[ Page 5947 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports

Reports of the special committee appointed to select the standing committees of the House. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 5947

Essential Services Disputes Act (Bill 92) Second reading

Mrs. Jordan –– 5947

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5948

Mr. Barrett –– 5952

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5957

Mr. D'Arcy –– 5960

Mr.Loewen –– 5962

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 5964

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 5965

Mrs. Dailly –– 5966

Mr. Lloyd –– 5969

Tabling reports

Review of fish and wildlife branch and draft statement of goals and objectives of fish and wildlife branch. Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 5970

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

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

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presented the report of the special committee appointed to select the standing committees of the House for the present session, which was read as follows, received and adopted.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

"Pursuant to standing order 72 (a) (1) , the special committee appointed on January 13 under standing order 68 reports that the following members have been appointed to the committee on Crown corporations: Messrs. Veitch (convener) , Cocke, Davidson, Gibson, Mrs. Jordan, Messrs. Kempf, Levi, Lloyd, Macdonald, Rogers, Schroeder, Strongman and Stupich.

"Respectfully submitted, Grace McCarthy, Chairman."

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presented the report of the special committee appointed to select the standing committees of the House for the present session, which was read as follows, received and adopted.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

"Your special committee, referred to in section 2 of the Ombudsman Act, reports that the following members have been appointed to the ombudsman committee: Messrs. Schroeder (convener) , Calder, Davidson, Lloyd, Mussallem, the Hon. J.J. Hewitt, the Hon. R.H. McClelland, the Hon. L.A. Williams, Mrs. Dailly, Messrs. King, Lockstead and Gibson.

"Respectfully submitted, Grace McCarthy, Chairman."

Orders of the day.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 92.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES DISPUTES ACT

(continued)

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, in taking my place in this debate in support of the principle of Bill 92, 1 would like to continue on from last night first with my own personal observations on the debate that has taken place in this House and the comments that have been made outside. I would like briefly to suggest that the reason that we see no substance in the opposition's arguments to this bill is that in fact this bill is an effective bill and it can lead us to only one conclusion - that they too believe that this bill can be a very positive step toward developing a harmonious labour-management climate in British Columbia in the public sector. This in essence destroys their position, and certainly the position of most members of that opposition party who sit in this House, who have tended to have set a pattern of success through fostering dissent and who are looking for fear and confrontation as a means to survive politically. I suggest that that impression must linger in the public mind until they take a position that would clarify it or in fact refute it.

I believe also, Mr. Speaker, that the public can take heart from the comments of Mr. Fryer.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Would that little quack-quack quieten down? You'll have your turn.

I believe that the public and the many members of the public service union in the province of British Columbia can take heart from Mr. Fryer's comments when he said that it was a "nothing bill." It leads us to believe and have confidence that he feels that he can work effectively as a leader in this province within the framework of this bill. I would like to say that I feel and the reaction that I've had from civil servants is that they do feel Mr. Fryer's comments indicate that he can work very effectively as a major leader of a major sector of the economy of this province within the framework of this bill, that he, unlike others ' has learned from experience in England the mistakes that were made there and he's not about to see those mistakes continued here, and that he is dedicated to helping develop a more equitable climate in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to finish on the specific statement I was making last night and then conclude, and not take the time of the House. I was describing the advantages of the agency, which are a major principle within this bill. The third point I wish to make is that the agency would have power to deal with specific issues within the essential service. Frequently these are small issues, but become very emotional, and often are detrimental to the overall

[ Page 5948 ]

settlement of a dispute. This assistance will perhaps preclude a small issue becoming a major stumbling block to a settlement. We see a principle where there is an agency that can work with both parties to develop strategies and plans for effective and long-range protection of the public interest from strikes and lockouts, with the interest of the employees very much at hand.

The principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, provides an avenue through the Essential Services Advisory Agency which would allow labour, management and labour leadership to have prior consultation in a way that has not yet been able to be achieved in this province. Therefore they could bring recommendations to the government, which again has had not been available to this province before.

In summing up, the principle of this legislation provides a very different approach with deterrents to strikes and lockouts. It provides incentives and methods to resolve disputes that have not been available before. It does provide penalties for civil disobedience - but penalties that are workable - and for non-compliance with the law. Its broad objective is to prevent lockouts and strikes from taking place in essential service areas of this province.

But let it be made very clear that the legislation does not take away the right to strike in responsible circumstances. Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker; it seeks to preserve that right through responsibility and it does make, as the minister said, a bold attempt - I would say an ambitious attempt - to diminish the conflicts and cool those heated emotions and human tempers that frequently arise, when we find that the emotions and the tempers, rather than the issues, are what lead to the strike and the lockout in the end.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, affirms the government's believe and the belief of every member in this House, if they vote for that bill, in the principle of free collective bargaining and that process in the province. I would like to say that I believe that this government is determined to nurture and to see more fine tuning of the collective bargaining process on a responsible basis, and to see it become an example for the rest of the world. But at the same time, it must not be misunderstood by the elected representatives in this government that it does strive to protect the public interests by giving the government new powers in situations where essential services are threatened, where the public is threatened and where the future of this province is threatened.

The bill stresses the opportunity for responsible action, responsible decision-making and responsible consultation and long-range planning for both parties. Most importantly, the bill imposes the responsibility for a final decision, if the parties fail to accept their responsibility, where that responsibility and authority lies, and that is in this Legislature with the elected people of this province, the people elected to serve the public.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 92 and to support the efforts of the Minister of Labour. In supporting Bill 92 and the Minister of Labour, I support the aims and aspirations of the people of this province in being guaranteed continuity of services, and the wishes and desires of the people who work in the public service in British Columbia to have a clear definition of the terms under which they work, the opportunities they have to collectively bargain and the responsibilities they have to maintain those services in the public interest. As elected representatives, we're also part of the public service, and as such, whether we run for office or whether we choose to serve in a Crown corporation or in the government service, we all recognize that we have a special responsibility and a special obligation that we take on when we choose to - work in these are as.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, does not take away any rights from management or any rights from the working people in the public service of this province.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): It does nothing.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This bill clarifies their position and their terms of employment. This bill creates better mechanisms and authorities to provide information so that they can successfully conclude their bargaining, hopefully without interruption or disruption, without lockout or strike; hopefully in a more restrained atmosphere than the confrontative politics that have somehow and sometimes surrounded negotiations in this province.

This bill is a sincere attempt, an ambitious attempt by the Minister of Labour and by this government to clearly meet the public interest and the public's overwhelming desire to have a continuity of service and not be denied essential services. At the same time it will provide more opportunity for those who would work in these services successfully to conclude fair and equitable terms of employment and for employers to be guaranteed a work force and terms and conditions with which they can financially live.

Although it has been a muted opposition, a quiet opposition, this bill should be hailed not only by this Legislature but by labour and management, as it is being hailed by the people themselves in British Columbia.

Those who would oppose this bill should take the time to discuss with their constituents what they think of Bill 92. 1 certainly am going to take the message of Bill 92 and some of the statements that were made here out to the people of this province because they have a right to know who stands where. It's not enough for the opposition to come in here

[ Page 5949 ]

and, rather than oppose the bill, talk about everything else, stay on the fence, mutter in the corridor and hold their little meetings with their advisers. Perhaps they're more than advisers; only they know the relationship.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the province are going to be interested to know whether we're prepared to enter an era in which there are mechanisms for orderly bargaining, where the rules are clearly defined, where Crown corporations independent of government, with independent boards of directors, and labour can without government interference but with mechanisms be able successfully to conclude an agreement without the confrontative type of negotiation that's taken place.

We have the opportunity for one of the first times to have a fact-finder to provide the type of information that is somehow lacking on both sides when they come to the bargaining table. We've had bargaining by slogan; we've had bargaining through the press. Sometimes that bargaining has not taken place with what we should come to expect: good faith with facts and reason behind the case presented by both sides, particularly in the sensitive areas of essential services in which the public interest must be served.

It has been suggested by the opposition, Mr. Speaker, that this third sitting of this session wasn't necessary. We've had the statements from the member for Comox; a large part of her statements was merely complaining that it was inconvenient for her to be here at this time. A large part of the opposition, both inside and outside the House, have spent a lot of time talking about where they were or where they'd rather be. But I must remind them that being an MLA and being in the service of the people is not a convenience for ourselves. I'm sure on your election brochures you didn't put: "I will serve at my own convenience." The public has a right to expect your service at their pleasure, and their pleasure is service whenever there is an important public issue to be debated and dealt with in this province.

We have members opposite, Mr. Speaker, expressing mock horror that we would be called back. They seem to believe their own statements that because they had dragged on the first two sittings of the session, somehow they were going to stop this government from calling further sittings. I'd said at the end of the second sitting that we would be sitting again. The opportunity was there. We were a year-round session and we could come back from time to time in the public interest, as we have done at this time. Let me serve notice on them: if that is inconvenient for them, don't tell me; tell their constituents. They want someone who is prepared to work for their convenience.

There is every reason now, Mr. Speaker, to know that we have a unique opportunity with the type of session that we now have in British Columbia to allow the public to better understand the bills that are being debated here. Through no fault of the system, all of us are aware that with 80 or 90 bills in the long sittings we've had before, many of them are unknown to the public. Many of them get lost in the day-to-day headline grabbing that sometimes surrounds minor events concerning the public's business.

I think that Bill 92, the Essential Services Disputes Act, being debated at a time when there is much public interest in this issue and surrounding these events, involves the public more than they've ever been involved in an issue of the day. It lets them witness how their legislators and how their government are prepared to bring legislation forward and lets them measure the quality of the debate. We all know that this is an issue in which there can be great division. I think the public has the right to expect that that great division would be carried out on the floor of this chamber. Yet we haven't had much of that division shown by the opposition.

They've said that they're against it, but we haven't seen any effective attempt to debate it in this House on its merits or the provisions of this legislation. We've had rhetoric. We've had personal attacks on the Minister of Labour. We've had the usual NDP opposition: when they have no ability to debate on the issues of the day, they attack individuals. We see the results of those attacks; we see the headlines in the paper. That's all they're concerned about - a headline today, a reputation tarnished. They don't care.

But the public this time are watching. They are watching, and they have seen the style of your opposition. They have seen the lack of content. They have seen what appears to be an opposition whose fear of fighting the issue in a larger political reason keeps them from saying the things in this chamber that they mutter to themselves and their advisers - or whatever they are - in the hall.

Better you would have done what you did in Bill 33, when you didn't have a position and didn't have the courage. Better you would hide in your caucus room, as you did on second reading. Better, when you have nothing to say, that you at least go and hide, and hang around the speaker and listen to the events in the chamber rather than expose yourself time after time with no debate, no facts, but personal attacks on the minister and others in this government. Better that than what we witnessed under this debate.

This debate, as in Bill 33, is /a time for great divisions. It's a time when we clash - your way or our way; confrontative negotiation or negotiation with all the mechanisms. There's no need then for head-busting union leaders or iron-fisted management, but there is need for reasonable people on both sides, with the tools provided by government

[ Page 5950 ]

in this legislation to allow it to happen. Yes, it'll make some of their friends obsolete with their style of union leadership. Yes, it'll make some of you obsolete. But it is 1977, and it is time for a better way and better mechanisms.

I heard them say they were afraid of the fact-finder. That's what they said in their debate. They were afraid of the provisions in this bill for a fact-finder. What sort of a statement is that, to be afraid of facts being the basis on which a dispute or a negotiation between labour and management can be conducted? That's all the people want. That's all the people who are being bargained for and the people who are represented by management want - in this case the Crown corporations and the government service, which are owned by the people of British Columbia. It's an unusual case of bargaining because you have the people that represent us in these Crown corporations representing not the Social Credit Party or the New Democratic Party but representing the people of British Columbia. They're their corporations; it's their money.

Yet I heard in this Legislature yesterday the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) calling across the floor and talking about the comparison of the 90-day cooling-off period under the provisions in which ferry workers went back and the 1975 legislation of the then Premier Barrett and Labour minister King at that time, in which he said: "They obeyed our law."

Are the laws any different? Is the law to be obeyed depending on who is government? Is the law to be disregarded if you are somehow politically opposed to those in power? Is the law to be a political tool? Is labour negotiation and continuity of services to be a tool in the hands of the politicians? It's a sad day for this province and for our type of democracy that allows free speech and collective bargaining that that should ever take place. It's a sad, sad day.

Let me talk about the contrast between two measures. I was here in 1975 when a 90-day suspension of a strike was ordered by this House in a bill brought forward by the Barrett-King administration. Yet I heard the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , the labour critic for the NDP, speak against what she called these "cooling-off' periods. She said they didn't work. Yet in 1975, they chose that very action to call strong leadership. They called it strong action. Today they speak against it, because it's politically convenient.

Let us look at a greater contrast between what they called their strong action and strong leadership of that day. It seems to me I heard that slogan and saw it on billboards everywhere in 1975. "Strong leadership." They used it recently in Manitoba.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) said: "With the same results." It wasn't with the same result; Ed Schreyer was re-elected.

They called it strong leadership. But what did the Minister of Labour do in the case of the ferry strike? He brought in a 90-day cooling-off period. But it was more than just a suspension of a strike for 90 days. It offered the opportunity for a special mediator. They had had other forms of mediation; they hadn't worked. This brought in not just a suspension of the strike; it gave an opportunity for the very special mediator, who many are praising now but who couldn't have been a part of that negotiation had not this action been taken by the Minister of Labour. There were mechanisms, not just a freeze on a strike. There were mechanisms contained within the action of the Minister of Labour. That's strong leadership. That's providing the tools to the people who must bargain to reach a successful conclusion.

The strong action of 1975 that they talk about was with no tools, no mechanisms, no mediator. They merely left for the new government the disputes that were not settled or negotiated during that 90-day period. They were all there when we came to government. We had to deal with them and nothing had been done by that legislation. Oh, they were proud of it then, but it did nothing. And oh, how they attack a better way today.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will end some of the confusion surrounding terms of employment for people in the public service. It will clearly define at this time that "essential services" sometimes means more than health, especially at these critical times when our country is in a severe economic condition. Indeed it is against the public interest and this service must be essential if it disrupts the economy of our province and our country. Surely those who would argue for doing something about the economy cannot argue about this broader provision that the public interest - the interest of our country - must be maintained. Is that not essential?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Does that include the forest industry, Bill?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Member. This bill deals with the public service.

MR. WALLACE: That's half our industry -forestry.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This bill today deals with the public service and essential services. The member for Oak Bay may wish, if he remains, to participate in other debates in which we may be searching for better ways in this province. I don't know what suggestions he's got to make, but today we're

[ Page 5951 ]

debating Bill 92.

I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, that with this bill we feel we end the ad hoc approach to the sort of 90-day legislation of 1975. We end the sort of confusion surrounding who should take what action. Recent events have shown that legal opinions by labour lawyers might vary as to who should do what in a course of action protecting the public interest. This bill ends that confusion.

It gives clear responsibilities to management and to labour. It gives an avenue to government to protect the public interest. It gives a greater opportunity to a new authority to give advice to both parties and government to successfully conclude the negotiation. It provides, as I say, for a fact-finder, who makes information available to the authority and to government. And yes, information will be made available to the people in whose interest this dispute is - the people who must use these public services and the people who own them. They must be given the facts, Mr. Speaker, because if this bill says anything it says that the public of B.C., the people who use and own and provide all of these public services, are the most important party of all - the people.

This bill provides penalties that aren't negotiated, penalties that are clear-cut and automatic, not vindictive but a deterrent so that no one, management by lockout or labour in an illegal way, would take advantage of a situation to the detriment of the public. Nobody wants to be vindictive and hold public hangings and lash labour or lash management. That type of confrontation, as I said, Mr. Speaker, should be gone from this province and gone from this country. But we must have penalties that are automatic, that are clearly understood so they don't become part or an implied part of the bargaining process.

As I've said, it's important that this legislation come before us now and this debate take place in the public interest of British Columbia. It's important because, as I've said, not only can areas of our province in an economic way and in geographic ways be hurt, but we need this type of legislation to start us on a new road to a better framework in which to conduct and hopefully conclude the bargaining that goes on between management and labour.

This has been a good year in British Columbia for labour negotiations. We have had, Mr. Speaker, 85 per cent fewer man-days lost this year due to disruptions over last year or the year before in 1975. But we need to maintain this record; we need a record of labour and management and the people and government pulling together rather than pulling us apart.

I recently went to Europe on an economic mission, and they were aghast that a country with the resources that we have could so destroy our economic climate that they feared our labour-management confrontation above anything. That is why they're concerned about investment or markets, because they want continuity of supply. They can't afford to have supply that we negotiate and contract to them tied up by disputes in our own economy, disputes in which they have no part. Europe has a very sophisticated economy but they are also in difficulty. They wonder about a province blessed in resources, blessed in energy both in quantity and in variety. They look at the economic difficulties in Canada and they look in wonder at the way we're willing to destroy that with the type of confrontation that we have had in this province in the past. They cannot believe that a people, collectively, all sides, could be so greedy and disregard the future and the opportunities for their children that they would tear apart something in a country and a province in which there was a great opportunity to build.

This legislation, a first start in a sensitive area, gives us the opportunity to do that type of building in which we end the head-thumping and the confrontation and the yelling. In the public service it allows the government to stand back as a third party and take action against either side, should it be required. We have for the first time - and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) snickers -something that you didn't participate in when you were a director of a Crown corporation. We have independent boards of directors, for a very good reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had to be removed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He remembers it because he had to be removed because of the conflict of interest of being Labour minister and being with the BCR. We remember that well. He's forgotten; he snickers. There was a strong reason to have independent boards of directors. We have attempted to do that to further remove the corporations from the type of political activity that could impair their ability to bargain.

Cannot this chamber see and cannot the member see that that is one of the greatest opportunities we have, to free them from that type of political connotation by getting these independent boards of directors so they will not be used politically, especially during a labour dispute or negotiation? It's difficult enough to resolve the disputes of the working place without some people using that dispute in a political way, and that's been part of the problem. We've had a small group of people in labour whose NDP card looms larger than their labour union membership. They are from a different era but they must be irrelevant in the future.

We've had during this debate a witness. Quite often at a time when the public expects us to act and debate a major piece of legislation in a responsible

[ Page 5952 ]

way, we have had, attending these proceedings, some of those political members who also have a greater responsibility to their union membership to try and achieve better laws, to try and do something about the economy and to try and to something better for British Columbia. They've attended these proceedings, but not once in the last two days or three days while they were here, with all the important problems facing this province, have they attempted to see the Premier of this province, the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) or the Economic Development minister (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

Why are they here? They're here to be part of the political system that could destroy this province. I tell them and I tell everyone that when we became government we became government for all the people. Because they have some politician captive, it doesn't mean that we're not free to work on behalf of all of the people of this province and all groups, which we are and which we will be, as this bill clearly indicates. Yet at this time when this bill is moving forward, we have them reacting in the usual way -reacting in the style of the '30s.

I've said, and it's been quoted, that there are issues of the day on which the people should be asked to make a choice. There are issues of the day in which parties of opposing style, of opposing view and of opposing alternatives could take their case to the people. I've said that while governments are elected for a mandate of up to five years, from time to time in the life of the affairs of the people there comes a discussion and a debate so important to the future of the province that it is an issue larger than the Legislature. It's an issue for the people, an issue in which the parties can take their case to the people of the province directly and let them decide.

But, Mr. Speaker, to run for something you also have to have a side that is publicly opposed. That weak, waffly little opposition in one day hasn't said a thing. They're the worst opposition I've ever seen. There's a long list of words I could use to describe them. They have not provided an alternative to this legislation, but I say that this isn't the only forum. It has been threatened by some of their political people that this will be tested outside the Legislature. It has been said by those people who control them that they will test it outside only because they don't trust their ability to fight the case inside. I was going to say that they saw them during Bill 33, second reading, but nobody saw them. They were huddled in their caucus room trying to find out what position they were going to take.

It's been suggested by those of the old-style politics, whose NDP card looms larger than their union card, that they don't trust that opposition. They've witnessed them as government; they've witnessed them now as opposition. They don't trust them to carry the fight in here, and so they've said publicly in the paper: "No, we're not going to fight in there. We're going to test it outside."

I tell you now that you're part of that. And when that test comes, the test will be broader, because your jobs will be on the line as well. Your position, and you'll have to state it then.... The issue will be clear - whether we go forward and build this province with a positive opportunity, still enshrining the rights but also the responsibilities of both management and labour in the public service, or whether we have the old-fashioned political, confrontative politics that have threatened to destroy not only this province but this country. That will be the issue, should they care - not them, but those who really fight; the people who call the shots; the people who didn't trust them to fight on the floor of this House; the people who said, before it even started: "We're not going to leave this important task to that little band of remnants."

Mr. Speaker, that will be an issue, and it's an issue now that the people of this province understand very clearly. It didn't require your lack of effort in here or your individual lack of research or concern about the future of this province. The giggling second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , and the others, and the inopportune comments of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) will be repeated around this province. That highlights their approach and what they think and how they think this province should be administered and how bargaining should take place.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to support this bill on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtfulness that was afforded the Premier in his wide-ranging speech. I know it is tradition in the House to permit the various House Leaders to range widely, and I expect the same courtesy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Not at all. I'm just anticipating that perhaps the Speaker may reflect on some of the statements made by the Premier away off the mark of the bill and be a little bit tolerant within the brief time that I intend to take.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, in the introduction....

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are just a couple of things at the beginning I would like to say.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Perhaps the Chair could take advantage of the introductory remarks to just remind all hon. members that when leniency is granted, it usually is

[ Page 5953 ]

self-perpetuating and usually meets with cries for more leniency and latitude. I think that the best thing is self-discipline in this regard.

MR. BARRETT: I will manage the self discipline, Mr. Speaker, by saying to you that I will limit the range of my speech within the same perimeters as the Premier's.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll try to assist you, sir.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and that means wide open.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start at the outset by saying very briefly and very frankly that in my opinion, after witnessing not only just the previous speech but the attitude of this present administration, that it is a government that will be marked by history as more motivated by its hostilities, both personal and policy, than by affections in terms of the basic responsibility of governing a province on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed over the last few weeks a series of events that the Premier has alluded today that have led up to his announcement of his great disappointment about the opposition's handling of this bill. It was an opportunity for us to get a signal before the debate, Mr. Speaker, by witnessing the Premier running around the corridor, grabbing little bands of reporters, three of whom came to me saying: "What have you got to say about his suggestion that he's going to call an election?"

I said: "I didn't hear that in the House."

"Oh, no, he said it in the corridor."

I understand that he had a brief but pleasant exchange, as all exchanges are with my colleague for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , in the Hansard office in front of the Hansard employees, where his temper was very much under control. He threatened election. The only statement this morning we have as to why he won't call an election is that he doesn't like our attitude and the way we've handled this bill. That's the only reason he hasn't called an election.

So I'll tell you this; let's get it clear and on the record. We are opposed to this bill, and I defy the Premier of this province to call an election on that basis right now. If it's only his concern about the attitude of the opposition towards this bill that withholds him from that dramatic step of taking this issue to the people, as he has just said to this House -and I believe him - a few minutes ago, let him clearly understand that I defy him to call an election right now. I tell you clearly that we are ready for it.

My next words to you, Mr. Premier, are these: if you don't call the election after your statements today and my challenge to you, then my comment to you is plainly this: put up or shut up, and get on with the business of dealing with the very serious problems that exist in this province.

1 cannot make the challenge any more clear. Put up or shut up, but shut up and get on with dealing with the problems that are current in this country and in this province that you allude to in your speech. I say to you that if you aren't going to call the election, then shut up and deal with the economic issues that you are partly responsible for since you've become the government of this province.

All the corridor sabre-rattling and all the attempts at sleight-of-hand humour in this chamber do not detract from the fact that the Premier of this province said in this House that the only reason he didn't call an election was because of the opposition's attitude to this bill. We don't run this government. Unfortunately, you do. I say again for the third and last time: put up or shut up, but I defy you to call an election today on the basis of your statement in this province.

Now let's deal with some of the other aspects of the events that went on.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the House please come to order?

MR. BARRETT: In my experience, Mr. Speaker, it is only children who resort to threats and expect people to respond on the same basis. Childish threats don't deal with the problems in this province.

Let's deal with what's gone on in the last few weeks. Mr. Speaker, the impression of this session on this particular bill - and I'm now dealing with this bill - was that somehow this was going to get tough and clarify the role and deal with lawbreakers. Let me get it clearly on the record that indeed the ferry workers were defying the law. That is a matter of record. However, they were not placed in the position of being lawbreakers until a single course of action was taken either by the government or by the Ferry Corporation.

It is true that the government of the day's legal authority was challenged by a group of working people. That is a fact. And once that law was defied an action had to take place before the full measure of the law could be implemented. The government of the day was faced with a decision - either to enforce the law against the ferry workers or to back off and get involved in more negotiations. This is the event under existing law that could have taken place if the government wished to pursue the application of the law to the ferry workers.

The government would have to appeal to the Labour Relations Board to file a writ with the supreme court to apply the law, or the Ferry Corporation would have to apply to the Labour Relations Board and ask them to file a writ with the supreme court. File an order.

[ Page 5954 ]

It is worthy to note to all the citizens of this province that while the ferry workers were defying the law, neither the government nor the Ferry Corporation requested that Labour Relations Board to file an order with the supreme court to order the ferry workers to obey the law.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on I

MR. BARRETT: The law was never applied. For whatever reason the government of the day decided not to apply the law. Let it be a matter of record. Whether it was government cowardice, government fear, government indecision or any other reason, the law against what could have been lawbreaking was not applied. Let's get that straight and understood.

At no time did the Minister of Labour appeal to the Labour Relations Board to file with the supreme court. At no time did the Ferry Corporation request that the Labour Relations Board file. So while the law was being thumbed at, while the law was being defied, the government didn't have the guts, the inclination or the decision to act on the use of the law of the day.

What is there in this legislation to make us believe that the government will, in spite of its talk about an independent group or another device past the Labour Relations Board, have the guts to go to the supreme court then? One can only maintain from the remarks of the Premier today that he is looking for an election issue. His comments about trade union leaders today indicate that he is desperately looking not for peace, not for tranquillity, but for a confrontation issue so he can go to the people on that issue rather than dealing with what's going on. Just as Mr. Rene Levesque has become a welcome, received political gift from political heaven for the federal Liberal Party, the Prime Minister is looking for a Rene Levesque in the labour movement so he too can avoid the reality of the situation that he's faced with.

Mr. Speaker, let no person in this province be fooled. That government is desperate, bungling and frightened, and if it weren't it would have the guts to call an election that it threatens about in the corridors.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You can yip-yip-yip across the floor all you want. If you've got the guts to back up what you say, go and call an election right now. You're not kidding anybody.

I Mr. Rogers in the chair. I

We must then go back to what went on, and the sequence of events. What went on? I say clearly to you, Mr. Speaker, that there was communication authorized by the Minister of Labour between the Deputy Minister of Labour and the secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and that conversations did take place. Interpretations from those conversations led the secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour to believe that the government was guaranteeing no prosecutions.

I believe the conversations took place between the Deputy Minister of Labour and the secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour over this issue, and I believe the Minister of Labour knew every step of the way what was going on in those conversations. I also believe that Mr. Weiler knew what was going on as well, but was not necessarily involved in conversations. But I believe clearly and flatly that the Deputy Minister of Labour was in communication either by phone or in person with Len Guy, and that the understanding that Len Guy says he had was clearly given, and that the Minister of Labour knew about it.

A story is being peddled around in the corridor -gossip that the legislation could have been worse. "Be thankful that you have this Minister of Labour, because if the hawks had their way this legislation would be three times as bad." My response to that kind of corridor public relations appeasement is: is legislation made on the basis of principle or is it made on the basis of response to the hawks?

Mr. Speaker, I tell you that this legislation is also designed to meet the needs of the forthcoming Social Credit convention. One of the most bizarre episodes that we witnessed in the last 48 hours was an incident yesterday in the question period, when that mad, unlimited ambition bounded forth again by that spontaneous question planted through the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . How do you plant a spontaneous question? We witnessed that yesterday. In this whole bizarre atmosphere, the Minister of Human Resources had been ignored by publicity so he had to throw in his hand to show that he was still interested in the leadership, if anybody was still interested in him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know, hon. member....

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm on the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know you will be relating this.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier has said this takes away nobody's freedoms, but it sets up another agency. What it really means is another bureaucracy, another bureaucracy and another bureaucracy, allowing the government to avoid the basic responsibility that a government has of making a decision. You didn't give any leadership in the ferry strike. You flubbed it, you bungled it, and then you

[ Page 5955 ]

lied about it as well, in terms of the agreement signed by Mr. Weiler. I say the government lied.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are aware of the fact that it's unparliamentary to say that a member has lied.

MR. BARRETT: I said the government lied.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister of Labour, are you on a point of order?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to make clear implications in his recent statement. Government as a group does not lie; individuals lie. If it is his suggestion that I have lied or any member of this assembly has lied, I demand that he identify that person.

MR. BARRETT: It's not a question of identifying the person. Do you want a withdrawal? Is that what you're asking? Is that the only reason? Mr. Speaker, I have said that the government has lied over this.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

MR. BARRETT: If the member wants a withdrawal, I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, he has withdrawn.

MR. BARRETT: Let's clarify exactly what went on. I have said that the government lied. The minister objected and I'm saying that I withdraw that remark. All right?

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the truth has been told of the sequence of events that went on between the government, its deputy minister, the Labour Relations Board and the people involved. I do not believe that the truth has been told. I have enough evidence in front of me to believe that my statement is correct; that the ferry workers were told that there would be no prosecutions, absolutely. I believe in my heart and my soul that the minister knew every single step of the way what was going on.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us deal again with the statements made by the Premier, that this is going to be a step towards labour peace.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Remember Sy Kovachich?

MR. BARRETT: There is no question of this adding to labour peace, because if the ferry workers or any other essential service continue to go on strike and withdraw their services, the Legislature will still have to be called to deal with that, in the final analysis. This is not a be-all, end-all piece of legislation; this is just piling on another bureaucratic level. But the basic problems of human relations in industrial relations still remain to be solved.

There is no law or legislation in any free society in the world that can stop free men and free women from making a decision in their own good conscience on how they react to any situation. So for the Premier of this province to attack either industrial leaders on the basis of lockouts or trade union leaders on the basis of strikes, let me get it clear on the record that in a free society, people have the right to act and therefore be responsible for their actions. The government has a responsibility to see that the law is applied. They did not apply the law to the ferry workers, and that's why they got in this jam.

Mr. Speaker, the thing I fear most in this particular bill is the erosion of the role of the Labour Relations Board. The Premier announced in this House that we have had a year of diminished labour-management conflict. Every thoughtful person and all the articles in newspapers are not praising Social Credit or the NDP. They are praising the Labour Code of this province as being a modern vehicle of dealing with labour-management disputes.

My experience has been, in terms of watching this kind of dispute develop, that there is an aura of trust and confidence in a framework of working with a problem. The Labour Relations Board under Weiler deserves the congratulations and the unlimited support of the people of this province for the fantastic job they've done in resolving disputes in this province.

Now we have in front of us testimony that this government is prepared to weaken their psychological role and weaken the record they've maintained as the agents who have brought about some measure of labour and management peace in this province. For the Premier to suggest that it should not be a forum for political hacks is to suggest that there should be absolutely no tampering with the Labour Relations Board. But he is bringing in this fact-finding, extraordinary group the Premier talks about, and to suggest that won't be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as an opportunity for Social Credit supporters to be involved is without foundation.

What about the Ferry Corporation? On it is a past Social Credit candidate. Is that a conflict of interest? What about the Ferry Corporation? The minister who was asked a question in this House is on the board. When he was asked that question, he was told by the Premier to shut up. Imagine the Premier telling a Rhodes Scholar to shut up! And he shut up!

What you're looking for, what your speech was, and what this plan is is confrontation, political trouble. It's so you can have a handle, Mr. Premier.

[ Page 5956 ]

After you set up that separate fact-finding board, what is going to be the role of the Labour Relations Board, the board that no one - Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative, NDP, management or labour - has attacked on the basis of the job they've done for the people of this province?

The most serious thing that's taking place is that we did have a level of some calmness developing in labour-management relations, to which the Premier alluded with pride. When that is going to be eroded by this bill, then that trust that has been built up, in my opinion, will begin to disappear.

Within a matter of months, we are going into another time and that is the crucial period of the removal of the anti-inflation regulations. Let someone in that government clearly understand that when the phase-out of those controls begins, both people who are interested in price increases and in wage increases will calculate their moves and negotiations for those increases based on the phase-out that takes place. If there is a confrontation atmosphere left, as there will be by the Premier's ill-advised statements today, people will have the attitude that this Premier doesn't want co-operation. He's looking for conflict; he asked for it today.

The Premier has shown an incapacity to rise above the fact that he won an election. He continues to fight the 1972 and the 1975 election in every single speech. It's a question of rising above the petty politics that are necessary during a 38-day election campaign and give the leadership of a Premier's office that should be given to this province. It's not forthcoming. His lack of understanding of labour-management situations was never more evident than it was today. His performance today was based on provoking a situation that he hoped would benefit him politically.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by just making a few more remarks about the economy. When we were in office and the mining industry attacked us and Social Credit attacked us, it was because the NDP was in power that things were bad. Now that Social Credit is in power, things are worse, but it's world conditions.

Mr. Speaker, let me get it very clear to the Premier....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The price of copper is set by the world market, not by British Columbia. We have competitors in Chile and other countries all over the world. And the Japanese are going to buy the cheapest price they can get, and that doesn't mean any affiliation with anybody other than the almighty yen or buck. That's business, and you know it. You don't have the yens.

Mr. Speaker, I'm saying this to you: people reading this speech today of the Premier, the ones he talks about who hope for labour-management peace, will detect a thread through that speech of his desire for confrontation. His speech today will be interpreted as he's heading for an election on any issue - and we better hang tough to see what he's up to. It'll be any issue as long as it's not economic.

I have yet to see a responsible statement by the Premier of this province that goes above partisan politics. I have yet to see that. I have yet to hear in this House a statement that goes above partisan politics. If he truly believes his affection for this province rises above partisan politics, we've seen no evidence of it in his comments.

Mr. Speaker, he goes back to the old classic argument of the labour leaders being the ones taking away the disaffected workers. When the ferry strike came about, it was my private opinion that there would be no strike. The rank and file in that union would not go out. Much to my surprise, it was the militancy of the rank and file that said, "We're going to go out, " not the leadership. That is a matter of record. They had meeting after meeting, and much to my surprise it was the rank and file who insisted on staying out, not the leadership.

That union is not a big, powerful union led by professionals from the 1930s; they have a woman leading that union whose experience in the trade union movement is relatively limited. She's not out of the 1930s. You have the licensed ferry people who are not exactly the wild, rabid, running-around mad bombers in the labour movement that you described. Those were ordinary working people whose lives and homes were built here on Vancouver Island and in Vancouver. They had seen this government erode tenure of service up to 12 and 14 years. They had seen hundreds of jobs eliminated. They had decided that they, the rank and file workers, were going to defy the law. You never applied the law. And as a consequence, because of your fumbling, you come in with this legislation.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I notice that their usual, gentlemanly manner evidences itself again.

Mr. Speaker, I'm saying to you that they have misread the legitimate concerns of those ordinary working people who have made a major investment of time for their life to be government employees.

To be a government employee means public service, as the Premier said, but it also means public respect and government respect. And you have not shown respect to those working people~ The treatment given to those ferry workers by your government and that corporation led to this situation, and you are trying to capitalize on it politically. You

[ Page 5957 ]

bungled it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's nonsense.

MR. BARRETT: You admitted in your speech today you were looking for confrontation. I'm going to conclude with this, as I point to you and speak through the Chair. If you mean your gossip in the corridor, if you mean that the opposition didn't give you the fire that you wanted, then I repeat in conclusion, as I point to the Premier of this province, I defy you to call an election! Put up or shut up, and get on with the business of running the government.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Bill 92, the Essential Services Disputes Act. I first of all want to congratulate the Minister of Labour for this bill. It's a bill of substance, one which I would have found difficult to prepare had I been Minister of Labour. But the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is running out of the House right now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Miss and run!

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I want to apologize to him for this session having disrupted his holiday in San Diego.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): He's gone to a corridor conference.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, hopefully in the remarks I have to make about the Leader of the Opposition and some of the remarks that he made vis-à-vis this legislation.... I'll defer them for now and I'll talk about the legislation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm always attentive when other members of the House speak.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, when you intimated that you were going to speak to second reading of Bill 92, the Chair was delighted. I would hope that you would do just exactly what you said.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, thank you very much. I will, providing you maintain some order in this assembly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, perhaps if the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) would restrain themselves until you got started, it would be fine.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I have great difficulty collecting my thoughts with the interruptions and the banter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do tend to provoke some of the members in the House, but please continue.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do I? Are you suggesting that by merely standing up I provoke?

MR. WALLACE: Right on!

MR. LAUK: You're our favourite minister!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this bill brings to an end the ad hockery that took place as far as dealing with the matter of essential services. It's one which establishes a mechanism; it's one which establishes an Essential Services Advisory Agency and one in which the guidelines are clearly spelled out in the legislation. You don't have to refer to a variety of bills to find out how you're going to deal with the matter of disputes in essential services. There is flexibility that didn't exist in former legislation, but which is instilled in this legislation here. It's one in which the steps that take place are clearly defined before the necessity of either government involvement or arbitration. It's one in which assistance will be available to the parties to ensure that a collective agreement is reached. It's not one that interferes with bargaining rights; it's one which improves the process as far as essential services.

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some confusion in the opposition. There appears to be a lack of interest in the protection of the rights of the provision of essential services to people in this province. They seem -to think there is something wrong with a government taking steps that might help assist and ensure that essential services will be maintained in this province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They may believe it but they're afraid to say it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's what I mean. They rant and rave against the legislation in a very wishy-washy way. It's a group over there that is confused....

AN HON. MEMBER: Leaderless.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, one member suggested they're leaderless. Well, they are at the moment. After the next election, they'll probably have a new leader.

[ Page 5958 ]

But Mr. Speaker, it's a group that has a double standard, and the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) alluded to the double standard that that party has. He suggested when he was speaking yesterday, or in an aside - I believe it was an aside - that the unions dealing with essential services in the province would rather deal with or listen to an NDP government, but that they'd be prepared to defy a Social Credit government. He suggested that there is some kind of.... I don't know if it's an unholy alliance or some form of allegiance that exists between certain labour leaders and that party over there. I was rather scandalized to see that the well-being of the province of British Columbia and the attitude of that party would be determined by this kind of criterion. I think they have a responsibility - that party over there - to take into consideration public interest first and party affiliation next.

The former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) was in absolute control, when he was the Minister of Labour, of events in the province. Now it appears that he no longer has any control; it appears that Len Guy has the controls over that member in that party over there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think I should quote some of the words that former Minister of Labour made in second reading of the legislation dealing with essential services on October 7,1975. He said:

"I have said on many occasions publicly to the trade union movement and management groups that no right is absolute, that every right that a citizen holds in this province must be tempered and weighted against the consequences of its exercise to the ultimate on innocent parties and on people directly involved. We have never stated, although we adhere to collective bargaining principles, that there is an absolute right to indulge in economic warfare which, in many cases, threatens and jeopardizes the basic safety, comfort and health of citizens of this province."

Now, Mr. Speaker, if that former Minister of Labour, who made those statements just two years ago, votes against this bill, I suggest to you that he has double standards.

I listened to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) yesterday and I was rather horrified to hear him intimate to a great degree that he supports the matter of civil disobedience.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Wrong again!

HON. MR. CHABOT: He suggested that the people in his constituency supported the ferry workers, who were in the process of a civil disobedience - that the majority of the people in his constituency supported civil disobedience.

MR. LAUK: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He told me in his speech in Hansard that he had signed up into the New Democratic Party six of the ferry workers. What did he say to those ferry workers prior to signing them up? That he supported their cause? Needless to say, that's what he said, Mr. Speaker - that he supported their cause, that he supported civil disobedience and that the majority of his constituents support civil disobedience. I never thought, Mr. Speaker, that I would ever hear a member of this House say that he supports civil disobedience.

I'll quote his words: "I would say that the majority of people in my constituency supported the ferry workers in this dispute." That's what you said. The majority of them support civil disobedience, and you went out and signed up six ferry workers for the New Democratic Party, suggesting that you supported civil disobedience as well.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's the most despicable kind of behaviour that we shouldn't expect from a member of this House. Despicable!

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the minister, in his usual way of twisting what people say in this chamber to suit his own purposes, has used the word....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order, please?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General just said, "Down Rover, " which is the same as the Premier looking over here last year and saying, "It took me two weeks to train my dog."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please state your point of order.

MR. LAUK: That's the attitude that's over on that side of the House. They have no respect for the people in this chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: State your point of order, please.

[ Page 5959 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Mines to withdraw the word "despicable" in reference to a member of this chamber. He knows better than to use language like that. He knows better. People wouldn't use that kind of language referring to him, no matter what he did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister of Mines, you have been asked to withdraw a statement which the member finds offensive.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Withdraw? Okay, if it's offensive, the record will speak for itself. I withdraw "despicable." They might be disgraceful actions on the part of that member, but he says....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind you that we cannot say something one way which cannot be said in another. Just a straight, simple withdrawal will be in order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Certainly I withdraw. But I just quote his words....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please continue.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I'd like to quote: "I want to tell you that last week I signed up some six ferry workers on one shift." In other words, he's seeking. He was out there seeking membership in the NDP of people who are in the process of civil disobedience, suggesting, no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that he was supporting their cause. That's supporting civil disobedience.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Utter nonsense, Jim. Utter nonsense.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's just absolutely disgraceful then to go on to say that the majority of his constituents supported civil disobedience. I thought I'd never hear a member of this assembly make those kinds of remarks.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Premier ... I mean the Leader of the Opposition....

MR. LAUK: Oh, no, you were right the first time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No. He was defeated; he was thrown out of office on December 11,1975.

MR. LAUK: No, your Premier was a windbag.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He was defeated as well and he snuck in the back door through Vancouver East.

He snuck in the back door.

MR. LAUK: Bennett is the national windbag.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Some $80,000 or so were given to the former member for Vancouver East in order to win a seat for that member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm having some. . . . The Chair is....

AN HON. MEMBER: Quiet!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, he talked about corridor conversations that the Premier had.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver-Burrard on a point of order.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): On a point of order, I don't mind, Mr. Speaker, if Herr Goebbels wants to go on all day. But you are the Speaker. Bring him to order and let's get on with the debate.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Goebbels - that's what he is. A fascist! Goebbels! He stands up there telling a lot of lies.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): That's our Bloodshed Kid.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Mines kindly proceed on second reading of Bill 92?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, would you have that intemperate member for Vancouver-Burrard - the little fat one back there - withdraw those remarks he made?

MR. LEVI: Which remarks?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have been asked to withdraw some remarks by the Minister of Mines, and I would ask you to withdraw those remarks.

MR. LEVI: Which remarks are we talking about -that he's Goebbels, or that he's a fascist, or what? Be specific.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask you to withdraw both those remarks.

MR. LEVI: I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member.

[ Page 5960 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's the same member that suggested....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, I might also ask that you withdraw your remark which was ...

HON. MR. CHABOT: ... "fat boy"? (Laughter.) Okay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member may not have found it offensive, but the Speaker found it offensive. I would ask, for the sake of the decorum of this House....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I apologize and withdraw the words "fat boy."

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Fat is beautiful.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Leader of the Opposition made reference to corridor conversations that the Premier had. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that I subscribe more to the corridor conversations that the Premier makes than those of the Leader of the Opposition, because I recall one corridor conversation he had with one Marjorie Nichols.

AN HON. MEMBER: So does she.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In reference to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition again, it wasn't too long ago - a couple of weeks ago - that he was speaking in the community of Granisle, in which there was a well-advertised meeting. It was well organized as well, and 30 people turned out.

One of his supporters was suggesting and making certain statements to the Premier. The Premier in response said: "Listening to you, you'd think that I'm a big-mouthed troublemaker." One of the 30 in Granisle said: "Right on!" Now I have to say that that's what it appears this morning when I hear the Leader of the Opposition - that that statement's very appropriate.

In reference to the corridor conversations which the Leader of the Opposition made mentioned regarding the Premier, he kept making references to: "Put up or shut up." Well, he made an accusation that the Premier had lied, and he had to back down, so it was a question of "put up or shut up."

Then when he was accused in this House of being a liar or having lied.... The former Leader of the Liberal Party was thrown out of this Legislature I don't know how many times - three to five times. The then Leader of the Liberal Party repeated those statements in the corridor that the Premier had lied -the former Premier had lied, the now Leader of the Opposition. I suggest to you that the Leader of the

Opposition, the then Premier, did not put up or shut up. He backed down because he knew that on that issue he was in trouble.

The substance of the Leader of the Opposition's speech had nothing to do with criticism of the legislation. He constantly talked about putting up or shutting up, but never really touched upon the main principle of this legislation, one to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) , who used to live on Texada Island.... He's moved off Texada Island now, Mr. Speaker. He says: "The bill has no principle." In other words, he's against the people of this province. He's against the government's endeavour to ensure that essential services will be available to the people of this province. He's suggesting that this bill has no principle. In other words, you're sadly lacking in them as well.

No, any opposition that is put to this bill by members of the opposition is opposition against the people of British Columbia and their ability to have essential services. It is, in my opinion, an irresponsible position. It's a position of double standard, depending upon which side of the House they happen to sit. It's a position, Mr. Speaker, in which they put politics before responsibility. Needless to say, I believe you've concluded that I'll support the bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: To make a correction, the minister misquoted a statement I made yesterday during the course of my speech which he quoted again today.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I read it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct that statement. My exact quote was, and I will read it from Hansard:

... the government put these ferry workers into a position where they were first forced to go out on strike and perform civil disobedience.

That is what exactly happened, in my view. That is the statement I made. I did at no time advocate civil disobedience with any group of workers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You supported it.

MR. C.A. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I will say that I will attempt to deal with Bill 92. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , in speaking on Bill 92, dealt with the bill for two or three minutes out of the 20 that he spoke.

Mr. Speaker, it is a most unnecessary piece of

[ Page 5961 ]

legislation. There is absolutely no question that the workers involved on the British Columbia Ferry Corporation. . . . I think perhaps the term "worker" is a bit too much of a catchall, Mr. Speaker, because many of the people involved are professionals; they're masters, mates, engineers, professional people, and of course they're working people too, just as everyone who earns a wage or salary is a working person. But certainly we are not dealing, as the government would have had us believe on many occasions, with people who park cars and work in cafeterias. We're dealing with all the people who work in the Ferry Corporation, including the people with responsibility for those ships themselves and the safety of the people who use them.

That gets us into the question of overtime, Mr. Speaker, because we have been told by the people who run the ships and by those who have the responsibility for the safety of the ships and the people who use them that one of the main reasons, if not the only reason, for overtime on the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen run....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): We haven't got a Tsawwassen, a Swartz Bay or overtime in this bill.

MR. D'ARCY: We are talking about the situation which arose in British Columbia, Mr. Attorney-General, which resulted in an impasse which saw a strike on the B.C. Ferries.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, kindly address the Chair. I know you will relate your remarks to the principle of the bill.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This bill is before the House because of a labour dispute which occurred a few weeks ago over the Thanksgiving weekend, and one of the major issues in that dispute, Mr. Speaker, was the issue of overtime. We have been assured by the professionals in the B.C. ferry service that the main reason on some of the runs, particularly Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen, that there is overtime is because of the conditions of the ships which they are forced to run.

I have experienced, and so have many other people who have used the ferries, the spectacle of seeing one ship, the Queen of Vancouver, running as much as an hour behind schedule when the other three ships on the run were all on time. That resulted in an incredible amount of overtime. That was not the fault of heavier traffic, Mr. Speaker, on that ship. That was not the fault of a bunch of lazy employees on that ship. That was the fault of the management of the Ferry Corporation who had disregarded the advice of the professionals who work the ship, who said that that ship was in dire need of major renovations and major changes in its propulsive equipment.

Mr. Speaker, this strike which we are asked to come and deal with here was not an illegal strike up to the point....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Well, are you going to sit down?

MR. D'ARCY: I assumed you were only going to be a second or two.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I may be much longer than you expect, depending upon your point of view.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this legislation whatsoever which deals with the specific problems presently facing the Ferry Corporation and their trade union. There is not a strike on the ferries. The Ferry Corporation and its union and a special mediator are today, at this very moment, busily engaged in the discharge of their specific responsibilities. Therefore I ask that any of these remarks with respect to that issue be found to be irrelevant and not acceptable for debate in this House.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): A point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speaking to the minister's point of order just before I hear yours, I have cautioned the member once on the fact that the relevancy of his debate was very difficult for the Chair to relate to in view of second reading of Bill 92. The specifics involved in his statements about the difficulties with the Ferry Corporation do seem to be totally out of order as far as second reading of this bill is concerned.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan on a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we have been told by various government spokesmen that part of the reason for calling the Legislature to deal with this bill was the ferry dispute that has been recently returned to work on.

In any event, there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that the terms and conditions of employment, which again have been discussed by the minister himself in terms of the public sector, are part of the inherent material that labour disputes are generated from. I think the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has every right to analyse that dispute and the dynamics of it, which are apparently part of the government's stated reasons for calling the Legislature to deal with the bill at this time.

I would further point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of the province and the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) particularly were allowed the

[ Page 5962 ]

broadest possible latitude without any relevance whatsoever to the bill. I don't think it is very gracious on the government's part now, after giving that latitude to their own spokesmen, to try to circumvent opposition spokesmen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, speaking to your point of order, we have been advised in this House that the labour dispute between the British Columbia Ferry Corporation and the ferry workers is, at the present time, under mediation. The line of debate being conducted by the member for Rossland-Trail was on very specific issues, with regard to employment on the B.C. Ferry Corporation. If you refer to the appendix to the schedule to Bill 92, the B.C. Ferry Corporation is mentioned in there with the other corporations. But I would caution the member that those items which specifically relate to the labour dispute currently under mediation by Mr. McKee would not be in order at this time of second reading.

MR. KING: On a point of order, is it your ruling that a labour dispute under mediation is ultra vires to this House? Is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not appropriate for debate at this time under second reading of Bill 92. 1 am not making a ruling that labour disputes are not to be discussed, but we are currently in second reading on Bill 92. In the broadest general terms, we can discuss the Ferry Corporation as well as the other corporations - B.C. Systems Corporation, et cetera - that come under it. But the House would be much better served if we stuck to the second reading principles which are.... The Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I take exception to the statement of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan that I or any other member of the government in the course of this debate have dealt with the specific details of the negotiations which are taking place which affect the ferry situation. I take particular exception to the remarks offered in debate a few moments ago that this bill was introduced to deal with this ferry strike or labour dispute:

MR. KING: It's a matter of record.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That dispute is being conducted under other legislation which is already the law in this province.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, while I don't necessarily . agree with your ruling on the matter, I will accept your advice and attempt to relate my remarks to the bill and to those aspects of the situation that have been dealt with, apparently, in order by previous speakers. We certainly had a very recent exchange between the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and my colleague from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) regarding the issue of whether or not there was or had been civil disobedience, or whether that had been advocated by anyone. I don't recall any advice from the Chair at that time that that was irrelevant.

So let's look at the actual situation. We had a minister using totally discretionary power to declare a dispute illegal in B.C., a dispute in which the individual members who were involved up to that point had completely played by the rules. No court was involved; no judge was involved; no quasi-judicial body like the Labour Relations Board. An elected member used ministerial discretion, something that party said they were always against when they were in opposition. An elected person used discretionary power at the eleventh hour to declare illegal something that at that point was legal.

There have been people in various jurisdictions in legislatures and in parliaments who have, over the years, said on occasion: "The law is an ass." There have been learned judges in supreme courts who have said: "The law is an ass." Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the law is an ass in this situation, but certainly there have been applications of the law that make that law look extremely foolish. I'm not going to go so far as to say that the Minister of Labour on this was an ass. However, I think that the record and the bungling in this particular dispute stands for itself and will be in the history books of British Columbia for a long time.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. I

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): It has become clear, of course, to all of us that something had to be done in respect to labour-management disputes in this province. I'm very pleased to be a small part of Bill 92 and I'll be very proud to be able to vote in favour of Bill 92.

I appreciate the comments from the previous member, who suggested something to the effect that we are all workers in British Columbia. I have always believed that all of us in British Columbia are part of the working force. Under the rules of our society, particularly our tax rules ' it is my understanding that we are all workers. We are all working for ourselves to improve our personal lot. But we are also working, I trust, in the interests of the collective and common good of our total society. Some of us remember and know what "remittance men" are. I believe there are few remittance men in Canada today.

In conversations in the past few weeks, I have been amazed at the amount of correspondence that has

[ Page 5963 ]

been coming through my office, and the telephone calls. I think of one call particularly from a senior labour leader who exhorted and almost pleaded with me suggesting that we must have respect for the law in our country and in our province, and that without that we would have anarchy in our province.

I'm amazed at the huff and bluff of the Leader of the Opposition in his suggestion that we in fact should go to the people on this issue. I think particularly of the record of one of the more popular hotliners in his survey when he suggests that in his survey, of 134 people called - that's without the people knowing all the details of this bill - 100 of these 134 gave us a resounding yes, and 34 only were against Bill 92.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not in love with big business, or big labour or big government. However, it is clear that the public expect the government of this province to assume responsibility when major sections, major areas and groups of our society come into difficulty and place the whole province into a difficult position. We have heard much about the partnership of labour, management, business and government. I believe that government is not really a partnership of labour and management. Government must have the courage to lead and to give direction. Management and labour and our whole society are looking to government for this direction. Bill 92 provides, Mr. Member, that particular leadership.

I fully expect that the opposition are going to change their minds again. It is rumoured that they are not going to support Bill 92, Mr. Speaker, but I fully expect that that, in fact, is only a rumour. In actual fact, they are going to support this bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm amazed. I just hope and trust that most of the members of the opposition haven't already left the House and gone home for the weekend. I trust and I hope that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has stayed here at least to support this bill.

I want to quote a statement made by the former Labour minister, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , in his speech made before the B.C. Federation of Labour on November 14,1972, in which he pleads for the labour unions to assume social responsibility for society at large and for their union members. He pleads for new ideas and new approaches; he pleads for unions to minimize strike action. One quote from the former Labour minister: "I have said on many occasions publicly to the trade union movement and management groups that no right is absolute, that every right that a citizen holds in this province must be tempered and weighed against the consequences of its exercise to the ultimate on innocent parties and on people directly involved."

I also would like to quote from the second member for Victoria in a speech which he made on August 2,1977, in which he says - and I was amazed when I listened to the member's speech:

"I'd like to examine the proposition that strikes and lockouts have become obsolete. I'd like to talk about the possibility that those instruments called strikes and lockouts have become as obsolete and crude as a zeppelin and a crossbow. In my own case, since elected in December, 1975, 1 have heard repeatedly from business and labour leaders, at least in private conversation, who have had the courage to say that the adversary system that we now employ is a dead end. " I appreciate that moment of honesty and I do expect that that member will slide back into the House and vote in support of Bill 92.

We have had too much gloom and doom in this province. We have had too much gloom and doom. We've had too much gloom and doom from the members of the opposition. We've had too much gloom and doom from union leaders, and we've had too much gloom and doom from many of the people in the private business sector. It's time that we all rallied together and joined our forces in the interest of our economy and the people of the province of British Columbia.

It's time that organized labour in British Columbia identify with and assume responsibility for not only the short-term objectives of its members but for the economic welfare of the total province - and, I suggest, also for the economic welfare of our nation. Also I appeal to labour to assume responsibility for the economic welfare of the employers of British Columbia, the employers which provide the risk capital, create the jobs that create our tax base which improves our total social services - and also to assume responsibility for the less privileged. It's time that the unions and union leaders, instead of only fighting for their short-term interests, in fact identify with those that are less privileged in our society. I'm thinking of the non-unionized, the people on fixed income, the elderly, the poor and the small business people.

There are some solutions available in our province. I suggest that labour and management working together made this country great for all Canadians. I suggest that labour and management working together with limited interference from government made this country great. Government must point labour and management in the right direction when misunderstanding affects the public at large. Labour and management must again work together to find the best answers in the interest of our total society.

Bill 92 clearly suggests that government is not only a partnership with labour and management but that government has a responsibility to direct both labour and management. When they are not able to come to an agreement in the interests of our community at

[ Page 5964 ]

large, government has a responsibility to give that direction so that in fact they can find agreement in the community at large.

Bill 92, the Essential Services Disputes Act, will go a long way toward accomplishing and establishing an equilibrium in the labour-management field and building investor confidence in British Columbia, creating job security in British Columbia, creating security and peace for all of the people of British Columbia for this generation and the next generation.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief, because certainly it's all been said and said very well. But I would like to mention just one aspect of the bill that I don't believe has been impressed upon enough. I'm very pleased to stand in support of the bill and to also speak out in support of the minister for the excellent job he's done.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is intended to avert strikes and lockouts wherever and whenever possible. It's not government, not business, not unions that are most affected by strikes; it's people. Most of the debate has centred around the theories and philosophies of collective bargaining, as well as interpretations and definitions as presented in the legislation. Sight seems to have been lost, at least in part, of the fact that essential services are essential to people. By and large, those people that are least fortunate - the ill, the handicapped, the elderly and children - suffer most ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Under you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: .... when we have strikes and lockouts, when we have disruptions in the essential services.

Let's compare the need for those services. We've heard a lot about ferries. I assume for most of those here and certainly for a good majority of the people that we come into ' contact with, ferries are essential. But on the other hand they might take a plane. For the elderly, however, or for those on limited incomes, the ferries and the continuance of their service are extremely essential.

This applies also to bus service. For example, the majority of us can use our cars - no problem. But for those like the elderly and the handicapped, bus service is essential for shopping and for medical help.

Health services are certainly not essential if you're healthy. But they're extremely essential for the handicapped, for the elderly and for those who are ill and require health services. These are the people affected by the disruptions that Bill 92 is attempting to avert.

The elderly require more care and more health services than the majority of us. Statistics show very clearly that also the poor suffer greater health problems than those who are better off. The children and handicapped are more in need of health care than others. So when these services are withheld because of strikes or lockouts, it's these people who bear the brunt of that loss.

Most everyone is endangered by loss of fire protection. But again, Mr. Speaker, it's the elderly or the ill or the handicapped who are most threatened due to the lack of response from an inhalator or some other emergency service.

Police service. Most of us think of police action in times of stopping crime.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member for New Westminster is of the opinion that the whole bill deals only with ferries, and he's rather surprised that there should be mention of police, fire or health, when Part II of the bill deals with those services particularly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for New Westminster says: "What do essential services have to do with the bill?"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for New Westminster to withdraw the word "jerks" as we did last evening. Please withdraw.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Yes. They're not all jerks,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please withdraw. Just so that the Chair has a clear understanding. You have withdrawn?

MR. COCKE: I withdraw.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, again, most of us think of police action only in terms of stopping crime. But much of the policeman's work is directed toward family intervention and child protection. Who prevents wives from abuse and children from being beaten when police slow down their efforts or go on strike or when there is some other activity which would make their services unavailable in these times?

The bulk of the public service employees, again, are geared to the social services - health and human resources. I think perhaps it's worthy, Mr. Speaker, to also mention something about strikes in general. The impact of the loss of revenue to the economy or to government again affects most those people in need -the elderly, the handicapped and the poor - because the revenue we gain from a healthy working economy is in turn directed to the needs of these

[ Page 5965 ]

people. Finally, all strikes involve the loss of jobs, right down through the hierarchy. It is always the low-wage earner at the bottom of the scale who is ultimately affected most by a major strike. They are the first to lose their jobs, yet they are at the same time least able to stand that loss.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous bill, a very necessary bill and a bill which will be a tremendous assistance to the people of British Columbia. I would urge all members who care for people to support the minister, to support Bill 92.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, I've been sitting here listening to the opposition speak about Bill 92.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: They're not even listening any longer. But I've been absolutely amazed, Mr. Speaker, by the lack of any substance to their debate. Even their labour critic, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , spoke, saying that in this bill there is no new authority. All the authority in this bill, she says, is contained in other legislation. Yet she goes on to say that this bill is chipping away at labour legislation and the Labour Code. Well, how can it chip away?

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, now that is the ultimate in inconsistency. First of all she says it contains nothing, and then she says it chips away the authority of the Labour Code. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was absolutely amazed a few moments ago to hear that this bill relates to essential services. Obviously, he hadn't read the bill, and his participation in the debate on this bill evidenced that most clearly. There was absolutely no stand on the bill whatsoever. Someone has told those members, Mr. Speaker, to oppose this bill, but they didn't tell them why. Those members can think of no reason why to oppose the bill, so they haven't spoken to the bill.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) did take a stand, as did the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . The member for North Vancouver-Capilano, Mr. Speaker, however, said that this bill takes away "the strike weapon, " as he puts it. But we know that it does not. All this bill does is provide a mechanism whereby disputes in essential services can be solved without having to resort to the strike. The ultimate decision as to removal of the right to strike would be made by this Legislature, by all of the representatives of the people of British Columbia.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) followed the same type of debate, Mr. Speaker. She had been told by someone - she knows not who - to speak against the bill, but she could find no reason to do so. So she beat about the bush. She got into talks about little moles and molehills, digging tunnels and destroying labour. Absolutely ridiculous. She said this bill has no significance and that all of the powers in it are contained in other legislation and yet she says that this bill erodes and destroys and tunnels away at the Labour Code. There was absolutely no stand, Mr. Speaker, no guts.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat, again, went on to say that you can't force people back to work with a firing squad. Well, I guess you can't. Most British Columbians, Mr. Speaker, want to work and want to have a way of solving labour problems without resorting to the strike. She opposes this bill, Mr. Speaker, but she never said why.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , as I mentioned, gave a very responsible assessment of the bill and he supports it. That member made one comment, Mr. Speaker, that disturbed me somewhat. He said that because he supports labour in British Columbia, he has often been branded NDP. Well, I hope that is not the case, because that member obviously is not NDP and members of this Legislature who support the labour movement are not NDP. All of the members of this party support labour. Most members of this party have at one time belonged to trade unions or labour unions; many of them still do.

This bill is not going to harm organized labour. As a matter of fact, this bill will help the union movement to prevent it from destroying itself.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read very briefly from an editorial in the Vancouver Province, dated Tuesday, October 11, this year. The caption on the editorial is: "How to Sink a Union Ship." It refers to the ferry strike. I know we cannot refer to specifics of the ferry strike, but I'll read to you very briefly from this. It said:

"It is the morning after the night before in the B.C. labour scene. B.C. ferry workers, once they have recovered from the intoxication of being able to trample on the helpless, innocent traveling public, may well finally have done permanent damage to the rights and privileges of more responsible union members. That, aided by reactionary screaming from the B.C. Federation of Labour, could quickly take us back to the not very distant days when the labour climate of B.C. was the sick joke of the nation."

This article, Mr. Speaker, goes into the specifics of the ferry strike, which I will not read, but it does say that by defying the order of the Labour Relations Board, "it is as intelligent as throwing away your life jacket after you have scuttled the ship."

The labour union movement in British Columbia

[ Page 5966 ]

cannot be destroyed by legislation. The labour union movement in British Columbia has told us in no uncertain terms that they are sick to death of special-interest groups defying the law and bringing hardships upon other members of this society. The great majority of people in this province do not wish to see the law defied, and that includes most of the responsible members of the union movement within this province. The members of the opposition, by backing civil disobedience and irresponsible labour leaders, and by promoting civil disobedience, are doing more damage to the union movement in British Columbia than could ever be done by any legislation brought in by any government.

Mr. Speaker, the other morning a prominent member of the labour scene in Victoria said that if the Socreds had reacted with the same alacrity to the problem of unemployment we might feel a little less fear about this legislation. He said that he was concerned about unemployment. Several members of the opposition have said they are concerned about unemployment. Yet at the same time they are mounting a boycott of the tourist industry in Victoria. They're working in the rest of Canada, the rest of British Columbia and the United States to encourage people not to come here to Vancouver Island. What will that do to the jobs and to the employment in the tourist industry in this province? Are they concerned about employment, or are they concerned about fulfilling their own politically motivated ends?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: How many jobs will be eliminated here. if they are successful in boycotting Vancouver Island? How many of their fellow workers are employed in the tourist industry? The little people will indeed suffer.

It's irresponsible action by them, orchestrated by people who will not stick their heads above the trenches, who will not say that they are the ones who are promoting the civil disobedience.... Some of them have said they will, and some of those are very prominent in the labour movement and in the B.C. Federation of Labour in particular. It's that type of act and that type of irresponsibility that will help to destroy the labour unions.

Mr. Speaker, members of this government realize that a healthy, responsible labour union movement in British Columbia will be to the benefit of all of us, to our economy and to our way of life. The world is watching our society here in British Columbia. We have had a bad reputation throughout the world. In the marketplaces in the world in which we trade, we have had a bad reputation as far as our labour situation is concerned. We've gained the reputation of being unreliable. We cannot, produce and deliver and meet our commitments because of constant interruptions in the labour scene in this province.

A great deal of responsibility has been shown by labour negotiators for union and management in the private sector this year. The Minister of Labour, in introducing this bill, pointed this out. I like the example of the IWA, where we have seen very responsible bargaining on both the labour and the management side. It has resolved negotiations in a very difficult year. But it requires responsibility and not militancy and flaunting the laws of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the right to strike and the right to lock out is a right, but with these rights go responsibilities - responsibilities to the employer, responsibilities to the employees, responsibilities to the public being served, and responsibility to the health and welfare of the people of this province and to the economy of this province. It is only by having responsible parties on both sides, armed with the facts of the situation, that we can avoid interrupted service, especially in essential services but throughout our economy.

Bill 92, Mr. Speaker, provides the means whereby facts can be presented. Fact-finders can be used. An agency will be established to advise the government and the parties as to ways of overcoming their difficulties. This bill provides a measure and a means to avoid unacceptable interruptions, to force responsibility upon those who may not wish to be responsible.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Labour for this legislation. I think it is another great step towards the attainment of labour harmony in the essential services in this province, and I urge all members to support it as well.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I know there are more government members who want to get up and speak, so I thought I'd give you an opportunity. Particularly the member for Fort George there (Mr. Lloyd) ; he's been waiting so long. But you're most gracious in allowing me to get up, particularly when I'm so prepared.

Oh, I am glad my speech has arrived. (Laughter.) One editorial I'm going to use in my speech, Mr. Speaker, the Premier actually called across the floor to me. He suggested I use it and so I am going to be most delighted to take the Premier's advice. If I may, I'll quote from this editorial as I move towards my few brief remarks. This is from the Victoria Times and I will come back to that in a moment. It may have been quoted, but it was so excellent that I think it perhaps bears some repetition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Perhaps the hon. member would prefer to refer to it rather than to read it in its entirety.

[ Page 5967 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I will refer to it. I think it might bear repetition, Mr. Speaker, because it perhaps may make the Premier change his mind on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening with great interest to the member who just spoke, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) . It was most interesting to hear his remarks. He kept referring to the irresponsible actions of the unions and of union leaders. Mr. Speaker, as far as I'm concerned, it's the irresponsible actions of this government which has led us to this position today where we are faced with a piece of legislation which did not have to be brought here before us at a special session. Do you agree, Mr. Premier? The Premier has nodded his head. I think he realizes now that it was an unnecessary thing to bring this legislation before this House at this time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's good legislation.

MRS. DAILLY: It's either of two reasons, and it's already been mentioned by other members on this side of the House that it was done strictly from a political motive. The Premier and his cabinet bumbled. They bumbled the ferry situation and they had to react to the anger, so they thought, of the public. Therefore they decided that they would come forward before this House with a bill which would try to say to the public: "You can trust us. We can handle the situation re labour and government ourselves." They seem to be very, very concerned that the situation had reached a point where the Premier, particularly, personally had to recover his face and his image. That's why, I believe, we were brought here together - for that one purpose alone, Mr. Speaker.

Then, on top of that, I think the Premier was flying a kite. That was quite obvious this morning, Mr. Speaker. I really believe that when he arrived, he thought that perhaps he was going to get a reaction from the public and the feeling that the public out there would be ready to use this piece of legislation, or rather he could use it, as an election issue. It is quite obvious that once again this Premier has misread the public. He has misread the attitude of the way he predicted the opposition would handle their presence in the House, and he has decided to pull back.

I think the Premier has shown once again that not only has he bungled the handling of the economy of this province, Mr. Speaker, but he's also bungled very, very much in the area of labour and management. It's most unfortunate because we did have high hopes for you, Mr. Premier, in the early years. We had high hopes that at least you might be able to handle your position in a far more responsible way than you've been able to show to date.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Oh, you don't believe that.

MRS. DAILLY: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I didn't have time to get a speech ready, so this is right from the heart.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What was that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) handed you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, while you're designing your speech, would you perhaps take into consideration the principle of Bill 92?

MRS. DAILLY: Getting back to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I am really concerned that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) does symbolize many of the members of his cabinet and the Socred backbenchers when he heaps upon the union movement all the blame for any labour-management problems which arise in this province. That is the attitude of the Social Credit government. That is exactly what your speech says. But they themselves don't take any responsibility, obviously. All the responsibility must be heaped on the unions of this province.

Because they have so little faith in the union-management process in this province, they've drawn us all together here for a bill which has been quoted in many areas as a nothing bill. It was interesting to hear the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) quote very carefully the general secretary of the B.C. government union, John Fryer, who stated it was a "nothing bill, " and then she threw up her hands and said: "That means that we'll have no trouble with this bill." She herself admitted that the essence of this bill was fairly vacuous.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we do not feel that is entirely so. That is why we're voting against this bill. You will find, as we continue discussion, particularly in committee stage, Mr. Speaker, the areas that we're very concerned about. But one of the basic reasons for opposing this bill ...

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... is to keep your friends employed.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the remark made by the Premier was really uncalled for. He is suggesting we are going to support this to keep our friends employed. I really think that should be withdrawn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't know that it is unparliamentary; it may be objectionable.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you want to keep your friends unemployed?

[ Page 5968 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I won't bother with asking for a withdrawal, but I want to make the point that the Premier continually stoops to this level of debate and asides in the House where he tries to always put everything into a personal basis on this floor. We don't believe in doing that. I personally do not believe in that.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're a member of the original smut party.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Our language in this chamber ought to be typified by temperance, I believe.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, who has the floor?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Premier, on a point of order?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member asked me to withdraw a remark where I said: "Keep people employed." If she finds that offensive, I'll say that ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will withdraw?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... it's not offensive to me to keep people employed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With great respect, it was not a point of order. The member for Burnaby North continues. Let us hear the member.

MRS. DAILLY: The Premier has completely, purposely twisted that. However, all I can say is that at least for the first time he showed a recognition that there are people in this province who are unemployed and need some help. And I hope that the Premier will take to heart what he said when he said he is concerned about the unemployed. But I'm afraid we've had to wait two years now to see any evidence that the Premier of this province has concern or is doing anything about the unemployed in this province.

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

MRS. DAILLY: Right, back to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. The main reason why we don't consider this, Mr. Speaker, a nothing bill is because it is in the hands of a government who, through some of its leading spokespeople in their government, have shown definite anti-labour biases, and this causes great concern to....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense!

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, you have ...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense!

MRS. DAILLY: ... and statements made by members of that government have shown exactly their biases.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense!

MRS. DAILLY: It's in their hands, this piece of legislation. As has been said before, there is an erosion capability in this bill which causes grave concern to the labour movement of this party and, may I say also, to management, because, by and large, people have been generally satisfied with the present Labour Code.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. May we have a lower level of noise in the room, please?

MRS. DAILLY: There has been general satisfaction and praise, Mr. Speaker, not only from unions but also from management on the very fine Labour Code brought in by the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) . It has been recognized across Canada. Yet this government is....

AN HON. MEMBER: We support it.

MRS. DAILLY: You may support it, and it's very nice to hear praise now for the Labour Code brought in by the former minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: We voted for it.

MRS. DAILLY: Voted for it, yes, but I didn't hear you out on the campaign trail speaking and praising the code of British Columbia. I'm glad it's on the record now that the former, former Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Chabot) considers the Labour Code brought in by the last Minister of Labour (Mr. King) to be one of the finest in Canada. We're glad the Social Credit endorses that.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

[ Page 5969 ]

MRS. DAILLY: According to the former, former Minister of Labour, he did support that Labour Code. I'll take his word for it, but I can assure him that many of us will be checking back on Hansard to be sure of that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Go ahead.

MRS. DAILLY: The point I want to make, though, on the principle of the bill, is that it is because of the record of the Social Credit government and their history in labour relations that bills brought in at what we consider an unnecessary time do make us nervous. It not only makes the opposition nervous about what they are attempting to do to the labour movement of this province, but it certainly makes the labour movement nervous. And as someone said in reference to the bill, it may on the surface appear somewhat innocuous, but 'the point is always in the application of the law. As has been said, I suppose time alone will prove that. But our concern and why we intend to vote against this is, frankly, Mr. Speaker, that we do not trust this government. We do not trust you. We do not trust you in your application.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell it to the people!

MRS. DAILLY: We do not trust you, and the very fact that you brought this in today, or a few days ago, even gives us more doubt about whether the people of this province should trust you. We consider it an unnecessary move, but we consider it dangerous and there must be a reason behind it for bringing it in. We don't trust you, we don't trust this bill in your hands, and that's why we are not going to support it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You don't trust anybody. That's why you're over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I remind all hon. members that observance of standing order 17 (2) really seems to have fallen into disrepute in the chamber. I would encourage all members to review that standing order.

MRS. DAILLY: There's one particular area in this bill which does concern me - one of the reasons why 1, along with the others, will certainly vote against it. I'm very concerned - and we'll go into more detail on this in the committee stage - about the very apparent erosion of the powers of the Labour Relations Board of this province. I certainly hope that when the Minister of Labour gets the opportunity, he will be able to assure us on this matter. But, frankly, as we read the bill, we are very concerned that the powers of this very fine body are going to be eroded.

We are particularly concerned about the appointment of the agency. There's no question in my mind that if it were put in the hands of the Provincial Secretary they would be entirely Socred appointments. These are just two of the concerns, Mr. Speaker, which I personally have. Basically, I'm concerned that it is a bill that can possibly create demoralization, and, maybe inevitably, more chaos and unrest, depending on the application of this bill by this government.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, as an interior MLA, I take great pleasure in rising and supporting Bill 92, the Essential Services Disputes Act. It's obvious that Bill 92 is overdue. A check and a balance must be instigated to ensure that the public is protected. No segment, management or labour, can be allowed to trample on the public. I'm particularly pleased that the scope of the essential service legislation has been broadened to include the immediate and substantial threat to the economy and welfare of the province and its citizens, besides the previous criteria - the threat to life, health or safety.

Mr. Speaker, this provision is long overdue. The BCR labour and management strike that plagued B.C., especially the interior, could have been resolved with this provision. In the BCR's recent problem, I would like at this time to give full credit to the BCR workers, who obeyed the Labour Relations Board directive and returned to work. Furthermore, I would like to express my appreciation to the northern UTU members of the BCR who did not participate in the recent walkout, and indicated their concern for their fellow workers and for their community.

Mr. Speaker, the mayors and councils of the interior cities on the BCR, who sent delegations to Victoria during the last several years, in futile efforts to restore freight service on the BCR, will appreciate Bill 92. 1 took part in a council delegation in 1975, when the former NDP Labour minister told our delegation we were wasting time - his time and our time. It was a very comforting statement when we came so far.

I'm sure that the interior forest industry, Mr. Speaker, will also be relieved if Bill 92 assists in restoring the reliable freight service to the interior lumber and pulp centres.

Mr. Speaker, last year, in the first 150 days, the BCR could not provide service for 58 days due to work stoppages, strikes, work to rule, and lockouts by management. This means a 38 per cent loss of service and, of course, a loss of revenue to the BCR. Work stoppages and illegal strikes actually serve to increase the deficits of subsidized transportation systems - ferries, rail lines, transit systems. Alternative means of shipping to lessen the dependency on the irregular or unreliable transportation systems are thus encouraged, again increasing the BCR operating loss.

[ Page 5970 ]

I think, Mr. Speaker, an example of this is that recently a lot of the freight shippers who have a choice of alternate service, who aren't completely dependent on the BCR, have made provisions to ship by the Canadian National Railway. They're putting in storage sheds in Prince George; they're putting in spur links to hook onto the CNR. This is going to result in a good loss of revenue to the BCR. I think these workers have to realize their responsibility. They're losing jobs by these illegal walkouts.

Not only the industry suffers, Mr. Speaker, but the individuals also - the taxpayers of the province - not just because of lost working days but also because the public does pay terrific subsidies towards transportation systems. The B.C. Ferries received in the neighbourhood of $42 million in 1976-77. The B.C. Railway received $46 million in 1976-77. 1 understand the B.C. Hydro transit loss was in the neighbourhood of $56 million in 1976 and 1977. As our citizens own these Crown corporations, and as their taxes and hydro bills support these corporations, the labour force and management are responsible to the public.

When we consider that the wages have risen on B.C., Ferries from $17.8 million in 1971-72 to $52.9 million in 1975-76 - an increase of 300 per cent in four years - then it's hard to believe that the ferry workers are really suffering. Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that all the wage settlements in British Columbia over the past few years are adjusted retroactive to the contract termination date. So I can't rationalize why a wildcat or illegal walkout can be justified.

I find it somewhat surprising that some of the opposition members, particularly from the island communities - Comox, Cowichan-Malahat, Mackenzie - question whether it was necessary to recall the Legislature. It seems that their lack of concern is typical of the NDP - just continue to straddle the fences. Some of the NDP island members talk like they came from the Kootenays. They don't seem to have any concern for the people in their regions. I was pleased to see the Conservative and the Liberal opposition recognize the necessity of Bill 92. 1 feel these two opposition members are responsible, and I'm sure all the members of the House share their concern. The NDP try to hide their concern, apparently afraid of the labour union bosses.

The Conservative and Liberal members also indicated their alarm over the ferry workers' lack of respect for our country's laws. I know that my constituents share this concern about the lack of respect for our laws. Individuals will have to choose whether to follow radical union leaders in some unions or to respect our country's laws. As free Canadians, this is everyone's responsibility and obligation. The laws must be respected.

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised to hear the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) suggest that we leave Bill 92 as a White Paper. His concern seemed to be that Bill 92 would not allow for a waiver of penalties. If I say I'm somewhat surprised, it's because I feel the member's experience in the House and his supposed knowledge of the provincial labour situation.... I'm surprised that he thought that you could just bring out something as a guideline. Possibly it's the old Liberal formula back east. Without specific penalties, it's obvious that no legislation can do its job.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano also mentioned the air traffic controllers' work-to-rule at Toronto, the hardship that's suffered by the traveling public, and the wasted energy and resources. I think that's a very good example of the public suffering due to labour-management confrontations.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I can't understand the NDP opposition members not supporting Bill 92. Their actions are hard to rationalize. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) stated several times yesterday that the government could resolve this very strike without any confrontation. Surely some NDP MLAs must remember the former Transport minister, Bob Strachan, being ambushed by the ferry workers. Strachan stated publicly that they held a gun to his head. In a Province editorial of August 23, headed: "Negotiations at Gunpoint". . . . I'm not going to read this to you, but there are several parts to it, I think, that are very illuminating. They mention how dismayed Robert Strachan was to find out the reasonableness of men. When they're given all these options, they would still put the gun to his head. He says: "The government opted for a quick settlement, providing a rich package for the 2,000 unlicensed ferry personnel because they held a gun to its head." Is that the quick settlement that the first member for Vancouver Centre was suggesting yesterday? Is that the quick settlement that he wanted this government to adopt?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like at this time to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Lloyd moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have just been advised that we have in the gallery today as a guest His Grace Archbishop Menzies, Roman Catholic bishop of Bombay. He is accompanied by Mrs. R. Gallagher from Crofton on Vancouver Island. I think perhaps the House would welcome them

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I ask leave of the House to table two reports: a review of the fish and wildlife branch by W.

[ Page 5971 ]

Winston Mair and a draft statement of the goals and objectives of the fish and wildlife branch.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom. moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.