behalf of the people of the province, " and, if I may add parenthetically, as it sees fit. No government should ever be in a position where any of its agencies makes an agreement with anyone for any purpose, an agreement that the cabinet cannot review, reconsider or cancel if it so chooses, if it believes it to be in the interest of the people.

Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt but that some levels of the ministry were involved in this agreement that everybody knows about except those three ministers. Yet this government is even dissociating itself from an agreement in which the Ministry of Labour was involved.

Mr. Speaker, what faith can anyone have in the Labour Relations Board in future labour-management negotiations if they know that any agreement reached with the Labour Relations Board may be reviewed, reconsidered and cancelled by this cabinet if it thinks it to be in the interest of the public or in the interest of its own political survival? What faith can anyone have in anything that the Labour Relations Board does after this unless they actually have a minister -maybe not even all the ministers - sitting in the room while that is being hammered out, and they have the word of the minister that he has the support of the cabinet? What faith can anyone have not only in the Labour Relations Board but also in all of the other government agencies and Crown corporations that enter into agreements if the Premier is speaking for the government when he says that no government should ever inhibit its ability to act on the people of the province? He said that in response to a question as to whether or not the government was prepared to accept an agreement that had been entered into by one of its agencies.

Mr. Speaker, it's a pretty sorry day for the people of British Columbia when the Premier stands up and says that he and his government reserve the right to review, to reconsider and to cancel any agreement -not just an agreement the Labour Relations Board makes, but any agreement that any Crown corporation or Crown agency makes - if it considers it advisable to do so.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Economic Development wants to get into this debate without rising to his feet. I suggest to him that if he

[ Page 5937 ]

really wants to tell us something, we would like to hear from him something about his European tour, with particular reference to Beal's Letter when they suggested that he and his staff could not understand the issues that were being discussed in Europe and couldn't discuss them intelligently, or words to that effect. Now perhaps we'd like to hear that kind of a statement from the minister, if he wants to explain his side of it. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to talk to him, but....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the remarks you've just made are completely irrelevant to second reading of Bill 92. 1 find it very difficult to....

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I just remind you that almost everyone speaking from this side of the House has had some difficulty with the Minister of Economic Development speaking from his chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate that the Chair has allowed quite a lot of tolerance in this particular debate.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, and it doesn't seem to affect him one little bit, Mr. Speaker - he goes on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has struggled to maintain order.

MR. STUPICH: I know you're having a difficult time, and perhaps if he would go back to Europe the House would get along much better with its business.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I think I've made my point. I've raised the credibility of everything that the government does through any of its agencies or Crown corporations, and I would invite the Minister of Labour to try to reassure us that while the government has dissociated itself from this particular agreement that was arrived at in discussion with the Ferry Corporation, which is a Crown corporation, arrived at in discussion with the Labour Relations Board, which is a government agency, arrived at in discussions with members of the Ministry of Labour, and that in spite of the government saying, "We don't buy that. We're not prepared to live up to that agreement, " this is the only time that they will use that particular power and that from hereon in if their Labour Relations Board does make an agreement, the government will stand behind it, and that if any other Crown agency or Crown corporation does make an agreement, the government will stand behind it and will try to accept that at its face value, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 92, the Essential Services Disputes Act. I believe it is obvious to all thinking people in this province, as it is I'm sure to all the hon. members in this House, that illegal actions cannot and must not be tolerated by any responsible government. While I welcome this Act as a means to remedy some of the problems that have been with us for a number of years, I deplore the fact that it has become necessary.

I want to add my congratulations to the minister for bringing in a bill that, while protecting the interests of the public, is at the same time both fair and equitable to the employers and the employees in this province.

In my discussions with the people in my constituency, and particularly those working in the public sector, it is obvious they recognize and accept their responsibilities to the citizens of this-province. They recognize that illegal strikes - and indeed all strikes and lockouts that harm the safety, health and the economy and well-being of the people , ~f this province - in turn must surely eventually affect them also.

One can only assume that on too many occasions parties engaged in labour disputes have accepted bad advice from their leaders. I support this legislation because it will, I believe, bring about greater accountability. It will force individuals who advise their members to flout the law to accept some of the consequences for this bad advice.

This Act provides for automatic penalties to be imposed. Under section 9 (4) , it says: "Where an employer or an employee, without lawful excuse, fails or refuses to comply with an order made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or an order of the Labour Relations Board in a matter arising under section 8.... It goes on to say what the penalties will be in the case of an employer. An employer "shall" -and it's not something that "may" be imposed - "in addition to the wages that he is required to pay to his employees, pay an amount equal to the wages of all h i s e m p I o y e e s affected b y t h e non-compliance . . ." into a fund which can be used for charitable purposes.

The same penalty is imposed on the employee. The employee not only loses the wages that he would have normally earned when he was out on an illegal strike, but he must also pay into that same fund an amount equal to the wages that he lost.

All too often, there has been the complete absolution of any penalties, and one can only assume that this has encouraged illegal actions. Under this bill, illegal actions will carry automatic consequences. That is as it should be if we are to survive as a free people.

I am sure no one will dispute that the safety and economy of this province must not be allowed to be destroyed by a few people or groups who feel they

[ Page 5938 ]

have certain rights that are above the rights of their fellow man. The hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) said it most clearly: "The rights of the individual do not take precedence over their responsibilities to provide the services they have agreed to perform, services which the people of this province consider to be essential."

The government, and particularly the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , has been spectacularly successful in rebuilding the tourist industry on Vancouver Island and in the whole province. The success has been so great that the tourist industry could become second only to the forest industry in this province this year. All this hard work, all the investment and the jobs associated with this industry on Vancouver Island, have been put in jeopardy. It could take months or even years to overcome the economic effects caused by the suspension of the ferry services for just a very few days earlier on this month. The people of Vancouver Island surely are entitled to know that a service so essential to their welfare will not be discontinued again in the future. The government has a responsibility to make sure that no part of this province suffers great economic hardship and deprivation because of illegal acts by labour or management.

The acceptance of this principle relating to government's responsibility has been enunciated previously. I would just like to remind the House of what happened during 1975. As outlined in the Province on November 29,1975, during an interview the then Premier of the province, Mr. Barrett, said: " 'There are times when strikes and lockouts spill over to the detriment of the total community.' He believes: 'Government must act under such circumstances.' " This government is acting under such circumstances.

In that same month, on November 5,1975, the then Minister of Labour was being interviewed.

"Many labour leaders in the province feel they aren't doing their job unless they take their members out on strike, Labour Minister William King said here Wednesday. 'Some labour leaders feel they have to make the most militant decision and not the most responsible decision, ' the minister added. 'Strikes which can have a major effect on the province or on local communities, as well as hurting workers on the picket lines, should only be used as the last resort, ' the minister said." So there is a great deal of support on both sides of this House, Mr. Speaker, for the actions or the philosophies that are expressed in this bill.

Surprisingly enough, the NDP have said they will not support this legislation, yet they have found nothing wrong with it. In fact, there have been times during this debate when it has been extremely difficult to tell just which side of the fence they were coming down on. The only clear statement that has been made by the official opposition is that they are against this bill, but the reasons are still unclear.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it is imperative that we find a solution to illegal actions by a few people. We must protect the innocent victims who can lose their jobs and in some cases can be forced into bankruptcy. The innocent victims - those who lose their jobs or go into bankruptcy - are often far removed from the scene of the action. We all know what can happen if B.C. Rail goes out on strike. People hundreds of miles away from that railway can be affected to their detriment. The same thing can happen with B.C. Ferries and has happened with B.C. Ferries. People who do not normally consider their well-being associated with the running of the B.C. Ferries found out to their sorrow that they were being affected.

Mr. Speaker, in opening prayers yesterday at 4 p.m. we prayed for guidance to enable us to serve the needs of all the people of this province. I believe this legislation will do just that and I'm most happy to support it.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, twice in debate during this bill we've heard members of the Social Credit say that if it comes to a choice between the rights and the freedoms of individuals as opposed to the rights and freedoms of society, then the rights of individuals, the freedoms of individuals must take second place. Mr. Speaker, society has no freedom, society has no rights when individuals in that society have their rights and freedoms taken away. That is a fundamental principle of democracy. So we see, Mr. Speaker, that they don't even understand the basic, fundamental principles of democracy.

We hear a Minister of Labour stand and talk about a government that wants to be fair and equitable with workers. After he finishes speaking, Social Credit member after Social Credit member stands in his place and says the only regret is that this bill does not extend into the private sector and outlaw strikes altogether.

Oh, they touched it, Mr. Speaker, like the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , but that's what they really believe in their hearts of hearts. And did you notice, Mr. Speaker, that every time they talked about labour and strikes, they said: ". . . and management and lockouts, " almost like it has been rehearsed? Don't talk about labour and strikes unless in the same breath you mention management and lockouts.

We heard the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , in addressing himself to this bill, talk about thugs and the undesirables in the labour movement and in management, and name none. That member should have named those thugs in labour and management

[ Page 5939 ]

that he referred to.

MR. LAUK: He's shy.

MR. LEA: Maybe he's shy and maybe he didn't know what he was talking about.

MR. LAUK: Oh, could be.

MR. LEA: Could be. Mr. Speaker, rights and freedoms of individuals and society are seldom taken with one fell swoop; they're taken gradually, a step at a time, a piece at a time. Why have most governments who've taken away freedoms and rights said they had to do it? The only reason I've ever heard was the ~same reason that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) talked about today. He talked about rights and freedoms having to go because of the economy. Then speaker after speaker picked that up and said that when it comes to a tough economy, rights and freedoms must take second place. A bottomline government deals with human emotions, relationships between human beings, whether it's individually or in groups, only in terms of bucks, only in terms of dollars.

Then they would have us believe that we were called back to an emergency session.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. LEA: The Premier said that.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Nobody said that.

MR. LEA: The Premier said that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: You're right - nobody said it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: Prior to opening this debate, there were questions of the Minister of Labour, asking whether, during the course of affairs leading up to this legislation, he had any knowledge of any agreement or any understanding in what had happened in the negotiations between the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the employees of that corporation and the Labour Relations Board and the Ministry of Labour. He said he had no awareness of any detail of any negotiation.

What an admission, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Labour to make! What an admission for the Minister of Labour, to stand up in this House and say that he had no knowledge of negotiations or agreements of understanding in what they now tell us is one of the most important pieces of legislation in

B.C., because we had to be called back to discuss it. Two weeks ago he had no interest in this dispute. He didn't even have enough interest to say to his own people in his department: "Can you keep me informed? Can you tell me what's going on, because the government would like to know?" By his own admission, he didn't do that. Or if he did do that, they refused to tell him. It seems hard to believe that the minister would take that for an answer.

So what we are to believe, if we are to believe the minister, is that he failed to do his job. Why would a minister say to the public, "I failed to do my job."? Why would he make that admission?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I trust you will relate these remarks to second reading of Bill 92.

MR. LEA: I have not yet done it, but I will take your advice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, leading up to this legislation were a Minister of Labour who didn't even bother himself to find out the details, and a Premier who comes back to the province and makes statements. He is shown and told the details by a reporter, but he refuses to listen and refuses to read.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Can you believe, fellow members, that the Minister of Labour would want to come in this House and admit that he didn't do his job and didn't even try? Would you believe that the Premier would come into this House and say that he did the same, that he didn't want to be apprised by the Minister of Labour as to what was going on? Did the Premier phone the Minister of Labour and say, "Listen, what's going on?" And the Minister of Labour said to him, "I'm sorry, Mr. Premier, but I haven't asked and I'm not going to." Are we going to believe that, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Please don't tell me.

MR. LEA: Are we going to believe that? Or are we going to believe the other side of the story that we're getting from labour? It makes more sense that the minister and his department would be involved in those negotiations; and if not involved, at least informed as to what's going on. We ~could expect that. Any reasonable, thinking person would believe that the Minister of Labour and the Premier had asked to be, had demanded to be and were, indeed, kept informed as to what was going on. Yet they'll come in this House and say, "We weren't." They come in and admit that they're incompetent.

[ Page 5940 ]

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, do they seem the kind of people to you who would gladly admit they're incompetent unless they had some other reason to say it? I don't think so. So all we can do if we tend to think that story doesn't quite hang together is go to the other side and listen to them. What do they say? They say, "Yes, we talked with the Deputy Minister of Labour and the Deputy Minister of Labour knew what was going on. The Deputy Minister of Labour indeed took part in trying to settle a very difficult dispute, according to the spokesman for labour. They commended him for it and so do we. But the only people who won't even admit it, never mind commend it, are the Premier, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. The Minister of Transport, of course, sits on the same board that was part of the agreement.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: Whenever you're dealing with legislation such as this that takes a little bit, and then a little bit more, you'll find that in legislatures throughout this world, there are people who speak up and say, "A little bit is too much."

In 1933 it happened in Germany. It happened there when Hitler brought in his first piece of totalitarian legislation. What happened there? They had four parties in the House: they had Hitler's party, the National Socialist Party; they had the two centre parties, called the Liberals and Conservatives here; and they had the Social Democrats. When that vote took place, only the Social Democrats voted against Hitler. The Liberals and Conservatives voted with Hitler and voluntarily disbanded. The only difference is that they did it before the vote. They disbanded and joined before the vote. They're part of it now; they're part of the whole thing.

The Minister of Labour says he wants us to believe that he's so incompetent that he didn't even pay attention t o one of the more delicate labour-management negotiations going on in this province for some time. He would come in and beg us to believe that he's incompetent.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Well, we know one thing: he's either incompetent or the other story makes a lot more sense - that he knew all the time.

Then, Mr. Speaker, leading up to this legislation, we had a cry from some segments of the community, saying: "We want reprisals."

AN HON. MEMBER: Union bashing!

MR. LEA: People who are the true constituents of that government and that party were standing up in this province, saying: "We are ashamed of our government because they were wishy-washy and soft." Then lo and behold, we're called in to deal with legislation that everybody, including their own true constituents, thought was going to be heavy-handed and hard. We know as well as members of that , government that this isn't the most devastating legislation to ever come out of that government and that party. But what we do know is that it's another little step in erosion of freedoms and rights of the individual. As I said, when those freedoms and rights of individuals are invaded, we all have our freedoms and rights eroded.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Who wrote your speech?

MR. LEA: Dan Campbell. (Laughter.) His grey eminence met me in the hall and handed me the speech.

Mr. Speaker, where are those freedom -fighters like the Attorney-General? Where are they? Where is the member for Victoria who is now the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) ? Is he going to take his place? His campaign promise was to make the ferries run on time. That was his promise.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Our own Benito. Benito Bawlf.

MR. LEA: And he hasn't even spoken. But I'm sure he will yet. He's going to speak. The Minister of Recreation and Conservation says he's going to take his place in this debate. Is that correct? That is correct.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are called back into this Legislature to deal with a piece of legislation that is not all-powerful. It isn't a piece of legislation that's going to destroy the labour movement. It will help, but it isn't that kind of legislation. It's the kind of legislation that the Social Credit, if they had wanted to bring in, could very well have waited till spring and the spring session. But they chose not to. They chose to bring the Legislature back to deal with a piece of legislation that isn't that all-powerful, that isn't that damaging. It's just distasteful, because it corrodes the individual rights of people in this province.

So we have to ask ourselves why we are dealing with this legislation, Mr. Speaker, at this particular time. We have to ask that because what we have is a panic-stricken government and a panic-stricken leader of that government, the Premier, is on his way to the

[ Page 5941 ]

leadership podium very soon in a Social Credit convention. He is going to have the political hounds yapping and snapping at his heels and he wanted to prove he was a leader. And then he didn't even bring in a piece of legislation that would satisfy the blood thirst of those right-wingers in his own party. He didn't even do that because he thought: "How can I satisfy them? I'll pretend to go to the Legislature and take a firm stand, and it won't be so bad that it will cheese off labour that much."

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is nothing more or nothing less than a political ploy to shore up the fortunes of a sagging leader - nothing more, nothing less.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member show how this relates to the principle of the bill?

MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a Premier and a Minister of Labour gleefully walk into the Legislature and beg us to believe that they're incompetent jerks. They beg us to believe it! Why? They beg us to believe that they're incompetent jerks and we have to wonder why they beg us. They beg us because this is a political move.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! I must ask the hon. member to retract the word "jerks." It is offensive to the House. It's intemperate; it's inflammatory; it's provocative. Please withdraw it.

MR. LEA: I withdraw the word "jerks."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for withdrawing. Please proceed.

MR. LEA: It's hard to believe why they would do it. We can only assume that they did it because to admit otherwise, which would be the truth, would be politically devastating. The Premier couldn't recall that the reporter had spoken to him when asked in question period. But then the next day he thought better, and apologized for his inadvertent, well-thought-out answer. A shame.

Mr. Speaker, the best thing that's come out of this bill is that the Premier cannot go to the province on a phony issue in an election. That's the best thing that's come out of this bill, because they have put the economy in this province to the lowest depth it's ever been. And when they look at 1978 in bringing in a budget, and when they look at 1979, this bill looked good because they thought the labour movement would act irresponsibly, and they won't. They thought the opposition would act irresponsibly, and we won't. Now they're stuck with egg all over their face trying to explain why they brought in a piece of legislation that would normally have been brought in during a regular session, because there is no emergency. They say that now, but the Premier said before there was an emergency. He called it an "emergency session."

So all we have, in reality, in this bill - because most of it is just a restatement of the Labour Code -and the only thing this bill has brought about is two ministers of the Crown admitting that they're incompetent. We're glad to do it, because if we don't believe they're incompetent we have to believe the Federation of Labour in that they are just a little more than incompetent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. May I remind the member again that May provides in debate on stages of a bill that the debate should be confined to the bill and is not to be extended to criticism of the administration. It also does not make the debate relevant to the principle of the bill just to say:"This bill, this bill, this bill." You must address yourself to the principle of the bill, and I warn you. Please proceed.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to point out to the Legislature is that any piece of legislation should be discussed in its entirety, and the motivations behind a piece of legislation should also be questioned, whether they be good motivations or bad motivations.

Mr. Speaker, you must wonder yourself why we were called back to discuss a piece of legislation that could obviously have waited until spring. But can the government wait until spring, or do they need to go now? We're ready. All day long, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been running up and down the halls without the benefit of his jogging uniform, rattling his papers, saying: "If you guys want an election, you can have it." The only thing he lacks is the intestinal fortitude to call it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, this has nothing to do with the principle of the bill.

MR. LEA: I believe it has, because that's why he said he'd call the election. Mr. Speaker, we have before us in this House a piece of legislation that the labour movement does not like and that we do not like, but it is not a piece of legislation that that government is going to use as an excuse to go to the people, as they wanted. It is not going to be that kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when we go to the electorate, when

[ Page 5942 ]

he calls that election, we'll be going on the economy of this province and their failure to provide jobs in this province. That will be the reason. I don't care what kind of a reason he gives, that will be the issue. That will be the issue, not this phony piece of legislation that was brought in here for political purposes. That is the only reason that legislation was brought in - to further the cause of their political fortunes - and it failed.

But the legislation is not all bad, because at least we had two ministers admit their complete and utter incompetence, and they were glad to do it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) wishes to make a speech, let him stand in his place - uncovered, I might add!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I want to make a speech, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of the interruptions I didn't think I was ever going to have the opportunity to hear my own speech. I might add that after that last dissertation, mine is going to sound good.

I'd comment on the comments made by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , but obviously, from the dialogue that took place and the remarks of the Speaker, he was not only totally out of order, and thus I would be totally out of order, but his remarks were so self-incriminating that one can only conclude, on the basis of his speech, that his incompetence in opposition is exceeded only by his incompetence when he was a minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now to the principle of Bill 92, please.

MRS. JORDAN: His legacy to this province was a $100 million pothole.

Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the speech he just gave and the election he called for, I think we'd be wise to go to an election tomorrow. We'd win hands down.

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of the Essential Services Dispute Act, Bill 92, 1 would like to suggest that it is an Act which is innovative in some areas. It's an Act of clarification and consolidation in other areas. Certainly it's a complex Act, Mr. Speaker, because it has to deal with a very complex subject and a very complex set of situations involving many people. But it's an Act in which the principle says without doubt that the public interest will be served, and thus the interest of involved parties on either side, if there should be a side, will be served.

In addressing the principle, I must also include my view that the current Minister of Labour has earned the respect of not only his colleagues in this government, but of the public, the people of this province. There's no doubt that he has won the silent, if not vocal, support of many union leaders in this province. Certainly he has won the respect of thousands of union members of this province, and they are the most important. I suspect if you were to catch them in the closet, you might even find that many of the opposition members would grudgingly admit that he has proven a thoughtful, fair and yet courageous minister, and he certainly has the support of the MLA for North Okanagan, of this House, and of the majority of the public of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my observation that many of the union members of this province have deep concerns which they feel difficulty in expressing. They've talked to, I'm sure, not only members on this side of the House as well as myself but members of the opposition, and they want to stress that they feel and will continue to feel great loyalty to their own unions. But many of them feel a great need for more freedom to express themselves within their own unions. They want to have more say in what the union is doing, what positions are being taken by their leaders, and they want to have more information about the matters which they are to consider and upon which they are to vote. They want, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, to feel freer to vote as they wish and as their consciences dictate, not to vote with the feeling of pressure from their peers, not to vote with any feeling ~hat censorship might be applied should they take a position other than what has been asked for by their leaders of some of their leaders.

But mostly, Mr. Speaker, they tell me that even when they're involved in a strike, and certainly at other times, there must be another way. They want to avoid lockouts, they want to avoid strikes, they want to be part of a more responsible and reasonable approach to settlements. They recognize that settlements in this province must be within the confines of what the public, their employers - be it in the private sector or the public sector - and the economy of this province can live with.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, while not perfect, certainly still untried, does make a definite effort to provide an avenue, not always new but certainly not now existing, that is open, understandably, on the table, if you will. It is legislation through which we can make a positive approach to help both parties when they find themselves locked in conflict.

We can help both parties from that very dangerous situation in which the matter of saving face becomes

[ Page 5943 ]

a crucial issue. This type of a provision hasn't been available before in British Columbia in the private sector but it'will be after this legislation is passed.

Mr. Speaker, there are many workers in this province who are part of the public who share a deep concern about the future of this province and who share a deep concern about the economic stability in this province and how that future will relate to the stability and the security of their own families' future. They are deeply concerned that a few who have achieved shotgun powers can hold the public up for unreasonable sums or what is commonly called ransom. They are concerned that because of a growing thought that the courts cannot make their decisions effective, as we saw in Quebec, there are a few who could rule without accountability and bring about a situation of lawlessness in this province.

The public are concerned that a few could intimidate governments, such as we tend to see in the air traffic controllers' strike, and prevent them from taking positive action in the public interest, and that those few could threaten to wage all-out war, whatever all-out war is, on the people of British Columbia if their way is interfered with, Mr. Speaker - not that equity should be applied, but that if their interpretation of equity or their interpretation of what is right should be interfered with. The public are concerned that these actions of a few could lead to the economic destruction of this province, and that a few could so defy the law and set such an example that they could render our system of justice certainly ineffective, if not to a large degree powerless, especially if that is in the area where our justice system finds itself only able to see its judicial decisions carried out when they involve individuals.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation can well be a model in itself for other sectors of the economy and other jurisdictions. This government is prepared to act fairly and to act openly, but indeed it is prepared to act. We will not hide behind closed doors; we will not hide behind nebulous orders; we will put the legislation on the table for all to see and all to understand. We will see that the best interests of the majority and the majority's wishes will prevail in this province.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if one was an observer in this province from Uganda, or maybe from Italy, or maybe from Russia, or maybe from some other underprivileged part of this world, if they wouldn't find rather unique a situation where we see in one of the world's richest economies, in an area that enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world, one of the highest standards of....

MR. LAUK: Not any more.

MRS. JORDAN: Your income isn't bad, mister; neither are the pie cutters' incomes on the ferry.

We have one of the highest standards of social services; the highest standard of pure social luxury, from snowmobiles to Hawaiian holidays to new suits to liquor. They are enjoyed by more people of this society than in any other part of the world. They might wonder if it isn't a unique situation in an area where more people of the general public enjoy shorter work hours; safer working conditions; the most extensive fringe benefits; generous pensions at an age earlier than in almost any other jurisdiction in the world; and one of the highest overall standards of education in its labour force. Wouldn't they find it unique that in this situation they would have to witness irresponsible leaders calling for illegal strikes; calling for lawlessness to protect their rights; suggesting that they are deprived workers; and suggesting that unless their view is implemented, they will wage war? Surely, Mr. Speaker, this must be unique.

There must be a lesson in it - that these high standards, this tremendous great freedom that we enjoy, whether it is in our labour-management relations, in our voting, in our right to speak or in our incomes, have not brought a happier situation to some of these people. It must be unique to see a situation where a responsible labour leader in this province stood before the public in British Columbia, through one of the most powerful influences in our life, the media, before the parents and the children of this province, and said: "Yes, our strike was illegal. We know it was illegal, but regardless of the settlement we get, if any attempt is made to implement the legal penalties of the law for our illegal actions, we will strike again." Shocking, Mr. Speaker!

What sort of an example is this for the young people of this province? What sort of an example is this for any of us in this province? I suggest that the public of British Columbia, while they may tolerate such statements, will not tolerate such illegal actions, whether this is carried out individually or collectively. They do not want to see in British Columbia that principles which are applied by the law to an individual, whether in the criminal sense or the civil sense, could not be applied in the group situation.

Society cannot accept the principle that there is safety in numbers to break the law; that there is insecurity in individuals breaking the law. Those statements are an insult to the benefits that have been won through a collective bargaining system in British Columbia that has been free. Most recognize that the powers enjoyed by the unions in British Columbia have been largely won through an honourable system, through responsible actions - through much thought and much heartache, but always through legal actions. I would suggest that the illegal actions of a few of the well off and the radical and irresponsible statements advocating lawlessness by a few very strong and well-known leaders are not only an

[ Page 5944 ]

embarrassment to the other, responsible union leaders in this province, but an embarrassment to the thousands and thousands of responsible union members of this province.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a threat to the free collective bargaining process, if there is a threat to the powers enjoyed by the union management sphere, then it is the irresponsible statements of the few who are involved and who enjoy that power. I would suggest that the majority of labour and management wish to see what this legislation can help provide, and that is settlements that are within the capability of our economy to stand and bear and produce, and that are achieved through legal actions by both management and by unions. I certainly would include management, because I believe that lockouts are equally as offensive to all as are strikes at this time.

I would doubt, in considering the principles of this bill and what we hope to achieve through this legislation, that the aims and objectives of most working people in this province greatly differ. Whether these people are in the private sector or the public sector, whether people are in the position of being management in unions or management in industry, most people want an interesting type of job. They want safety in the work place; they want job security; they want a good day's pay for a good day's work; they want reasonable fringe benefits, a fair pension plan and holidays. Management, as can be provided through the principle of this legislation, basically wish the same, but you must add for them a fair return on their investment, compensation for the risk that they take, the right of management or an owner to run his business in a responsible manner, and the right for management to select from among their employees the best people for the job.

When each party meets that responsibility in the private sector, the economy and the success of the business, and the workers within that business impose their own guidelines. If the workers demand too much of a company; if their productivity falls behind; if management is not competent, is not imaginative or demands too much from its own business in its own fringe benefits, then the business fails or the business moves to other jurisdictions, as happened in British Columbia in 1973 and on. But if both parties meet their responsibilities, then the company prospers, the workers prosper, the economy prospers and the people benefit, not only economically but from the freedoms they can enjoy in a healthy economy and from the benefits that the tax revenues of a healthy economy can bring by way of social services.

But, Mr. Speaker, if either side breaks that fine balance and they upset the balance, the vicious circle begins. The cost of production rises; people haven't got the money to buy it; the product becomes uncompetitive in outside markets; the business fails; unemployment rises; instability evolves; and a lack of confidence develops. We saw this happen in British Columbia. We saw it brought about to a very great extent by the members of this opposition who tonight oppose this very strong, dedicated and imaginative effort to take a step to bring management-labour harmony in British Columbia in the public sector.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a considerable change in the attitude of the people in this province over the last year. Cool heads have begun to prevail in the private sector. In the private sector, many workers are striving to improve their productivity. Many union leaders in the private sector are listening to their members because they know the consequences of excessive demands. We have seen, Mr. Speaker, many successful contracts negotiated without work stoppages in the private sector and without loss of productivity in this last year. These people should be commended.

But it isn't notable, Mr. Speaker, or marked by words; it's marked by the attitude of people in this province. The growing increase in the number of jobs available is coming from a growing confidence in the economy. People are becoming more confident of investing their own money in British Columbia and they are beginning to feel more secure and happier.

But what of the public sector, Mr. Speaker? Traditionally the guideline for wage settlements in the public sector was the private sector, plus the benefit of more extensive job security and more beneficial working conditions for the employee. But after that balance was upset in 1973 and 1974, the benefits, wages and working conditions exceeded the private sector. There was no longer any guideline to exert a pressure other than the AIB, and this was based on an inflated economy and a crisis situation and basically had little substance for the future.

The only gauge up until now as to what the public sector can bear in terms of wages and benefits and productivity or lack of productivity from its employees is what has existed on an ad hoc basis. There has been little relationship to productivity and little relationship to the public purse and what it can bear. We really had no way of defining what are essential services other than the obvious. What we really have had, Mr. Speaker, up until now - and hopefully until the time of this legislation when it is passed - is the temper of the public and what they will bear in terms of inconvenience and taxation to meet the cost imposed by provisions of the public service. It has been a highly emotional and nebulous gauge at best.

With Bill 92, Mr. Speaker, and with other efforts being made by this government in terms of controlling public spending and more efficient management of public funds, we will see for the first time a serious attempt to develop a proper basis in which negotiators and arbitrators can work when the

[ Page 5945 ]

normal bargaining process reaches a stalemate. This, Mr. Speaker, will be through the establishment of the Essential Services Advisory Agency - an agency with the power and ability to determine the extent of the danger to the public of actions or the harm of the impact that there will be on the public good which could result from a strike or lockout action in the essential service. It would not be an arbitrary decision ahead of time, Mr. Speaker, but a decision based on an informed basis with background information and a view to the times. This body will be able to identify what, in fact, is an essential service in British Columbia or what portion of a public service is essential. The agency, Mr. Speaker, will have power to deal with specific issues to essential services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the hon. first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) doesn't want to listen to this speech.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): She's not even here.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, I'm appalled that they don't like coming to work, and when they get to work they don't want to pay attention, they don't want to take a position, they don't want to take any work - all they want to do is go to bed.

MR. LEA: You little devil! The answer is no.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:48 p.m.