[ Page 5973 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Essential Services Disputes Act (Bill 92) Second reading

Mr. Lloyd –– 5973

Mr. King –– 5974

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 5980

Mr. Davidson –– 5983

Mr. Barber –– 5985

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5987

Mr. Kahl –– 5989

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 5990

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 5993

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5994

Mr. Mussallem –– 5996

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 5997

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 5998

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5999

Division on second reading –– 6002

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we're honoured to have with us today a very special guest, a young man who is a renowned world traveler. I welcome him back to Victoria. His name is John Luton.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, earlier today I asked the House to amend and adopt two reports. Inadvertently, on the committee on the Crown corporations there was a typing error and an omission of a name. I would like to ask the House to recognize that the member for Dewdney's name was omitted. George Mussallem's name should be on the report. I would ask then that the House would amend and adopt the report accordingly.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I think this is the issue, Mr. Premier!

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Adjourned debate on Bill 92, Mr. Speaker.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES DISPUTES ACT

(continued)

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this morning in my opening remarks on Bill 92 the benefit that I felt would come to the interior of the province, particularly the part of the interior served by BCR; the benefit that Bill 92 should be able to restore a steady, reliable operation to that line. Just as we adjourned at lunchtime I was mentioning an article in the Province of August 23,1973, dealing with the previous government's problems during the ferry strike of 1973. There are just a couple of short quotes I'd like to make out of that particular editorial: "Negotiations at Gunpoint."

One of the things they say is that one of the resolutions coming out of the five-day tie-up The wage increases ranged from 12 per cent to 22 per cent, and in one case there was a 30 per cent increase, which was unheard of in the province at that time. The editorial went on to say that the government hadn't worked out what the increase was really going to cost, but it would be substantial. There were some reports that the settlement could double the ferry fleet's deficit, and we all know who pays that, don't we?

Just in terminating the article, and I think it's a very timely point, it stated:

"But what the government has to look at is legislation it expects to introduce again in the fall to provide collective bargaining for all government employees. Essential services should be defined in advance and appropriate procedures should be adopted that will ensure they're treated that way. Otherwise the government will hold a gun at its own head. with someone else's finger constantly on the trigger."

I think the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentioned what the government could have done. It's quite obvious that that's what they should have done at that time and we wouldn't be down here today. If they had brought in a bill along the lines of Bill 92 to define which the essential services are and to say what would happen in a case where negotiations can't be concluded successfully, then we wouldn't be going through the exercise which is so very necessary today.

Mr. Speaker, Bob Strachan's surrender to the ferry workers' blackmail tactics also set the stage for other sectors: shorter work weeks, no control of productivity, portal-to-portal working hours and other extravagant fringe benefits. All of these contract benefits curtailed the productivity in the public service, but also, the extravagant wage increases that Strachan allowed started the inflationary wage spiral in British Columbia both at the provincial and municipal levels, which our resource industries today find very difficult to match. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to express my appreciation to the Labour minister for the capable manner he has displayed over the past 22 months. The Labour minister inherited a province rent with labour-management confrontations by the previous government.

Many of the opposition members have spoken of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , the previous Labour minister, indicating how he brought labour peace to our province. The NDP record during this term of government of continual confrontations, strikes, lockouts or absolute capitulation, as in the 1973 ferry strike, does not bear out the opposition claims. The Premier mentioned this morning the last government's record on labour relations. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a government imposing a 90-day freeze on industry and government workers and then calling a snap election, leaving labour and management relations at an all-time low in our province?

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

MR. LLOYD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Bill 92, the Essential Services Disputes Act, is a carefully worded

[ Page 5974 ]

document to ensure that the public interest is taken into consideration during essential service labour negotiations without prejudicing union or management's prerogative to settle by collective bargaining if they so desire. I commend the Labour minister and his ministry officials for Bill 92. It is a credit to his ministry and to our government.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Well, I've listened with great interest and attention over the past day and a half to the comments of all the members of this House regarding the bill that is now before us. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that there's been a good deal more heat than light generated on the problems of industrial relations in the province....

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): By the opposition.

MR. KING: No, from all sides of the House, I think. I also think there have been unfortunate statements made, Mr. Speaker. Excessive statements have been made and perhaps some of the excess has spilled over to both sides of the House. But when he introduced the bill, the Minister of Labour said that it was, indeed, a complex statute.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Prince Rupert please come to order?

MR. LEA: I'm just answering the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , , who's cracking up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The standing orders provide only that if you wish to answer someone, you must gain the floor in the proper way.

MR. KING: I can deal with my colleague in caucus, but call the government to order.

The minister's comments regarding the *bill being complex and difficult to understand are quite correct; that is the nature of industrial relations. The public really only gets a glimpse of the issues in dispute as a rule, and it's a very difficult area.

The minister made some interesting comments that I would like to mention. He talked about the degree of inconvenience the public will tolerate in a labour dispute. I want to suggest to the minister and to the House, Mr. Speaker, that the price of any freedom in society is some inconvenience to other members of the public. That's an inevitable consequence'of exercising democratic rights in a free society.

I was quoted at length in this debate by the Minister of Labour, by the Minister of Mines, and by various other government ministers, when I observed in previous debates in this House that no rights are absolute, either when they are held by a trade union, by a private citizen or any organization in society. I have no hesitation in reaffirming that opinion. That is quite correct.

But what we're really talking about is the degree and the balance to which inconvenience to the public will be tolerated, the degree to which it must be tolerated to guarantee reasonable rights of individuals in society. When government members get up and say, as the Minister of Labour has done, that they endorse the free collective bargaining system as the method of regulating the relationship between workers and employers in the province they are saying.... Because implicit in that recognition is the right of workers to withdraw their services as a last resort in the bargaining process. That's not just judged here in British Columbia; that is judged throughout the free world as the true measure of a free trade union movement in a free society.

I recognize, and our government recognized when we were in office, that at times the conflict between a trade union and an employer becomes so disruptive to the health and the safety of the public, or perhaps to the very economy of the province, that the government must act in the general good of the overall population. I don't question that; I support that point of view.

But the government can't have it both ways. They've called this session of the Legislature not to deal with an existing work stoppage. Indeed, there is no work stoppage. The minister has made that point. There was a work stoppage. There was defiance, not of the law, as members of this House have said and as the media have said, but of the Labour Relations Board. There's a very, very important distinction here which the Minister of Labour well understands. He's not only the Minister of Labour, but he's a lawyer too. The B.C. Ferry Corporation workers did not defy the law. They defied an order of the Labour Relations Board. That order of the Labour Relations Board does not, in fact, become an order of the courts until it is filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't they file it?

MR. KING: Now I don't agree with defiance of the Labour Relations Board's, orders. That tribunal was set up in a fair and balanced way. It has had great success and, I think, won great esteem in the total community for its prudence and impartiality and wisdom in regulating the affairs of labour and management.

Members of this House, we the legislators, are the people who commissioned the Labour Relations Board with the authority it holds in law. For us as

[ Page 5975 ]

legislators to misconstrue the happenings of the ferry strike and to blithely allege that those workers were in contempt of the law, as the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) has done - the chief law enforcement officer of this province, the Premier, the first minister, who said they defied the law - is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. They did not defy the law; they would only have been in defiance of the law had the Labour Relations Board order been filed with the supreme court and the workers had continued to defy that court order.

Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, there are penalties contained in the Labour Code of British Columbia which provide for very stiff penalties against not only the trade union but against each and every worker of that unit. Those penalties would be enforced by the courts. They provide for a $1,000 fine for individual members and up to $10,000 for the trade union. So there are effective enforcement mechanisms in the law as it stands.

That law was not activated by the Labour Relations Board. I do not criticize the Labour Relations Board for not activating that law. They perform a mediation role; they are not a punitive agency. They are an agency of mediation, an agency of attempts to bring about a reconciliation of matters between labour and management and the resumption of services. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, they attained such an agreement between the Ferry Corporation and the ferry employees' union. Apparently the special mediator appointed by the Minister of Labour was a party to that agreement.

I find it difficult to understand why the special mediator would not communicate that understanding to the man who appointed him just a day or two previously, the Minister of Labour. I find that very difficult to understand. I find it extremely difficult to understand why the chairman of the board of the Ferry Corporation, who was a party to an agreement with the ferry workers' union and the Labour Relations Board, had no knowledge of the agreement.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that if this is the case, we have two ministers of the Crown who are not in control of their departments. We have either a lack of candour in terms of what did occur or we have two ministers of the Crown who are not in control of their departments and do not have knowledge of what is going on in what they term to be a crisis situation.

So let me say those things for the record. The question of illegality - the question of contempt of the law - is an important and fundamental one that apparently hasn't been very well understood in this House. I think that's a bit of a disappointment, considering this is the chamber where the legislators formulate the law. That's the first issue.

Now in terms of what we're here for and in terms of what is contained in the bill to come to grips with disputes in the public sector, let me deal with those things. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that almost all of the provisions contained in the new bill resided within the authority of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) under the Labour Code of British Columbia and it was not essential to bring in this statute.

It's been suggested by some government speakers that this is a codification of the law in British Columbia. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this is a fragmentation of the law. We had one comprehensive Labour Code in the province of British Columbia, understood, accepted and abided by in general terms by labour and management. What we are seeing now is a new statute, dealing first of all with ferries and railways, introduced last session. Now we have another statute taking section 73, or substantial parts of it, from the Labour Code and incorporating it into a new statute, which is really meaningless in terms of providing any new answers to disputes in the public sector. It's fragmentation of the law, for no apparent purpose.

A new agency is set up under this statute, a new agency which has certain powers to investigate work relationships in the public sector. It has the authority to appoint - what do they call him? - not a snooper, but a fact-finder. Mr. Speaker, under the Labour Code of British Columbia and under the departmental structure that the Minister of Labour administers, there is a research branch which is capable, experienced and qualified to do substantial research into the economics of any given industry in the province. If not adequate staff is available, the minister can certainly hire more. The research branch has been used for this precise purpose in the past, by me when I was Minister of Labour, and, I believe, by the former Social Credit administration.

So the role of fact finding or investigating relationships could well have been undertaken by existing branches of the Department of Labour, without creating a new bureaucracy in an ongoing way, apparently to be staffed by chosen Social Credit hacks. I don't think they'll be trusted. I think it's another bureaucracy within the Ministry of Labour that psychologically appears to interfere with and intrude upon the role of the Labour Relations Board, and upon the role of the mediation services branch of the Ministry of Labour.

MR. BARRETT: Now we know why Dianne Hartwick was hired.

MR. KING: There;s nothing of any great benefit there, and it's certainly nothing innovative or new -not one thing. It was all there. The minister had the authority to appoint a task force if he wished. The minister had the authority under the Labour Code to appoint special advisers to his office with regard to any industry. Instead, he sets up a new, ongoing

[ Page 5976 ]

bureaucracy. Rather than bringing about calm and stability within the industrial relations scene of the province, it will, I suspect, be viewed with some suspicion, some resentment and certainly less than confidence by many of the people in the realm of industrial relations, because it is a political agency created by the minister. It's not an ongoing part of the departmental structure at all. There's nothing innovative there.

What about the 90-day cooling-off period? It's extended to cover all of the public sector rather than firemen, hospital workers and policemen. The term has been extended, from the 21 days which we introduced, confined to those three industries, to 90 days and the breadth of the application is extended to all government agencies.

I just want to say to all of the members on the government side who apparently feel that this 90-day cooling-off period is some new and magical mechanism for cooling passions and solving problems, as the minister said, that it is no such thing. I do not disagree with a cooling-off period. I believe that from time to time it may be necessary for the government to be able to call a halt and consider ways of dealing with the issue, such as reconvening the Legislature, and to have a reasonable length of time to do so. Twenty-one days was adequate; 90 days, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, simply delays confronting the issue in dispute. It means that the right of the trade union movement to strike or the right of the corporation to lock out is rolled back for 90 days, or possibly 104 days because there's a 14-day extension possible. To delay dealing with issues that are intense enough to create a work stoppage may on some occasions intensify and compound the problem rather than bringing about calm and reconciliation.

One of the tenets of justice is that justice delayed is justice denied. When workers go out on strike, they usually believe that they are striking for justice. For the government just to say: "You are rolled back 90 days and prevented from taking this action, " what do you do at the end of 90 days? There is absolutely no assurance under this statute in the existing circumstances that the ferry workers of British Columbia cannot take strike action again.

I hope the issue is settled. I hope that Mr. Clive McKee is successful. He's an excellent individual. But there is nothing in this law, there is no new innovation which precludes the possibility of that dispute erupting again and this Legislature having to be reconvened to deal with the issue - none whatsoever.

So if you feel that you have provided some solution, if you are deluding yourselves and attempting to delude the public into thinking that you have come in with some new resolution to labour disputes, my gosh, you're fooling yourselves.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Doom and gloom.

MR. KING: No doom and gloom at all. Reality, my friend. These are the problems I see.

I would point out further, as far as doom and gloom is concerned, that there may be some valid reason to have some real apprehension. While Clive McKee has been appointed as special mediator.... And I want to say to the government members that there's nothing magic in the term "special mediator." It's a term that was used, to my knowledge, for the first time when I appointed Judge Hank Hutcheon in the forest industry dispute in 1975. We appointed him a special mediator as a psychological means of elevating the status above what was available in the Labour Code at the time. The Minister of Labour, the current one, has followed that practice. There's nothing wrong with that. But there's nothing magic about a "special mediator." He's a mediator.

Now he's busy trying to find a resolution to the dispute in the Ferry Corporation, and what do we have? We had an agreement reached between the workers and the corporation. I believe the special mediator was a party to it; certainly the Labour Relations Board was. They returned to work. The special mediator is engaged in his function now of trying to find a settlement.

I The Premier comes back from Ottawa and indicates that there are going to be prosecutions. He's going to be the tough guy. The Minister of Transport and Communications indicates in response to questions on public television that yes, there will be prosecutions. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy is that prosecution was not open to the government. They could have asked the board to file the order with the Supreme Court of British Columbia so prosecutions would be open. The Ferry Corporation of British Columbia could have requested the board to file the order with the supreme court so prosecutions could follow. The fact on the public record is that the Labour Relations Board received no request from the government of British Columbia or from the Ferry Corporation to file the order with the supreme court so a prosecution could follow. No, they did not.

But the Premier goes on the media and the Minister of Transport and Communications goes on the media, saying: "We're going to prosecute. We're going to show those ferry workers that they can't defy the law." They were ignorant, apparently blithely ignorant of the laws that they themselves administer, because the ferry workers weren't at that point in defiance of the law; ignorant of and contemptuous of the role of the special mediator that the Minister of Labour had appointed, who was trying to dampen the climate and bring about a reasoned collective agreement between the ferries.

The statements made by the Premier and the

[ Page 5977 ]

Minister of Transport and Communications, the Minister of Labour silent, can only compromise the activities of Mr. Clive McKee, the special mediator. What do the ferry workers think? They had their agreement. They understood the ground rules, only to have them undermined by political statements from cabinet ministers, and that is the fact of the matter. It's shocking. It's regrettable.

I think part of my regret - and I say this sincerely - is for the poor Labour minister, because it's not, as someone else observed, an easy job. I happened to be in that portfolio for a period of time myself and I know that it's a rough one. I know that you can't please everyone; I know you're subject to great criticism. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that unless your word is good as the Minister of Labour, you are useless. You are absolutely useless. The tragedy here is that the Minister of Labour's credibility, veracity and word have been destroyed and compromised by his own colleague - namely, the Premier.

The Premier said prosecutions would follow, despite the fact that the Minister of Labour's agents had guaranteed that there would be no prosecutions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, I again challenge this member, as all the others who have spoken before him, to identify the persons who have given such guarantees.

MR. BARRETT: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What he's saying is, in fact, not the case.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that's not a point of order.

MR. KING: Yes, that's a valid point of order, and I accept it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor. Please continue.

MR. KING: I have the floor, thank you. I accept the minister's request, and I shall read into the record the agreement by an agent of the government under the control and authority of the Ministry of Labour. It is a document over the signature of Paul Weiler, chairman of the board. It's headed:

"B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union.

"Note: issuance of this statement is contingent upon a signed agreement on return to work by the parties in this case. While the board has received application for a formal order, the board has not received any request from the Ferry Corporation under section 30 to file a copy of its order dated October 8,1977, in the supreme court, nor has it received any request to consent to sue, pursuant to section 32 (4) of the Code.

"Furthermore, no indication has been received that the Ferry Corporation proposes to initiate these matters in the future. Accordingly, in the special circumstances of this case and on the assumption that the trade union forthwith directs its members to return to work, and that the union members do, in fact, comply forthwith the board's order of October 8,1977, the board would be of the view that this matter is, and would remain, closed."

The board holds the authority as to whether the order will be filed with the court. That is the road to prosecution and enforcement. By this statement, the chairman- of the board foreclosed the avenue of prosecution in the ferry workers'. dispute. It was contingent upon an immediate return to work, and contingent upon a signed agreement by the union and the Ferry Corporation. If the Minister of Labour is not familiar with that agreement, he is incompetent. He's not only incompetent; he's unbelievably naive.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And he can't wait to admit it.

MR. KING: Believe me, Mr. Speaker, if that is the way he stays on top of emergent labour disputes in this province, then perhaps the sooner the Premier drops him, the better for all concerned.

But I have some sympathy for the minister. I think he was compromised and trapped. I think he was trapped by the intemperate, inflammatory statements of the Premier and the Minister of Transport and Communications, and to get out of the political jam that the government was in - where they looked weak, bumbling and inept, and the public was reacting and sending telegrams and letters - the Premier said: "We've got to do something dramatic." The Minister of Labour wasn't strong enough to withstand that interference by the Premier and say: "An agreement is an agreement, and I'm a party to it." He repudiated the agreement. Then, in a patently transparent ruse, to demonstrate to the public that "look, we are tough and we can handle disputes of this nature, " they called the Legislature. The elephant laboured long and hard and bore forth this mouse, that contains nothing new. The only thing it contains that really concerns me, Mr. Speaker - and it's reason enough to oppose this bill, aside from anything else -is section 14 of the bill. I'm not going to refer to that

[ Page 5978 ]

section specifically....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of 'Economic Development): We'll tell the public you opposed it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the government has complained all day that the NDP....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: At least I showed up at the trial; that's more than you did.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Smear and innuendo, that's all you know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Minister of Economic Development kindly come to order, please?

MR. KING: I think the only wrath greater than a woman spurned is a government caught out in a political ploy, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier made interesting comments when he was up speaking. He talked about guaranteed continuity of services. There's no guarantee in this statute that there'll be a continuity of services. None whatsoever. That impression is simply untrue. It's not factual. There can't be. I hope there is never an interruption of services in any of the public service areas. But there's no guarantee. Indeed, no legislative guarantee can ever be written that there will be continuity of services. You can't legislate people's hearts and minds. There's no way. The most intelligent thing you can try to do is to come up with positive methods of dispute resolution.

I want to commend to the Minister of Labour and to the government some of the steps that might have been taken to bring about more intelligent, more reasoned industrial relations in this province. The NDP government had introduced a Labour College of British Columbia statute, and funded it with $5 million, so that those people going to the bargaining table, not only on the labour side but on the management side, too, could have some training in the skills required to bargain effectively and sensitively. This Social Credit government killed that initiative, and in so doing, killed one of the most positive steps that was ever taken to improving industrial relations in this province. That was new and innovative. The minister did not lend it his support. The minister apparently didn't fight for it in cabinet; if he did, he was unsuccessful and it went down the drain.

The Premier talked about independent boards without interference from government. What an irony, Mr. Speaker. For the Premier to get up after debating this bill and talk about independent boards, free from government interference. For the first time in the province of British Columbia in recent years, the Labour Relations Board is now subject to direction from the cabinet and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. For the first time we see political direction of the Labour Relations Board - in this statute.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker: is that what the minister considers to be a free, independent board - one that's directed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Has the minister no confidence in the Labour Relations Board, or is this a surreptitious attempt to have some of the people who are there and have credibility depart because they won't stand interference and manipulation and control by the politicians in Victoria?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Come on, don't let it rub off on you.

MR. KING: Well, I want to tell you, it's in the statute.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's rubbing off on you.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm not afraid of anything I have rubbing off. I want to tell you that I will never be rubbed so raw that I will be moved to depart my principles and the party I stand for. Never!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Baloney.

MR. KING: The Attorney-General can do that if he wishes, the Minister of Labour can do it, but not me.

Mr. Speaker, the government directs its criticism to the opposition for not being specific, for not zeroing in on the bill. I'm telling the minister what's in his own bill, and he says: "Don't be ~nasty."

MR. BARRETT: I guess it's a nasty bill.

MR. KING: It's your bill, Mr. Minister. You were the one that in this statute, for the first time, compromised the complete independence of the Labour Relations Board. Is that not true? Do you deny that? Can you read? You have subjected the board to political direction by the cabinet of this province. I find that insidious. I find it a complete departure from the pronounced policy of the Premier. He stood up here even this morning and

[ Page 5979 ]

talked about independent boards, free from political interference.

There's one other thing that I'm concerned about in the bill. I'm concerned about the intents - I'll be dealing with that in committee - but it looks perilously close to being retroactive legislation in terms of opening the way to prosecutions at the whim of the cabinet, rather than at the whim of the Labour Relations Board.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At "the whim" of the board?

MR. KING: At the whim of the cabinet. You are desperate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You're in trouble.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of public record what I think of the Labour Relations Board. They have been one of the most highly successful agencies in the history of this province. I'm proud, Mr. Speaker, that I had a part in developing the structure of that board and the personnel, and I think they've done a magnificent job.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is piqued and he's sensitive, and I don't blame him. I honestly believe -and I regret to say this - that the minister is now emasculated in terms of any effectiveness as a Minister of Labour in this province. I do not believe that the people involved in industrial relations, either on the labour side or management side, will trust that man's word, and I do not believe they will have the confidence in him to defend agreements that are made. Agreements must be made in the realm of industrial relations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I have great difficulty understanding how your attack on the minister's credibility relates to second reading of Bill 92.

MR. KING: No, I'm not attacking the minister. I regret it, because this is not going to serve the interests of the province of British Columbia, and I must say I take no personal joy out of seeing anyone in that dilemma. I think it's going to be very, very disruptive for the trade union movement in the province, for management and for the public. I certainly take no joy out of that, Mr. Speaker, because we will all suffer as a result. I blame the Minister of Labour less than I blame the Premier in this whole sordid episode.

I want to refer briefly, before I conclude my remarks, to an article in the Victorian, dated Friday, October 2 1 - this day. I think that it gives a fair public perspective to the dilemma that we're facing in this House today. It's by Ken Hinkins.

"Allan Williams - poor, blinkered man -thinks his Essential Services Disputes Act makes a bold and ambitious attempt to diminish the conflicts and cool the passions that lead to strikes and lockouts. Wake up, Allan, open your eyes - that bill you've just introduced has stirred up more conflict and more passion than we've seen on the B.C. labour scene in a long, long time.

"Williams was beginning to win himself a reputation as a liberal - more the small 'I' -and fair-minded Labour minister. Then came the ferry fiasco and the 90-day cooling-off order which was so blithely ignored. Williams looked as helpless and hopeless as the majority of his cabinet colleagues."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I know you are aware of the standing orders regarding reading from material. Also, the three-minute light is on.

MR. KING: I'm reading excerpts, Mr. Speaker, in the same way that the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) did. I trust that you will allow me the indulgence to conclude my remarks.

"Personally, I still go along with the theory that our cabinet, having been made to look collectively like a heap of stranded jellyfish by the ferry workers, had to pull something out of the bag to save face. The emergency services Act was it. Either that or the provincial government wants to start a war with the labour movement. Whether or not that was their intention, that's what they've done, and we will all pay the price. Organized workers, unorganized workers, big employers, small employers, all innocent or not so innocent, suffer in an atmosphere of labour strife."

Now I'm not going to conclude it; it's fairly long. But I want to say that that is a perspective that I agree with entirely.

I think the reason we're back here is not for any emergent nature. The fact is, there's no dispute; there's no work stoppage. The bill itself is innocuous and empty, devoid of any new initiative. It's not a bad bill, except to the extent that it delays for 90 days issues that should be faced much sooner. In terms of designating essential, life-supporting services that must be maintained, that's not a bad concept. That was introduced by the NDP government -firemen, policemen and hospital workers.

It's not bad as long as it does not destroy the economic sanction contained in a strike. If it is to be used as a total strike-breaking weapon, then it'll be doomed to failure. A lot is going to be governed by the administration of this Act. Judging by the style of administration we have seen flowing from the

[ Page 5980 ]

Minister of Labour's office and the offices of his colleagues, and the ineptitude exemplified in the handling of the whole ferry workers' dispute, I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to rest tonight with less than full assurance that we have seen the last of this Legislature as an instrument for coming to grips with labour relations disputes in this province. Not by any means. And yet that has been the thrust of the majority of government speakers here today. I suggest they delude themselves.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I won't be very long in this debate, but I do want to be on record as having spoken in support of Bill 92. 1 know that the Minister of Labour will deal with many of the things that have been said on the opposite side of the House, and particularly some of those comments made by the member who just took his place. That won't take the Minister of Labour very long because not much has been said.

The one thing I could support in the speech made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is the only comment, perhaps, he made that was correct. In the opening of his speech he said that the Premier had called this Legislature together, in his words, "not to deal with an existing work stoppage, " and that's exactly correct. And that is all the members of the opposition have dealt with. Nothing of substance dealing with the important measures contained in Bill 92.

The Premier called this Legislature together, Mr. Speaker, certainly not to deal with any emergent dispute between labour and management. Rather, he called the Legislature together to do the business of the people of British Columbia. I don't mind telling you, Mr. Speaker, that when those members go back to their own communities, they're going to find out very quickly that the people of British Columbia are getting sick and tired of having those people in the opposition having juvenile temper tantrums whenever they are called upon to do their job. That's what we've been seeing over and over again.

AN HON. MEMBER: They all live in Victoria now.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's right. Simply because they've all moved out of their own constituencies, I suppose.

It disturbs me, however, that so many members of the opposite side seem to be supporting civil disobedience. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) . . . .

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Inciting it!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In fact the Minister of

Finance is correct. You may be even inciting civil disobedience with the kind of comments that you've been making in this House. The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) had some unctuous comments about "the law is a ass, " quoting from famous people from the past who used that phrase but didn't disabuse it and didn't disobey the law. If they found that the law was an ass, they changed the law. They didn't incite people to break the law as you're doing on that side of the House.

Then again, Mr. Speaker, with the member who last spoke, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) - again in a rather cheap way, I thought -there was a thread throughout his whole speech dealing with what would have to amount to civil disobedience and in fact giving tacit support to it throughout his comments.

I'd like to say just one word about a comment that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan made about political hacks, expressing some concern that the board which will be set up under Bill 92 will somehow be politically flavoured. I understand that because the members opposite when they were government could only think in those kind of political terms. For any member on that side to talk about political hacks is of the utmost hypocrisy, because this government was riddled with political hackery during the NDP regime. It's not much wonder that since that's the way that former government operated, they would be concerned about another government appointing people in political positions. The Public Service Commission; B.C. Medical Service; the Energy Commission; British Columbia Hydro, with its Cass-Beggs and the chairman who was to have been, Jim Rhodes, whose only qualification was that he once shared a room with the former Premier; the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation; the Norman Pearsons; the Victor Parkers; the Jim Rhodeses; the Cass-Beggses; the Clay Perrys; the Hart Horns. . . . They go on and on and on forever and ever.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): John Mika.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: John Mika - that's correct. As a matter of fact, that kind of political hackery was so bad in British Columbia between 1972 and 1975 that the civil service itself was in danger of being destroyed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, hon. minister, I know you will. . . .

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, dealing with Bill 92 further, we listened with interest to the Clown Prince of the Legislature, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , whining his way through another performance in dealing with this bill;

[ Page 5981 ]

sharpening up his theatrics for what we can only guess is his future role as a hotline host, which may happen before Rosemary cuts him out of the leadership. I hear, Mr. Speaker, that there is an opening for a new hotline host in Fernwood, U.S.A. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would apply for that job. He would then complete his role as a soap-opera actor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I know you are going to very shortly relate all this to second reading of Bill 92.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly am, and that's what I'm doing at this present time.

The Leader of the Opposition made during that theatrical performance some comments about: "Put up or shut up." "Put up or shut up, " he said. I would like to just read one quick quote from Hansard of October 7,1975, as it deals with the former Labour minister in this province. This may have been said before but I didn't hear it quoted before, and I'm sure it wasn't. During a special debate of the Legislature, the Labour minister at that time said: "We have never stated 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." I'm paraphrasing a bit here:

What we said is that government is elected to represent the interests of all citizens of this province, and that we must make day-to-day judgments on the effectiveness of the collective bargaining system and on the effectiveness of any other device that governs and regulates the conduct of society. We are not prepared to stand idly by and watch disputes of this nature wreak unjustified hardship on those directly involved as well as those indirectly involved.

Now either those were very shallow comments from that former Labour minister or he'll stand up today in this House and vote for this bill, because those are the very same principles which were included in this bill. So that member for Revelstoke-Slocan had better either put up or shut up.

This government, Mr. Speaker, is responding to the needs of the people. I might say again in a quote from that same debate in the House on October 7,1975, that we got some idea of the way that those members opposite feel about protecting the needs of the people and responding to those needs when they become demonstrated, because one of the members of that time, one Colin Gabelmann, said:

I don't really care very much, quite frankly, if the public is overwhelmingly in favour of this bill. I will not stand up in this Legislature performing my responsibility based on what the public wants us to do. I don't believe we should be responsive because quite often the public is wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He also went on to say - and he was quite gracious about that - that if he was defeated in the next election as a result of not listening to the public, then he'd accept that very well. Well, the public told him, and the public told that government. The public made it very clear that they expect their elected politicians to do what needs to be done in order to protect them from the excesses of whatever area in which they might find themselves.

This government has recognized a need and is responding in a more rational way by developing a sane and sensible way of mitigating disputes in essential public services. The public is the key, the key that too often gets shunted aside and forgotten. We're very close to many of the disputes that develop within our public service. However, in what sometimes may be seen by the public as game-playing by those people on the two sides, there are thousands and thousands of people in our province who end up as innocent victims who are forced to bear the results of a situation over which they have no control. When those results come from something which is not only unconscionable, but illegal as well, then the public frustration grows and nothing more can be expected from the public at that time. Sure, the unions have rights, and so do the employers, but it's time that somebody recognized that the people have some rights as well.

This government is pledged to uphold and protect those rights, and that's what Bill 92 is all about. Bill 92 will build confidence in the process. It will build trust. It will define guidelines for the first time, so that everybody who is involved in essential services disputes will know how far they can go and what measures will be available to help them mitigate their problems. It will, in the final analysis, provide all the help necessary to achieve labour peace and a high standard of living without putting the gun to the head of our citizens.

Reference was made earlier by, I believe, the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) to that famous statement by the former Minister of Transport and Communications, Robert Strachan, back in 1973, in which he said that he personally decided to go for a quick settlement of the ferry strike even at considerable extra cost to the government because we had a gun to our heads. That kind of ad hockery, that kind of irresponsibility and that kind of defiance of the public need will not happen again because of Bill 92.

1 think, Mr. Speaker, that maybe a recess would even be in order for a little while so that those members opposite could open up their ears, reassess their position in this debate and go listen to the

[ Page 5982 ]

people.

AN HON. MEMBER: And read the bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) could go read the bill. If they listened to the people, they would not be able to come into this Legislature with the same attitude that they have today.

I had an interesting trip not long ago, having been stranded during the ferry dispute on the Anacortes ferry. I might tell you that it was one of the first opportunities I'd had in some time to be sort of captured by a ferryful of angry British Columbians who were saying to us at that time over and over and over again, each and every one of them who approached me: "It's time we did something constructive." That's what Bill 92 is all about.

This morning I had representatives of the British Columbia Medical Association in my office. Again, as they did about a month ago, they prescribed some action in dealing in a more rational way with public service disputes. And I was given, and I believe this was referred to last night, a recommendation - a resolution, as a matter of fact - from the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. The "resolved" part of the resolution is this: "To this end, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture respectfully requests that the provincial government declare the B.C. ferry services as an essential service." That's the group that represents every farmer in the province.

What they're really saying again in reacting out of their frustration is that the government should develop some more sane, sensible and rational way of dealing with disputes in the public service. Every British Columbia today is saying that. Every British Columbian who cares about this province, at least, is saying that.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Maybe we don't need a recess, Mr. Speaker, because my guess is that the members opposite have heard the message, and that's why they're squirming right now. They know what the people want, and they know that this bill is in the public's interest and in the people's interest. To close, I know very well that none of them on that side have the nerve to go home and oppose this bill in their home constituencies.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I rise on standing order 42, to correct the statement of the minister, a most irresponsible member of the opposition in the past and now lie's performing that same service....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The correction does not need any further comment.

MR. COCKE: The correction is in my hand, Mr. Speaker. I have the list of political hacks and order-in-council people. They are more than any government in history, and those are the Social Credit people who have been put on order-in-council since that government came to power.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Order, please.

MR. COCKE: It's just an absolute ... endless pages and pages of them. That minister indicated that we appointed the odd one.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: While the House just comes to a simmer, may I suggest to the hon. member for New Westminster that it is not appropriate to gain the floor on other than a bona fide point of order. Therefore....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would you please allow me to complete my statement?

To stand under order 42 to correct a statement, when in actual fact the member wished to enter debate - at least, that's what it looks like what was intended....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is not in order. If I allow this to continue, the same right belongs to every member of the House, and it is not appropriate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it was an untrue statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If there is a correction, that is in order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that was an untrue statement and I so charge.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Thank you. The correction is made. Order, please. The next....

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the raising of the

[ Page 5983 ]

recent point of order by the hon. member for New Westminster, he made reference to a document, and I would ask him to table it in the House, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the hon. member for New Westminster prepared to table the document to which he referred?

MR. COCKE: It will be tabled in due course.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right now. Table it now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, 'as I understand....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't start pushing your fingers around.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The standing orders provide that if a member reads from a document, it must be filed. If he refers to it or only names the document, as I understand it, it is his option. However, the member has indicated that he intends to file.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order. If the member is filing a document now, I would appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, because we don't choose our times in which we file documents and we don't file parts of documents. We don't take them back home so we can edit them first. I think that the member should at least give the House that courtesy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put up or shut up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Send it back for editing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) please come to order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good boy, Dennis.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In this House, all members....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! In this House, all members are hon. members. One hon. member has given his word that out of his option - not his obligation - he plans to file a document, and that is sufficient for this House. The member for Delta has the floor.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): I have never been more pleased to take my place in debate in this House on any bill than I am at this time, Mr. Speaker, in support of Bill 92.

Contrary to a great deal of the misinformation which echoed through these chambers both today and yesterday, several things are very clearly spelled out in this long-awaited and much-needed piece of legislation. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not anti-labour; it is not anti-management; it is not anti-collective agreement bargaining. It is, Mr. Speaker, pro-British Columbian.

The economy of this province - indeed, of any province and of this nation - is built on jobs and employment, not strikes and resulting unemployment. For members of the opposition NDP to state that this party would introduce any kind of legislation to deliberately upset the labour scene is nothing short of total irresponsibility.

For an opposition party like that NDP party to indicate that this specially called session is a waste of time of the members of this House must be closely examined in the light of what has just taken place in this very same chamber over the past nine months. We have witnessed a record 262 hours of the most ridiculous debate on estimates that has ever been brought to the floor of this Legislature.

We've also witnessed a filibuster on Bill 65 which has deprived the people of this province of the opportunity to meet with their elected representatives at the very necessary riding level. Particularly at a time when Vancouver Island was making a dramatic turnaround in its tourist dollar generating capacity; at a time when this government had gone to great lengths to take a second look at ferry fares with a view to ensuring greater economic stability of Vancouver Island and responding to the wishes of the people that those rates be reduced, how could any responsible representative, particularly those whose ridings are so affected by ferry service, stand up in this House and say that this government would deliberately provoke the kind of walkout that took place when the ferry workers so irresponsibly refused to obey the law of this province and so adversely and dramatically threw an economic shaft into the economy of Vancouver Island?

Mr. Speaker, the role of government - any government - is to protect the public interest. Whether that be this government, the previous government or the future government, I cannot believe that there are members in this House who would infer or state that any government would deliberately abandon its primary function in such a totally dishonest manner. Philosophies may differ and means of obtaining ends may differ, but let no person in this chamber state that any government,

[ Page 5984 ]

particularly this government, would deliberately abuse the public interest.

It is inconceivable that in this day and age, when we are able to send men to the moon and make dramatic technological advances in the field of science, medicine and communications, we must, content ourselves with an 18th century philosophy of labour-management relations. The day of the strike must come to an end. Not only can our country not afford the man-hours lost due to strikes, but neither can our competitive industries and neither can our hard-pressed family wage earners.

It is simply ridiculous that a person's lifetime savings can be eaten up during a long strike and that job-creating industries can be driven from our country because we are unable to solve this basic age-old problem. Bill 92, the bill presently before this House, must rank as one of the most progressive and innovative pieces of legislation, not only for this province of British Columbia, but for all of Canada. It will surely prove to be one of the most effective tools to further the collective bargaining process and reduce conflict that we have ever seen.

At the same time, it will assure the people of British Columbia that strikes will be prevented in essential services and will possibly serve as a model for similar steps to be taken in the private sector. This legislation must not be downplayed, particularly as the opposition would have it that way. On the contrary, this legislation must be strongly advertised in conjunction with our ongoing provincial endeavours to attract new investment, new jobs and new industry to this province.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, it will serve as a strong adjunct in creating new opportunities for our children and our young people who are entering the job market for the first time, or for those genuinely attempting to return to the job market. It is simply not sufficient to try and attract new investment and new industry when this kind of hand-in-hand legislation can go so far in helping to build British Columbia's international reputation as a site for responsible union-management negotiation. This province has already ceased to be one of the worst in the country and has become one of the best in successful labour-management contract negotiation. Collective bargaining in good faith can solve, will solve and has solved more contracts in this province in the last year than at any time in our history.

The role of the fact-finder, as outlined in the bill presently before us, clearly will be that of an umpire or referee who, after examining the situation in depth and first-hand, will call them the way he sees them with no political interference and the opportunity to publish on his own a totally independent report, identifying, if necessary, the culprits in any blockage of the good faith aspect so necessary in formulating any collective agreement.

Mr. Speaker, never in Canadian history has our economy been so precariously perched in the international scheme of things as it is today. We have been fortunate to date that this province's economy has fared better than any other province in Canada and that British Columbia's working people have taken advantage of responsible bargaining at both the union, management and government level in almost every case. This province has come out ahead because of it.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 92 will continue to ensure that every avenue is thoroughly exhausted before the personal and corporate disaster of loss of work and loss of profits results. We cannot and must not allow the irresponsible few to devastate the majority by their politically motivated actions.

I would trust, Mr. Speaker, that members of the NDP will reconsider their stand and give their wholehearted support to this bill, which has every earmark of becoming a landmark in successful collective agreement negotiations not only in this province, but indeed, in all of Canada.

HON. MR. WOLFE: 1, too, would like to support Bill 92, and in so doing, most definitely support the Minister of Labour in putting it together. I'd like to say it isn't my habit to hand out bouquets indiscriminately, but I'd like to say just this about the minister.

When our Premier chose his present government, the toughest job he had to do was to select the minister of this very difficult portfolio. The situation, as I recall, two years ago at this time was a similar atmosphere where people recognized the difficulties in this portfolio. So to put it bluntly, Mr. Speaker, the Premier picked the best man for the job. That's proven today by the job the Minister of Labour is handling.

He'll get a bill from me later.

Just a couple of points I'd like to make in this debate, Mr. Speaker. A lot has been said by the opposition about the timing of this legislation and about calling the House. I think that's entirely irrelevant to what is before us, because it is responsible legislation. The timing is entirely appropriate. There's no time like the present to deal with a situation of this type.

I'd like to spend just a moment or two dealing with this matter of labour stability, because although many people recognize that we have had a period of relative labour stability, both in British Columbia and across Canada, I don't think many would appreciate the significance of the change which has taken place. I'd like to cite just a few statistics in this regard. This is registered in man-days lost due to work stoppages: 1971 - 277,000; 1972 - 2,121, 000; 1973 -706,000; 1974 - 1,609, 000 man-days lost; 1975 - 1,865, 000 man-days lost; 1976 -1,471, 000

[ Page 5985 ]

man-days lost; and in 1977, to September 20 -125,000 man-days lost.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not here to attempt to place the credit for this on any particular political party. Suffice it to say that in the period of six and a half years there have been some 6.7 million man-days lost due to work stoppages. So there is no doubt in anyone's mind as to the significance this must have, not only on our economy, but in lost wages of working people and their families.

Why have we enjoyed relative labour stability within the current year? Well, I think you can put this down primarily to two reasons. One is the anti-inflation programme administered by Ottawa; the other is the stability created by the Labour Relations Board and its present membership, some of whom were selected by former governments, some of whom were selected by the present government. But I think they do deserve credit in having a great deal of effect on the stability which has taken place.

But let's face facts, Mr. Speaker. The anti-inflation programme has made labour settlements relatively easy. So I think we should be made aware of the fact that the official opposition did not support our joining the anti-inflation programme, Mr. Speaker. In June, 1976, this government presented the Anti-Inflation Measures Act, which joined us with the national programme to attach the public sector of British Columbia to the national anti-inflation guidelines. The official opposition voted against that legislation, and therefore did not support our agreement with Ottawa on the anti-inflation programme. What part did they play, I ask you, in British Columbia's present labour stability? I would say zilch, Mr. Speaker, in terms of their anti-support of the anti-inflation programme.

Now it's a well-accepted fact that strikes are a drag on the economy, and I would just like to cite a significant way of illustrating this fact, because the difference in man-days lost between this period of this year alone and last year is some one million-plus days. Well, how much do one million man-days amount to in our economy? I would estimate that to be some $64 million in lost wages out of British Columbia in a period of nine months. That is the difference.

Now if you translate in the multiplier effect of a man being off work or employment generally - the additional multiplying employment that is created in the economy - you multiply by 3.5 times. So what do you have, Mr. Speaker? You have a loss in our economy between this year and that last year of some $224 million. That's some significant amount to place a drag on our economy and, I think, should emphasize the fact that everyone agrees we must have less strikes, particularly when you view the present state of our economy as emphasized by speeches in the House of Commons yesterday by the Hon. Jean Chretien.

Now earlier speakers have mentioned the fact that we have had fair and reasonable settlements in the private sector this year, and I think we would agree with this. But I would like to mention that we've also had responsible settlements within the public sector, and I would like to pay credit to the responsibility shown both by the employer and the employee in terms of the present government employees' union settlement which is now out for ratification. This settlement involves a two-year contract with increases of 6 per cent and 4 per cent respectively in the two years. This is inclusive of all fringe-benefit increases. As I say, it's currently out for ratification; it's not finalized. But I would classify that as fair and reasonable and a responsible settlement in terms of the public sector.

In doing so, I think we should pay credit to the leadership in that union for the response they have shown to this legislation. They've agreed to stop and have a look at it before they come off and make public statements. So I think these things should be said about responsible settlements in the public sector.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, it has been said many times before that Bill 92 is a sincere attempt to try to put together present measures in some other Acts and also some new initiatives to provide better opportunities for people to get together on settlements. I don't think it's agreed that anyone can force anybody to arrive at settlements in certain instances, but it provides the means for action to be taken without removing the rights of individuals or groups or either side to the argument. So I support Bill 92 and would recommend all members to support it. Thank you.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, one of the privileges of being on this side of the House is that privilege which consists of working with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . I think he is widely regarded as the most successful and respected Labour minister in the history of this province. i

It was thought for a while that the present Labour minister might equal him. Some of us hoped he would. He has not yet, but he still might. He won't with this bill, however. And I rise to support the very thoughtful and responsible arguments of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. It seems to me that his analysis is prudent and thoughtful. It seems to me that his analysis of industrial relations in this province has always been thoughtful and philosophic, and it seems to me that the point that he made, and which I support, is one that members of this House might well support.

If he believed, had evidence, were persuaded, facts

[ Page 5986 ]

were present and arguments were successfully made that this could or would work, that this was a reasonable and thoughtful new instrument that would not take away in a negative or cynical sense from the old but rather add strength and effectiveness to them, then we'd be willing to take a very serious and thoughtful look at it. And we've done that.

I respect the arguments of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, who is in my view the single most expert member in the House in the field of industrial relations, when he advises that it will not work. If we honestly believed it would, I think we'd be prepared to support that. But what we honestly observe is that this is at heart a new law that serves an old purpose: politics. It's a new law that serves one old purpose: political gain for the people who put it forward.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) advises - I believe him and my own readings suggest it - that the powers required to settle these kinds of disputes already exist in the Labour Code as we know and enjoy it. The problem is that those powers were not used properly or in a timely or responsible sense. In fact they were botched. And it was only as the result of the intervention, it would appear, by a couple of very talented and dedicated civil servants that those powers which now do exist were brought to bear in a responsible manner and we had a settlement effected before this Legislature met.

So it occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that the government has to make a more credible case than that which they've already made if they want new power when it's obvious to me and others that the old power could and would and finally did work in this particular situation. It's clear that if they want new powers to settle disputes in the public sector, they have to make a case that the old powers were not effective. They cannot make that case because events over the last three weeks would disprove it. The powers they presently have, as far as we can reasonably tell, are adequate for the purpose of settling these disputes.

However, if there was another reason for obtaining and creating a new instrument that would serve some other larger purposes, then we'd be prepared to hear those arguments too. If separate from the purposes of the Labour Code and the administration of it and the obvious success of it, there were other goals yet to be obtained that could not be met by this instrument called the Labour Code, then we would like to hear about those other goals. I haven't heard about them.

I have heard instead, reiterated by, no doubt, every member of the cabinet and every member of the back bench, because they think they have a political winner here - and they may be right in the short term - no such argument. At least, if it was made I haven't heard it, and I apologize for having missed it.

So when we have a situation where the Labour Code of British Columbia is widely recognized as the most progressive and enlightened of its kind in North America, and where we further have a situation where the Labour Code presently offers the powers necessary to settle these kinds of disputes and did in fact finally settle the particular dispute on the ferries, with which we're concerned, then I don't think a credible argument has been made that new powers are required.

Secondly, if new objects and new goals are being set that require new powers in order to meet them, then I don't believe that argument has been made at all, much less persuasively and successfully. I believe that the powers proposed in this bill will tend to escalate and heat up a climate of hostility and fear that was de-escalating and cooling over the last several years. I think that's a shame. I expect the minister regrets that too.

As I said in my opening remarks when the minister first took his place and we first debated his estimates, I believe that he's probably one of the most competent members over there, and I don't share 'the opinions of some that his particular work in this has been insincere. It's no credit to him that these things blow up in his face. I don't think he wants them to. What occurs, though, obviously, is that these new powers, by their simple existence and by their likely application, have already served and will continue to serve to worsen and make more hostile and fearful and full of conflict an industrial relations climate in this province that no one particularly admires, no matter what side of the House they sit on.

I believe that the purpose of good industrial relations is already served by the best labour code in North America - and we have it. To be strengthened and improved, it should be not diminished in any way, nor should the role and the stature of the Labour Relations Board itself be diminished in any way. This bill serves to diminish, to belittle and to make less powerful the stature and the significance and the respect, in the minds of labour and management alike, that have been won and achieved by all of the members, present and past, of the Labour Relations Board.

I think the bill is simply foolishly conceived. I think the minister is probably sincere in his attempt, and I certainly commend that. But as far as I can tell, to date it has served absolutely no good purpose. In the future its application will create more fear and more frenzy, and what good purpose is served by that? We want settlements; we want peace. I, as one of two members representing the capital city, most certainly want to live in a capital city where the public servants and the government get along and where they respect one another. I don't think this bill is going to help that at all. I think, to the contrary, the whole evidence suggests that it will make it just a little bit worse. On that basis, having not been

[ Page 5987 ]

persuaded by the arguments the government has made to date, having heard none of the ancillary or suggestive arguments about new powers being the justification for new objects, I simply don't believe this bill is worthy of support, and will not vote for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Next is the Minister of the Environment.

HON. LA. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we've had the opportunity of hearing from almost all members of the House during this debate on Bill 92, and I suppose most of the points have been made many times over, properly or improperly, depending on your point of view. We've had discussions ranging on many subjects, some of which were remotely related to the bill, others certainly not related to the bill. We've had some members of the House attempt to hide behind personal slander and attacks on other members because they are either not in a position to allow their attitudes on the bill to be made public or they're concerned that perhaps they may have to seek better advice from the persons who support them and from the persons they are committed to before they dare make a statement that could be used in opposition to them at some future date.

The principle of Bill 92 is relatively simple. I appreciate that some members suggest it is so simple it can't be recognized. Complex problems do not always require a terribly complex solution. Sometimes the solution is relatively simple. Sometimes the thinking that should go into such a solution can also have a relatively simple basis.

There is a group of persons in this province who really haven't been considered by that many speakers on the other side during this debate. We've heard a great deal of attitudes offered by the opposition about the role of the trade unionist as a member and the role of the trade union leaders as people in a position of power, and we've heard about the poor MLAs who can't get by on three weeks' vacation. They need more, and it's terrible that they have to come back to work, but the people who are important in all matters, and particularly in Bill 92, are the people who are the citizens of the province of British Columbia.

On very few occasions, - Mr. Speaker, does a government receive a clear message from the people -perhaps at election time, but on other occasions it's very rare indeed - when it's obvious what the attitude of the people of the province is. There is no question that the people of the province of British Columbia at this time are of the attitude: "Get on with the job. Get on with Bill 92 and get on with the essential services for the people of this province." They want the continuation of these services. These are services which are paid for directly by the citizens of the province. These are services - essential services - which, by nature of that word, are essential to the well-being of the citizens individually by way of protection, whether it's police or fire, by way of health services and by way of other services which are essential from an economic point of view.

The citizens are telling the government and they're telling every member of this assembly: "Do your job. You have a responsibility. We demand, because we're paying for it and because it's -our right as citizens, that you provide us with those services which are essential to the well-being of our lives and the well-being of our province." That message is very, very clear. It's wrong and it's improper for members to suggest that the well-being of a few trade unionists or trade union leaders is more important than the well-being of the citizens of this province. They are also citizens of this province, as each member of this House is a citizen of this province.

But surely the purpose of government is to serve the people. It is not to serve a particular group represented, as they may be, in trade unions or in management or any other organization or association.

The people of British Columbia, by way of communication to their members - be it telegram, letter, telephone, radio, newspaper, television or whatever - are saying very clearly, over and over.... They are repeating it by incredible percentages: "We've had enough. We've had enough of organized labour. We've had enough of irresponsible workers telling us as citizens of this province that we will decide when those essential services will be delivered to YOU."

The people are saying: "We demand them, because it's our right. We have rights too. We are citizens of this province and you get on with that job, a job for which you are being extremely well paid. You see that you provide those services, because we've had enough of the nonsense. We no longer believe that it is your right, as the people who are holding those positions, to do with those jobs and services as you choose, whether it's hospital, ferries or any other essential service."

Mr. Speaker, when governments choose in their wisdom to supply services to people, and particularly when they choose to form a monopoly such as ICBC, which is in the schedule of this bill, they have an obligation to guarantee services will be provided, because the competition is not there. If the competition were there, in many instances the citizens would go to the competition, perhaps because they feel they would be provided with continuation of service, service on which they may rely.

The bill addresses itself to this issue squarely and straightforwardly. The bill provides several mechanisms which allow the interests of all parties, including the citizens of the province, to be

[ Page 5988 ]

considered, weighed and evaluated. The bill permits the government to fulfill its basic single obligation to the people of the province of British Columbia, and that is to govern. The people of the province must be assured that they will not be placed in a position by any person who would choose to paralyze an essential service in this province, whether it has to do with our economy on a regional basis or on a provincial level, or whether it is essential service to the well-being of an individual or a group, to health or safety, if a person chooses to do this for personal gain, for personal reasons....

It's obvious that much of the bravado and the comments regarding the extent of this bill and the intent of this bill was to be expected. Many persons would have been very disappointed had certain old clichés not been dragged out and offered for public comment. But I see that the troops have left the palace; the revolt is over. The reaction was there. The mortgage payments to certain organizations were paid by members opposite for contributions in the last campaign. The mandatory statements were made: "Make sure you come out against that bill this time or perhaps the support will not be with you next time." We saw this once in the House before. We saw this in the last campaign.

The citizens of the province are saying very clearly to all members of this assembly, Mr. Speaker, that they expect essential services to be continued. The people in this province are telling us very clearly that if we are to improve our economy, if we are to improve our way of life, then outside people, outside investors and outside persons who may associate themselves with this province must know that they can rely upon this province.

Mr. Speaker, some members of the House opposite may listen to the radio or television or read newspapers to form their opinions, and then quote those opinions of others in the House. Perhaps they should be listening to the citizens of the province of British Columbia for opinions.

The attitude, as quoted earlier by one of my colleagues from Hansard, of a former member of this House who in effect said, "the public be damned. The public may be wrong or the public is sometimes wrong; we'll go ahead and do what we want, " is incorrect in our system of responsible government. The people choose their members to speak on their behalf in this assembly, and they expect their members to relate to this assembly the attitudes they, the citizens of the province, hold.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that in response to the recent walkout on the ferries, even though it involves relatively few people in my constituency of Richmond and relatively few people of the 90,000 population there, more calls were received by my local office in my constituency on that issue than any single issue since this government was formed. The great public reaction was, overwhelmingly, the government has an obligation to perform. The government has an obligation to guarantee to the citizens of the province of British Columbia the right to make use of essential services which are paid for and provided for by the tax dollars collected from those very citizens.

There are extremely few citizens in this province who would contemplate or support the deliberate breaking of a law as outlined in this bill and as outlined in other bills on our books now. I was dreadfully shocked to hear a member in this House almost suggest that indeed, selectively, it's quite proper to encourage people to break the law. It's good, for whatever public relations programme there may be, to get on their side. Well, I think the people of the province of B.C. perhaps made it very clear that they do not support the breaking of the law. Some of them overreacted, perhaps. Some of them wanted a great deal of punishment - punishment that is not provided in the statutes and is not provided in the new statute under consideration at this time.

But there's no question that the mood of the people is clear. The mood of the people is that we, as citizens in the province of British Columbia, demand that the government provide those services which are essential to our well-being for many reasons - for reasons of health, of protection and of economy. One good reason is that they pay for those services; they have a right to demand those services be delivered.

Mr. Speaker, the ferry strike and the ferry situation is considered by members in the opposition to be the only reason why the House is sitting. Yet the bill does not refer to that. That was made very clear before the assembly was called. Members of the opposition constantly refer to this sitting as an emergency session. Only they and certain members in the press refer to it as an emergency session. No one on this side refers to this session as an emergency session. The session was not prorogued. The session was simply adjourned and we are back doing our work after approximately three weeks.

I don't know how many weeks holiday are proper for those members who were complaining about it. I know that few on this side have had the opportunity of a holiday and I suppose that may come somewhat later. I express my personal sympathies for some of those members who were interrupted and had to get back from their pursuits of vacation. It's tough; it's too bad. They have a job to do. They're the inventor of the full-time MLA. They don't carry it out, but they invented the terms to justify the salary. But when work is required, they complain and they moan and they groan about it.

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

[ Page 5989 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in putting this bill together, the Minister of Labour took the advice of many persons who are expert in the field of labour relations. The minister had to take into account what essential services are and how they could best be described; how they are demanded and needed by the citizens of the province; and how to translate that into legislation that is workable.

The minister has done a terrific job under great pressure from the public - to resolve some of these problems. The legislation brought forward by the minister is not inflammatory legislation. It's legislation that, if it's read, is obviously well thought out. It's legislation that appears to be workable legislation with a very important element, Mr. Speaker. That is the attitude of both sides, management and labour, to make it work. If one side chooses not to make it work and is determined that it will not work, then, as in any legislation, it can't work, because people must co-operate.

Mr. Speaker, the bill provides innovative methods of resolving problems for essential services to be provided to our citizens. Our economy and the citizens cannot be compromised, because essential transportation, whether it be ferries or railway links or some other transportation service, is withdrawn; the safety of our citizens cannot be compromised because such services as police or fire protection are withdrawn; and. the health of an individual cannot be compromised because other essential services in the health field are withdrawn. The well-being of the province relates directly to the well-being of its citizens and this bill takes a large step toward that.

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to associate myself with the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the drafting of this bill, and to my colleagues who have spoken in favour of it. Unlike many others on this side of the House who have asked members opposite to reconsider, Mr. Speaker, I could care less if they reconsider. We know where they stand; we know why they stand there. If they choose to vote against the bill, the people of the province will get a very clear message.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I have listened for a considerable length of time and tried to understand why the members of the opposition might be opposing this bill. In the explanatory notes it simply says: "The purpose of the bill is to provide for methods of settling disputes in essential government or Crown corporation services." I would have thought that all members of the opposition would have come here to wholeheartedly support that. The object is to prevent strikes and lockouts from taking place in the essential services area. The government will have the authority to suspend any strike or lockout which poses immediate and substantial threat to the economy and welfare of the province and its citizens.

I'm particularly pleased with the agency section of the bill, Mr. Speaker, where the agency will be able to determine the extent of damages to the public or harm to the economy, and make recommendations to the government on that basis.

I would have thought that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) would have spoken in favour of the bill, in view of some words that he said in 1972. He was talking, I believe, to the B.C. Federation , and he said: "Use your energy, resources and talents toward minimizing strike action as the usual tool to collective bargaining." I would have thought that he would have stood in his place today and spoken in favour of this bill, because that's what this bill is all about.,

AN HON. MEMBER: It depends on the time and the place.

MR. KAHL: I fail to see, really, what's happening on the other side of the House with the lame excuses that have been put forth as to why they can't support the bill. A big smokescreen has been put forth. They would have us believe that the Legislature has never been called to do the people's business. They've tried to indicate to us that this has been an emergency session, and I would expect that they would be in support of that in particular and in support of the bill.

We've been criticized for not consulting with the labour movement and the management movement in putting the bill together. We've heard that criticism, and the fact-finder will have that possibility to consult with both sides and inform the government.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the penalties spelled out quite clearly as they relate in this bill. I think they're long overdue. I am sure that most of the citizens in the greater Victoria area - anyway, on the Island - would certainly have liked to have seen those penalties in some form of legislation as it would apply to the dispute that happened on our ferries.

I was pleased to see the B.C. Ferry Corporation in the schedule of the bill. It is an essential service to this island. It's an essential service that we have talked about at great length in this House. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and certainly the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , have indicated that on numerous occasions when we have discussed the Ferry Corporation and the service in this chamber. Today, when they are afforded the opportunity to vote for legislation that will assist in providing that essential service to this Island, they've indicated they will not be voting for it. I think their constituents, the small entrepreneurs and the businessmen in their constituencies will certainly give them the message that they are disappointed they will

[ Page 5990 ]

not be supporting this bill.

I'm surprised - very surprised, quite frankly - at the islands members' response on the other side of the House. In particular, I was surprised at the member for Mackenzie's (Mr. Lockstead's) comments that he made when he talked about things that he had done during the ferry dispute. It's obvious that the ferry dispute was used by the opposition as a political games tool. Make no mistake about that. The member for Mackenzie said in his speech: "I want to tell you that last weekend I signed up some six ferry workers on one ship." He said: "And I bet there's not a ferry worker who is going to vote Social Credit in the next provincial election."

Mr. Speaker, I was appalled at those words. The member would have us believe that what he's done is either ridden the ferry selling NDP memberships, or stood where the people go to work and sign up NDP memberships. It's disgraceful.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the principle of the bill.

MR. KAHL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm dealing with the principle of the bill. I'm only quoting the words that the member for Mackenzie used, and he was on the principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe he was called to order.

MR. KAHL: I'd like the member for Mackenzie to stand in his place and tell us how many Thanksgiving holidayers he signed up.

We must ask the members, particularly the island members, as it applies to the B.C. Ferry Corporation: do they want the labour movement to settle disputes or do they want the labour movement to cause disputes? Bill 92 gives them the assistance to settle disputes. Bill 92 is a stabilizing factor in the Island economy. It is a tool to be used when the militant workers take matters into their own hands. The militant workers will not be allowed to blackmail and hold up for ransom the Ferry Corporation and the people of this Island as they did in 1973. Mr. Speaker, I'm in full support of Bill 92.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: My colleagues in the caucus....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the time taken for applause was 24 minutes, which leaves 16 minutes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I first want to make reference to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , who is no longer in the chamber. Today it's been interesting to note that very few members of the opposition have been in attendance to listen to the debate on one of the most important bills that this province will ever see before this Legislature. It's indicative of the disdain of the legislation and the House and the people of British Columbia who, as the hon. members before me on this side of the House have pointed out so clearly, are clearly indicating to this government, to this House, to the opposition, to the citizens of British Columbia that they will no longer stand to be held by ransom by any group of people of the province of British Columbia.

We're getting close to the end of the second reading on this bill. Many speakers on both sides have given attention to the Act. But what has been a hallmark of the debate from the NDP opposition has been that they have failed miserably to address themselves to the bill itself. They have been perpetrating a feeling of animosity, a feeling of preaching anarchy, of preaching the disrespect for law in this province by simply not addressing themselves to the basis of this bill.

They worried about this session being reconvened, Mr. Speaker. The session has been reconvened only, as the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has said. We're sorry it interrupted the vacations of the members of the opposition, but we're ready to debate and to talk about the people's business at any time that the Speaker of this House wishes to reconvene this House for purposes of dealing with the people's business.

In rising to support Bill 92, 1 join my caucus colleagues in congratulating our Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in this government.

In bringing Bill 92 to this Legislature for debate and decision, I want to say this, Mr. Speaker: it's not before time in this House and it's not before time in this 'government, and it's not before time in this province that a bill such as this should be before us. This bill separates the peacemakers from the chaos worshipers. I predict that this bill will be studied and copied by other jurisdictions in Canada.

I understand, too, that the NDP opposition will not support Bill 92. Their members in most of their statements have said that they will not support it. We know that at stake is the harassment by a few at the expense of democracy for the many. That's what we're talking about in the principle of this bill.

We now have it clearly established in this province who are the friends of the working men and women of this province. If the NDP do indeed come to the point of voting against this bill when the vote is taken, the working man will have it clearly spelled out by that vote who is the friend of the working man. It is this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

For the very first time in this province, we have legislation that recognizes the heartache and the frustration that is caused by work stoppages that threaten the economy. We have had in this province

[ Page 5991 ]

essential services legislation for that which threatens safety and life; but, for the first time, that which threatens the economy. Can any member of this House, can any one of the members on either side of this House say that the peace of mind of a wife and mother, the self-confidence of a breadwinner, the emotional stress on children and families in a home where livelihood has been threatened cannot be considered a state of affairs that requires essential and quick action? The problems that they have faced in the past are very real to these families, to a family bereft of funds. That is an emergency; that is essential to them.

I want to share some statements with members of this House by people who have written to me since this discussion has taken place. Let me just quote a few things that have been said.

This is from proprietors of a small resort on Galiano Island who are "totally dependent on the ferry system to furnish transportation for our guests."

"Since the strike began last Friday, our losses to today's da te resulting from cancellation of definite bookings amount to $333. This must seem like a trifling amount compared to the massive losses suffered by the hotel and motel trade on Vancouver Island during this period. But to us, that represents a very considerable sum. And since our resort closes each year at the end of November, we do not have any hope of recovering it."

(Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Let me just read also from a telegram from Saltspring Island.

THE LOSS DUE TO A FERRY STRIKE THIS

WEEKEND IS TO EXCEED $2,000 PER DAY.

And may I also refer to the words from a Victoria hotel organization, which says: "This has not only hurt the income of many people in the tourist industry - hotels in Victoria have already begun laying off staff - but has also affected many commercial travelers whose livelihood depends on travel to Vancouver Island."

I'd like to just address my remarks, then, to tourism as one of the most fragile industries and yet one of the greatest industries that this province has. The travel industry in this province hangs on the treatment that visitors receive when they come to this province. It hangs on a very simple thing. It's not a complicated business. But when people are turned away by rudeness or indifference or apathy, that is the memory they retain as they go back to their homes in Alberta, in the rest of Canada, in Japan, or the U.S.A. or wherever.

Let me just quote to you from a letter from Calgary, Alberta, that says this, and this is following the disruption that they have had. It's dated October 12:

" And then I sat on the ferry dock at Nanaimo from Friday at 4 p.m. to Monday at I p.m. while the B.C. government ferries went on strike. Two and a half days is a long time to wait for a ferry. I was finally rescued by the CPR. It is good to be home again. Sorry I can't recommend British Columbia as a place to spend one's holidays."

From Calgary, Alberta.

Let me just refer to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) in his remarks. I will quote from Hansard because he seemed to take exception from the quote that was given by an earlier member on the floor of this House. Let me just quote directly from Hansard and let me tell the member for Mackenzie, who isn't in his place right now, that the Sunshine Coast has also telegraphed to my ministry. They're not smiling, it's true; they're not smiling. And they're not, either, included in the majority of people that the member for Mackenzie says are in support of work stoppages that would threaten the economy of this province. I quote from the member for Mackenzie:

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, people, many, many - I would say the majority of people in my constituency - supported the ferry workers in that dispute,

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that the people from the Sunshine Coast, the people from Mackenzie, the people from Powell River are supporting that member in his statements and in his disruption and in his suggestion that there should be people inconvenienced and people who are losing dollars, losing their livelihood, and putting people and families in that position because of work stoppages. It's a fragile industry.

I'd like to say this to you: 70,000 people directly in this province owe their livelihood to the travel industry. That's 7 per cent of the provincial work force, and it is also more than that when one considers the tremendous support services that are taking place in the travel industry every day - the truckers; the agricultural industry that our Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) made reference to; the people it serves in many, many ways; the students in this province; and the very many people who add services for foodstuffs and for trucking and all sorts of other support services. But directly: 70,000 people. This province's third largest industry received 10.5 million people to the province of British Columbia in 1976. It brought $1.2 billion to the economy last year in 1976, and 1977 was a better year.

Let's just take the figures for, 1976, which everybody said was poor in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that the

[ Page 5992 ]

third largest industry, which brought $1.2 billion to this province last year, is larger than the money that accrues to the treasury from Agriculture and fishing combined. I don't say to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) that those aren't important industries, but let me tell you that on Vancouver Island, where a work stoppage recently threatened the economy of the travel industry, in 1976 $260 million accrued to the benefit of British Columbians from 2.5 million visitors - over five times the total population of Vancouver Island.

Last year, if each visitor who had stayed three days on this Vancouver Island which everybody treasures so much in this province ate two eggs for breakfast, Mr. Speaker, for each of those three days, that would have been 15 million eggs - over a million dozen eggs. Think about it in terms of 60 cents a dozen to each of the Vancouver Island egg producers. That's way over $600,000 left to the egg producers of Vancouver Island alone. Extend that to the total province. Extend that in everything that you can think of in terms of how many loaves of bread, how many bakers employed, how many retail store clerks employed, how many people who are selling gasoline. Think about it in terms of the total economy of the province of British Columbia and extend that to the total province. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's time we had legislation for essential services that affect the economy of this province.

I'm going to put on the record a quote from The Daily Colonist of October 20: "Unionists Push Tourist Boycott in Ferry Row." I'm going to say to you, Mr. Speaker, here and now - and I would like it to go on record - that that is a totally irresponsible act of totally irresponsible labour leaders to threaten the people of this province, the tourist operators and all of those people who are affected by the travel industry of this province by their very jobs. What did they do to deserve that? I'll tell you what they did, Mr. Speaker: they worked night and day to employ people and to create new jobs in the province of British Columbia. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if that's what that side over there wants, if that's the kind of province they want - union leaders that can pull them around like puppets on a string - if that's the kind of thing they want in this province, let me tell you that the people of the province of British Columbia are going to speak up against that.

Next year we have a very big event. We discussed earlier in this Legislature the bicentennial celebration of Captain Cook's discovery of the shores of British Columbia. Let me tell you that when we bring the tall ships of British Columbia next year through the Captain Cook Bicentennial Committee, that will be one of the greatest, most spectacular events and tourist attractions that this province will have ever seen.

Now why, Mr. Speaker, do I talk about the concern and the frustrations caused by the kind of action that is being taken by a tourist boycott? When people come to British Columbia from the state of California, from Alberta, from Ontario, from Japan -wherever they come from anywhere in the world -they leave golden dollars in this province, Mr. Speaker. They leave dollars which are going to benefit these people here in the province of British Columbia that we serve - both sides of this Legislature. They will benefit people for hospital services for those who are disadvantaged, for those who are poor and for the young people in this province. Then they'll go back home to Alberta, to Ontario, to Japan, to California, to the state of Oregon, to Germany - from wherever they come. They'll leave the golden dollars here, and they'll ask their state, their province, their country for those social services. But our citizens, our people in the province of British Columbia will be spending their dollars here for the social services for our people in the province of British Columbia. Those are the golden dollars!

Why are we talking about boycotting tourists? It's appalling. It's shocking. Nobody on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, has been on his feet today to draw attention to that headline and that shocking state of affairs this is taking.... They won't even stay in the House and listen, they are so concerned with having their holidays and getting back to their places of rest. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it's a shock.

Again I refer to the Captain Cook bicentennial. Next year we will see more people coming into this Vancouver Island port, to the port of Vancouver, to Prince Rupert, to all of the province's communities to celebrate one of the greatest explorers of all time. When that same tall ships event happened in Rhode Island, the University of Rhode Island made an economic impact study of a five-day stay of the tall ships. Do you realize that it left in that little community $15 million in five days - the tourist impact on that one area?

Now I'm saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill addresses itself to the advent of that. When such an event takes place, and they take place daily in this province, because whether it's the spectacular of the tall ships, or whether it is someone who is serving in a coffee shop with just a cup of coffee.... The economy of this province is tremendously important, and Bill 92 addresses itself to that.

Mr. Speaker, this bill supports the rights of the individual, the human rights, the rights of protection from fire, from violence, protection of health services, and to live without harassment when your economy is threatened. We're talking about confidence in our province. We're talking about the reputation of our province. We're talking about the stability of our province. We're saying that these things are not for sale, and we're saying they're not for ransom, they're not for barter, they're not for

[ Page 5993 ]

trade. This province cannot afford a labour minister or a political party that is dependent on its life to a handful of union leaders who are so inconsiderate of the public interest, puppets on a string pulled by Len Guy. We can't afford it.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 92 separates the builders over there from the wreckers over there. It separates the negative elements of our society from those who wish to bring the nation and this province back to the positive opportunities that are provided by our very blessings in this province - the promise of the province's blessings. When this bill passes this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia - the working people of British Columbia, the responsible people of British Columbia, the citizens of British Columbia - will sleep better. I support Bill 91

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to rise and support this bill.

The principle of this bill is clear. The night of labour to withdraw its services and the right of management to withhold employment are not absolute, Mr. Speaker. These rights must be balanced with the right of every citizen to receive the essential public services to which they are entitled, services upon which they depend for their health, their safety, and their fundamental well-being. We must exhaust every opportunity for settlement of disputes without disruption of these essential services.

This is the expressed desire of the vast majority of British Columbians and it is the job of this government and, this assembly to address that principle. This bill provides the framework for the continuation of essential services, while providing every opportunity for reasonable collective bargaining and fair and satisfactory resolution of disputes. The principle of this bill then, Mr. Speaker, is clear. It is a good principle; it is a necessary bill; and as such, there is no time better than right now for this House to consider it.

In striving to provide a better way and a better vision for the future with this excellent legislation, the Minister of Labour has candidly admitted he is under no illusion that it will achieve perfection. He's invited constructive criticism and comment from the opposition, as should be the case in this second reading debate.

But the opposition, Mr. Speaker, has performed a remarkable array of backflips and contortions to avoid this responsibility. They've skated all over the place to avoid addressing the principle of this bill. They've called down the essential services advisory agency proposed by this legislation, on the grounds that it would b e appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council - namely, cabinet.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Board was a n d i s appointed by whom? The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Mr. Speaker, the

Labour Relations Board was appointed by the former government. Would they say that was an impartial body? Or would they say that it would be interfered with politically because it was appointed by the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council? Or was it a bunch of hacks?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you calling LRB a bunch of hacks?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Where is the consistency of your principles?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: They are independent; they've been left as independent.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has tried to say that this bill threatens the steady improvement in labour-management relations which has occurred as a result of the Labour Code that this government inherited from their government. That's a laughable statement, Mr. Speaker; it's one that's been repeated over and over again by the members opposite.

Consider the state of affairs at the end of their term in office in October, 1975. Then, opposition members were roused from their beds at 3:30 a.m., to rush to Victoria on 24 hours' notice to consider Bill 146. There was 24 hours' notice for a bill designed to send tens of thousands back to work - ad hoc legislation, a desperate, 11th-hour change in the rules in the labour law for labour and management, to try to rescue an economy in crisis.

It's small wonder, Mr. Speaker, that they view these proceedings here these past hours in the same light, because it's the only way that they can see labour-management relations in this province -retrospectively. That was a legacy of that government - this province reeling; that government's labour relations policy collapsing; huge areas of our economy suffering; disputes which had drifted out of control, Mr. Speaker.

If there has evolved a climate of relative peace in the labour relations of this province - and there is every reason to believe so from the statistics that the hon. Minister of Finance cited on the significant reduction in work stoppages in the past 20 months -then it's no thanks to the state in which the NDP left our affairs. It is thanks to the efforts of the Minister of Labour and of management and labour themselves.

In fact the great majority of labour and management in this province are responsible. They want an improved climate after the chaotic years of the NDP. They recognize that the province must have it to survive. They welcome this legislation.

It is a climate of peace which has come about in spite of the NDP, in spite of their legacy of ad hoc

[ Page 5994 ]

legislation and in spite of their commentary these past months in opposition, as exemplified by yesterday's "blood in the streets" comment, calculated no doubt to encourage temperance in these matters. It is a climate of peace which is due in large measure to the sensible stewardship of this Minister of Labour. It is the greatest irony of all that unable or unwilling to comment constructively on the principle of this bill, as is the purpose of this second reading debate, the opposition has embarked instead on an unprincipled, sleazy personal attack on this Minister of Labour, upon the character of an hon. member who has served this House long and well. That attack is beneath contempt. I'm not going to dignify the behaviour of the opposition with a defence of this minister. He stands head and shoulders above any member on that side of the House.

We have an outstanding bill before us, Mr. Speaker, outstanding legislation which clearly lays out the ground rules in the field of essential services for the future, not an eleventh hour ad hockery pulling the rug out from under the parties to disputes under mediation, I might say, as was the case with Bill 146.

The opposition tried to imply that this bill would remove the right to strike for some 80,000 workers in the public sector of this province. That's a patently ridiculous statement, Mr. Speaker. This is not a blanket suspension of the right to strike, such as the NDP's Bill 146. It does not remove the right to strike at all. It is an attempt to ensure that a fraction of those concerned in the public sector who are delivering vital, essential services have better alternatives for concluding disputes over the terms of their employment. The province's needy and underprivileged, the sick, the infirm, the victims of crime and accident, the communities along the B.C. Railway and our coast, and many other British Columbians rely upon a monopoly of essential public services delivered by a fraction of our public sector employees. It's to these employees and their employers that this legislation is directed. You have only to consider the example of the recent disruption of the ferry service, as so well articulated by the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , to appreciate the dire consequences of some 400,000 on our islands and on the Sunshine Coast. It can't be wasted on the constituents of those members opposite who represent areas that were affected by the work stoppage. They have failed miserably in this debate to represent the concerns of those citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said that some friends of the NDP - some professional labour leaders, politically motivated confrontation artists - will be obsolete as a result of this bill. From the performance of the NDP here and that of the other members of the party elsewhere in Canada of late, it's becoming apparent that they as a party, with their blind obedience to big-labour dogma, are becoming obsolete themselves. They're unable to renew their vision, they're unable to recognize that there's a better way. They're hopelessly immersed in their own blind dogma.

Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation. It's going to lead this country, and I predict it will be emulated by other provinces. I congratulate the minister. I'm proud to support this legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the socialist opposition across the way don't consider this bill to be important legislation. They don't consider it to be significant, they don't consider it to be necessary and they don't consider it to be in the public interest. But I'd like to tell them just who does not agree with their considerations, and that's the people of this province. They consider this necessary legislation; they consider this significant legislation; they consider it important legislation; and they consider that it is in the public interest. So does this administration, and it was elected by those very citizens to be their government, and it will be re-elected again - and again and again. But I'll tell you who won't be: the socialists over there....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind you about the standing order on both tedious and repetitious debate, and also that we are on second reading of Bill 92.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Indeed we are. And this, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever to come before this country, and I'm delighted to be a part of this administration, and a part of this government that's bringing it into play.

But these people over there, with their outmoded and their weary and their hoary concepts have done little more than produce the grossest of disillusion to the electorate in this province - in fact the electorate in any province in this country where they've ever been returned. I'm very proud and pleased to say that the period of disillusionment in this province has dissipated itself somewhat more quickly than we anticipated and than they anticipated. I'd say that happened a little more slowly in Manitoba. But I would forecast one thing, Mr. Speaker, before addressing myself principally to the principle of this bill. I forecast one thing, and indeed fervently hope, that the disillusionment process will move extremely quickly in the province of Quebec. I'd like to say that the only opt-out-of-Canada government in this country is a socialistic government.

There's no question that by far the majority of the people of this province, I'd say whatever their faith their race, their sex, their occupation or political direction may be, are law-abiding and peaceful

[ Page 5995 ]

people. They believe in, they subscribe to and lead a life that is guided by and under the rule of law. They recognize, as any good citizen does and indeed should, that without such a rule, society cannot function, nor can any orderly and consistent process of living exist.

I've said this before, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's timely that I repeat it. There's no question that some people espouse that, depending upon the fervour of a cause, an illegal means is a satisfactory method of arriving at an acceptable end. But that is a denigration of the democratic process. As the chief justice of Canada, the Hon. Bora Laskin, who has had an extremely long, concentrated and most highly successful and respected career in the field of labour relations before he became the chief justice of Canada, most aptly stated: "We must not elevate demonstration and protests above the law, but rather have them subservient to the law." Similarly, Mr. Speaker, we must not elevate illegal lockouts and illegal strikes above the law, but rather have them subservient to the law.

We all know that man isn't perfect and he does have to have guidelines, and that's what this bill is all about. It will be providing for all of the citizens of this province exactly those kinds of guidelines. We will have a proper and a fair balance between rights and privileges. We will have fair and proper procedures to deal with illegal stoppages. We will have fair and proper procedures to deal with the rights and responsibilities of employers, and also with the rights and responsibilities of employees. Indeed, we will have fair and proper procedures to respect the rights and the responsibilities of the general public. What this bill is providing is greatly improved procedures and concepts to enable our society to effectively function. Any society that doesn't function cannot possibly survive.

I think most people in this House would agree - in fact, all would agree - that the rights and privileges are not static but dynamic. That which was formerly considered a right is not necessarily the same thing today - for example, the right to drive. By virtue of the proliferation of society, the multitude of motor vehicles and drivers, and the ever-growing numbers of roads and road-users, we find that by virtue of change of lifestyle and motoring aspects, driving no longer is a right, but has become a privilege. As it's become a privilege, it is subject to the mores, the customs, the rules and the regulations that are imposed upon it by society.

I'd say that for very much the same reasons, by virtue of the interdependence and by virtue of the complexity of society, so has the right to lock out or the right to strike in essential services, wherein the result is or can be the hamstringing of the economy, or the endangering of the well-being, the health, the safety and the welfare of our citizens in their collective sense. So those so-called rights have become no longer rights today, but clearly privileges that may be exercised and enjoyed only in accordance with such fair and defined parameters that are established by society.

Those kind of parameters are such as will enable our society to live, to grow, to function, to survive and prosper. Illegal lockouts, illegal work suspensions, public service employees versus public service employers and vice versa, have got to appreciate this. I would emphasize this: they have got to appreciate that they have not been given a licence by the general public to hamstring or abort the due performance and proper operation of essential services in the province of British Columbia, which services are in the main required by law. By law they have to be provided, and most significantly, by law they have to be paid for by taxes, which have to be paid for by law.

It's a legal requirement on the part of our citizens to pay for those services, because if the taxpayer doesn't make his payment, doesn't pay his taxes, doesn't pay his bills for these services, he's liable to lose his assets, his land, his goods and even more than that. By law, he is not permitted to withhold those payments. He's not permitted to withhold those payments which have to be provided for these services, which are, again, imposed by law and are available by law for his benefit. That is the responsibility of the taxpayer; that's the responsibility that's imposed upon him. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that surely it isn't too much to suggest that such a taxpayer be entitled to the right to expect that the essential services he pays for and has to pay for according to law, directly or indirectly, are provided to him.

Instead, the interests of the general public over the last few years have become eroded and eroded with, in many cases, unfortunate and sometimes disgraceful, long-term, endangering consequences. So I've said that by virtue of the interdependence and complexity of society, no longer do we just have two partners in these kinds of management-labour structures, we now have the third - that is, the rights and the responsibility of the general public, who are innocent parties to an illegal dispute. They can hardly be expected to sit by and take every sock in the nose themselves without adequate protections, safeguards or redress for such public and private damage. That's exactly what this Minister of Labour has provided, and I say what an excellent job he has done and how thankful the citizens of this province are that he holds that post. He came here for service. That was his call, and I say has he performed greatly.

We have here a very well-balanced bill. It goes to root causes. It provides mechanisms for preventive medicine - the Essential Services Advisory Agency. It looks for causes of turmoil within the areas which the bill covers. It determines the impact. It develops plans

[ Page 5996 ]

to prevent interruption of essential services and to resolve industrial disputes. It also develops fact-finding procedures and full and proper accountability, and provides ways to microscope and record facts, and to remove the conflicts in attitudes and the conflicts in factual information. It institutes arbitration methods and it initiates a number of protections and a number of sanctions against illegal actions.

As the members of this government have stated in this debate, there's no question that this bill is the most significant of its kind, not only in this province, but throughout Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right!

HON. MR. GARDOM: There's certainly no question that I'm fully supporting this measure, fully supporting the Minister of Labour and fully supporting this government. I would say this in conclusion. In my view, anything less than a vote for this bill will amount to nothing less than an abdication and an abandonment of the proper rights of the citizens of the province of British Columbia.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I must address this House and say that in this wide-ranging debate, one is almost constrained to ask, what are the issues? That is very important.

AN HON. MEMBER: Back to square one!

MR. MUSSALLEM: The debate has been wide and ranges wide; it must with 55 members. But we have concentrated on the issues. Now and then, throughout the words and the verbiage the issues appear. I ask you: is the issue the right of the union to strike? No, that is not an issue, because this bill strengthens that right. Is it the right of the unions and of management to confront? No, it is not that at all.

Is it the right of pitting one segment of society against the other? No. This is part of society, and in our free society, this will always be with us. We will always have confrontation; we will always have strikes; we will always have some segments pitting one against the other, because this is a free society.

But what this bill guarantees is that it will be orderly and in proper fashion. What this attempts to guarantee is the problem we have been facing. There is an insidious matter here that appears to me throughout the debate. In the official opposition, we find insidious attempts to provoke industrial uprising in our communities. I would call them a catalyst of industrial unrest. All through the industrial unrest in our province throughout the year, we have seen that party at the base and within the works of the uprising. This is a matter that ... if we would move British Columbia out of the area of confrontation; if we could get an opposition that would become parliamentary and would have the good of the province of British Columbia at heart; if we could work together for industrial peace; then we would have a different attitude in this parliament and this province.

I say the issue is, very clearly, industrial peace. That is one of the great issues. The next great issue is the respect for law. Throughout our industrial strife, we will find the careless statements of disregard for law. Will you find it from this party? Never! But you find it from the official opposition. I say this with the deepest regret. We must realize and recognize respect for law is a most important factor of our society and this is what we must have above all. Our society requires high expectations. They cannot have high expectations in industrial peace and production without an instrument. This bill gives them that instrument to maintain industrial peace, so that bargaining may proceed without fear of precipitous reaction and may proceed with judgment.

This bill puts the issues in focus, and when they're out of focus they can be adjusted into focus. I think that's where I would like to put it. It guarantees a fair and equitable treatment of the producer and the seller. I would like to say to this House that in our society nothing moves - absolutely nothing - until someone sells something, and when you stop the basis of production, you stop our society in its tracks. When you stop essential services, we stop our society in its tracks. That has happened far too often.

I will not reiterate again the number of days lost, as was done so ably by the Deputy Premier. I will not reiterate it again. But you will notice, and it must seem crystal clear, that during the years of the NDP regime in government, these days escalated, and when we became government, they went off again to a reasonable, workable value. Now you'll hear them say: "Well, we've set the scene." Believe me, it's a difference in temperament, the difference in climate. This bill creates the climate for industrial peace that we must have.

This province has a very bad name abroad. In Europe, as you heard the Premier say, they say: "What about your country? What about your province? You can't guarantee the delivery of anything. You have more strikes than anywhere else in the free world, even more than Italy." And what is the answer? There is no answer. But if we could appeal to the official opposition to take up the stand for respect of law - if that is what they said and nothing more - we'd have a complete turn-around in the future of the province of British Columbia with respect to the industry.

Nothing moves until someone sells something. This bill creates the balance, and I do say that I support this bill wholeheartedly. I support a gallant minister who, in the face of great difficulty, in the face of

[ Page 5997 ]

attack from the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , a fierce attack, unwarranted attack.... I sat here and wondered how it could be possible in a parliament that such words could be used to misrepresent the issues that we had before us.

I respect that minister. I respect his valour and the strength of character it took to produce a bill of this kind. It was not easy. It is workable but it could fail because it could be attacked by the wrong people who should be doing a job, a parliamentary job. It is the right answer. It is the answer to British Columbia's future, and I appeal to this House that we get together and get industry back on the track.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise in support of this famous Bill 92 that we've been hearing about for so long. I support it all the way. I would like to make a few observations in relation to the vacant opposition over there. They've been absent for a great deal of the time. I was quite amazed at the attitude of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) complaining about the fact that they had to be called back to the Legislature for this "emergency session, " as they called it. First of all I would like to tell them that this is not an emergency session. This is an adjourned session of the second session of the 31st Parliament. It was your party that instituted full-time MLAs and you should realize that.

I would like to point out also, Mr. Speaker, that while a lot of people haven't had any time off - and I won't name names here - the member for Comox has had time off during the last session of the Legislature that a lot of us didn't have. So I don't think they have any point to argue at all about coming back here for this important business. It's your first responsibility, I would like to tell you, to attend the Legislature of this province.

I would like to support the Minister of Labour, my colleague, on this Bill 92 and tell you that it has been my great honour to be associated with him as a colleague. I've never worked with anyone who has been more dedicated and worked more hard and efficiently at his job than the Minister of Labour. The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said that he didn't appreciate the personal attack. Well, I want to tell my colleague the Minister of Labour: don't let that concern you, because that has been a pattern of this opposition during this year because they have had nothing else to criticize.

I, as you know, represent the riding of Cariboo. Basically I guess we're landlubbers. But I'm quite surprised - it pertains to this bill, Mr. Speaker -regarding the attitude of MLAs who represent ridings in this province where ferry service is very essential to their well-being. I refer to the ridings of Nanaimo and the Islands, Cowichan-Malahat, the second member for Victoria, the ridings of Alberni and Comox as well as Mackenzie. All these members have indicated, the six of them, that they're going to vote against this bill. But I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker and the members of this House, that we will tell the people in these ridings how their members voted and we'll tell it all over the province.

This is quite a contrast, I might say, to the other members who are Island members and the ferry service is so important to them. My colleague for Saanich and the Islands, the first member for Victoria and the member for Esquimalt, for which the ferry service means a lot, appreciate that fact and they have indicated that they're going to vote for this very necessary Bill 92. 1 think these six MLAs are letting down their ridings very badly and they will find out not very far away how badly they have been let down, I'm sure, when those voters have a chance to let them know.

Regarding essential services, one of the public corporations in here is the B.C. Railway, which affects the central interior of British Columbia and the north. I'll just relate back here for a minute that I was one of the MLAs in 1975 who came to see the then Minister of Labour (Mr. King) about trying to get that railroad running again because it had spent most of the year on strike or slow wheels or whatever, but in any case it wasn't doing its proper job of transporting the products into the interior and out of the interior, which was so essential to the economy of the whole province of British Columbia. That time the then so-called wonderful Minister of Labour just told us there was nothing they could do about it. Well, you know what happened. We were called back to this Legislature in October and a lot of people were ordered back to work by the then government.

I want to point out the difference today, Mr. Speaker, in the B.C. Railroad, and congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , the minister represented on the B.C. Railroad, regarding that operation today. We have a new board of directors; then we had a political board of directors. We have a new, independent board of directors now on that very important line - in fact the lifeline - to the interior of the province. We have had hardly any work stoppages. In the central interior of the province, while they cry in a lot of the areas of the province, we have an excellent economy going on there and have had all of 1977.

Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to point out is what a contrast there is between a public utility operated properly by an independent board of directors and one - the BCR - that was represented at that time by the then Premier, the Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk) and the Minister Without

[ Page 5998 ]

(Mr. Nunweiler) , as we used to call him, who were the board of directors running it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I remember Alf, vaguely.

MR. FRASER: I would just like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that most of the people of this province support this legislation. They've been waiting for it for a long time. I would urge all the MLAs to support it. Let's get on with bringing back the stability to the province of British Columbia which is slowly and surely coming back.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Next!

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): I'll speak to the principle of the bill and be as brief as possible. It's excellent legislation; it's progressive legislation; it's workable legislation. I believe everyone will sooner or later recognize that it's trail blazing legislation as well.

I want to congratulate the minister not only for his ability - which has shown through in this legislation - his capability and his conscientiousness, but also his sensitivity. I want to outline that and identify it as emphatically as possible by talking in terms of basic freedoms for individuals.

To preserve freedoms, we need some rules and some restraints, but we need more restraints for those in positions of strength or authority and groups with advantages. We need restraints, for example, for aggregations of people which we refer to as corporations or trade unions or government corporations. The individual is often powerless in the face of these collective groups in our society. It's the collective group, collectively bargaining sometimes, who can trample on the rights of innocent bystanders - certainly trample on the rights of individuals, men and women, young and old in our society. They're ignored, they're helpless, they're unable to protect themselves at times.

A great deal has been said about the need to preserve the institution of free collective bargaining. I agree with that up to a point. But again, collective bargaining takes place between groups, between collections of people that are often powerful and often in a position to do great damage to the rest of our society, but, most important of all, great damage to individuals and perhaps even to themselves. You can even have small units in our society, working in concert, able to disrupt the lives of many, many individuals in this province - indeed across the nation. We've had examples with the air traffic controllers' strike, more recently with their work-to-rule activity - again collectivism working to the disadvantage of the individual. So it isn't always massive groups in our society that have power and that can do considerable damage to the freedoms, the rights and material advantage of individuals. At times they have to be restrained. Collective bargaining, yes. Free collective bargaining within limits, but not always collective bargaining to not only the disadvantage but perhaps considerable hurt of the individual.

Some services are essential. We can't do without them. Some of them we can't do without even for a few days or hours, and they must be identified. Those areas must be limited, insofar as possible, by governments that want to maximize freedom even in the freedom of collective bargaining. But once identified, and they are identified in this legislation, they must be curbed in various ways; they must suffer certain restraints. Because they have power they also have responsibilities, and those responsibilities should be clearly defined. This legislation defines our essential services.

Third-party interests are important, not just the interests of the protagonists, with management on one side and the workers on the other. They mustn't be allowed to withhold their services if these services are indeed essential to the rest of us, to individuals. So they must lose some freedoms.

Being subject to restraints, there must be some compensation. They are limited in their freedom to bargain. What should they have in return? Security of employment is one advantage which perhaps they already enjoy, but they should have special consideration in that area. They should have some security, in other words, and they should be well paid. But having security, being well paid, they should be prepared to give up those freedoms to be, if you like, sometimes, at least in their own eyes, discriminated against. And that's what this legislation is about.

Two parties, often large, always powerful, confronting each other, able to withdraw their services, cannot be allowed to run rampant. This is why a third party must at times intervene, and that third party has to be government. For example, government may even have to interfere with some of the prerogatives of what is becoming an esteemed institution in this province, the Labour Relations Board. Government must intervene at times in these essential services.

These people who have freedom to bargain collectively to the point of a strike and the point of withholding their services give up something. How should they be paid? What other considerations should apply to them? This is why an agency is to be appointed under this legislation in order to make sure that their material well-being and their security are maintained.

I think ' Mr. Speaker, that this is good legislation; clear legislation; legislation in an area which is admittedly complicated and sensitive; legislation which will no doubt have to be revised and improved

[ Page 5999 ]

from time to time. But as I said at the beginning, it's trail-blazing legislation, and it deserves the support of everyone in this House.

I congratulate the minister for the work he has done on this legislation. He has produced what I regard as a trail-blazing piece of legislation, a fine bill. He's done a great job and he deserves our support. I'm certainly going to vote for this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Labour closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As I rise to close the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 92, may I first of all congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the manner in which you maintained decorum in this House. May I also congratulate those members who have directed themselves to the principle of this bill.

The debate has been wide-ranging, and I recognize that under the rules of this House, it has been popular to allow some digressions, but there is one aspect about which I wish to speak first.

During the course of the debate, criticism has been expressed regarding my abilities and my conduct in the course of recent weeks, not related to this bill. I wish to say simply this: the questions that were asked of me in this House were answered frankly and honestly, and I stand by those answers. I accept the criticism. I mean, I'm here and I can respond. But there are those who have been subjected to criticism who are not here and who cannot respond. Therefore on their behalf I must express the apologies of this House to responsible, loyal public servants who have served this administration and the previous one with distinction, whose names have been raised directly and by innuendo in this debate and whose service to the people 'of the province and, indeed, their personal reputations have been drawn into question. Mr. Speaker, I hope the day will not be long when, in this or some other forum, there will be the appropriate opportunity for response and for full and abject apology.

Mr. Speaker, on the question of Bill 92, 1 must say, that I always believed that the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, with their close association with the workers of this province and, therefore, with the trade union movement, about which they so often speak, would have shown some semblance or some small degree of knowledge and comprehension of industrial relations in the province of British Columbia. But they have not.

There is one member of the official opposition, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , who has been held up by the opposition as being a person knowledgeable in industrial relations matters, and he was the Minister of Labour. I know he is knowledgeable of industrial relations matters. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must conclude that within the caucus of the official opposition, he has failed and failed miserably in two major respects.

When he spoke this afternoon, he reaffirmed the statements that had been read to him from Hansard with regard to the debates of October, 1975, in another industrial relations matter. He said the public must accept some inconvenience. I think the public already accepts too much inconvenience, and they need not accept any more out of industrial relations matters. But in the private sector, perhaps both management and labour believe they have the right to impose some inconvenience.

He said it was a matter of degree. The balance to which public inconvenience will be tolerated, Mr. Speaker, is what this bill addresses itself to. What is the degree? What is the balance? What is the toleration? Because the member for Revelstoke-Slocan went on to say that in the general good, the government must act. Well, Mr. Speaker, in Bill 92 we have made it quite clear that this Legislature is being requested to give the government the responsibility to act in areas where the public interest is threatened: health, life, safety, the economy of the province and the welfare of its citizens. We have spelled that out, and I can only conclude that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, knowing what has happened from the time that he came into government in 1972 - the changes in the Code, the ad hoc legislation that he was obliged to bring in, subsequent changes in the Code, the steps that we have taken in 1976 - would recognize this as the natural progression with regard to essential services disputes, as an industrial relations practitioner and one knowledgeable in the field.

So these must have been his first failures - a failure on his part not to stand up and support this legislation, and a failure within the NDP caucus of not convincing them that they as a party should put aside narrow, partisan political opportunity and support this bill, instead of opposing it as they are. They obviously faced a clear choice: support this legislation in the public interest or look to their political future and vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, the vote on second reading of this bill and the debates that have taken place in this House over the last two days will show exactly what that party has chosen to do. They have chosen their own political fortunes as they see, them against the public interest.

The opposition can criticize and attack me. They can criticize and attack this government. But whatever the consequences, we will stand for the public interest. The second failure of the man who I thought was obviously going to succeed as the leader of that group - and I hoped he would, because the present leader is falling fast into disfavour.... But I'm afraid that the gentleman, who is never here.... Well, he's going to win.

[ Page 6000 ]

But the second failure is that when they decided not to support this bill - recognizing as I'm sure they must on the advice of that member that they could not honestly debate it - they had to turn to every smokescreen, raising every bogeyman they could in order to put in some time in this House and justify their presence here. But what did they choose? They chose to raise the subject of the current controversy on the ferries. That member for Revelstoke-Slocan knows perfectly well that every word that was uttered by his members in debate concerning that matter only interfered with the rapid, proper resolution of that dispute.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You will have the opportunity, my friend, to deal with the matter of truth. But I will not be digressed by any more of your smears and innuendoes, Mr. Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Right on is right. The fact of the matter is that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan knows that in this sensitive area of mediation, when the parties are trying to strive for a solution, irresponsible remarks such as have been made by members of the opposition only interfere with that process. And he allowed that to take place.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you that it is a credit to the negotiators for the ferry workers' union that in spite of what that opposition has done, in spite of the remarks that they have made, mediation is continuing and they are seeking a solution of their difficulties. They will reach a collective agreement. They will do so with assistance made possible by this government which could not have been made possible by the legislation introduced by the former government. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan says the workers are entitled to withdraw their services at the last resort. We agree with that. But we're going to make perfectly sure that that last resort is not taken until there has been every opportunity to assist them to agreement.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): You look very uncomfortable, Dave -really uncomfortable.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Labour proceeds.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Leader of the Opposition please come to order?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have raised this matter in the opening of this second reading debate and I wish to deal with it once more, one last time, to make it abundantly clear that the ferry workers' problem is being dealt with under other legislation. They are not affected by this legislation. I ask the ferry workers and the Ferry Corporation to get on with their responsibilities of making the system work.

This legislation has been criticized as being a nothing legislation, a combination of things that have taken place in the past, but let's look at the past. We've got the Labour Code, and, yes, there are provisions in the Code which deal with limited areas of essential service and provide some few mechanisms for resolution. Some we borrowed because they're very good, and I compliment the officials of this ministry who served that member when he was the minister and who helped put that Code together - the ones they're criticizing today. I compliment those officials for that work.

But we dealt on an emergency basis with a situation in Kamloops which affected the public good of that area. We've dealt on an emergency basis in this house with an elevator constructors problem, which dealt with something in the private sector. We have dealt on an emergency basis with a firemen's dispute which we dealt with in this House - all three issues of a crisis nature. Then we dealt with Bill 146 - a major crisis of industrial relations in this province with serious consequences to the economy. That was the government at that time. Did they provide any mechanism by which we could forestall the crisis from occurring? Did they provide any mechanism by which those disputes would be resolved? No. They brought the Legislature back, as in the case of Bill 146, imposed a 90-day cooling-off period, allowed for a 14-day extension, and didn't provide one iota of assistance to those parties to resolve those disputes. In fact, if you look in Hansard, the then minister said: "Stop your childishness and go back and get the job done." There was no assistance at all.

No. There was assistance to help them - one very significant event occurred. There was an election. And that minister ceased to be the minister and I was given the responsibility. Now 1. didn't do it, but I quickly perceived that those parties were not going to settle, because of all of the disputes that were dealt with under Bill 146, only one - the forestry industry - was resolved. After 104 days, all of the other disputes in Bill 146 were still unresolved. Propane -how was it resolved? Binding arbitration. B.C. Rail -how was it resolved? Binding arbitration, agreed to by three of the unions who were directly involved, and binding arbitration finally imposed by this Legislature.

The food industry - how was it resolved? By recommending and obtaining the parties' agreement

[ Page 6001 ]

to using a third party to assist them to resolution. Mr. McKee is the one who helped to solve that dispute. All after Bill 146; all after 104 days, when the government didn't offer the parties one bit of assistance.

Mr. Speaker, if the members of the opposition had taken the time to read this legislation, if they had taken time to consider alternatives and the mechanisms which are made available in this legislation, they would, I'm sure, have recognized that had such procedures been in place and been offered during the days of Bill 146 and all those subsequent days, it would have helped to the earlier resolution of those disputes.

Now lest there be any question, let me also reiterate: this legislation does not touch the private sector. But we will, through this legislation, show in the public sector to the private sector what they must do in order to make the system work. We will provide, through the mechanism of a special mediator, assistance when it is required to resolve disputes. We will provide, through the use of the agency, assistance when it is required to resolve the disputes or to deal with a crisis issue when parties, for reasons best known to them, cannot come to agreement. But more than that, we will through the agency provide an ongoing method of resolving the root causes before they become issues and create the crisis. That's the real strength of this legislation. That's the real change, and they say it's a nothing bill.

The government of Canada spent $2 million on a task force that took years and produced reports running to 22 volumes dealing with this subject. Apparently those members in the official opposition haven't taken time to read what's available with regard to public interest dispute resolution. To prove that it's true, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) referred to the fact-finding concept as being in some way comparable to the work done by the research done by the Ministry of Labour. Quite obviously, he doesn't know what the function of' fact-finding is in crisis resolution. Mr. Speaker, all I have to say with regard to that is that the hon. member is a graduate of the Labour College of Canada, and I'm quite happy to have the Ministry of Labour consider sending him back on a post-graduate refresher course. Failing that I'll have my office send him a list of material that he can read which would bring him up on the matter of industrial relations.

Speaking of the agency takes me forward to some other remarks which have been introduced in this debate. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and several others, in talking about the agency, have had so little understanding about the concept that all they can do is suggest that it's a bureaucratic vehicle for the appointment of political hacks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Those members don't seem to realize how difficult it is to attract to public service people of competency and skill who are prepared to give their experience, their time, and be dedicated to the solution of problems. He would start off even before the agency's established and make it known that anyone who would take such a job would be tagged with a political hack definition. That's what he wants to do.

MR. BARRETT: Terry Ison.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Terry Ison, yes. Terry Ison resigned from his job the day after you were defeated and I'll show you the letter of resignation. If you want a copy of it, I'll show you the letter of resignation. You don't know what you're talking about. But if you want to talk about political hacks -are the members of the opposition suggesting that the members of the Labour Relations Board whom they appointed are political hacks? The four members of the Workers Compensation Board appointed by this government - are they political hacks? The other members appointed to the boards of review as chairmen in the Workers Compensation Board - are they political hacks? The Strand commission - are they suggesting that they're political hacks? The industrial inquiry commissioners, and special mediators we've employed - are you saying that they're political hacks? Absolutely not!

We have strong people. We have chosen people who have skill, who have experience, and who are prepared to commit themselves to public service. You would demean them by calling them hacks! You have no shame! You should hang your head in shame, because the only area of this bill you have seen fit to attack is that somehow or other it's going to diminish the authority of the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Speaker, when I opened second reading, I asked the members to give the most careful consideration to this bill. I commended it to their study because in fact, this bill enhances and extends the jurisdictions and responsibilities of the Labour Relations Board. It doesn't diminish them at all. We are charging them with greater responsibilities than ever before was the case, because we're expanding the area of essential services, an area in which they may become involved if the negotiators for management and the unions in essential service areas in the public sector cannot resolve their disputes. They do a job and they do it well. Because they have done it well, we're expanding their opportunities for further contribution. But what does the opposition say? We're diminishing the Labour Relations Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

[ Page 6002 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Another bogey-man; the same kind of bogey-man, and I suppose you put it on the same level as blood in the streets.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another intelligent comment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's it, an intelligent contribution to debate from the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) , who really should know better.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) .... I -have to deal with what he said because he's the only one who made any approach to Bill 92. No one else in the official opposition did. He is skilled in industrial relations. Quite obviously, however, he does not understand labour law. I'm surprised that he doesn't understand the Code.

He was suggesting in connection with one dispute that we have that nothing could be done until after there was an order of the board and it had gone to the courts. What nonsense. To offend against an order-in-council is, under the laws of this province, an offence.

MR. BARRETT: Why didn't you do something? Were you afraid?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: To offend against an order of the board is an offence. To offend against any section of the Code is an offence. He suggested that we had to go all the way through the processes to get to the court before there was an offence. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and deal with these comments. I looked at the comments from the Leader of the Opposition.

This is legislation that will do the job. It's legislation which is one step forward. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , who is not here now, did say that in these matters one moves one step at a time, and I agree with that. This House will have the opportunity in future months to concern itself with how well this is working. We will have it, and there'll be changes. But the changes will all be directed to the diminishing of those instances when essential services provided by the government and its agencies may be interrupted or withdrawn from the public. That's the only purpose. That is our commitment. To that extent, we will have no hesitation in bringing forward changes in this legislation or introducing new legislation, if such is required.

We're dealing, as I say, with a limited area -essential services provided by the government and its agencies. It was suggested by some that the rights of some 80,000 or 100,000 workers in this province would be involved. It doesn't involve the rights of any of the workers in this province except to the extent that the industrial relations practitioners of the employers and of the trade unions fail in their responsibility to the workers, if they're a trade union, and to the owners of the corporations - the government and the people of this province - if they are for management.

I say to those people who are engaged in this area that they might look at the record in other major organizations in this province. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) made reference to it. Difficult negotiations in the forest industry, with the IWA and the pulp unions, produced a settlement for two years, in a period when everybody, including the Minister of Labour, was forecasting that this would be the year of one-year settlement. The negotiators for the British Columbia Government Employees Union and for this government negotiated hard and long, and they almost went to the wall, but they settled a two-year agreement in a year when everyone was prophesying one-year agreements.

I say to those representatives of Crown agencies and the government on the management side, and to the representatives of the unions on the labour side, that they had better attend to the kind of conduct that has been shown in those major unions and industries in this province, because the public is sick of the tactics that are being used and the workers of the province who communicate with me are sick of the tactics that are being used. Therefore we as a government.... I'm making it abundantly clear, as I said in second reading, that we expect the concepts of fair employer-fair employee to be developed and adhered to, and that is the direction of this legislation. We'll help you all we can to make the system work, but you've got to make the system work. We demand it and the people demand it.

I ask the opposition - those who are left; this group that is left - to take this last chance. Change your mind. Think what you're doing and vote for second reading of Bill 92.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 32

[ Page 6003 ]

NAYS - 11

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move that the bill be referred, by leave, for consideration by committee of this House at next sitting.

Leave granted.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the minister asked for leave. You sought leave and got leave, but the motion to place the bill into committee has not been passed by the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll put the question.

Motion carried.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I apologize for my oversight.

Just before the final motion, I would like to report on a couple of assignments that I accepted from the House. Perhaps now would be an opportune time. First was the matter for the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , who arose on a point of order relating to time alleged to have been taken up by points of order during his speech. It happened immediately before the afternoon adjournment yesterday. I undertook to make a study as to what happens actually, technically, during that time. The clock is stopped during points of order during a member's speech so that everyone actually does get near or exactly 40 minutes of time.

MR. WALLACE: It's like a hockey game.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

The second matter had to do with an offensive phrase purported to have been made by the hon. Premier, an exception having been taken by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . I have studied the Hansard record of what was actually spoken, and I was unable to find an offensive phrase. I took the liberty to peruse the record with the member who had been offended. Together we did not find an offensive phrase. Since a ruling was made earlier the same day that we must accept the printed copy as being the only true copy, that would be done in this instance as well. So we find no offensive phrase. I hope that satisfies the House.

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

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.