[ Page 6005 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Essential Services Disputes Act (Bill 92) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Ms. Sanford –– 6005

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6005

Mr. Levi –– 6006

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6006

On section 3.

Mr. Gibson –– 6007

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6007

Mr. Wallace –– 6007

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6008

Division on section 3 –– 6008

On section 4.

Mr. King –– 6008

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6008

Mr. Wallace –– 6010

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6010

Mr. Wallace –– 6011

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6012

Mr. Levi –– 6012

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6012

Ms. Sanford –– 6013

Mrs. Wallace –– 6013

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6013

On section S.

Mr. Gibson –– 6013

On the amendment to section 5.

Mr. Gibson –– 6014

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6014

On section 5.

Mr. Wallace –– 6015

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6016

Mrs. Wallace –– 6016

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6017

Ms. Sanford –– 6017

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6017

On section 6.

Mr. Gibson –– 6017

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6018

Mr. Wallace –– 6018

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6018

Division on section 6 –– 6018

On section 8.

Mr. King –– 6018

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6019

Mr. Wallace –– 6019

Mr. Gibson –– 6019

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6020

Ms. Sanford –– 6020

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6021

Mr. King –– 6021

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6021

Mrs. Wallace –– 6023

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6023

Division on section 8 –– 6023

On section 9.

Mr. Gibson –– 6023

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6024

Mr. Gibson –– 6024

On the amendment to section 9.

Ms. Sanford –– 6024

Mr. Wallace –– 6024

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6025

On section 9.

Mr. Wallace –– 6025

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6025

Mr. Gibson –– 6025

On the amendment to section 9.

Ms. Sanford –– 6026

Mr. King –– 6026

Division on section 9 –– 6026

On section 11.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6026

On the amendment to section 11.

Mr. Gibson –– 6027

On section 14.

Mr. King –– 6027

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6028

Mr. Gibson –– 6028

On the amendment to section 14.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6029

Mr. King –– 6029

Division on section 14–– 6030

On section 16.

Mr. Gibson –– 6030

On the amendment to section 16.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6030

Division on third reading –– 6030

Royal assent to bills –– 6031

Appendix –– 6032

The House met at 7 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESSENTIAL SERVICES DISPUTES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 92; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): In closing the debate today, the minister made a lot of noise, spoke very loudly - in fact, he yelled on several occasions -but he didn't answer some of the questions that were raised during second reading.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the interpretation section, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, this is the interpretation. One of the questions I raised, Mr. Chairman, deals with the word "agency" and the establishment of this Essential Services Advisory Agency. During second reading, Mr. Chairman, I asked why section 122 of the Labour Code would not provide for the same kind of information that the minister was seeking by establishing this particular advisory agency. This is Part I of the Act.

As far as this agency is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to know whether or not the agency that's going to be set up will deal with ferries and railways, since we had under the other bill, the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act, a special commission set up to look into the labour relations as far as railways and ferries are concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Section 1 pass?

MS. SANFORD: Oh, is the minister not going to answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 1, the member for Comox continues.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I was just wondering if the minister was getting ready to answer. I noticed he was looking up the statutes and I thought that perhaps he was looking for section 122 and was about to answer.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I thought perhaps there might be other members who wanted to deal with the same issue, but I'm quite happy to respond to the member for Comox.

The agency is being established specifically under this legislation because it is proposed that the agency would be a continuing and permanent one. That is not the concept under which one views industrial inquiry commissions established under section 122.

With regard to the commissions which m-ay be established under the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act, one has been established. They are proposed to deal specifically within the area of ~, ne Crown corporation, with matters relating to industrial relations concepts as they have been applied in that corporation.

We have the commission known as the Strand commission dealing presently with the B.C. Railway. Theirs is solely related to that one Crown corporation. This agency would be available to the government with respect to all essential services designations within the public sector.

MS. SANFORD: Does that mean, Mr. Chairman, that the agency that's established could in fact be duplicating the work of the one commission that has been established? I don't know whether the minister intends to set up another commission under the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act. Will there be duplication of effort here or will the agency be required to look into those areas that are not now covered under the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act? I notice that Act is not being repealed under this bill. Therefore I'm wondering how we can avoid any duplication of effort here.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it is proposed that there be no duplication of effort. If the member will refer specifically to the provisions of Part I of the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance, Act, you will note the limitations that that commission has. It may make recommendations dealing with matters which do not affect any collective agreement. This agency has a broader scope than that, but it does not propose that they will be duplicating each other's work.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On section 1, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the indulgence of the Chair and the minister in clarifying a statement that the minister made before the adjournment with respect to the status of one Terrence Ison, the former chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be done before the House but not before this committee.

[ Page 6006 ]

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me to explain, there was no basis on which I could bring it before the House. I appreciate that under the rules it can be brought now, but an erroneous statement has been made in the House which I thought the minister might like to correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can you relate this to section 1? If not, perhaps you can find another section within this....

MR. KING: Well, it relates to the truth. It relates to the truth of whether the minister will tell the truth or not. The minister has lied to the House.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you must withdraw immediately the question of the minister lying to the House. That must be withdrawn without equivocation at this point in time.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. I

MR. KING: The minister has lied to the House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The statement that the minister has lied to the House must be withdrawn forthwith. I ask you to withdraw it.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the statement the minister lied to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you kindly, hon. member. Would you proceed on section 1.

Point of order, the hon. minister.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I had the floor. I have not concluded my remarks.

[Mr. Chairman rises. I

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, hon. member. Would you kindly take your seat, hon. member? We have a point of order from the hon. minister.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, on a point of order the member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. I

MR. KING: I was on a point of order, and I would ask your guidance as to whether or not there is any mechanism before this House on which an erroneous statement to this House can be corrected that reflects on the personality and the character of a former civil servant in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would have to be done at the earliest possible moment. And the earliest possible moment was before this House went into committee. This is now a committee of the whole House and we must discuss Bill 92 ...

MR. KING: We allow a lie to stand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... the Essential Services Disputes Act.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that also must be withdrawn. We do not allow anything to stand....

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan has just made a contempt of the Chair in saying that we allowed a lie to stand. We are in a Committee of the Whole House. I would ask you to withdraw that without equivocation, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. I

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I did not indicate that the lie was made by any member of this House. I said a lie had been perpetrated regarding the status of a former civil servant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you withdraw, hon. member? It is not necessary to explain.

MR. KING: Yes. Well, I don't think I'm in violation of the rules on that basis.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): On the definition of "health-care union, " perhaps the minister could tell us what the situation would be in respect to a private agency that was delivering health care, in terms of it being funded by the government. Would it come under this definition?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the member has raised a significant point. In changing the definition from "hospital union, " which appears in the Code, to "health-care unit" here, there is a significant change. Under the Code only those

[ Page 6007 ]

members of a union who are involved in a hospital would be covered. That change has been made so that consequently it will extend to all those whose principal duties are the health care of patients, whether they function in a hospital or not. This will be of some significant concern to the city of Vancouver, whose public-health nurses deal with the health care of patients who are not in a hospital. There has been this concern and we've made the change at this time to ensure that the essentiality of that service covers all those employees who might be involved.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, just further to that then, doesn't this definition really put itself in conflict with the schedule at the end? The minister has explained that the Act in fact would cover people in the private sector, that it would be appropriate.... When I get to that section of the schedule I'll raise it, but doesn't it create a conflict?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think there should be any misunderstanding about this, Mr. Chairman. The change in that definition means that those health-care unions would come within the scope of Part 11 of the Act.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear because the more you read the section, the clearer it becomes. A health-care union means "a trade union certified for a unit in which the majority of the employees has as its principal duties the health care of patients or operation and maintenance of a hospital." And that clearly takes us into the private sector, then, because it goes beyond the B.C. Government Employees Union and it goes into the Hospital Employees Union and other unions that are covered that have certification in those areas. CUPE, I believe, has certification in private hospitals. So we are in fact involving other unions besides the B.C. Government Employees Union here - the Hospital Employees Union and anyone in the private sector of the health-care delivery system. I just want to get that clear. That's the main thing.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, yes, so far as Part 11 is concerned, it means those other unions will have the opportunity to opt at their election for binding arbitration of their disputes.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, on section 3, 1 want to make one comment and ask one question.

The comment is that I think the practice of naming "such number of members for such terms" as may be designated by the order-in-council is bad practice. And I hope that some time in the next session the minister might bring in an amendment specifying the number and specifying the terms. I think that this kind of flexibility left to order-in-council is not a good thing.

The particular question I have to ask the minister is the following: does he contemplate that in the appointment of members to the board of this agency that he will in some way involve the trade union movement, whether as to membership or consultation, in his composition?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As I have said on other occasions since this bill was introduced, it is the intention of the government to place on this agency people whose experience and skill will enable them to discharge their responsibilities. It is not the concern of the government one way or another as to what their background might have been.

It is not contemplated that we will follow the practice under the WCB, for example, where there's an obligation one way or the other. We want the best people we can get for this agency. I wish to assure the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the government has no reservations with respect to people whose background may be from the trade union movement. Indeed, I think that in view of the nature of the work that this agency will carry out, such appointments will be required. And we will be looking to the management and trade union community for people who will serve on this agency.

I would like to have spelled out quite clearly the number of persons who would be on. My present intention is that the agency would commence with three members to start the initial studies and to establish the organization which I think is essential for this agency to function. It may require more. Some of them may serve as part-time members. Indeed, except for the one who is the chairman, they may all serve as part-time members. But once they are appointed, they will be appointed for a period of time, which will enable them to establish a continuity in the development of the recommendations that they would make to the government.

The Woods task force recommended such a proposition and we expect to adhere carefully to those recommendations.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just want to enlarge on the subject raised by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, because of the union representations that have been made to me during the last few days. This seems to be one of the very areas where there's some serious fear by the union members that the agency may not consist of people with the very specific and qualified knowledge

[ Page 6008 ]

in this very special area which is causing so much industrial relations difficulty and penalty to the public. I'm asked, particularly by people in the smaller unions such as the firefighters union, and I've some other comments to make on other sections.

If there are to be only three people in the agency to start with, I think it would be most important to sound this note of caution right at the start - that if unions don't find right at the first starting gate that they can have trust not just in the integrity of the individuals, but in the background knowledge of the individuals and their experience in this field, the minister might run the risk of starting off with a vehicle which doesn't have the confidence and trust of the unions in the province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay raises a most important point. I'm certain that the members, if they had taken the time, would have looked at the composition of the Labour Relations Board. They will see in that board the very careful selection of experienced people whose backgrounds are both trade union and management. To a large extent, the success of that board and its acceptability to the industrial relations committee on both sides has depended upon that even-handedness. Now within the limits of the responsibilities of this agency, we will attempt to follow the same criteria.

I agree fully with the member that if the agency is not perceived to be a workable, credible and knowledgeable one - but in particular, its credibility - it will have very serious difficulty in any attempt to have its recommendations accepted by either management or labour. I know that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) when he was Minister of Labour took that into his account in establishing the Labour Relations Board. We intend to follow the same concept.

If you look at the constitution of the LRB, you'll find that they are identifiable; that they have achieved distinction in the fact that they have drawn upon their experience from their background. But at the same time, they have been prepared to exercise their responsibilities, if necessary, by divorcing themselves from some of the tenets that their background might otherwise produce. We will do the same.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 31

NAYS - 8

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): On a point of order, as Minister of Health, I wish to express condolences to those members of the opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , who were apparently healthy this afternoon, but who have suddenly become indisposed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

On section 4.

MR. KING: I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, what functions he anticipates that the . . .

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On section 4, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor.

MR. KING: I'd like to ask the minister what functions the agency will perform during the period when collective agreements have been consummated between all the agencies listed under this bill, which may be for one to three years' duration or possibly more. In light of the fact that the specific purpose of the agency, as outlined in section 4 (l) (a) , is to investigate disputes in essential services under this Act, what function does the minister feel the agency will perform when all of the disputes have been settled and collective agreements are in existence?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If the member will refer to subsections (b) and (c) of subsection 1, 1 think his question will be answered. The question indicates to me that the member has not, indeed, read the bill, even after all these hours.

The fact of the matter is that one of the major problems we have in the, definition of essential services is the extent to which any service that may be provided by the government or any of its agencies is or is not essential. This is one of the studies that

[ Page 6009 ]

will be undertaken.

But while collective agreements may have been resolved, that member, with his long background in industrial relations, will recognize that many fundamental issues are left on the table, and it will be the responsibility of the agency to concern itself with those, against the possibility that they will emerge at some subsequent bargaining session and perhaps produce the crisis. While we resolved the then current dispute between the Hospital Employees Union and Health Labour Relations Association in 1976 - that legislation - I can assure the members that there were a number of continuing serious problems then unresolved and perhaps unresolved today. Therefore this agency would be able to deal with those in a way which would enable the resolution of them to be recommended after the closest consultation of both parties.

MR. KING: I want to assure the minister that I have read the complete section, (b) and (c) . But the section seems to assume that there will be residual industrial problems in one or more or all of the areas. My point is that that assumption appears to be the justification for a continuing agency. This appears to anticipate that there will be continuing problems. I would like to know if it's the minister's intention to impose this agency on the parties, or is it the minister's intention that this agency will only come into play if indeed there are residual problems after a collective agreement is consummated at the request of one or more of the parties? I'm interested in understanding the administrative application of this agency.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the member that it is not the intention of the government to impose on either of these parties the services of the agency. As it says in subsection (c): "the development with employers and employees. . . . " As the member well recognizes, the proper functioning of the agency and the discharge of these responsibilities can only be effectively carried out if there is indeed the encouraged involvement. The people we would have on this agency, I think, would be better skilled than this minister and perhaps better skilled than that member in these matters, therefore~ fully recognizing that without the active co-operation of both sides, the realization of the goals will not be achieved. But there's no intent to impose. It may be necessary to ask the agency to consider certain matters, but they will need co-operation in order to achieve the full results.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we are not here to debate the merits of my experience and my expertise. The minister holds the responsibility for industrial relations and I would hope he would be able to answer, with some degree of clarity and some degree of sanity, in terms of the responsibility which he holds.

If it is not the intent of the government to impose this agency upon the party, then I ask the minister what purpose he anticipates the agency will perform if all collective agreements in the public sector are consummated through the collective bargaining system, and there are no residual problems. Would it be his intention to ask them to consider the impact of industrial relations disputes, when in fact the climate is very stable and amicable and successful between the parties? Or would he just have them sit and draw their pay when there is no useful function for them to perform? I see that as a distinct possibility. If one is to have the confidence in this statute that the minister suggests we should have - that this is trail-blazing legislation, that he's going to solve disputes in the public sector - then I would expect that this agency will perform itself out of a useful function. Under those circumstances I'd like to know what the minister's intentions are.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If the member had attended to my remarks when I responded to the member for Oak Bay, he would have heard me say that while the agency itself was to be a permanent, continuing agency, the members or some of them might function part-time. I wish to assure this committee that it is not the intention to pay any of these industrial relations experts unless they work.

However, it is also obvious from what the member has said that he thinks that the only problems that arise are those that come to the bargaining table and that when they move away from the bargaining table with an effective agreement, they're all solved. That leaves me with the feeling of dismay.

The fact of the matter is with regard to work-place safety, training concepts, the status of an employee in relation to other employees, the status of one particular unit in relation to others. We hear, as the member well knows, with regard to disputes among firemen, what their relationship with the policemen should be. I think this is a matter which needs to be examined. Heretofore it has been left for consideration only at the time of collective bargaining. A moment of crisis is when we come to go through these matters. We would expect the agency to consider this kind of concern which can lead to very difficult negotiations when it need not.

MR. KING: I appreciate the minister's answer, which indicates maybe the agency will be full-time, maybe it will be part-time.

With respect to other issues that lie between the parties, there are mechanisms in the collective agreements for the resolutions of disputes regarding safety and other matters that arise during the term of the collective agreement. The matter of jurisdiction

[ Page 6010 ]

falls to the Labour Relations Board to sort out.

With respect to the issues that may be the basis for demands or offers in the collective bargaining round, I think it's fairly difficult to anticipate that ahead of time. Certainly there are times when the relationship of one fire department or police department to another is a factor in the criteria for which the workers make their demands. There are certainly times when the employer says that the inflationary rate or the competitive position of the employer is such that that affects the amount of recompense that can be paid. But I do not understand how the minister feels these factors can be anticipated in advance of collective bargaining beginning. So I see the potential for some considerable period of time when this agency will be hard-pressed to justify its existence.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the committee that the scope of problems that can be perceived today will leave ample opportunity for this agency to be fully engaged.

I would remind the committee that following the resolution of a collective agreement involving firefighters' unions, the former minister saw fit to establish the Keenleyside commission to look into other matters which were in one sense part of but largely outside the collective agreement. Well, that's fine, but again it was an ad hoc appointment that did a job. We want this to be a continuing one.

But the member recognizes what I say. The simple question of one's status in work, the kind of uniform he wears or whatever the case may be may seem insignificant to us, and it is an insignificant example that I'm giving, but it can become mighty important when you get to the bargaining table. The member well knows that. We think these matters and many more of that kind can be resolved by this agency in consultation with the two parties that are involved outside the passions, if that's the proper word -certainly the heat - of actual on-the-table bargaining.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this phrase "threat to the economy" which I want to refer to later under section 8 has been touched upon here already under section 4 (b) . In my view it is the most flexible part of this legislation which probably leaves the government with the widest range of options. Presumably this agency will not be getting into high gear or even perhaps becoming established in the immediate future, and yet we'll be passing this bill, presumably because the government feels, rightly or wrongly, that it is needed immediately. So two questions.

Will the government be, in the first instance, anyway, issuing any kind of parameters to the agency as to the facts to be looked at in deciding what should reasonably be considered a threat to the economy? Since a situation may well arise before the agency has had time to embark upon its studies, does the government itself - and this would perhaps be more appropriately asked under section 8 - as of today have some guidelines within which it will be trying to determine what is a substantial threat to the economy to justify exercising some of the provisions regarding cooling-off periods, special officers, et cetera?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be prepared to admit, Mr. Chairman, that the parameters - the available guidelines that the government has before it at the moment - are mightily slim, and that's why this provision was put in. The member has asked, I think, a most significant question. With regard to the operation of B.C. Rail or of the ferries in any part of this province, what is the impact on the economy of any withdrawal of service? Truly, no studies have been made, and I think that this is something that we have to have.

The member for Oak Bay has raised this under section 4. 1 had proposed to respond to one of his questions raised in second reading which dealt with section 8, but I'll do it now.

MR. WALLACE: I don't mind if you want to leave it till section 8.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll do it now. The member postulated the two propositions of ICBC on the one side and the liquor stores on the other. The guide that the government uses and believes is appropriate is not the nature of whatever the revenues to government may be and the impact of those, but what the service to the public is. I think the two comparisons - ICBC and the distribution of liquor - are a really sort of classic example.

At certain times of the year the provision of services by ICBC is no doubt essential. When you seek to reinsure yourself against what could be a significant personal loss, I think that that service is pretty essential to you. However, the right you have to the convenience of the purchase of a bottle of Scotch whiskey may pale somewhat in comparison. It is the matter of the service to the public with which we concern ourselves, not necessarily what the income to government may be in a circumstance.

Now perhaps, on study, it should be balanced. There is no question that the revenue to the province from the sale of liquor is very high, and continued denial of that revenue would be a factor which may be taken into account. That's the kind of statement that we don't wish to make - an arbitrary decision based upon the government's view which may be either in favour of service or in favour of income. Rather, we want to have it done by qualified people who can make a recommendation as to at what stage

[ Page 6011 ]

any particular service, at first not essential, becomes essential.

MR. WALLACE: A quick follow-up on that, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry the Premier isn't here because I wanted to.... Oh, the Premier is behind me. Is that a good place to have the Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: He's backing you up, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: This is a very crucial part of this bill, Mr. Chairman. I'm not trying to unduly delay the debate, but the answer the minister gave regarding ICBC is absolutely fair and valid. But I noticed that he did skate a little bit around the question of revenue to the government.

While the sale of liquor last year up to March 31,1977, realized $162.5 million, that is not a small sum of money. I noticed toward the end of the minister's answer that he did mention that the time factor during which a strike of the liquor stores could occur might lead to a substantial loss of that part of that $162 million. I understand, for example, that in New Brunswick they have had a strike in the liquor stores which is now something like three or four months old, and they're having immense problems with bootlegging from other provinces and so on.

But that's not the point. The point is that presumably New Brunswick is losing a large sum of money. I wondered if there is any kind of guideline at the present time that the minister or cabinet are using in relation to those services which to the public, in my view, are not essential. There is no essential nature in providing liquor for the citizens, but indeed there is a vital impact on the economy if the government loses a lot of revenue. So is there any kind of guideline at the moment in measuring that? Is there any guideline which will be given to the agency in this regard? What guideline would be used if the liquor store employees chose to strike before the agency had reported?

Now I know those are three questions which are not easy to answer, but this whole bill is causing the unions the problem that it is because they see the real potential for the interpretation of these phrases to so expand that the concept I have of essential service and that many other people have, which caused me to support this bill in the first instance, could really be stretched under the terminology that is generally rather vague and flexible ' in this particular subsection.

My other question is related to words I'd like to quote from the Premier in the Blues this morning. He said:

" It" - meaning the bill - "will clearly define at this time that essential services sometimes mean more than health, especially at these critical times when our country is in a severe economic condition. Indeed, it is against the public interest, and this service must be essential if it disrupts the economy of our province and our country."

So there again, all I'm asking is some kind of indication as to the point at which dollar economic impact will be used as the justification for the government to impose whatever provisions this bill provides to prevent a strike, put people back to work on a cooling-off period, or whatever. I interjected at that point in the debate: "Could that include the forest industry?" I know this bill doesn't deal with the private sector, but the private sector's out there wondering and waiting and watching this bill very carefully, and with good reason.

But if the guidelines are fairly flexible and the point of economic impact is perhaps going to be reached faster and with a dollar extent that is less than most of us imagine, then the government could have its credibility questioned, I would suggest, and its integrity questioned as to the justification it's presenting right now for this bill in the first place. Suppose the government decided that it stood to lose $30 million by a strike in the liquor stores. What's the forest industry likely to think about the potential for future legislation that will be brought into this House and that will have tremendous impact on all workers in this province?

I take this minister's word and this government's word, in the debate we've had over the past two days, that it is trying basically to deal with essential services to people, but I am apprehensive that the phraseology relating to impact on the economy.... We'll get to section 8, which uses the words "substantial impact on the economy, " but we on this side of the House have no indication at the present time what this Minister of Labour or future Ministers of Labour may perceive as substantial dollar economic impact. I think that the minister could perhaps allay many of the fears in the unions who will be affected by this legislation, not to mention any other unions who are just wondering what the ultimate impact of this bill could be, should future legislation be based on experience from this bill.

I don't wish to delay the debate, Mr. Chairman, but I think the crux of this whole bill is tied up in the phrases used in sections 4 and 8 relating to "threat to the economy." I don't really think the public of this province have any great arguments about health safety and these other very clearly defined essential services that the minister and many speakers have quite correctly emphasized in debate, but I'm amazed that there has not been more concern expressed about the whole new area that is being opened up in this bill, namely the justification for government intervention in relation to "threat to the economy, " which is extremely difficult to define. I know that, but I'm asking if in final committee stage of the debate the minister could give us some kind of guidelines.

[ Page 6012 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: First, may I say that the member asked what the government would give to the agency by way of guidelines. I think it's just the other way around. The government, receiving a problem, would be going to the agency with a request and saying, "Will you examine this problem and come back with the guidelines which we should adopt."

The concern that the member raises is a very real one, and one recognized by the members of the government. It is very easy for each of us to apply our own standards, and at the moment that's what we're left with - your concern about the threat to the economy arising out of any particular incident. I suppose in the final analysis it must be the judgment of the government, but it shouldn't at the first instance be left to the judgment of a number of people saying"I think it is" and "I think it's not, " not based upon any careful examination of the problem.

I wish to state again that this member has himself said this bill relates only to the government, Crown corporations and Crown agencies. But what we need to examine, I think, with respect to the impact on the economy is whether or not any disruption of service of any part of the government, for example, might itself spill over into a significant impact upon the private sector and the contribution that it makes to the economic development of this province.

I hate to give examples, because some people might think that the focus is being drawn in a particular way. So, with that caveat, may I give you one?

In the operation of the forest industry, the Ministry of Forests plays a very significant role, and one aspect is the scaling of logs. Everything works fine. Well, what would be the impact on the forest industry if there was a disruption in the relationships between the government as an employer and the BCGEU, which resulted in a withdrawal of the scalers? There may not be very many in number, but I suspect that the impact on the total forest economy would be very great. Logging operations would be shut down. If it went on long enough, I suppose converting plant operations would be shut down.

Well, I think this is a thing that must be examined. You know, if you take a small unit of people insignificant in size, the withdrawal of their services may not appear to anyone to be of any consequence, yet the ramifications of that to the economy are really very great. That obviously is a matter that we should have under consideration. We should be advised about it in advance. There should be some examination of the matter so that if the situation ever arises, that action can be taken.

So I give you that one example. It is increasingly clear that as government becomes more and more involved in many activities, the interference that it can create in the private sector is increased. We would have to direct our attention to that, but we want it to be done in a competent and credible manner so that we can say that this recommendation has been made. It can be then examined and discussed with those who are directly involved to see whether or not there isn't some way of resolving the difficulty.

MR. LEVI: I just wanted to go back to subsection 40) (c) . When the minister was explaining the function of the agency, I made a note that he said there is a question of not imposing, and I presumed he meant not imposing certain functions that the agency has on particular employees or employers, in terms of.... Subsection (c) is the example where there is an attempt to look to the future and what kind of strategies....

What I want to ask the minister is: is this sort of a permissive thing, that if people are not anxious to have the services or the involvement of the agency they don't have to have them? That's one question I want to ask him, and then I want to go on to something else. Is this a permissive thing? Or if the agency goes in and sees them and has a job to do because it's got to report back.... It says in subsection 4 (l) that the agency shall investigate and report back. I got the impression when the minister was talking that there was some kind of permissiveness here. If there is, then what's the imperative for the "shall"? It seemed to me to be part and parcel of.... If you decide to investigate, perhaps under subsection (c) you would want to have.... Presumably before you investigate you would have to have fairly good terms of reference as to what exactly you were hoping to achieve. I'm just wondering if you go up to the particular employee-employer group and they suddenly say, "Well, we don't really need you, " does that mean that they back away?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think, with respect to subsection (c) , as I indicated earlier, that the most likely route of success is one which encourages co-operation with those with whom the agency must function. The obligation of the agency is clear. Once the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council gives it the direction, how it achieves its result will be up to the agency. But in the final analysis, if any party or any individual has experience, or from it information can be obtained that is essential to the work of the agency, there are powers under subsection (2) for the gleaning of information using the powers under the Public Inquiries Act. So they can't be frustrated, but as I indicated to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , the most likely way of achieving success in development with parties of long-range strategies comes from a non-coercive approach.

MR. LEVI: Well, then, the only point that I have to raise is that it seems to me that because of the imperative in the section, and there is an

[ Page 6013 ]

imperative....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where?

MR. LEVI: Well, it says "shall." "On the request of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the agency shall investigate and report. . . . "Well, the obligation is to go out, take a look at things and come back. Now what I asked the minister was: if they decide they don't want to co-operate, what is he going to do? Because that's what we're interested in knowing. What is going to happen if he goes? We know all about the delicacy of the labour relations, We talked about that in the debate. But now the minister seems to be indicating to us that well, because of that delicacy, if we can't make out, then we can't make out. What are you going to do? That's what I want to know.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The agency will be authorized to use the powers under the Public Inquiries Act to get the information it requires.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I just wondered if the minister had had any requests from any of the employers, as included in this schedule, or any of the unions that are affected by this bill, to establish such an agency, or is it something that the government just felt was advisable?

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I'm having some problems with interpreting just how you expect this agency will operate. You indicate that they will investigate and report, and I think you said earlier on that sometimes decisions were made without having too much information. So I would expect that there would be a fair amount of research done into the various items that were requested by the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and that you would anticipate some hard research taking place on the part of this agency in order to come up with a report to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Am I correct in that interpretation, that that's the kind of thing you would be expecting this agency to do? The minister nods.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Affirmatively.

MRS. WALLACE: One other question in connection with this, and this is section 4 (l) (e): "such further and other matters as he may request." You may have answered this, Mr. Minister. There was a lot of chitter at the back here at the time you were speaking. I think you may have answered it. Would this include only matters covered under the schedule at the end of this Act or could it cover other areas, even if there was a related situation between the public and the private sector similar to the one you mentioned in the forest industry? This agency could then get out of the public sector, out of the corporations as listed in this schedule, and into other areas, which might include the private sector as well.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Its responsibilities will be to deal specifically with those public sector agencies which are covered under this legislation. They would only involve themselves in examinations impinging on the private sector whereby the services performed by the public sector agency were essential to the continuation of operations in the private sector.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): In speaking to section 5, 1 want to commence by saying that I applaud the government for introducing this concept of a fact-finder in this legislation. I want to quote with approval the words of the Premier this morning in speaking of the fact-finder because he told the House that, in his opinion, the finding of the fact-finder should be made public. He said it in these words. I am quoting him from this morning.

It provides, as I say, for a fact-finder who makes information available to the authority and to the government. And yes, information will be made available to the people in whose interest this dispute is, the people who must use these public services and the people who own them. They must be given the facts, Mr. Speaker, because if anything, this bill says that the public of B.C. and the people who use and own and provide all of these public services are the most important part of all - the people.

I cannot quote those words with other than approval. The Premier indicated to the House this morning that the findings of the fact-finder would be made public. But that is not what this section says. What this section says is that the findings of the fact-finder will be made public, in effect, only with the approval of the minister. And not only that, but there is a distinct prohibition which says that no person shall publish or distribute the report of the fact-finder except for the minister or with his approval.

Mr. Chairman, that to me seems wrong. In terms of the words of the Premier, it seems inconsistent. In terms of the underlying reasons for having a fact-finder, it seems to me to be wrong.

The concept of the industrial inquiry commissioner, which we already have in the Labour Code, is a different one. The industrial inquiry commissioner has been sort of a fact-finder, but he's been a kind of an agreed fact-finder. He's been appointed traditionally only on the agreement of both of the parties and has brought forward a report

[ Page 6014 ]

which traditionally has been treated in privacy, dealing with the detailed ins and outs of the situation.

But there are some situations where the facts are so in dispute - and I'm thinking here now particularly of the public service sector, because that's what this bill is dealing with - that the public can't form a proper appreciation of where the justice of the case on one side and another lies. I would take for example and very briefly - but because it's in the public mind I will take it - the case of the ferry dispute where on one hand one could say: "Well, moving to yearly overtime seems a bit rough." On the other hand, one could say: "That's the practice in other ferry systems in the world." So you can go back and forth these ways. What are the merits of the case on both sides?

Let us assume that a fact-finder had been appointed there. It would seem to me that at some stage the findings of that fact-finder should be made public if no collective agreement was arrived at, thereby enabling the public better to judge whatever actions the government chose to take under this bill in due course to assist the parties in a resolution of the difficulty.

Accordingly, I would move my amendment, which is standing on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the first amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: My first amendment standing on the order paper, which would delete the existing section 5 (6) , which among other things would delete the heavy restriction placed on freedom of information and, I would say, even freedom of the press when the penalty Section 1s considered, and replace it with the following: "The minister may publish and distribute the report in any manner he considers advisable." This power is contained in the existing section. Then go on and add this: "The fact-finder shall publish and distribute the report in any manner he considers advisable not less than 20 days or more than 30 days after his submission of the report to the parties, unless the parties have, prior to such time, concluded a collective agreement." This seems to me at least one way - and I'd be glad to accept other language if the minister wished to implement it - of putting into statutory form the opinions and, perhaps, assurances that the Premier gave us in debate this morning as to the availability to the public of the findings of the fact-finder.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it is not the intention of the government to accept this amendment, even though in some respects the amendment deals specifically with some attributes of the fact-finding concept.

Fact-finding is not a process which has been extensively used in this province. I hope it will become more used. There is extensive literature on the subject. There is a work entitled Collective Bargaining by Chamberlain and Kuhn which deals with its use, and I would recommend members to it. I would like to quote very briefly from that report, as follows:

"This procedure provides a role for both expert opinion of neutrals and for legislative judgment on questions beyond the province of the labour-management specialist. Where it works well, fact-finding can be a useful, and even powerful, device. It seems to focus public opinion and to economize on legislators' time while providing them with guidance they need.

"Fact-finding is also a flexible procedure. It provides maximum opportunity for mediation before, during and after recommendations made privately or publicly. The exposure to hard facts also helps to deflate extreme positions. It allows neutrals to develop and try on for size possible accommodations, while permitting the parties to modify a recommendation to their mutual advantage."

And I would emphasize that one aspect.

"The uncertainty of the ultimate action can stimulate a settlement, and the parties can preserve the opportunity for reaching such an agreement even after recommendations have been made."

I was very concerned, when we were in the final stages of putting this bill together, about this question of publication. And yet I had to take into account that a fact-finder, if he were to do his job and do it effectively, would need to be assured that some frank, even painful, comments and criticisms of the parties might be involved. Too few people seem to recognize that fact-finding is not just a matter of carrying out research.

I k n o w t h e member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has studied this matter and will be aware of the accuracy of what I say. In many cases, the most important aspect of fact-finding will be in a report which he produces for the parties which deals with their conduct and their attitude at bargaining. I wish we had it in place today.

It is because of this need for frankness that I think the fact-finder must be encouraged to produce his reports, to be tough and maybe even abusive with regard to people, I suppose, depending upon the attitudes that they would exhibit. That may bring about a resolution of the matter.

If it does not, and as a result of his report to the agency the agency has to recommend some other action which may come to the floor of this House, then I think that the agency would be justified, and I

[ Page 6015 ]

would certainly permit, and I think any responsible minister would permit that agency to include as an appendix to its recommendations the fact-finder's report.

But when one considers that industrial relations activity is ongoing, that what is settled today will in fact be required to be resettled at some future date, the exposure of persons who have been involved in desperate negotiations and perhaps subjected to some criticism will not enhance the situation at some future time. Therefore I think that in putting forward this proposition, a measure of discretion must be lodged someplace.

Full information, if there is failure in bargaining, by all means should be made available to this House when we have to make the final decision here as to what should take place. But if there has been success, then I wonder whether it advances the situation to have anyone who might be held up to criticism or even scorn or questions raised about their ability after the event. Obviously they have responded to the report. They 'have adjusted their attitudes. I'm not one to hold to the view that because someone has learned their lesson, the fact that they had to learn a lesson needs to be exposed. In that respect, I think the member will recognize my need to reject his amendment, which I think nonetheless has the seeds of the limits that the minister must exercise in using that discretion. I accept those for myself.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's arguments. I would point out that my amendment did provide that the fact-finding would not be published in the event that a collective agreement was reached in the meantime.

Could I ask the minister just one further question before proceeding further with this? Would he assure the House that in any case where it was his judgment that he felt the publishing of the report of the fact-finder would enhance the opportunity to gain a settlement, he would do so even if that might cause some embarrassment to one party or the other?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think the importance of reaching a settlement in this area of essential services is of such significance that the personal embarrassment of any person who might have been involved in those negotiations and whose attitudes might have hindered the reaching of a settlement must fall by the way. My answer is therefore: without question.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, on the basis, then, of the minister's assurances and the discussion he's given, and on the basis of the fact that this is an untried proposition in British Columbia, and perhaps we should cautiously enter into it, I will at this point withdraw my amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted to withdraw the amendment?

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has a second amendment, which would be 5 (7) . Do you intend to proceed with that?

MR. GIBSON: They were of a piece, Mr. Chairman, and I would withdraw them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They will not be moved. Thank you, hon. member.

On section 5.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want quickly to comment on subsection (3) (c) , which talks about opportunity being given to the employers and trade unions to present evidence and make representations. I'd like to relate this, to save time, to other sections such as arbitration and so on.

Again, the smaller unions are concerned that even with all the good intentions of the government, one of the inevitable consequences of this legislation is more and more activity, representations, hearings, all kinds of fact-finding inquiries, which I noted the minister said had been reported by some of the experts as providing some economy of time in reaching a collective agreement.

For example, the Victoria firefighters' union spent $30,000 on legal costs in trying to present their case and finally going to arbitration. That cannot be done very often when you have 100 members in the local. I pick that as a quick passing example.

So the more and more sections of this bill or the Labour Code which attempt to wrestle with the problems by introducing more levels of procedure and more hearings - at which locals might be required to have legal representation, which is costly - raises the whole question which the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) touched upon very pointedly this afternoon. That is the whole question of education. Many of the smaller unions and smaller locals inform me that they would not only be able to do a better job of playing their part in collective bargaining, but perhaps would be able to do it at less cost.

Since education is clearly one of the more productive, positive and preventative ways of avoiding a complete breakdown in negotiations toward the collective agreement, I'd like to ask the minister about the Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act, which was given royal assent on June 9,1975. Without taking up time of the House to specify in any detail the purposes of that Act, I will read essentially the first part of section 3, which says: "The purpose of the centre is

[ Page 6016 ]

to initiate, stimulate and engage in educational activities where members of trade unions ... with the objective of fostering improved industrial relations and collective bargaining in the province."

So, my question really is twofold: does the minister not foresee that with the greater amount of activity by fact-finders or the advisory agency and other bodies and inquiry commissioners and special officers it involves more and more time and more and more hearings or appearances before various parties, which not only cost the union a great deal of time, but money? In due course, if they can't afford to have legal representation, which perhaps the employer can well afford to have, then you have an unequal situation.

We're all agreed - every one of us - that the balance and equity in these very crucial negotiations are paramount towards reaching a fast and a satisfactory collective agreement.

So' I wonder two things: has the minister given any further consideration to bringing forward or proclaiming the Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act or to taking some similar initiative to try and give the trade union movement the opportunity to have equal bargaining skills, which do not depend on having enough dollars to employ highly skilled and expert labour lawyers?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan would probably agree with me that the skill is required more on the side of management than on the side of unions.

Specifically, this question you raise about these increasing techniques and the need, therefore, for management and labour to become more and more involved in dealing with specialists who are appointed by governments is one with which we are currently wrestling.

The example you give of the Victoria firefighters situation is a classic one. It was an arbitration and I can assure you we in the ministry are most distressed about the very fact that when one accepts the opportunities that are available for arbitration, you are suddenly faced with a $30,000 bill. It may be that in the final analysis of the full utilization of a concept such as fact-finding, there will have to be government expenditure. When we appoint industrial inquiry commissions it is the government that pays the expenses. Fact-finding would be the same way.

In order to get proper representation, it may be that we would have to enable the parties with whom that fact-finder would deal to themselves be represented out of the public purse. Now that puts a pretty serious other concern before us. I'd be happy to have the member give consideration to what the alternatives might be, because as I say, we are giving consideration to this whole range of the impact of government involvement in others' affairs and the cost that passes upon them. We'd appreciate your assistance.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I appreciate the minister's answer very much. I just wonder if the minister is about to take any initiatives in consultation with management and unions, perhaps in exploring the specifics that are involved as I've outlined them. In other words, I wouldn't think it would be easy or wise for the minister on his own or his ministry to try and say yes or no to whether they'll meet the cost for legal representation involved in fact-finding missions.

So I just wonder very quickly - is the minister saying that the government has in fact reached a policy of recognizing the costs involved to the parties and will pay some or all of the costs? And if that policy decision has not been made, and yet the importance of fact finding being done thoroughly and accurately is recognized, will the minister, who has emphasized that there will be greater consultation in the whole area of industrial relations, take any initiatives to consult with management and labour about the financing of this section of the bill?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The investigation that is going on in the ministry on this matter has not advanced to the stage where we're in a position yet to go to the parties. However, I would just say to the member that the court already makes some provision where, in limited circumstances, there is a contribution to these costs. We're considering the opportunity of expanding that into areas such as this.

MR. WALLACE: My final question in this section then relates to education. Does the minister acknowledge the potential that existed in the NDP legislation to set up a labour education centre? And if that particular piece of legislation is not to be proclaimed, what other initiatives does the minister see pertaining to this bill which would in fact provide educational training for those who are to be involved in collective bargaining?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't expect that labour education will evolve from this bill but we have under examination the presently unproclaimed legislation and the programmes which can revolve around it. We're expecting a submission for the government from the ministry very shortly.

MRS. WALLACE: I have some grave reservations about this section. It seems to me that the only way this fact-finder can come into being and start participating in any procedures is on the recommendation of the agency which has been approved by the former section. Now by the minister's own words, that agency is going to have at

[ Page 6017 ]

its disposal a research facility - which will come up with information - with hard facts which will be the basis of their recommendation to the minister to employ a fact-finder.

In addition to that, under subsection (c) of the section we've just passed, and again by the minister's own words, the agency will be empowered, if it is so designated, to work with employer and employee in investigating the various problems that might be there and in existence. Again, those facts would be made available, I would assume, and again the minister has indicated that they would be working under the protection and within the powers of the Public Inquiries Act.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that those facts will be available to the agency. I have a concern that we are stacking bureaucracy upon bureaucracy here with this fact-finder. We're going to have a repeat performance, with more delay and more cost - as the member for Oak Bay has pointed out - doing exactly the same thing before the agency can recommend, because they will have already have gone through the whole exercise and the information will be there. Why are we then going into another section with another body, with more time involved in doing the same thing all over? It seems to me that this is a complete repetition of what the agency will have done. I would like the minister's comments on that,

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it's not a repetition of work that will have already been done. The fact-finding concept is one - and only one - of many options that may be available in the resolution of a specific dispute. It's not a general examination into an area; it's a specific dispute. The agency is the one which recommends that fact finding be used and therefore it will relate only to the dispute and the agency will not recommend fact finding if it already has the facts in its possession. The agency can be involved in the resolution of a specific dispute if it doesn't have the facts, and these are from the parties which can appoint a fact-finder for that purpose rather than doing the job themselves. This is a person who has special investigative talents. It's not a layering of one on top of the other.

MRS. WALLACE: Under (c) , you have a machinery set up for the agency to perform these self-same duties. Now call it an agency or call it fact-finder - they would be doing that same thing.

Now there may be a contract or there may not be a contract, but the actual information would be there and the agency could perform that service. Why are we going to another section? In spite of the response of the minister, it still appears to me that there is a duplication here, and that. there is room for more delay and more bureaucracy by having these two sections, one of which is the same, under a different name. One is a group; the other is an individual. But still the opportunity is there to repeat the same exercise ail over again.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not one on top of the other. The agency appoints the fact-finder. If it needs that mechanism, it makes that recommendation. To suggest that an agency which is equipped with the necessary information upon which to resolve the, ~ dispute would turn around and say, "Oh, I'm sorry, we're going to appoint a fact-finder and do that all over again, " is to question the credibility and wisdom of the agency. I don't question that proposition.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MS. SANFORD: It's the minister who does the appointing. The agency recommends but the minister appoints, right? Now the minister mentioned earlier that this fact-finder may have to be tough and he may even have to be abusive in carrying out his duties as a fact-finder when we have had a stalemate in terms of trying to reach a settlement. Now often tempers have flared and tempers are very easily exploded once that stalemate has been reached. I would assume that you are correct: the fact-finder may have to be very -tough.

I'm wondering if you would consider, in terms of making the fact-finder's job easier, the possibility of using a process or a procedure similar to the one where the two elect to go to arbitration. In other words, the minister might, in the interests of trying to prevent further inflammation, if you wish, of the situation.... You don't want to inflame it any more than it already is. Therefore you want a fact-finder who has the confidence of both parties involved. I wonder if the minister might not consider submitting a list of people who might act as fact-finders to the two parties. Hopefully the two could then agree on somebody so they would have confidence in that person and that kind of abusive attitude may not be necessary.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That is one of the concepts. That will be the course of action followed and most likely recommended by the agency.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. GIBSON: In section 6, the arbitration section, which is not only the traditional arbitration section but which will come into play under the terms of section 8, as well as being described by section 11, there are certain time limits. The election for arbitration under section 8 (c) , once amended, and section 8 (d) is that arbitration must be elected within

[ Page 6018 ]

14 days. Thereafter, within 10 days an arbitrator must be appointed. My question to the minister is: what means exist of setting the third time limit that is important in arbitration questions - namely the date by which a report must be brought in? Failing this, arbitration can drag on so long that one or both of the parties become impatient with the process and difficulties start to surface once again.

I'm just wondering if normally under the terms and conditions of the appointment of the arbitrator a deadline would be specified, or if there's other machinery in the Code, or how the minister would propose to proceed in this particular matter of fixing that deadline by which a report must be in. This, of course, has been in my view one of the things which has contributed to the relatively successful operation of the arbitration under the Public Schools Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the minister, I might ask the members to tone down their private conversations.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the concern that the member has is very real, and section 100 of the Code covers it. There's a specific provision with regard to delay in arbitration matters. It gives the board justification over that aspect of the process.

I might say when we're dealing with that one part, and its reference to the Code, that the ministry has under consideration, after discussion with the chairman of the LRB, the whole question of the procedures which are established under the Code for conduct of arbitrations. We think there are some improvements that can be made, and this is certainly one of them.

Arbitrations are a terrific idea, but their effectiveness can be destroyed by delay. When people wait for long periods of time and finally get an award, the justification for it seems to diminish. But section 100 of the Code applies.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a simple question regarding the phraseology in subsection (1) where it says that the trade union may elect to resolve the dispute by arbitration? I just wonder why the option wasn't given to both parties to elect arbitration. I think I recall a problem we had with the nurses, who wanted to go to arbitration in 1974 or 1975, and the employers were not in agreement. This again stalls the potential for settlement. Can I ask if this particular phrasing is to get around that problem, whereby the employees might well be happy to go to arbitration but up until now have been thwarted if the employer does not agree?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, section 6 of Part Il is taken directly from section 73 of the

Code in exactly the same form in which it is there. The reason that the trade union is given the right to election is that by so doing they give up the right to strike. It balances the giving up of that right in favour of something else.

You asked a question about this nurses' group. I think we resolved that under the redefinition of "health-care union." Now what might have been excluded before - namely a union going for arbitration because mutual agreement was required.... The union can now do it themselves alone. But I think that nurses' situation would not arise again.

Section 6 approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, when you do report to the Speaker, would you please inform him that a division took place in committee on section 6 and ask leave to record the same in the Journals of the House?

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I note that the fact-finder may report to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with respect to recommendations for preserving certain services. Now the only major change in this part of the bill is that it's been extended to include all government agencies rather than police, firefighters and hospital workers, as was the case under the Labour Code of British Columbia.

The only case I'm familiar with where this concept was applied was the dispute at the Vancouver General Hospital a year ago. I just wanted to ask the minister if it is his intention to give any direction to the Labour Relations Board in terms of how they define those services which are basic and essential, or is it his intention to allow the board to make that adjudication in their own way, as they did with the Vancouver General Hospital dispute?

I would like the minister to comment also, if he would, on his attitude toward the application of this section. Is it his intention that the economic sanction contained in a strike shall still be applied, and that only the limited area of absolutely essential services will be required to be maintained without destroying the overall effectiveness of the sanction implicit in a strike?.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Can you repeat that, Bill?

MR. KING: Well, is it his intention to follow the criteria and the precedent laid down by the Labour Relations Board in the Vancouver General Hospital

[ Page 6019 ]

strike, and to leave the board free to make that kind of determination based on the issues and the particular circumstances of any given dispute, whether it be in police, hospital and fire disputes, or the expanded schedule of public services now involved?

I'm asking the minister basically two questions. Will this be the board's responsibility as in the past, undisturbed, completely independent from ministerial or cabinet direction, and certainly free from the direction of the fact-finder who can report on this kind of matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Firstly, Mr. Chairman, the fact-finder doesn't report to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; he reports to the minister and to the agency and to the parties.

But let me make it abundantly clear that the jurisdiction and the responsibility of the Labour Relations Board under this legislation will be exactly the same as it is under the Code. It has been the position of this ministry, under my ministry and the former one, that the board was an independent administrative tribunal charged with the responsibility under the Code and not to be interfered with by the minister in the exercise of its responsibilities. It will be applied in this way under this legislation.

MR. KING: I appreciate the minister's answer. I just wonder if he would comment at this point, without in any way attempting to compromise the independence of the board but in terms of his philosophy, as to the application of the new and expanded areas that will come under that provision now. Does the minister conceive of a situation, for instance, where a strike on the British Columbia Railway or on the B.C. Ferry Corporation or any of the other agencies contained in this schedule could take effect on a limited basis, regulated by the Labour Relations Board only to the extent that emergency services and those basic services required for the public interest were preserved but without destroying the overall economic sanction involved and inherent in the strike action? Does the minister conceive of that kind of situation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, that is the concept of designation to be administered by the board. It is for the purposes of ensuring that those elements of the service which have essentially attached to them are preserved, and no more.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to touch on this matter of designation. Once again, as I said earlier tonight, I can well understand it in relation to health, safety and danger to life. I'm still concerned that there will be lack of co-operation perhaps by the unions in the province because of their fear of the power provided in section 8 (b) where it talks about a substantial threat to the economy and welfare of the province, which is in very general terms. Later on it says: where that exists or is likely to occur, which again gives tremendous power to the cabinet in its wisdom - and I'm sure it will exercise its wisdom - even to predict that substantial threat to the economy occurs.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan has pointed out that the whole purpose of a strike is to exercise some degree of economic penalty against somebody, either the main second party to the bargaining or the people of the province or whomever. I still feel that the danger in this Section 1s that it will undermine the real justification for this bill in the first place, which I think all citizens of British Columbia would support in relation to life, health and safety. But to give any government, in my view, the scope of definition and interpretation as to what may turn out somewhere in the future to be an immediate and substantial threat to the economy is really asking, in my view, a great deal.

So I won't be repetitive, Mr. Chairman. It's safe to say that I would plead with the government to handle this particular power with the utmost of caution. If it is used early in the life of this legislation and appears to be used in the slightest way for political rather than human reasons, then the whole credibility of this legislation will be in serious doubt.

I would like to make a second quick point, and this is not to reflect on some of the debate that has already taken place. Let us remember that in fact the ferry workers disobeyed an order of the Labour Relations Board and, for whatever reason, there was some intransigence involved in not carrying the imposition of the full weight of the law further. I don't wish to get into that and it isn't appropriate to do so.

I just want to make the point that you can write all the rules in the book and you can figure out all kinds of techniques and mechanisms and options which might be open to the cabinet. But once again, if this legislation has to gain and maintain the credibility of the people of this province when in fact it is flouted, the legislation will prove very soon to be of little or no effect unless the parties who have the authority to impose penalties in fact take the necessary legal steps to do so. I hope we don't see a repetition of what turned out I think in this case to be passing of the buck between the Ferry Corporation and the cabinet as to who should or should not file the order of the Labour Relations Board with the supreme court of B.C.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, trying to understand further the coverage of this section, the minister used the words, in responding to the hon. member for

[ Page 6020 ]

Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) that it was directed at I think have the quote down properly -essentiality and no more.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The elements of essentiality.

MR. GIBSON: The elements of essentiality and no more. Essentiality, however, as I understand it, is now cast in economic terms and in general welfare terms as well as in health, life and safety. I would ask the minister how he would visualize that criterion being employed either by the government or by the board in the following circumstances. They both have the opportunity to make this judgment, although it is the board's judgment that I assume is finally governing.

The total normal operating services of the British Columbia Railway. Under one interpretation of the language here it might be judged an immediate and substantial threat to the economy were it to go down. On the other hand, one might say: "Well, it's not really an immediate threat. It will only be a threat a couple of weeks from now as mill inventories of chips start to build up."

A second case example would be B.C. Hydro, also covered by the bill, in terms of gas supply, electricity supply and operation of the transit system, particularly in metropolitan Vancouver and metropolitan Victoria, where the transit system is pretty intimately related to the operation of the economy, and pretty immediately related.

Thirdly, in the concept of total hospital services. The minister will recall that at the time of the HEU strike, the LRB chose to designate very selective numbers of hospital employees under the concept of life, health and safety. When we get into the concept of general welfare of the citizens of the province, I wonder if that expands what might have happened under that earlier question.

Now I don't want to ask the minister to answer impossible questions nor do I want him to put himself into a position where he would unduly reduce his flexibility in the future in dealing with labour disputes. That's not the point of this question. To the extent that he would feel constrained to do so, I invite him not to answer. But I would ask him if he could expand as much as he could on the additional number of persons, the additional classes of persons that are being added by the particular language of this section.

It's an addition, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I would support, particularly since the arbitration election will be added to this section by an amendment later on in this bill. But it might be useful to those persons who will be covered by it and to the citizens of the province to have some idea of the concept of the minister of the breadth of this particular expansion.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is difficult, if not impossible, to deal hypothetically with the situation. There was criticism last year of the use of the designation concept with respect to the hospitals. I think as time went on it was recognized that great care had to be exercised by the board in assuring that those elements necessary for care were provided. We were able to continue that concept for about 18 days.

The same could occur with regard to commencement of the process. It is conceivable in the event of a work stoppage that for some period of time the management of the enterprise could, through the use of other personnel, continue to provide the service. It would be my view that one would only embark upon the utilization of the provisions of this section when that aspect began to break down.

In the final analysis, it may be that continued difficulty in bringing about the collective agreement might find that the whole concept of designation should disappear, as it did in the case of the hospitals. They finally had to move into the cooling-off period.

What we have this time, which we didn't have fully before, are two things: the existence of the agency, and the, existence of the special mediator. I would expect that in the use of either subsection (c) or (d) , we would also at the same time move with the appointment of the mediator. So during the time that there was either a designation of services or a cooling-off period, there would be active work going on with the parties to resolve the difference. In the final analysis, the prolongation of non-settlement raises the prospect of the matter being resolved in this chamber.

MR. GIBSON: I thank the minister for his answer. One other brief, technical question: would it be a correct understanding that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in making his designation, must at that point cover all of the employees covered by the collective agreement - that seems to be the words I read at the top of page 5 of this bill - and that any selective designation within a collective agreement can only be done by the LRB?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the designation is left to the board entirely.

MS. SANFORD: I just wanted to get the assurance of the minister that the word "it" in subsection (c) -and I would just read it for him: ". . . the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is of the opinion that, as a consequence" of (a) and (b) do one or more of the following: (c) direct the Labour Relations Board to designate those facilities, productions and services that it considers necessary . . . ." Does the "it" absolutely refer to the Labour Relations Board and not the Lieutenant-Governor? Could I just have that

[ Page 6021 ]

assurance from the minister?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: "It" means the board; "he" means the Lieutenant-Governor.

MS. SANFORD: I would then assume that at some point in time we could have the situation where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council directs the Labour Relations Board to designate certain facilities, productions, and services to continue because of a problem that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council sees with respect to the economy, where the LRB may not see these as a problem, and therefore may not designate any service at all. In other words, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may see, because of a railway strike, for instance, that he wishes to have this particular service continued or part of it continued; but the LRB does not see it as an economic threat at this time, and therefore, presumably because it makes the decision, it would not designate any of the railway cars to move.

HON. MR. . WILLIAMS: The Lieutenant-Governor-in -Council would determine the essentiality and the threat. Once that has been determined, it would be up to the board to designate those elements of the service which must be continued to ensure that the threat is removed or diminished.

MR. KING: The minister's reply has cast a whole new light on this provision. The minister answered previously that the responsibility for any designation would fall to the board, as in the past. Now the minister informs us that the Lieutenant-Governor-in -Council, which is the cabinet, will define the economic essentiality of any service and instruct the board to designate.

I think the member for Comox has correctly identified a situation where the cabinet may refer for the board's consideration an economic or an alleged economic problem that obtains because of a work stoppage on the railway, for instance. It may be that the board, in its wisdom, may find that there is no basic and fundamental essentiality at that given time to any element of the railway operation, and hence not designate. Is the minister saying that because the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council instructs the board that in the cabinet's view there is an economic crisis posed by a work stoppage, the board is then obliged to designate? This is a new concept altogether. Is that what the minister is saying?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, that's what I'm saying, and it's not a new concept; it exists today in the Code. Once the determination is made that there is the threat, then the board, in its best judgment, makes sure that those elements necessary to overcome the threat are provided. As I said earlier, the response to hypothetical situations is difficult, but I'll do it, dangerous as it may be.

For example: on B.C. Rail, the board might seriously question whether or not the continued passenger was itself an essential element of it and decide to discontinue it. That would be their choice. But whether they would approach the questions as they see or not is at the direction of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. KING: I accept the minister's reply, provided it falls to the board to, in their wisdom and in their judgment, designate any elements or fail to designate any elements. That should be totally up to the board, and I think that is the minister's intent.

I just want to deal very briefly with a couple of things about the extension of the 90-day cooling-off period, both the extension in time and.... It's not new here; the government has done that before. I also want to deal with the extension of the concept of basic life-supporting services to economic issues. There are a couple of things I want to say about it, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned earlier today that delaying the resolution of a dispute 90 days or 104 days, as the case may be, is no guarantee that a solution will be found to the dispute within that period of time. That kind of delay can aggravate and compound the issues in a dispute, rather than induce the parties to find solutions.

I appreciate that the minister will use his good office and the mechanisms of the department within that period of time to try and assist the parties. But the minister is a lawyer, and he knows that justice delayed is justice denied, and the parties undoubtedly feel that they are seeking justice in their demand. I question the extension of the time limit to 90 days, and the additional 14 days. I do not think that will serve the interests of the province well. I do not think it is necessary to bring into play the services of the department and the possible convening of this Legislature, if necessary. It is not necessary to take 90 days to do that. That is an interference with the right of the parties to resort to economic sanctions that I think is very difficult to justify.

The other point I want to make is that in going beyond the life-supporting services of fire, police and hospital, you introduce a new and very conflicting dilemma for the government. After all, in these particular cases the government is to some extent de facto, at least, the employer, because all of the agencies are agencies of the Crown. It was members of that government over there who accused me of being in a conflict-of-interest position when, as Minister of Labour, I was called upon to mediate disputes on the British Columbia Railway. Now this government is saying through this particular section of the bill that in this broad area when the employer

[ Page 6022 ]

is an agency of the government, with appointments of the cabinet in the managerial positions, we are still going to interrupt the employees' right to strike to the possible extent of 114 days; we are still going to interrupt their right to strike, at least to the extent of designating basic economic essential services that should be preserved without any concomitant rollback or interference of the employer's right. This is the danger of moving into the area of free collective bargaining.

Now the minister may answer that the employer's right to lock out is rolled back and hindered in the same way. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is no concomitant or analogous penalty upon the company, because a lockout in the public service is unthinkable. Certainly no community would lock out its firefighters; certainly the government of British Columbia and the management would not lock out employees of the British Columbia Railway. So in effect the employees are bearing the burden of disruption of their rights in recognition of public need. I ask the minister to recognize and respect that problem in terms of industrial relations.

There are no easy answers to that problem. In Bill 146, which we introduced, we tried to come to grips with that problem and impose some penalties on management too, because if management of the corporations are faced with a guaranteed 104-day delay in bargaining, there's no inducement on them to bargain in good faith and conclude a collective agreement during the course of that time. Delay to that extent is in management's interest, and that's one of the problems. I think the minister should have searched harder, at least in the economic area, to find some similar burden to place on management's shoulders with respect to the recognition of the public interest and the rollback of their rights in this kind of situation. He has failed to do that, and that can create a major problem, in my view.

I just wanted to make those points, and I think the minister understands them. I suggest to him that he's going to be hard-pressed to convince unions in the public sector that he as a member of this government is acting in an independent and impartial way in terms of imposing these kinds of interruptions and roadblocks in the way of the union's rights, when it's apparent that the government is not imposing similar sanctions in any way as roadblocks in the road of management, which are creatures of the government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to 90 days, selection of any arbitrary time is difficult. We used one of the best guides we could and that was Bill 146. The period can always be limited.

The government as an employer is a problem, but we have made available to the trade unions which find themselves in a situation again extended unilateral rights to binding arbitration.

The question of bargaining in good faith is a very real one and one that concerns us greatly. I would only say to the member that I believe if he considers this bill in relationship to the Code, the penalties provided here are applicable to the employer who, failing to bargain in good faith, seeks to delay during the 90-day period.

One of the real advantages of using the special mediator, of course, is that he may recommend, sometime during his appointment, the shortening of the period and the adoption of other approaches which will enable us to get out of the 90-day bind.

MR. KING: With regard to the special mediator, all you've really done is to formalize the tag that was placed on Judge Hank Hutcheon in the forest dispute of 1975. There's nothing magic about a special mediator. You could call him a super mediator, and it really doesn't need the official recognition of a statute to do that. I'm not belittling what the minister's done; I'm just saying that there's nothing magic about a special mediator.

The other point is that the difference between Bill 146 and the statutory provision which the minister has introduced is the essence of the difference of opinion, I think, that we have on industrial relations. We believe that in cases where the economic security of the province is at stake the Legislature should be convened on an ad hoc basis and the particular issues that are involved in that dispute should be analysed, debated and dealt with by this Legislature. The problem with trying to provide a continuing statutory remedy for issues the details of which this Legislature knows nothing about and can know nothing about and can't anticipate is that the application and the remedy become distorted and one-sided.

The government has made much of our responsibility as legislators to hold ourselves available for service and duty in this House, and indeed I think that should be the role. I think it's a mistake, quite frankly, to try in a continuing statutory way to regulate all of the nuances and all of the problems that arise between an employer and an employee. That calls to some extent for a judgment in terms of responsibility for disputes. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if that kind of judgment is to be made it should be made in public in debate in this House after the government has laid the facts on the table. That is the only fair and even-handed way to deal with disputes of that nature. I think it would gain the confidence of the parties to a greater extent than this kind of mechanism will. But I'm willing to accept what the minister is trying to do. I think it's in good faith.

The problem of good faith, though, that he and I referred to is that you do not develop good faith by penalties. There has to be some inducement on both parties to want to consummate a collective agreement. Lack of good faith bargaining is extremely

[ Page 6023 ]

difficult to prove and to assess penalties for. The point is that the employees had their right to strike interrupted for 90 days. The employer can use any ruse to avoid consummating a collective agreement during that period of time, and it may serve as an economic advantage to do so. The point is that legislation that is even-handed would ensure that neither side gains advantage at the expense of the other by the interference of the government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there is no intention on the part of the government to regulate every aspect of the relationship between employees and employers. When we do have to come to this Legislature with the ultimate resolution of the problem, it is our view that the mechanisms that we provide here - agency, fact-finders, special mediator - will enable the government to place before this House better evidence than has ever been the case before. This is not a criticism, but in the case of Bill 146 we had 30 minutes to consider that legislation, and we only had the opportunity of bringing to bear upon it that information that each of the individual members had gleaned. There was no report -nothing. We hope that this will give the House a better opportunity to argue about the matter.

MR. KING: I introduced 21 days, Allan.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, indeed it could happen in 21 days.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to subsection (c) . There are some changes in this section from the Labour Code transplanted into this Act that concern me. One is the inclusion of the economic factor in here; the other is that the clause which indicates that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can only issue a direction once in any specific case does not apply to section 8 (c) .

Now it seems to me that there is a potential there - and I'm not suggesting that this government would use it but the potential is there - that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can now direct - not request but direct - the Labour Relations Board to designate facilities which would create a substantial threat to the economy. The Labour Relations Board must name the essential service limit that must be carried out at that direction.

I'm thinking, for example, of the B.C. Ferries. It would be quite feasible to assume that if that situation were to develop, say, in the mid-summer, in the middle of the tourist session, the Labour Relations Board might decide that for the sake of the economy it was necessary to have a ferry every two hours, which is the normal schedule. I think the minister is aware that those ferries are operating now at the minimum staff which is allowed under the MOT regulations. So you would have, then, a full operation in effect. The Labour Relations Board might rule that that would be effective for July and August. But t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t o s t o p t h e Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council coming back at the end of August and asking the Labour Relations Board to bring in another ruling, a similar ruling. I can see where this would continue and could continue and in effect would simply eliminate the right of those people to strike at any point in time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes.

MRS. WALLACE: And, as I say, it's not something that I expect is going to happen, but it does leave the door open to it. I think we must be very cautious in legislation not to leave the door open to those kinds of situations. I have some very grave concerns. Some of the people to whom I have spoken about this particular clause have great concerns. I would ask the minister's comments on this in general and particularly his assurance that, as long as he is Minister of Labour, it will not be used in that way.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I can't assure you that it will not be used in that way. While technically it could be used more than once, I think practically that is not possible. To have designated and then return to full services would only result, I suggest, from the conclusion of a collective agreement.

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 30

NAYS - 10

Hon. Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 9.

MR. GIBSON: I have a couple of specific concerns in section 9, and I will address my first concern to my

[ Page 6024 ]

first amendment, which is on the order paper and which relates to section 9 (3) .

During debate on second reading, I expressed concern that section 9 (3) would appear to give unfettered right to the employer to demote, suspend or discharge an employee who was in breach of an order, by either the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the LRB under section 8. That caused me a great deal of concern because of the possibility that that kind of unfettered power could be used by the employer to attack employees for reason unrelated to that particular work stoppage. For example: if by any chance. a particular employer wished to get a union representative for one reason or another, he would appear to have the right to do that under this particular section, without the usual protections of the Labour Code that applied.

At that time in second reading, I suggested there was no right of appeal. If I understood the minister correctly at that time, he was suggesting that there was somewhere a right of appeal to that. Before proceeding with what I have to say about this and my concern about it, I would ask the minister.... Perhaps I misunderstood him. If there is a right to appeal somewhere in this bill that I haven't found, or elsewhere in the Labour Code, perhaps he could so advise me.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think if the member looks carefully at section 15, there is the right to go to the board. In addition to that, the collective agreements contain - or if they do not contain, it is mandatory in the Code that they do contain - a provision for arbitration of this particular matter.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have looked at section 15, and I don't know that it would give to the labour board the kind of protection or scope that it needs to protect employees against the very broad mandate given to the employer under 9 (3) . Section 9 (3) seems to make it abundantly clear that a disobedience of an order under section 8 is to be deemed just cause. That's not something there can be a difference of opinion about; that's a matter of law - just cause for demotion, dismissal or suspension. I think in that circumstance, perhaps it would be better if I did move the amendment that I had sought, which would guarantee a right of appeal to the LRB.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're moving the first amendment now?

MR. GIBSON: I'm moving the first amendment, Mr. Chairman. By adding after section 9 (3) the words: ". . . but such demotion, suspension or dismissal may be appealed by the employee to the

LRB, who may vary or set aside the action if they find it to be unreasonably severe or not predominantly related to the failure or refusal by the employee without lawful excuse to comply with an order made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the LRB under section 8.-

It seems to me that this would retain the intent of' the clause as the minister set it down, yet guarantee specifically and unequivocally an avenue of appeal to ensure that this clause was not abused by any potential employer covered by this bill, and I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the noes have it.

On the amendment, the hon. member for Comox.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, we had a vote.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I understood that the minister was about to get up and answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe the member for Comox was on her feet and I did not see her in time.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I got up part way because I was looking to see if the minister was going to respond to this, because the motion....

Interjections,

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Comox on the amendment.

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: I'm very concerned that the minister didn't give us any response to this particular amendment, because it makes eminent sense. The hon. Liberal leader is concerned about the fact that some people may be fired for causes other than not obeying this. This section could be abused, in effect, and I was just hoping that the minister would respond.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only one member may speak at a time, hon. member. When three or four are standing at once, it is very difficult.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, let's all just try and keep our cool. We're trying to expedite the end

[ Page 6025 ]

of this debate and all I think we need to do is just try and cool it for another few minutes.

I had meant to ask somewhat the same question and I was trying to decide whether to speak on the amendment or speak on the section, but I shall now say that I have been asked by union members to try and determine what is the case under this Section 1f a member of a bargaining unit finds that he or she tries to obey the order but the workers disobey the order. In what position does that leave the members, for example, of the bargaining unit?

If a member of a bargaining unit has been a particularly effective person in recent years, this section would seem to leave the door open to the employer finding a very useful way of firing that member of the bargaining unit who was doing his job in good faith, who instructed his employees to go back to work in compliance with an LRB order and who was disobeyed, but who then himself becomes a victim by having the employer say, "Well, you didn't obey the order either, " when in truth the member of the bargaining unit couldn't really do more than he tried to do. This is exactly what happened, without intruding too much into another dispute, in the ferry situation, where the union executive followed the instructions to the letter and instructed the members to go back, and they disobeyed.

Now under this Section 1've been asked, at least by some union members, how a member of a bargaining unit would stand in the light that he or she might be fired or demoted or suspended, even when they did their job as best they could but were disobeyed by the members of the local.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we took this into very careful account in the development of this section, and that's why we included in the opening line of subsection (4) the words "without lawful excuse." This opens the avenue for the Labour Relations Board under section 15, in determining any question between the parties respecting the interpretation and application of this Act and the regulations. This would enable the board at that time to take into account all the circumstances which might have impeded an individual from apparently complying specifically with the order without lawful excuse.

The dispute to which the member made mention.... If you read the decision of the Labour Relations Board, there was an indication as to what needed to be done. I think that as I understand the circumstances- and I've not made a full investigation of them - the situation about which the member for Oak Bay speaks would enable the board, in light of the words "without lawful excuse, " to use section 15 to absolve anyone from non-compliance.

MR. WALLACE: I have another question on section 9, but I'm finished with the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

On section 9.

MR. WALLACE: A very quick question on this suggestion of employers paying appropriate sums of money as calculated to a charitable institution. We all know that these donations in this case are going to be compulsory, but presumably they) re still tax deductible. Pm wondering to what degree there may or may not be any constitutional problem whereby a person or an employer by compulsion makes a donation and receives a tax deduction at the expense of the federal government. Could this not be a very substantial sum of money which provincial legislation deprives the federal government of? In my experience federal legislation is also deemed to be superior to provincial legislation. Has the question of constitutional jurisdiction been taken into account? I'm suggesting that this be done.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have looked into the constitutionality of the problem. I suppose the clearest answer to the member is that none of the employers who are scheduled in this particular case are taxpayers, being Crown corporations or agencies.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, section 9 (4) is the section that I think the Premier must have been speaking of this morning when he said the following words:

But we must have penalties that are automatic, that are clearly understood so they don't become part or an implied part of the bargaining process.

I think this must have been the particular penalty that he was thinking about because this penalty is a "shall" penalty, not a "may" penalty. If a person disobeys a competent order under section 8 of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the LRB, for so many days as they do that they shall work for so many days more without pay, with their pay being devoted to a charitable fund, if they are in such breach of section 8.

This is a case, I think, where it's a simple difference of philosophy. The question is whether penalties should be flexible, as is usual in our law, as is usually afforded to judges sitting in cases, or whether they should be automatic and non-discretionary. I would put it to the minister and to the committee that if the order of the LRB in the case of the ferry workers had been automatically registered in the court and made an enforceable order, we might be in a very different situation today than we currently are with the ferry workers back to work, with the mediation process going on, and with, I

[ Page 6026 ]

hope, every likelihood of settling that strike. There was a flexibility there that the LRB was able to use in negotiating a return to work. It's not something that affords easily with those who would say that these things must be fixed and automatic. But people aren't always like that and the world is not always like that.

It seems to me it's not a good thing to take a flexibility in the imposition of penalties away from those who have the duty of administering such complex human things as the Labour Code. Accordingly, I would seek to add flexibility to this penalty section by moving this following amendment: section 9 (4) , line 3, adding the words: "subject to the concurrence of the Labour Relations Board, " which would put that first safety backstop in there; in section 9 (4) (a) , line 1, changing "shall" to "may"; and in subsection (b) , changing "shall" to "may" as well, according to equal and objectionable treatment to the employer and employee.

From your point of view, Mr. Minister, it might destroy the section. It remains there as an optional penalty, a flexible rather than an obligatory penalty. I think that would add to the usefulness of this Act.

MS. SANFORD: On the amendment. I would like to support this amendment. It at least makes this section slightly more palatable than it is at the moment.

What we have at the moment, Mr. Chairman, is a very unusual and peculiar situation. I've never heard before of any penalties like this having to be deducted from the wages of working people to be donated to charitable organizations. I'm wondering if the charities were actually consulted before this particular subsection (4) was put in place. I'm wondering which charities would willingly accept money which is actually a penalty imposed on working people. What you're asking these charitable organizations, who must rely on the goodwill of the working people all over this province for their donations.... What organization would willingly accept the wages of working people as a punitive measure? What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I'm absolutely opposed to subsection (4) , but I suppose that the amendment would make it slightly more palatable.

MR. KING: I just have to record my rather strenuous opposition to the concepts contained in the section. I think the member for North Vancouver-Capilano's (Mr. Gibson's) amendment is an improvement, but I must say that I object to the employer playing a role in a punitive measure against employees. The whole thrust of industrial relations should be to improve the relationship between employee and employer, and to improve the attitudes and the mutual respect that should be between those two parties. To now by statute make the employer part of the punitive system that may be assessed against workers is to entrench, compound and certainly solidify animosity that already may be inherent between the two parties. I think that is a faulty and dangerous concept.

The other aspect is, as my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford) had indicated, that it is sheer madness to expect a charitable organization to accept as its rewards punitive damages that are set out by statute against working people. Charitable organizations rely on the good will of the community to support them in their good efforts. This is a sure step in the direction of destroying that community of good will which charitable organizations do expect.

Amendment negatived.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 28

NAYS - 11

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are two amendments here which appear to be almost identical. Could we hear the hon. minister first, if you will?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then we'll allow debate on both.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

[ Page 6027 ]

On the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, that amendment is virtually identical to the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. I want the minister to know I support it.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, today the government has asked the opposition on numerous occasions just what it was about this bill that we object to. We have tried to outline our differences of opinion with various sect ' ions, But I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that section 14 in itself is reason enough to oppose this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: This is the first incursion into the independence of the Labour Relations Board of the province of British Columbia from a government, Mr. Chairman, whose Premier is fond of standing in this House and pompously saying that the agencies of government are now independent and free from political control.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. KING: Well, I'm hard-pressed to find any on my side of the House but I see at least five in the cabinet benches, carpetbaggers from the Liberals, from the Conservatives.

Interjection.

MR. KING: That's where I see the carpetbaggers, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, so there is no mistake, I want to read to the Minister of Labour the particular section of this bill that I find objectionable, dangerous and insidious:

"The Labour Relations Board may, on the application of any person or on its own motion, and shall, on order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, forthwith after it is made, file in a registry of the supreme court a copy of every order made by it in a matter arising under this Act, and the order shall be filed as if it were an order of the court and, on being filed, the order shall be deemed for all purposes, except for the purpose of an appeal from it, to be an order of the supreme court effective from the date the order was made by the board."

Now there are two things here that I'm concerned about. The first, of course, is that for the first time since the Labour Code of British Columbia was introduced in 1973, we have direct political intervention into the affairs of the Labour Relations Board. The board used to hold the option of when and if it filed an order with the supreme court because, as I outlined earlier, the board plays a mediation role. The board is not a punitive agency, the board attempts to persuade and gain compliance with its orders by respect and gaining credibility with the parties.

On occasion, such as in the ferry strike, the board found it expedient to meet with the parties and persuade them to return to work - to terminate the work stoppage - without filing the order in the supreme court and bringing into play the full punitive mechanisms of the penalties under the Code.

The cabinet of this province has now taken that flexibility away from the Labour Relations Board. They have now intervened into the independence of the Labour Relations Board. That is fatal in terms of the psychological acceptability of the Labour Relations Board in this province. It's a fatal first step.

I can tell you that the trade unions and management groups in this province will not welcome this intrusion into the independence of the board. I think it's foolhardy for the government even from a political standpoint because I can tell you that every penalty imposed on an employer or a trade union in this province henceforth will be viewed to be at the behest of the cabinet rather than an impartial, quasi-judicial, administrative agency like the Labour Relations Board. And the government will live to regret that movement.

The other aspect of it - and this one I'm uncertain of and I want the minister's clarification - is the last part of subsection (1): ". . . and, on being filed, the order shall be deemed for all purposes, except for the purpose of an appeal from it, to be an order of the supreme court effective from the date the order was made by the board."

Now my question to the minister is this. On October 8, an order was issued by the Labour Relations Board to the ferry workers, instructing them to cease and desist their work stoppage in the face of the 90-day cooling-off period. That order was not filed with the supreme court. Indeed, an agreement was reached between the Labour Relations Board, the Ferry Corporation and the union that if

[ Page 6028 ]

they would return to work forthwith no prosecution would follow.

I want to know, because the wording of this part of section 14 looks suspiciously like this cabinet could apply retroactive prosecution to the ferry workers for their failure to comply with an order that took place before this statute became an Act of law. I'm reading the Act and I am asking in good faith for a reply and clarification from the minister who has charge. I think the Attorney-General of this province has enough difficulty with his own portfolio and the law, Mr. Chairman, without presuming to answer for the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Read the Act.

MR. KING: I know that they're all former Liberals, and I know on occasion they must discuss these things. But I'm directing my questions to the Minister of Labour.

I want to record in the strongest possible terms my objection to the cabinet interference with the board. The independence of the board is compromised, it is sacrificed to the political arm of government now. I want that to be recorded as a matter of record. I want the minister, if he will, to give me his opinion as to whether or not orders of the board that were issued prior to the coming into effect of this statute can now be registered with the supreme court and used as a basis for a prosecution.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer specifically to the last question raised by the member is no. This provision applies only to orders made under this Act, and until it is consented to and proclaimed, it doesn't apply.

The first objection: I do not accept the complaint that this interferes with the independence of the board; in fact it is just the opposite. This legislation is predicated upon a concept that because of the need to maintain essential public services, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has been obliged to act. A whole series of events has taken place prior to that moment - collective bargaining, mediation of the Code, all the various steps - and finally, because of the essentiality of the service and the likelihood of its disruption, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is obliged to act. Under the present scheme of labour law in this province - indeed, in this country - it is then a matter between the parties, namely management and the trade union. The Code is predicated upon that concept. That is why the application must be made by the employer in the case of an illegal strike.

There is a discretion in the board, but the position the government takes is that if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has reached the conclusion, after all the events which have transpired, that it must move in this way, it does not wish to place the board in the unhappy situation of being obliged perhaps to exercise its discretion contrary to the wishes of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So the discretion could possibly be suggested as being a bar to the next step in the process. If the Crown decides to move, then the board should not be placed in the position of being a bar to the Crown taking the next step, which is the filing of the order in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

If the employer makes the application, the discretion is still there, but if in the circumstances of the case the Crown is obliged to move, then the board should be removed from the position of having that discretion possibly standing in the way. That is the reason that the section has been drafted in this way. As the member for Revelstoke-Slocan will know, it is a redraft of section 30 of the Code.

Another question raised regards the effective date. I know that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has an amendment dealing with this matter.

One of the problems that faces us in the recent incident with regard to proceedings with the matter is that there is in place a judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia which would seem to frustrate the concept of filing in the board and proceeding by way of contempt. Therefore in revising section 30 of the Code and bringing it into this legislation as section 14, the words were changed the effective date was made the date the order was made from the board in order to overcome the difficulty which is presented by that supreme court decision.

I think it should be recognized by all the members and by anyone who is concerned about this matter that we are only talking about a situation where collective bargaining has taken place - and all the other opportunities there are for resolution of disputes - and where a determination has been made that there is an essentiality of service involved and where there has been a defiance of the law. All of those factors must be in place before the concerns expressed about section 14 have any reality.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, speaking briefly to this sect - ion before I move my amendment, the minister states that the Crown wishes to take on this power - and in so doing, I would say, to second-guess the LRB - in order, as he put it, that if the Crown decides to move it can do so without having the LRB being in a position of conflict with it. If the Crown decides to move, I would suggest to the minister that it has all the authority it needs to move any time it wishes under section 9 of this bill and under section 138 of the existing Labour Code. Anyone contravening an order made under section 8 is immediately in default under the terms of section 9 and is subject not only to the penalties under section

[ Page 6029 ]

9 but is subject to the penalties under section 138 of the Code under section 16 of this bill. The Crown has immediate authority - all that it may require. It does not need this power to, as I say, second-guess the LRB, which is there in the arena trying to manage the labour relations crisis, whatever it may be, and is trying now to do so in an atmosphere of uncertainty, not knowing what the Crown is going to do. I think that's wrong.

But proceeding on to the point on which I wish to make my specific amendment, it seems to me wrong that people should be placed in jeopardy for their past actions by actions which the Crown may take in the future. As our law stands now, an order is made by the LRB. That order is not enforceable and penalties are not makeable under it until such time as it's registered. Under this law the Crown could register it and have it take effect from a date prior to the registration time. Penalties would therefore be imposed for failure to comply with an order even though it had not been enforced by the board up until that point.

The minister states that this language is here to overcome a decision of the supreme court, but I would suggest to him - and I am no lawyer, sir -that the provision of any date certain would equally overcome that decision, be the date certain the date of making the order by the board or the date of filing it with the court. It seems to me that the date of filing with the court is a far more equitable situation. Accordingly I move the amendment standing in my name to delete the words "made by the board" and substitute the words "filed with the court."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I guess I didn't make myself clear. In the courts of this province, orders by those courts are effective from the date of pronouncements - that's the day on which they are made. Indeed, under the Labour Code orders made by the board are effective from the day they are made unless the order itself contains some condition with regard to the actual date of effectiveness.

But the problem arises when the board makes an order to do an act today, and that order is disobeyed. Seven days later, you are finally in a position to bring yourself before the Supreme Court of British Columbia and get the order filed. There has been seven days of disobedience to that order. But the supreme court judgment to which I referred provided that if the individual by that seventh day had decided to obey the order, it is excused from seven days of non-compliance. That's unknown in our system. You don't defy the court's order for seven days or 10 days or a month or whatever the case may be and then come along and say: "Okay, now I'll comply so forget about my contempt." This is what we are attempting to overcome here.

As I say, it only applies after all the processes have gone through, and it's a case where the Crown itself must be directly involved and there has been a breach of the law, a disobedience - a defiance of law, if you will.

It was suggested that the other sections applied because the Crown was involved. But other sections deal with the matter of the employer, which is the Crown corporation or the agency, not the Crown.

The member also makes mention of the position of monetary penalties under section 138 of the Code. We're not looking for any punitive monetary penalties. The fact of the matter is that if someone is obliged by order of the board to cease to do an act, and that's not effective enough, then the Crown wants to be in a position to make that a supreme court order and see whether that person is prepared to disobey an order of the supreme court of this province. And if so, then it seems to me that the sanctions there may be for defying a supreme court order should apply.

MR. KING: Just a final comment on the proposition of the cabinet being now in a position to dictate to the Labour Relations Board, that an order must be filed forthwith. I just want to draw to the attention of the committee that in all of the circumstances, the government has a direct interest on the employer's side of the dispute. In the case of B.C. Hydro, the union would be dealing with a management apparatus that has been set up and appointed by this cabinet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe you're speaking to this section and not the amendment. The amendment is to delete the words "made by the board." I believe you're speaking to the section.

MR. KING: No, I'm speaking to the amendment. I believe the amendment would modify the cabinet's directive to the Labour Relations Board and I support that proposition. I am pointing out that if the amendment is not accepted, the government is in the position of a clear conflict of interest. They have an interest on the employer's side. The employers in the se circumstances are appointments of the government, administering creatures of the government.

Now the government is saying that in these circumstances, when an order of the board is issued, the board has no longer the discretion to hold that order, subject to reaching some agreement with the parties that would satisfy the board and the public interest in terms of conformity with the order. And I think that this is political interference of the worst kind.

I think it compromises the integrity of the board. I think that it destroys the ability of the board to play a mediation role and I think it clearly sets up a

[ Page 6030 ]

definite line of conflict of interest in terms of the government's ability to deal with the public sector industrial relations dispute. I want that clearly on the record of the debate in this chamber.

Amendment negatived.

Section 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 27

NAYS - 11

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, when you do report to the Speaker, would you please indicate to him that a division took place in committee on this section and request leave to have the same recorded in the Journals of the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, just before you call the next section, may I express on behalf of all the members of the House our warmest wishes and appreciation to the Clerk, Mrs. Evelyn Miller, who will be retiring. I think we all wish to thank her very much for her excellence, her graciousness and her charm and wish her all the very, very best.

Nemine contradicente!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Clerk like to make a speech? (Laughter.) On what section?

Section 15 approved

On section 16.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, section 16 makes a specific offence of the publication of a fact-finder's report - an offence which does not relate to the publication of other documents generated by the government in one way or another. To me, it is an unnecessary attack on freedom of information and an attack on the freedom of the press. I move the elimination of the words "5 (6) " in this offence section.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I just wanted to help the member by saying that to take it out doesn't take it out of the offence, because the Summary Convictions Act still makes it apply. So all you're doing is hiding the possibility that there's a conviction. We think that everybody should know where they stand.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Bill 92, Essential Services Disputes Act, reported complete with amendment.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: By leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 92, Essential Services Disputes Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 29

[ Page 6031 ]

NAYS - 10

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

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know at what time this might be appropriate, but I hope it's appropriate now and it might better come from a member of one of the smaller parties in this House. I just wanted to compliment you, sir, for the job you've done on very short notice in this rather difficult legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. KING: On a point of order - but before I go into it, I certainly want to associate the official opposition with the Liberal leader'.s comments.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding his remarks in second reading, the Minister of Labour referred to a document with reference to the former chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, Mr. Terrence Ison. I wonder if the minister would table that document with the House.'

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The standing orders provide that if a minister of the Crown reads from a document, normally it is filed with the House. Did this actually take place? Because if he only referred to it ....

MR. KING: He referred to it. I'm making a request, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would then be at the option of the minister; it's an unusual request.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It's an unusual request and the Chair is powerless to demand that this happen.

MR. KING: Well, I just wanted to ask further leave of the House to file a document.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet; or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the second session of the 31st parliament of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time. And in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, if we might have a short recess, His Honour, I gather, is close to the premises.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm advised that His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is arriving at the building and that he is suffering some discomfort. I would ask that the members not move far from the precinct and at the sounding of the division bell I wish they would all return promptly.

The House took recess at 10: 3 2 p.m.

The House resumed at 10:47 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. Would all members please rise?

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Vancouver Stock Exchange Act Amendment Act, 1977

Society of Industrial Accountants Act of British Columbia Amendment Act ' 1977

Trinity Western College Amendment Act, 1971

Essential Services Disputes Act

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House

[ Page 6032 ]

Motion approved. The House adjourned at 10:51 p.m.

APPENDIX

92 The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 92) intituled Essential Services Disputes Act, to amend as follows:

Section 11, line 2: By deleting "section 8 (d) , " and substituting "section 8 (c) or (d) , ".

Answers to questions

109 Mr. Kahl asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel industry the following question:

In view of the fact that those responsible for the B.C. Salmon Derby use the title "British Columbia", would the Minister recommend to those people that, since the event is advertised as a British Columbia event, the same rules apply to all British Columbia areas?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"The Minister is prepared to recommend that those responsible for the B.C. Salmon Derby ensure that the applicable rules are as fair as possible for participants in all areas."