[ Page 4853 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government economic policy. Mr. Stupich –– 4853

Hydro job cuts. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4854

B.C. Ferries job cuts. Mr. Lockstead –– 4854

Highway-equivalent subsidy. Mr. Lockstead –– 4854

Vancouver Island pipeline. Mr. Lockstead –– 4854

Sale of Victoria Plywood Ltd. Mr. Mitchell –– 4854

Transfer of residents from Tranquille. Mr. Barnes –– 4855

Tabling Documents –– 4856

Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 34). Second reading.

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4856

Mr. Michael –– 4861

Mr. Lauk –– 4861

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 4863

Mr. Nicolson –– 4864

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4866

Mr. Hanson –– 4867

Hon, Mr. Waterland 4869

Mrs. Dailly –– 4870

Mr. R. Fraser –– 4873

Mr. Cocke –– 4873

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4876

Mr. Mitchell –– 4878

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4880

Mr. Blencoe –– 4881

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4882

Division –– 4883

Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 34). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On section 5 –– 4884

Mr. Lea

Mr, Gabelmann

Mr. Skelly

Division

On section 8 –– 4885

Mr. Gabelmann

Division

Third reading –– 4886

Royal assent to bill –– 4886

Tabling Documents –– 4887

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1984

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming some visitors. I'd like to welcome Fern Hill from Kamloops. I should point out that these people are visiting as a result of the transfer of patients from Tranquille to Glendale. They are here in the gallery, and I would like the House to make them welcome. Fern Hill moved into her own apartment last May, after living in Tranquille for 15 years. She lives with a friend, Susan Babcock, who is here with her attendant Evelyn Sikora to express support for her friends in Tranquille who are being moved to Glendale. Michael Segeden is from Surrey. His son Stephen has not moved to Surrey as promised, but is also being placed in Glendale. Jessie Nichols is the mother of Billy Nichols, who is in limbo. He was to live in a group home with Michael Chernenkoff, but now he may be moved to an extended-care unit in Vernon or to Glendale.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the courtesy of introduction period is to introduce guests in the gallery to the Legislative Assembly. That is the purpose of this parliamentary courtesy to members of the House.

MR. BARNES: Sharon Ward is the sister of Michael Chernenkoff, who has been moved to Glendale. Pamela Swanson is Elaine Swanson's sister. She is from Castlegar. Gerry Grunered's son Russell was moved over a back road to the Kamloops airport while his mother was at the front entrance of the Tranquille institution.

Mr. Speaker, I do not take great pleasure in having to read the facts of the purpose of the visit, but I think it should be appreciated by the House that it is unfortunate that these people have had to travel here in order to make their case. I hope the House will welcome them as that is the purpose of the Legislature.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Ilse Wittich from Regina, Saskatchewan, the mother of my secretary Ingrid Shillington in the office here. Also her friend, Grete Arndt from Berlin.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome Dale and Lillian Carlson. Mr. Carlson is a member of the esteemed accounting fraternity from tile city of Penticton.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to make welcome two visitors in the gallery today: my mother Mrs. Barbara Michael and my sister Miss Gladys Michael.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC POLICY

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It is now 14 months since the government introduced a program of massive austerity and tax increases. During that time, unemployment has increased in the province from 13.2 percent to 14.7 percent. Wages and salaries have decreased while public and private investment has plummeted. Has the government decided to reconsider its policies in view of the poor performance....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm getting a lot of help, Mr. Speaker. Am I allowed to enter into the debate, or do I have to stay to the question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question period is for questions, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH: Has the government decided to reconsider its policies in view of the poor performance of the B.C. economy relative to all other economics in North America?

[2:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that was more of a statement than a question. I had a little difficulty. Incidentally, notwithstanding the fact that we've been in recess for a while, the member has proven his consistency. Some of the numbers he quoted were incorrect. I would suggest that he get back to the NDP caucus staff in order to ensure that they're correct. As I say, it was more of a speech than a question.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to get into that kind of debate, I'd ask the minister to provide me with the figures that he promised to provide some years ago in this House. Two years ago I asked for figures and he was going to give them to me shortly.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, shortly.

The question, Mr. Speaker, which I'm sure you've heard, is: has the government decided to change its policies in view of the poor performance of the economy in British Columbia — poorer than any other economy in the whole north American continent?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, without in any way confirming the preamble which the member has chosen to use, I can tell you that the fiscal policies of this government are most appropriate in this period of very dramatic change in national and international economies. There are some bright signs, one of which is the fact that the federal riding of Nanaimo has finally seen the light of day, and I think that bodes well for the future of that particular part of Vancouver Island — a great part of the province of British Columbia. I hope that provincially the voters there will see the light as well in the not-too-distant future.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister had a little trouble finding a question in my first opportunity to speak, and I find a lot of trouble finding an answer in his response. However, maybe he can't argue with the fact that the unemployment rate in B.C. is just about double the unemployment rate in the province of Manitoba. Has the government decided to take a look and see what Manitoba is doing better than we are doing here in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we carefully monitor that which is occurring in all provinces in Canada. In fact, the most recent unemployment numbers from Manitoba indicate an increase in that province, and the most recent numbers in British Columbia indicate that it is one of two provinces to show a decrease. If we're going to examine a province such as Manitoba, at least let us do it with up-to-date information.

[ Page 4854 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll try once more with a very easy question: will the minister admit that Manitoba's current rate of 8.1 percent unemployment is just about half of B.C.'s current rate of 15.2 percent?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the member expresses an opinion, and the opinion is in fact not correct. Therefore I suggest the member check his figures, and for purposes of question period debate in this House let him at least quote figures which are completely accurate and up to date.

HYDRO JOB CUTS

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers), but since he's not here I would redirect the question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro. There have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000 jobs already lost at B.C. Hydro in the last three years. Will the minister advise whether the board of directors is now considering several hundred additional job cuts because of excessive U.S. dollar interest charges brought on by the government's policy of foreign borrowing?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr Speaker, as is common practice in this House, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the minister responsible for British Columbia Hydro in reporting to this House, I take the question as notice.

B.C. FERRIES JOB CUTS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways: will the minister confirm that the government will lay off a further 220 B.C. Ferries employees effective October 1984?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, I know the Ferry Corporation is looking at numbers around that, but I just heard the other day that it might be less than the number you quoted.

HIGHWAY-EQUIVALENT SUBSIDY

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I would think that that answer implies further service cuts to the coast of British Columbia.

Another question to the minister: has the government decided to reinstate the highway-equivalent subsidy, which provides the same level of support for ferry users as drivers on the regular highway system? In other words, are you going to bring back your subsidy formula?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the government of British Columbia has a formula to subsidize the Ferry Corporation. This year the Ferry Corporation received $43 million in subsidy from the treasury of British Columbia. That, I believe, is the same as they received last year.

VANCOUVER ISLAND PIPELINE

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Labour, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Following the government's decision favouring B.C. Hydro's southern route for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, the consortium has advised that it will not build the proposed fertilizer plant in my riding of Powell River or in any other part of British Columbia, meaning a loss of jobs and an investment of around $1 billion to the people of British Columbia. What steps has the government taken to undo the damage its announcement has made and to create these new jobs in my riding and for the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That was a really interesting question, and I'm certainly happy that at least one member on that side of the House is interested in creating jobs. Perhaps you could talk to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) when you get some spare time. Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

SALE OF VICTORIA PLYWOOD LTD.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, now that we're talking about jobs.... I'm sorry that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon, Mr. Phillips) is not here, so I'm directing my question to his stand-in, the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Workers at Victoria Plywood have negotiated an agreement with their past employer to purchase Victoria Plywood to set it up as a plywood co-op. Could the minister advise me if the cabinet or the minister in charge have received an application for financial assistance from the Victoria Plywood co-op, and has the government decided to support the workers' efforts to provide their own jobs?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. MITCHELL: A supplementary question to the Minister of Human Resources. In line with that particular application, the workers in that plant will be running out of UIC before Christmas. If they are forced to go onto welfare, it will cost the province of British Columbia over $1 million per year. Has the minister discussed within cabinet or with her colleagues whether it would be better to put up some upfront money to provide real jobs than to let another group go down the tube and not be able to work? Has the minister discussed it either with her colleagues or with some of her federal counterparts — maintaining jobs in this province instead of letting them fritter away?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the member, let me say that my responsibility as Minister of Human Resources is to assist those people who come to us when UIC runs out. That help will be there and has been there for everyone who has applied for that help when they are in need. Of course we have assisted people, and we will continue to do so. Thank goodness we have those supports in this province, and they continue to be there. We're doing, I believe, a very good job in that regard.

Secondly, I'd like to say that in terms of your concern as to whether or not my colleagues and I have been concerned over that loss of employment as well as the loss of employment in many other industries, of course we have. So if I were

[ Page 4855 ]

to say to you that we discuss it, I'm not breaking cabinet confidentiality in any way, because of course we discuss employment and unemployment in this province. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been pleased to have been a part of many discussions which are leading to real jobs  — not jobs which are subsidized by the taxpayer, but real jobs — in British Columbia, and we will continue to work at that and create real opportunities for people in the private sector.

TRANSFER OF RESIDENTS FROM TRANQUILLE

MR. BARNES: I'd like to address a question to the same minister and ask her if she would clarify for the House the situation at the Tranquille institution. There are people here from Kamloops and the Okanagan area who travelled a great distance to find out what the government is up to. People are wondering what happened to the deinstitutionalization program. What about the promises you made in the last session about "the community knows best"? To my knowledge we didn't discuss "medically fragile" people. All of a sudden most of the residents at Tranquille have become medically fragile, and they are being shifted to Glendale. Why are they being shifted to another institution'? Would you explain your change of philosophy? What are your plans? Are you planning to use the institution for another purpose'? Is this a cover for something? What's the urgency? I think that we deserve a lot of answers, Mr. Speaker. A lot of people are very concerned, and you can talk to them yourself. I've talked to people who are not politicians out in front of the Legislature, and these are not people who came over here to give the politicians a bad time.

I would like the minister to please explain what her plan is and why she has changed her philosophy.

[2:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that the member for Vancouver Centre has asked that question. May I say this: to set the record straight — and it has been set straight many times, but apparently that member and some other members in the opposition choose not to hear the answer — the promise was made to close the Tranquille institution. The promise was made and the promise is being kept. In 1981 the throne speech in this House made a commitment to the mentally handicapped in this province that we would close the three mentally handicapped institutions within a decade. In 1981 that promise was made, and we are keeping that promise in a very dramatic way at a time when most other governments — and certainly any governments that have anything close to the kinds of services that we have for the mentally handicapped — are stopping those services and moving the mentally handicapped into the community because of costs. Because it costs more for us to do it, the fact that we are doing it in a time of recession seems to me to be something about which he and every other member should be getting up on their feet — in a non-partisan way, in a way to serve the handicapped of this province — and saying: "Congratulations for moving 270 mentally handicapped young adults, who have been in that institution since they were children, out into community resources." That's the story, and it is also embodied in two of the individuals whom the member made note of in today's introductions.

We have moved individuals into the community. Mr. Member, you introduced to this House today two individuals who live in a home in this community and can visit the parliament buildings, go shopping and so on. The story is there. The story has been repeated thousands of times over. Only 5 percent of the mentally handicapped of the whole province now live in an institution, and when Tranquille is completely vacated by December 31 of this year, it will be dramatically less than that. In 1969 in Woodlands alone there were 1,261 mentally handicapped residents.  In the whole of the three institutions today, without the closure of Tranquille, there are 1,331 in total.

Mr, Speaker, the member asked me to explain. There are 325 residents in Tranquille, of whom 270 will move out. You asked about the 55. Seventeen out of the 55 already know they are planned for extended-care beds close to their homes. As a matter of fact, I've just been reading recent information on one of the.... I'm not going to name names in this report to you, but I'd like to tell you that one of them who will be moving has had a fair amount of publicity. But I don't give names when I give reports, because I feel that the families' confidentiality should be guarded. I just wish that all members of this House would feel the same.

One that has had a fair amount of publicity has had assessment, reassessment and reassessment again, May I say that all of the 55 have had reassessments done with different people — not the same people, as is charged by the ombudsman. When those reassessments were done, we found that in some cases they were not able to go into the community. That reassessment by people who are professional, people who want to assist, confirmed it.

I would like all members of this House to assure all of the families — parents, brothers and sisters — of those mentally handicapped that Glendale is not a closed door. Glendale also offers the opportunity. As a matter of fact, 17 of the 38 will be leaving Glendale very shortly, because they are already being planned for extended care. Some of those left out of the 38 require more service, more hospital surroundings and more medical care to bring them to a level where they can go out into the community. Our commitment has been to get everyone into the community if we can.

MR. BARNES: Why would you spend $23,000 on a facility and not use it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair must intervene at this point and ask the minister to be as brief as possible, in spite of the fact that the question was quite broadly based.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult, with such an emotionally charged issue as the one we have before as in this province, to answer in one minute the broad question asked by this member: to explain the vacating of Tranquille. I think it's really sad that a whole lot of misconceptions have been furthered by the opposition party's statements, and also by people who purport to represent the mentally handicapped in this province. All kinds of things they have said are totally untrue. Let me say this to you: the people who have had commitment and consultation — and it has been great and it has been frequent....

Interjection.

HON MRS — McCARTHY: Don't shake your head, Mr. Member. Sometimes, you know, your comments in terms of this ministry have not been correct, and this is one of those

[ Page 4856 ]

times. Out of the 55 cases, 38 will remain in Glendale, some for a shorter time than others because of the medical care and support they will be getting.

This member seems to be saying to me: "Fly in the face of professional advice. Fly in the face of all of the assessments and reassessments, overcome entirely all the advice given to you, and take the chance." Mr. Speaker, I can't do that. I have a responsibility to those mentally handicapped citizens whom this ministry serves. I will not put them in jeopardy for some kind of political expediency that that member is suggesting.

I wish I could find the example, but because of the time I will not. But I did want to tell the member that there are examples in my correspondence here today which show that with those people who have had the plans made in conjunction with their families, in all but a very few cases the families are quite content with what is happening. I have also today — and I wouldn't mind making it available to the member, or to the members — a letter which has been sent to British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People which says that the North Shore Association for the Mentally Handicapped, which is one of the groups that they purport to represent, is on record as being committed to assist mentally handicapped people returning from Tranquille.

"When we made this commitment it was after considerable discussion of the many real problems that we knew would be involved and the likely resources, particularly staff, that would be required. Two senior members of our staff visited Tranquille to evaluate the specific needs of those mentally handicapped people originally from families on the North Shore. We then measured their needs against our estimated ability to provide an appropriate standard of care to allow successful integration into the community. After considerable soul-searching, we did agree to accommodate nine individuals in new group homes, but with some misgivings. These misgivings were not related to philosophy, but rather our lack of experience in dealing with some of the physical limitations and behavioural problems that some of these individuals are known to have."

Subsequently, they entered into contracts with our ministry and they are providing homes. But it is significant to note that this same association, in visiting Tranquille, decided that they could not take two of those offered to them because their limitations were such that they simply couldn't handle them in the community setting which this organization is committed to doing and has been doing for years.

Mr. Speaker, I know time is limited. But I want to say this to you, that this organization also says:

"We further suggest to you" — that is, the British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People — "that it is...counterproductive to stage media events in an attempt to coerce government to return all these Tranquille residents to the community when we still experience substantial community resistance to established group home programs. If limited resources were devoted to ensuring the successful integration and community acceptance of these programs rather than confrontation with the Ministry of Human Resources, the people you profess to serve may in the end be better served."

This was signed by the North Shore Association for the Mentally Handicapped. I rest my case.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder why Your Honour did not avail himself of the provisions of standing order 43 within the last 15 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the 1983 annual report of the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the report of the executive summary of the activities of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area.

MR. SKELLY: I ask leave to table a document that I referred to earlier in debate, entitled "Industrial Relations Audit, Ross A. Cameron," of April 1984, which was advice to the Minister of Human Resources as well.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the sixth annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the report of the Travel Assurance Board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1984.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, under our standing orders I think that any matter read by the Crown should be tabled in the House. I'm referring to the document read by the Minister of Human Resources.

HON. MRS- McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to table the report that I referred to, Mr. Speaker, with leave.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 34, Mr Speaker.

METRO TRANSIT COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT
(continued)

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, here we are again, the second time in this calendar year, debating a legislative order sending workers back to work as a result of a dispute — not a labour dispute in this case, Mr. Speaker, but a management dispute.

Those of us who have been concerned over the years about legislative intervention in collective bargaining have warned, on those prior to now rare occasions when such action has been taken, that the more often you do it the easier it becomes. If we are to believe the words of most members of this Legislature, most members seem to believe that it's wrong to use the Legislature to resolve collective bargaining disputes; yet, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that members on the other side of this House, in this case and in the case earlier this year relating to the pulp and paper industry, have, in my view, used the legislative alternative long before it should even be begun to be considered.

[ Page 4857 ]

There should be a principle in these matters that only in the most extreme and unusual circumstances would the Legislature be asked to intervene. There should be a principle of that. I think I should make clear, on behalf of our party and on behalf of myself, that we do not and I do not reject the supremacy of parliament or reject the idea that there might well be some occasion in our lives when the Legislature should be called upon to help resolve a dispute. I've said that before in previous debates. I acknowledge that there can be such times when that happens, so I'm not taking and never have taken a purist position that the Legislature should never intervene. There are times when it must. But when it intervenes on those rare occasions when it is appropriate — I'm not sure there have been more than one or maybe two in the last 15 years in this province where it's appropriate, and I'm going to spend a little bit of time talking about what I think those circumstances are in relation to this dispute — the Legislature should then find some mechanism to have the dispute resolved by a mutually agreeable process. That's what used to happen when legislatures or parliaments called for the resumption of work in strike or lockout situations. But we have departed from even that principle. Accepting that there are times when the Legislature can intervene, when it does the Legislature should intervene in a way that allows both parties to have a continuing process that they both have some confidence in and that will have some likelihood of leading to a conclusion, such that whether both parties like the conclusion or not, they at least know they had some part in the resolution of it and, maybe grudgingly, they might accept what took place because they played a part in the process.

[2:45]

The principle of compulsory arbitration used to be the principle that was under debate in these kinds of circumstances. The government no longer brings in compulsory arbitration. At least with arbitration, if it's done properly, both parties agree to the person who is doing the arbitrating. They may not be particularly happy about the choice of the chairperson in such a situation, but at least they have a mechanism to agree to it and they do agree to it and therefore then have some stake in the result of that arbitration.

I find the use of that kind of compulsory arbitration, when not chosen voluntarily by both parties, to be quite repugnant. But I do accept, as I said before, that there are some times, rare though they may be, when that is an option that legislatures must follow. But we don't have that in this bill. We don't have a process that both parties can feel good about. Sure, there's mediation in the bill — section 7, if my memory's correct — but if that doesn't work the arbitration process is not there. The process is the government determining the terms and conditions of the collective agreement. That's the same as saying to the workers that the employer can set the terms and conditions of the collective agreement, because the government and the employer are the same person, despite all the legal nuances of the cabinet and the B.C. Transit and the MTOC, and all of that. In this particular case you have the further connection of a government back-bencher as the chairman and chief executive officer of the management group.

So clearly, what this legislation has chosen to do, given that there needed to be legislation, which I don't accept..... I'm going to come to that later. If it had been necessary, it's wrong in principle for the employer to take the right upon himself to set the terms and conditions of the collective agreement. Despite all the fiction of the legal structures, make no mistake about it: the government and its members, and some of its back-benchers — at least one in particular — are the employer. One only needs to read the Cameron report to see the extent of the interference in the day-to-day operations of the Metropolitan Transit Operating Company; to see how, virtually on a daily basis, the government through its members is running that company. Now we're asked to consider a bill which allows that employer to set the terms and conditions of the collective agreement. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

As I've said before, there are times when we should be called upon to do this kind of difficult work, but when we do that, we need to make sure that the process that flows from the legislation enables both parties to feel they have some involvement in the mechanism, and while they may not like the conclusions that come from that mechanism, they will feel more obliged to accept the conclusions of that process. That is absent from this bill, just as it was absent until now from the latter days of the dispute, when the government was prepared, through the Minister of Labour, to appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner who was not acceptable to one of the parties. What kind of idiocy is that? If you want a report to be considered and accepted, you need to have doing it someone who has the Support, trust and confidence of the parties involved. If it's a marital dispute that's in question and one of the parties in that dispute is involved with another person, you don't ask that third person to come and resolve it.

You might go to somebody who's neutral. How do you determine the neutrality? You make sure that both parties are prepared to accept. That's not done in the bill, and it wasn't done in the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner — clearly an unsatisfactory choice. I'm making no comment about Joe Morris in that. My views about Joe Morris will stay my views. But let me say that what is important there isn't that Joe Morris used to be the most senior IWA official, the most senior labour official in the country, as president of the CLC. That doesn't give him the ability to be an impartial, fair industrial inquiry commissioner, because the essential ingredient is missing — the cooperation of both parties.

AN HON. MEMBER. Are you saying he wasn't fair?

MR. GABELMANN: I'm saying he wasn't fair, yes, in answer to your direct question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say that outside the House.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll say that outside the House, sure. Anybody who reads Joe Morris's report knows that he was — not deliberately, perhaps — not being fair. He took the management positions and strengthened them, from a management point of view.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what the union told you?

MR. GABELMANN: That's what I'm telling this House.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What's wrong with that?

MR. GABELMANN: One of the former Ministers of Labour is interjecting. I hope you have read this document, Mr. Minister of Education. You'll see, just by a quick reading of it, that there are some major difficulties with the whole

[ Page 4858 ]

approach that was taken in this particular industrial inquiry commission. I don't mean to be attacking Joe. Joe did the best job he was able to do. It's a pathetic piece of work, I might say. But that's not the point. The point is that whoever was the industrial inquiry commissioner — whether it was the scatmate of the member for Surrey or the president of one of the locals in the union — it had to be someone who had the confidence of both parties. If the minister had the slightest idea about how to conduct labour relations in this province, he would understand that, but he doesn't. Why is it that under this Minister of Labour we continually have to come to this Legislature for resolution? Why is it under his term? It's the second time in a few months.

MR. REE: How many did you put back when you were government — three, four, five?

MR. GABELMANN: You know what my position was on that.

In this respect in labour relations, and I'm going to speak on a number of other things as well, when you expect conclusions from a process to be acceptable — not necessarily liked, but acceptable — you must have the assurance that both parties have some confidence in the process. In this case, when one party sees that the employer gets to call all the shots, it is no wonder you have some difficulties,

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal in general with the issue in a broader way and then move to more particular issues that need to be canvassed. Everyone in industrial relations in the western world, I guess, where free collective bargaining has been a basic principle — one that, I must say, is under serious threat and is even further threatened today by the comments of the Minister of Labour about public sector bargaining, but I'll leave that aside for the moment — everyone who is a professional, everyone who understands, everyone who is involved in industrial relations, knows that it is crucial that the daily industrial relations practices of a company or an employer are the crucial issue in what might later turn out to be a protracted and insoluble dispute. The way in which a company or an employer operates its labour relations program is crucial to the whole system.

We've got examples in British Columbia. We have had — not now, but recently — serious industrial relations problems in two companies that I can think of. One is in the private sector and one is in the public sector: B.C. Rail and B.C. Telephone. Both, I might say, are public sector employers, but one is private and one is public. For years there were labour disputes of various kinds in those companies. Why? Because in both cases the labour relations practices of those employers were absolutely abominable. I'm not going to go into the history of those two cases, but it wasn't until both of the employers recognized that they had to do something about the abysmal state of their labour relations, or they could never count on full productivity and a productive workforce.... They recognized that they had to do something about labour relations.

Both have done something about it in different ways. Both have taken steps. I'm not saying that is going to end all the problems, but in those two instances it sure has quietened down the labour relations news items coming out of both B.C. Tel and B.C. Rail. When is the last time we heard about a wildcat in B.C. Rail? It doesn't happen. Why? Because the company recognized that they had to do something about it. In a way, the transit authority also recognized that it had to do something.

In January 1983 the B.C. Transit Authority appeared to understand that there were some serious problems developing in their operations. As a result of that a motion was moved and passed that what they called a labour relations audit — a funny word, but nevertheless it's accepted — be conducted. That was done by Ross A. Cameron in a report referred to earlier today. If the company was prepared to order an audit, so-called, why wasn't it prepared to accept the recommendations of the auditor? We may well have been able to resolve this dispute long before it became a dispute or a lockout. But no, the chairman of the board of the Metro Transit Operating Company, the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Surrey (Mr. Reid), continued his practices that were so condemned by this Cameron report.

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It wasn't inevitable then that industrial relations were going to be very difficult to conduct on a harmonious basis in that company. I suspect that the reason the Cameron report was not acted upon and the reason the member for Surrey continued his behaviour is that the government, operating in conjunction with the direct employers, whoever they are, had decided that there was an agenda and that they were going to accomplish that agenda.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. GABELMANN: I hear a voice in the background saying "not true." There is no other reason for failing to take note of what was said by Cameron. There was an agenda and that agenda was to break the back of the union in the transit field. That was the agenda and it still is, Mr. Speaker. If it wasn't the agenda, why do we have this document filed today by the minister which says that management is going to totally have its way in terms of how the resumption of service might take place if this bill passes? Seniority, the most valuable commodity in that contract, is out the window. Why would the minister do that?

If the minister or the government — it's a collective responsibility — wanted the buses back to work in a reasonable, quick and hassle-free way, they would have been prepared — in fact, I think, required — to sit down with both parties and agree to a procedure by which the callbacks and the assignments took place.

MR. REID: We tried that for 17 months.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, is he wearing his management hat or his government hat? It's the same, isn't it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He's not wearing a hat. We're not allowed to wear hats in here.

MR. GABELMANN: It's the same hat; it confirms the point.

In my mind the two-page document that was filed this morning is designed to give the company not only what it wants — which is obvious; the Socred government always gives the company what it wants and that's just a given — but it might also be designed — and I must say that I don't want to believe this, but I can't help but believe it — to try to get the

[ Page 4859 ]

drivers, mechanics and other members of the transit union riled up so the government can apparently have further cause to trumpet this new direction they're on where collective bargaining in the public sector may be a thing of the past. It's designed to manipulate public opinion to meet their agenda.

If we in this province are going to have a productive economy and have jobs created, we need to have an atmosphere in this province where people work together in cooperation, where conciliation is the rule of the day, not confrontation. And yet at every stage in every area, whether it's public or private, we see the government deliberately provoking confrontation. Why? Is it to meet the agenda of the Kerkhoffs of this world? Nothing else come to my mind, and increasingly, Mr. Speaker, nothing else comes to the minds of people who watch industrial relations in this province. There is no other answer for it.

There is a plan and design to break the back of the trade union movement in this province one way or another, whether it's in construction, which we've just been going through, or in the public sector. If they could have persuaded the ironworkers to accept that wage package that was proposed and signed without a single member voting, which seems to fly in the face of all democracy in the workplace and trade unions that the government talks about with one breath.... Why do they support that kind of thing? It's designed to break the wage rate that's been established in this province. This government would like everybody in this province to work for the kind of wages and conditions that exist in the free trade zones in Taiwan, the Philippines and Sri Lanka, and in many other parts of the world that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) so proudly talks about. Why can't we do that here too? What else is at stake? Why else do they deliberately attempt to drive down the wages at Expo or elsewhere in this province? It's part of an overall strategy.

My words today are going to be viewed as wild and radical rhetoric that has no foundation whatsoever. Who could possibly believe it? No doubt only 5 percent of the people will even think its credible. That's today. Mark my words, Mr. Speaker, ten years from now people will know that what I'm talking about today is in fact the truth — just in the same way as the whole country and most of parliament were prepared to vote for the War Measures Act in 1970. There are some things that are wrong, and it doesn't matter if you stand alone; you stand and fight those things. This kind of behaviour, this kind of plan and strategy, is precisely that kind of activity.

Why attack the dignity of those organizations that working people democratically choose to represent them? Why attack the very foundations? That has not been a continuing pattern of Social Credit — because W.A.C. Bennett always knew when to back off, always knew when to bring the people into his office and attempt to work a deal, and more often than not he succeeded — until a few years ago. But it certainly is their plan and their design now. You only have to listen to several of the cabinet members and watch the inaction by the Minister of Labour in attempting to involve his ministry in a productive and positive way in dispute resolution and watch this kind of legislation to know that there is a design and a plan in place. It's not one that British Columbians in their overwhelming majority would accept if it were put to them fairly and clearly as the honest strategy of Social Credit.

I want to speak more specifically about the Cameron report. The Leader of the Opposition quoted some extracts from the report earlier today. I want also to quote some. The fact that the government, through its agencies, has suppressed this document — not made it public — requires that it be made public, which we have done. When you read what is in here, it is no wonder there has been a dispute, and it's no wonder that the parties have been unable to reach a collective agreement.

I'll just read a couple of quotes from this report referred to now as the Cameron report: "While management can change its performance through edict, the employees cannot be coerced into cooperation." It seems obvious to most of us. You can't coerce people into cooperation. That sentence wouldn't be in this report unless the member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) and his group were in fact trying to do just that. Here is Cameron saying that you can't coerce employees into cooperation. In what age do they think they live? It's not the feudal era. He says further on: "A review of B.C. Transit's sphere of influence shows the lack of a provincial plan. There are, therefore, no policies and procedures in place necessary to carry out an effective industrial relations function." Why would there be no policies and procedures in place? Let's think about that. Why would they have such an approach to it? Isn't it so that they would cause disruption? Isn't it so they could back the union to the wall, force them finally — after months — to take action that they didn't want to take, so that we could get to this stage so that the employer's items on the table could be put into place in the contract by cabinet? For what other reason would they not have a policy and procedure to carry out effective industrial relations?

He goes on to talk more specifically about the member for Surrey:

"...however, the level of involvement of the chairman in the day-to-day operation of MTOC has a very clear industrial relations impact, and I would be remiss if I did not make the principals aware of my thoughts on this matter."

A damning indictment of that member, Mr. Speaker — a damning indictment. He should have, long before now, taken the advice offered recently by the Vancouver Sun to resign that job, if not his seat.

"My comments with reference to the chairman of the board's unusual involvement in the day-to-day operations are generally valid with reference to the present practices of the CEO. The reason for the CEO's involvement outside of normally accepted practice may have been originally valid, but his present understanding of the function of MTOC and the transit industry voids that reason.... I suggest that the CEO review his present practices with the idea of removing himself from detailed involvement at all levels of the corporation. He should be assisted...."

It goes on to explain how he should do it.

There's much else, but I don't intend to delay it. I want to read two final comments from Cameron: "It is my opinion that the relationship at this time" — remember, this is some time ago, last year — "is destructive in the extreme, and any continuation...."

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: What relationship does the general manager have to the chairman? Answer that question.

[ Page 4860 ]

I'll take the advantage of the designated speaker to go a few more minutes. I see that light, Mr. Speaker. It looks yellow to me. It's white. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to see when your eyes are blinded by tears of sorrow.

Cameron says: "It is my opinion that the relationship at this time is destructive in the extreme, and any continuation of same will result in a virtually insurmountable animosity between the parties." That's what we have, isn't it? And where's the blame? Is the blame to the workers? The member for Surrey says, "Yes, the blame is to the workers." I'm reading Cameron. He blames the employer. He blames the member for Surrey, and the others.

He goes on, and earlier I said "damning indictment." I wish I could find stronger words that were parliamentary. "The adversarial system is practised with a vengeance, and a strong hand is needed to turn this unfortunate situation around." So what do we have? We have legislation making into a contract those very positions that that organization has taken, under section 5(2) of the act.

[3:15]

The final comment from Cameron: "Certain of the interviews lead me to believe that the communications and attitudinal skills of these individuals have been compromised through either interference, specific instruction or individual interpretation of a mandate that is not specific in its intent."

What rings through this report, Mr. Speaker, is that B.C. Transit and its operating companies do not have a labour relations plan. They don't have personnel who could follow a plan if it existed. What they have instead is high-level political interference in the day-to-day operations of the company. While Cameron wasn't asked to deal with it, and he doesn't deal with it, and no implications can be taken from his report, I believe that those interferences and those interventions were designed deliberately to force a dispute. Management felt, no doubt, that were it to have to go through the normal collective bargaining routines and achieve an agreement, or even should it get to that, a voluntary arbitration solution, they would not get their list of items on the table; that the only way they would get into the contract those issues that they wanted on the table — issues, I might say, that aren't in place in most other jurisdictions in this country — was to force a dispute. How do you force a dispute? You harass. You intimidate. You don't have good industrial relations. You let the politics dominate the day-to-day running. You build up a dispute. You let it go all summer — for 13 weeks. And then you pretend that you're coming in as the saviour of the public. What they're doing is coming in as the saviour of those people with the agenda who want certain items in the collective agreement, number one; and number two, another major part of the agenda: setting up public opinion so they can bring in legislation denying the traditional rights of free collective bargaining in the public sector. "Cynical" is too mild a word to describe that kind of attitude and that kind of behaviour. It is disgusting in the extreme, Mr. Speaker.

The bill itself is really quite unbelievable, We'll deal more specifically with it in committee stage, obviously. But for the minister to give himself the right to change the collective agreement that has been in force — and it is still in force until the new one is signed — is unprecedented. That has not happened in this jurisdiction ever before. Why do we have it in this bill when all normal practice in contract resolution negotiations and the various kinds of conclusions of agreements is that the old terms and conditions apply? They apply in every respect, unless the parties agree to vary them, which they are able to do. Why is it that they don't apply in this particular dispute? Why is it that the minister wants the power to change the collective agreement under which the transit workers operate? Because he wants to intimidate them further. He wants to give management one of its major items on the table. He wants to destroy the concept of seniority. We're back here to the original days of July 1983. If all those particular pieces of legislation had gone through in 1983, seniority would have been a thing of the past, as it might well be in this particular situation. There is nothing more important to working people, in terms of the reasons why they join a union and are committed to the union, than the issue of seniority. It is a fundamental principle. Yet, in effect, that is the power the minister wants to take upon himself in varying the collective agreement under which the transit authority would operate if it goes back to work. Why?

The only answer to that is: to meet the demands of management who want to be able to assign drivers in a certain way on Monday morning, if that's when they go back to work. Why not, if not work out a mutually agreeable new solution, stay with the old way of doing it? They are going to be paid at the old rate until the new contract comes into place. Other conditions are going to be the same. What's wrong with the scheduling being done in the same way too? It doesn't suit management's plan. Therefore the government intervenes and goes along with management again. If the government truly played its proper role, it would be neutral in these matters. This government is not neutral; that particular section of the bill is a flagrant example of that. Why, in section 8, does the government want to have themselves write the terms and conditions of a collective agreement, as they did with the pulp dispute? God only knows! There's no political value in it for them in terms of the public. The only value there could be in not taking an arbitration route but having a cabinet-directed settlement is the fear that an arbitrator might say that both parties should have some crumbs in the solution, both parties should get something and there should be a saw-off. They want the right to write the terms and conditions so that they can write them the way management instructs them. And who is management? Themselves. It is unseemly, to put it mildly, Mr. Speaker.

It takes a conservative old — old in a positive way; I mean that in a nice way — gentleman from Poland now living in Italy to remind us that workers, too, have some rights in this society. In Newfoundland he said that workers....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member wish to proceed as the designated speaker?

MR. GABELMANN: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, yes, I do.

Yesterday in Newfoundland the Pope very clearly said that workers in our societies have some rights. They have the right to be consulted about what happens at their workplace. It seems to me to be a pretty conservative value. It's not a radical, socialist or left-wing attitude. It's one, I would think, that most people in our society could recognize and accept. It's a simple proposition that workers who spend their whole lives often in drudgery — in the case of the transit operators in very difficult and trying circumstances on some busy streets, particularly in Vancouver.... Some of them have worked for years to be able to burnp themselves into a nicer route and a better set of hours rather than, in effect, working

[ Page 4861 ]

from three or four in the morning right through until after rush hour in the evening, despite the hours off. That's a long working day. Those workers in that very difficult job, having to deal with drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and all kinds of hazards, especially in the lower mainland with rain-slicked streets.... The government, the IIC and the management want to take away the right they've had since 1913 — the right to be consulted about what they do at work. Even the Roman Catholic Pope can call for that.

What is wrong with consultation? First of all, in dealing with the human issue, what is wrong with it in terms of making someone feel a little bit better about having to do what is often a very dirty and difficult job? Make them feel a little bit better about it, because at least they've had some say in how they're going to do that and when. What's wrong with that? Why would the government want to take away that basic bit of human dignity that a worker can enjoy. Even more important in the broader scheme of things, why would they do it when they knew it would inflame industrial relations? In answer to that question, I can only come back to the point I was making earlier, and that is that there is a plan, an agenda to break the backs of those people who choose to band together to work cooperatively for the betterment of their lives.

We're not talking here about the vast cost to the treasury in terms of inflationary wage settlements. No one has even mentioned the issue of wages. It's obviously not a major issue. But the dignity of the worker is a major issue. If the Pope can support it, so can this Legislature.

MR. MICHAEL: I rise today to give support to Bill 34, Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act. First, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), on his patience in letting the free collective bargaining process attempt to resolve the conflict. I would also like to congratulate him on the skill with which he has handled previous industrial relations conflicts in this province. I would like to congratulate him on the comprehensive manner in which he has drafted the bill before us today. I can assure him and the government that this bill has the support of a vast majority in my constituency.

I would like to make some reference to the calibre of the person appointed as the industrial inquiry commissioner, Mr. Joe Morris. I have known Mr. Morris for some 32 years. He's certainly a very distinguished labour statesman. He was president of IWA Local 180 in the Duncan-Cowichan area. He was president of the western Canadian regional council No. 1 of the IWA. As we all know, he went from there to the presidency of the Canadian Labour Congress, and on to the International Labour Organization and many other international posts, which have made him perhaps one of the most distinguished labour statesmen in the Dominion of Canada. He is trustworthy. He is of the highest integrity. He is a member of the Order of Canada. He has knowledge of the collective bargaining process. For the members opposite or the trade union to make any suggestions about Joe Morris's integrity is, in my view, a sham. To suggest that he is in any way in the pocket of this government is, I think, a very unfortunate slander of his character, because he is one of the most distinguished labour people whom I've ever had the pleasure to know.

Regarding the collective bargaining process, I don't know how much more patient the Minister of Labour and this government could have been. The collective bargaining process had gone on for some 15 months, from April 1983 until June 1984. Since that period we have witnessed a 12-week conflict between the parties. Obviously the free collective bargaining process in this instance is just not working. What is the solution? Any responsible government must take action, and the action must be taken now: legislation not only to get the buses rolling again, but also to eventually bring about a collective agreement and long-term stability in our vital lower mainland transportation system.

One of the items which I have difficulty in understanding, from my history of of being involved in the trade union movement, is this issue of overtime. To my knowledge, union policy at the provincial and federal levels hasn't changed. Unless there has been a change in the last little while, the policy of the trade union movement has always been against regularly scheduled overtime.

[3:30]

It's my information that in the transit system on the lower mainland some 260,000 hours of overtime are worked every year. This could be replaced by hundreds of unemployed working on a part-time basis. In these times of high unemployment surely fairness and equity would dictate that all trade unionists and employers should be doing everything within reason to see that these hours are shared by those hundreds of British Columbians who so dearly need a job. I find it very strange, in these difficult times, that this sharing process...that these large numbers of scheduled overtime hours are not being filled by part-time workers, to enjoy the privilege of working. I have to wonder, when I look at that vast number of hours and the vast number of people who could be put to work, why it is that some of the more vocal organizations in British Columbia, such as Operation Solidarity and the Unemployed Council and all of the other groups we beard so much about over the last year or so, are not clamouring at the gates, petitioning, picketing, to bring about the complete elimination of all this overtime and get more British Columbians to work. The government must act, and it must act in the best interests of the public. I'm talking about seniors and handicapped, women and children, the drivers and their families, the business community.

I do not intend to take any more time today except to restate that this government and this Legislature have my full support and, I know, the full support of my constituents. Even though we are not directly affected by this dispute on the lower mainland, we recognize the seriousness of it. I have discussed its effect on the public with a lot of the people in the lower mainland and I suggest that we give strong support to, and hopefully unanimous endorsation of, this Bill 34, the Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am amused to hear from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, particularly his claim that between 10:20 a.m. and the time that he rose to speak not some but all of the people in his constituency had read and supported the bill. That's the kind of claim that is made quite often by members opposite. Surely if he made any effort at all he'd find one or two dissenting voices. Perhaps he's going now to do some research in that regard.

This is a government that protects the powerful and the privileged, Mr. Speaker. That's why it was elected. That's why they see their mandate to continue policies and pass legislation that protect the powerful and the privileged in this province. Ordinary people do not have any consideration in

[ Page 4862 ]

the cabinet room of this government. This is a scandalous cynicism. This whole transit labour relations issue as it has progressed, as it has been choreographed by the minister in charge of transit, and particularly the Minister of Labour, is a clear cynicism. It is a clear plan to destroy any kind of free collective bargaining in the transit system.

The bill introduced destroys collective bargaining. The kind of.... "Lack of caution" was the phrase I was going to use. That's not strong enough. The kind of contempt for ordinary people that this government has shown — the Minister of Labour this morning, in introducing this bill, saying that we're not in favour of free collective bargaining but their government steadfastly is; yet they introduce a bill with sections 5 and 8 which give to a group that is least competent the power to impose a collective agreement, and indeed to amend a collective agreement that has been in force. That is an offence against arty understanding of collective bargaining in this province, or in any other province or any state in the union south.

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of cynicism I am getting used to from that government, that I've been used to for 12 years from the hon. member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland). That minister has been a cynic throughout his career in this House, in opposition and in government. In opposition, irresponsible and completely unresearched statements; in government, he can make any claim he wants because he knows he can change his mind tomorrow. When he says that his government is committed to free collective bargaining, that is a sham. All of the facts indicate that it's untrue. The minister has claimed their government's commitment to the free collective bargaining process, yet they take it away in this case; and by his own announcement this morning he plans to take it away in the entire public sector. The protectors of the powerful and the privileged. They can't deny that. All of their legislation points to that end.

Speaking to some very wealthy investors in the city of Vancouver, I said that in British Columbia we have the next-to-highest unemployment rate across the country. It's getting even worse, and probably by Christmas it will be the worst in North America. The worst employment rate in the country: proof positive that their program of austerity and cutbacks and their increased taxation, disincentives to investment and productivity at the workplace have worked in the opposite direction than they claimed. You know, they're still standing up in this House and out in the province claiming that their austerity package is working.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the design of this government was to protect the powerful and the privileged with respect to transit. The incompetence demonstrated by this government in transit generally is a scandalous indictment in itself. The incompetence in the ALRT system, the overruns, the huge costs that are being built up for the rapid transit system have to be paid for somewhere.

They increased taxation and even imposed a transit levy on hydro bills to ordinary users of hydro to pay for their transit excesses. They cut back on bus services for ordinary people, and particularly people in my constituency who have suffered greatly over the past four months. I would be just as ardent a critic of the trade union that would shut down a transit system without any consideration for the ordinary people who use those buses and that transit system, but, you know, they did not.

Yes, it's true, I'm not known for being one who says trade unionism right or wrong, or that the decision of a particular trade union is always right, no matter what. I have been open and freely critical of decisions made by trade unions that I feel are irresponsible and against the public good. But in this case the transit union involved did not shut down the system. They did not take their dirty laundry in labour relations and have ordinary people suffer. They said: "We'll deal with our negotiations with the employer without shutting down the system, but we will make it clear to the public what our position is." If you want to talk about a political battle, the union has won the political battle because they have used straightforward tactics and have not shut down the transit system, and no matter how hard the MTOC, the government's puppet, has tried to reverse public feeling against the bus drivers in the province, the public will not have any part of it, because they know and understand that by the famous unstrike in the city of Vancouver they got the public to understand their side of the issues.

I ride buses to and from work in the city of Vancouver, and during the unstrike I talked to people who also ride buses and they were impressed by the fact that the drivers did not shut down the system. But the MTOC did. Why? Why was the system shut down? There was no collective bargaining or labour relations reason to shut down the system. The fact that collective bargaining was broken off, stalled or going slowly was not a reason, because the union was not going on strike. They shut down the system because in the four ensuing months we reckon they've saved a net amount of $20 million. They've saved that kind of money off the backs of ordinary people; not the powerful and the privileged, but ordinary people who have to get to work, who have hours less to spend at home each day with their families because they're spending it travelling to and from their place of employment — if they have a job.

Old people who are shut in cannot go shopping, to doctor's appointments or to visit their friends and relatives, and their friends and relatives can't visit them. This is a disastrous devastation in the social fabric in my constituency alone, and I can cite chapter and verse what the strike has done in four months. Does the government care about that? No, because they're not the powerful and the privileged. The government says the powerful and the privileged don't ride the buses. We don't care about them. We'll pretend to care about them; we'll come in here and say: "Tsk, tsk, what a terrible thing this strike has been for four months, but now that we've saved $20 million let's order them back to work, and impose an amended collective agreement in accordance with what the MTOC has wanted all along."

I'm not going to get involved in what the issues are between the union and the operating company and the government — which is the same thing. Those are issues that are to be settled between the union and the employer. They have no business being discussed on the floor of this chamber. I cannot think of a group less competent to design a collective agreement in any labour relations sphere than the government of the day and, indeed, the Legislature as a whole. We are not here to devise, draft and impose collective agreements.

I am in favour of the transit system being put back to work. We have to try and recover the devastation to the social fabric of our community by that happening as quickly as possible. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the negligence and cynicism of this government has caused this strike, has caused the economic losses to merchants, in my constituency, and the hardship to the people I've just mentioned. They have little or no responsibility toward these people. The merchants

[ Page 4863 ]

are small entrepreneurs who are suffering from losses, and as the complaints grew there was only a modest response from the government. This kind of cynicism we've seen before. Those who find it their ideological commitment to protect the powerful and the privileged have little time for statistics, and bus riders are statistics. The unemployed are statistics; they're not people. They don't think of the unemployed as people because they don't even relate to them. They find that their ideological doctrinaire commitment to a right-wing philosophy will guide their every move, no matter how reasonable, how even-handed, how undemocratic. They are relentlessly committed to the destruction of our society and our economy because of their blind, fanatical commitment to a right-wing ideology. Their views have been cited around North America — indeed, the British Commonwealth — as being the ultra right-wing views of any democratic jurisdiction in the world. They are given everywhere as ail example of what not to do, and yet they come in here as if everything's rosy. Nothing bad has happened; they're happy. They still have their ministerial jet rides and their huge salaries as Crown ministers. They're comfortable. They haven't tightened up their belts; they've loosened them. They've had to. They've overindulged themselves with power and they are comfortable protecting the powerful and the privileged.

[3:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That suffering of ordinary people, the people who ride buses, has to be seen. It has to be understood, and it has to be sensitively canvassed. As I say, the record stands for itself. The particular trade union in this instance acted responsibly; the government acted totally irresponsibly. Today the Minister of Labour stands in his place and talks, presumably, about the same people in my constituency I'm talking about, and he says plaintively and innocently to the Speaker's chair: "Somehow, that's unfair" I can well understand why he would add the word "somehow"; he wouldn't know. He's guessing. He has no personal experience in that regard, nor does he really care. It is an act of cynicism, and the bill should be opposed on that ground alone.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would be remiss if I did not take my place in this debate for no other reason then to point out to the House that had this government moved with legislation of this nature 30 or 60 days ago the opposition would be all standing up there arguing and condemning us for taking away the right to free collective bargaining. What is it you really want? Do you know? The only one on that side of the House who seems to know what he really wants is the one who left their party. Isn't it interesting and refreshing that here, when we find that one member sees the light, he can really express himself as he really believes and also as it is. He didn't stand up here and condemn this government for taking away the rights of the workers — in this particular case about whether they should go back to work. He's going to defend this bill, but all of those members who have spoken so far; including the leader in his usual radical, shrill way, have already committed themselves to voting against this opportunity to send our drivers back to work. The drivers want to go back to work. Their families want them to go back to work. The people who use the service want them to come back to work. What's wrong with this? Then, of course, we're being condemned because we wait so long. What's wrong with waiting to let the democratic process work?

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: They sit back there and chip, chip, chip away. Why don't you get on your feet when you have the opportunity and tell us where you stand? I understand that you were on the radio today and indicated that you were happy they were going back to work. Does that mean you're going to vote for this bill, or do you really know what you're going to do? I don't think you have a clue. It's just the usual sleazy political game that's being played on the backs of what they call the ordinary working people.

We must be congratulated for allowing the workers and management to take the necessary time to make the free collective bargaining process work. But it didn't.

If we go back many years, before the industrialization of our nation, we can recall the days when the largest percentage of our population were either directly involved in agriculture or associated with it. In those days most people were motivated by the opportunity to make a good living — the work ethic. Then along came industrialization, with progress — something that we have all benefited from greatly but something that has not come without its real problems. Of course, with industrialization we also have experienced some pay-packet militancy by some. I speak from experience, having come from Britain, where I can recall very clearly in the Dirty Thirties when the working men and women did not get a fair shake, when there was a great attempt to get unions into the system in order to give the worker a fair shake. I can recall those days quite vividly. My own father was one of the victims of that particular system. Therefore it can never be said that I would be opposed to unions, nor can it ever be said that unions have been anything but good for this country.

Unions have brought stability to our country. They have brought stability to the economic situation of our country, and they're entitled to that credit. It's something that I'm very concerned about because some of the nonsense that's taking place and some of the rhetoric that we're hearing out of the opposition, I think, is bringing a black eye to the union movement. You people can be held responsible for doing more damage to the union movement than anyone else in this province because of the way you're using them. You stand up there and you seem to think in your own pompous way that you are the only people for the working person. What is the working man or the working person...?

AN HON. MEMBER: The ordinary people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I consider that we're all ordinary people of British Columbia, What gives you a licence to speak for the people of British Columbia? Let me tell you, my friend — and you'll learn in time — that if it weren't for the working people of British Columbia and if it weren't for the working people of the unions of British Columbia, you'd never have seen a Social Credit government elected in this province as often as you did.

Mr. Speaker, it's the working people of this province who know where their bread is buttered. They're the people who know which government can bring them the sort of economic stability that they need. They're the people who understand where the dollar comes from. They're the people who understand what is needed in a home. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know and I want them to know that this government stands for the working people more than the NDP have ever done.

[ Page 4864 ]

The NDP are out there to bring everyone down to a class that is much below what the average working people would ever want to have.

One of the problems that came along with industrial development, of course, was the whole question of how to properly compensate the working man and woman. How do we fairly share in the wealth that's being created by the combination of the investors' dollars and the skills and labours of the working person? It was decided through a great deal of study and a great deal of thought and determination that the free collective bargaining process was the way to do it. I'm speaking now as someone with experience in the workplace, with experience of the hard times, with the experience of having run a business where we have had employees. I believe that the working men and women are entitled to a fair share of those results. Why shouldn't they be? But I also say that there are companies in this province that have the unions they deserve. They're not all perfect. We also have unions that behave in a manner that the companies would have them behave in. That is their problem, but that should not take away from the good that unions have done and will continue to do.

The method that has been arrived at, as one of the best that I could think of, and anyone else, of course, has been the free collective bargaining system. But we have now seen an example of how it is failing, and it is failing only because of one tool that is part of it. We must protect it. We must protect the free collective bargaining system. We must resist all of the pressures that we get from the NDP to move in quickly and not allow them to bargain: send them back to work, never mind the free collective bargaining system, get them back to work and forget about it. That is what you call the New Democratic system. We don't believe in it. We're going to protect it, and we know....

Interjections.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, would you please get that member off my back. She's starting to throw me off.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Order, please. There appears to be quite a lot of noise here. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is taking his place in the debate and will be allowed to speak without interruption.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I don't give one iota to what any of the NDP members say in this House. I will never be part of a government that would move as they would like us to move and take away the right for any group of workers to free collective bargaining. What we have seen here is something that has confirmed fears of mine — and, no doubt, fears of others — and that is that the strike tool does not work any more. There was a day that it did work. It does not work anymore, because it hurts everyone.

MS. SANFORD: It's a lockout.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's right.

The people who hurt most from a strike arc the families of the workers. I am quite sure that there isn't one family of any bus driver of the B.C. Transit system in this province who is feeling comfortable and secure today, because they have been on strike. That is why, Mr. Speaker, those who are going to vote against putting the bus drivers back to work and those who would condemn us for not allowing the free collective bargaining process to work should go and talk to the families of those people out there who have been doing without.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted and very pleased that our Minister of Labour has announced that he is considering going out to ask the public whether it's proper or in the interest of the public at large to have the public service strike. I don't think they should. I don't think that anyone who is deriving their income from tax dollars has the right to hold at ransom those who are paying the bills. I'm not saying that we should just do away with it without having something to take its place. We must find something to take its place. Those drivers and those workers in the public service deserve a fair income.

I can assure you that as the Minister of Municipal Affairs I am responsible for a staff. I am indeed proud of my staff. They are hard-working people, dedicated people who are entitled to a fair income. But I don't think that they or anyone else in that position are entitled to pick up their ball when they don't like the game and go home with it. I don't believe that they are entitled to just cut off their services and say: "I don't like it and that's it. Lump it or leave it."

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we are going to see some movement in that direction. I certainly predict that the result will be that those who are paying the bill, the taxpayers, are going to say: "No, we don't want to see that happen again. We don't think they should have that striking tool in the system. Find something better." As a result of the exercise that our minister is planning now, I'm sure that is what we're going to find out. The public don't want it. The employees' families don't want it, The public at large are hurt by it. The families are hurt by it. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that this bill is coming in at this time. I'm sorry that this bill is necessary. This bill has highlighted.... It has shown all of us that while the free collective bargaining system is the only one we've got, there is a tool within the system that must be replaced by something else, and that is the strike.

[4:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it's been a very long summer in which this dispute has been simmering. It's been a source of great inconvenience to probably everyone but members of the government side — to people who use transit and to those of us who live in the interior and aren't directly affected but for the fact that my mother lives in Vancouver and depends on public transit. She's a senior citizen. This government let this go on all summer long, and then they call us back here with two days' notice as if they didn't know all along what they were going to do. Supposedly we have been called back here to put the drivers back to work. Mr. Speaker, really we are here to let the drivers go back to work. This is a lockout. It is the government that has been keeping the buses shut down all this summer. Mr. Speaker, we should be back here to do more than just put the drivers back to work. We, should be here to put British Columbia back to work.

We could do more than just put drivers back to work in the metropolitan centres where we have metro transit. We could be looking at the transit needs of the interior of British Columbia; indeed, many new jobs could be created. Yes, they would be public sector jobs, but they are badly needed: public transit connections between cities such as Trail, Nelson, Cranbrook and other areas. Some of them are connected by Greyhound, but vast gaps in the transit system in this province occur where they are not served by Greyhound.

[ Page 4865 ]

Not only would they transport passengers; they would also be able to help the commerce of that area by transporting parts along rural areas to garages, etc.

We should be doing a lot more here in this Legislature than coming in with another band-aid piece of legislation. Other parts of the country and the world don't have to bring the legislature into session to deal with back-to-work "legislation" In Sweden they have over a 90 percent trade union membership. Most of the working force, way beyond what we would normally look upon as the blue collar and labouring forces, and the white collar workers, are organized for collective bargaining purposes. They have fewer strikes in thirty years than we have in three months. It is a matter of government, management and labour attitudes, and a government that brings people together rather than creating these confrontational situations such as we have here.

Mr. Speaker, again we are called together to inflict a cure for which there was no disease. Here we are bringing in a piece of legislation which is quite unlike the pulp dispute that was dealt with just recently We are not dealing with a private sector employer; we are not dealing with the Council of Forest Industries employers, or FIR. We are dealing with the government as the employer now coming in and proposing to give the solution to their own failure by imposing terms of settlement.

I'm sure that most people welcome, as I welcome with some relief, that finally something is being done. However, I disagree with a good number of the parts of the solution — that this legislation is going to be compulsive in certain areas. Certainly it would seek to punish the one side which has won the support of the major papers, the Vancouver Sun and the Times-Colonist. It seems clear, in this instance, that they have seen where the failure and the breakdown have occurred.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) got up and spoke about how they are the champions of ordinary people and believe in the rights of ordinary people. Did they believe in the rights of Mr. Wayne Taiji of the recreation branch when he was told to hand in his keys almost within minutes of the speech by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) bringing down the draconian legislation, the dirty dozen of bills that were brought down at the very beginning of this Legislature? No, they surely didn't believe in that, the way people were almost dragged from their beds to have their uniforms and keys taken from them, the way their offices were locked up and changed with that draconian legislation. Don't tell me that this group of legislators in the government believes in the rights of people. That was the worst, the most ham-handed thing, and to expect people to trust the intent of a government today, to trust the Minister of Labour with the excessive powers that he has taken unto himself in the event that the items remaining in dispute cannot be resolved, the fact that a collective agreement continues except where the Minister of Labour decides to bury it....

You know, you could have been smart: you could at least have come down on the side of the union in one particular issue necessary for the startup of the buses. But there's not the slightest hint of any kind of conciliation or admission that you were wrong, wrong, wrong, as you have been from the start of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the government has been taking the wrong direction in all of these labour actions. It has put people out of work; it has closed store doors. It doesn't matter whether it is just the general unrest created by the government's dirty dozen of bills, by the austerity program or by the specific inconvenience and the threat to downtown stores. I know it has cost one merchant in Victoria around $5,000. I know of other stores in Vancouver where the impact has been more or less severe; they are small business people. In many instances they are people who started up new businesses because they lost their jobs. They have already had their jobs taken from them or privatized. People who are trying to create jobs, as I am trying to create jobs, directly in the private sector, only run into the opposition of government. This is not the kind of cooperation we need. Every one of these confrontations creates a more negative climate here in British Columbia. We have to build a positive climate here in British Columbia. We have to make a move towards cooperation. There could have been at least one signal that the government has learned something over the last several months since they won a very handy win in the last provincial election.

The minister has now confirmed what everyone predicted. The best test of a hypothesis, the thing that melds it and makes it into a theory, is when you can take a hypothesis and predict that some results are going to follow. Everyone was predicting that this was just a precursor to looking at more repressive legislation possibly taking away the right to strike from the entire public sector. That hypothesis has now been strengthened: it has now been confirmed. In fact, that is just about what the minister outlined today in his remarks, when he said such things as: it is time to look at strikes and lockouts in the public sector. He said that the time is right to focus on disputes in the public sector, with binding arbitration, indexing, etc., maybe as other solutions. He admitted that he didn't know the answers, but "we should start finding them." Yes, Mr. Speaker. But, I think, secretly the minister does think he knows the answers. Any kind of public hearing process that he outlines is probably going to have a predetermined result and will come in with the recommendation that the right to strike be seriously curtailed.

I say that we have never given a chance to the right to sit down as equals at a bargaining table. to work with really good, reliable economic information — information that might prove damaging to the management case or the union case, but a set of data in which both sides can have faith. That is the essence of what they have in Europe. That is why Austria, under a democratic government administration since the end of the Second World War, has had the lowest inflation, the lowest unemployment — probably the best economic indicators in the world, That's why West Germany has done very well. That's why countries like Sweden have tended to do very well. I'm sure that every time they make a mistake, you hear about it. One of the best-kept secrets today is the success of the Bob Hawke government in Australia. Why don't we hear anything about that Labour government in Australia'? It is because they are not messing up. They are doing well. Investor confidence is high because there is cooperation, not confrontation.

First of all, this government showed us a whole summer of inaction, procrastination and delay, for whatever reasons. Whether it was part of the agenda for the federal election to let some sort of labour thing fester, whatever reason they might have had, or whether they just wanted to set the stage for this ultimate thing, this public inquiry into public sector negotiations, probably with a predetermined result, which the minister could probably write on the back of a match folder right now. we had this whole summer of inertia and helplessness, supposedly, by the government. It was really

[ Page 4866 ]

part of a well-conceived plan, but not a very good plan — a very mischievous plan, a very harmful plan, not just for those individuals affected in the public sector but to all British Columbians who are affected by the insecurity that this government is breeding. That is why we have the worst economic performance in Canada at this time, when we should be having the best.

We now have this sudden response, this sudden reaction. I say that the people of this province deserve more than inaction, followed by reaction of a reactionary government. This could have been a very well thought out piece of legislation, even given all these circumstances, but it is one that I certainly can't accept totally. I cannot accept it, therefore, in principle. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague the Minister of Labour is certainly to be complimented, not only for bringing Bill 34 to this assembly, but even more so for his very frank and well-reasoned comments and the consultative concepts that he addressed during his remarks in second reading. Yes, the priority is certainly to get the buses rolling, and yes, thousands of bus users have experienced extreme difficulty, and yes, so have the merchants in these urban areas. Indeed, as he mentioned, the collective bargaining process has been permitted to take its full course, but it didn't work. How very correctly he emphasized the plight of the losers, those innocent third parties who have been assigned to the back burner. They are badly bruised, but it's certainly not of their own doing,

[4:15]

I was very impressed with his commitment to hear from the community at large what they think about work stoppages in the public sector and about ways to avoid them. He very candidly stated he didn't have all the answers. No one does. He raised two suggestions: binding arbitration and some type of formula indexing public sector wage levels to productivity. He welcomed other suggestions. I say good, because what all of our citizens are facing is something which is besetting every functioning democratic society throughout the whole world and which can be reduced to one most fundamental question: can two protagonists in a contemporary interdependent society continue to enjoy the luxury of exercising a right — or, indeed, is it becoming a privilege? — that may well exist between the two of them but only to the physical harm and economic detriment of their neighbour and neighbour's family, and without their neighbour and neighbour's family having any redress at all? I think surely the answer to that has to be no. Third party rights have to be heeded. They have to be regarded. They cannot be expected to assume the liability and the hurt — and in so many cases the majority of the liability and the hurt — without having any of the benefits that may flow to those who are directly involved in the dispute, be they management or labour.

There's another factor that so many people tend to forget even the consumer, because he's so conditioned that he's almost numb to it — and that is that the third party, the consumer, is hammered not only during the course of the work stoppage and dispute but also after it, because the increased costs and charges that result at the end of the conflict are usually passed directly on to him to bear. Now if that's not a double whammy, I'd like to know what is. If that's not an abuse of freedom, what is it? If people right across the democratic world are not fed up with this kind of thing, I wish they'd please let us know. Freedom of action between two sets of people is not a permit or a sanctuary absolute unto them, nor a mandate for them to be able to inflict harm upon others without redress. If the converse is the case, then surely the result would be that society would grind to a halt, or the third-party bystander would have to seek a continuing and greater presence in a role which should exist between three parties rather than two parties. Failing that, the bystander third party will seek increased access to his elected representatives, to act to curtail and lessen the harm and consequential damage that the bystander has unwillingly and unwittingly had to encounter in these kinds of situations.

I've said before to this House, and continue to think, that there's a strong and very valid analogy that may apply to certain management-labour situations. That is the analogy of the doctor-hospital relationship insofar as it may relate, say, to work stoppages. If there's a dispute between the hospital and the doctor, that does not give the doctor the licence or the right to walk away from the operating table and leave a patient on it. Why, he could face a civil claim for damages for breach of contract or for negligence. He could face criminal liability, indeed, under the Criminal Code of Canada. Fourthly, he would certainly face censure and sanction from his professional organization. But in that case, the bystander, the patient, the third party — they're all one and the same — has an opportunity for redress if he suffers damages,

My colleague the Minister of Labour stated, as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks — and I'm going to be quite short — that he didn't have all of the answers as to what the approaches should be; certainly neither do I. But I'd like to volunteer a couple of other suggestions that could perhaps go into the mix. What about the final-offer concept? Is that not worthy of additional consideration? There, as you know, Mr. Speaker, when a deadlock arises, each side would have the right to nominate a person on a selection committee, much like the procedures under arbitration. Those two would have the right to name a third party, and the final-offer selection committee, comprising, say, those three individuals, would have the power not to change offers but to accept what they deemed in all of the circumstances to be the final best offer, and without alteration, and it would essentially be imposed, and imposed through agreement.

Next, Mr. Speaker, would there not be value in an independent fact-finding council, one that would be neutral to the parties in the dispute and primarily act as a public microscope to look into all facets of any specific labour-management stoppage and furnish the general public with a set of impartial facts and statistics rather than the mightily subjectively weighted material that pours forth every time management and labour have prolonged stoppages? I'd say that the public want to know and have the right to know what the actual facts are, and greater independence and impartiality of fact presentation might be of great value to them in considering all of the circumstances creating the deadlock and, I think, indeed of better assistance to the parties concerned.

Also, maybe thought should be given to a single contract date for all public sector employees, posing the question: is whipsaw good, bad or indifferent, and does it assist settlement at the present time, or does it hamper settlement? Further, perhaps it would be deserved to explore the value of its becoming a term or a precondition of employment within public service that management or labour would be precluded from ordering or being involved in work stoppages contrary to the public interest.

[ Page 4867 ]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased that my colleague the Minister of Labour talked about productivity. I'd say that perhaps that is the ultimate summons. In exports Canada is probably facing the fiercest competition in its history, and if the wages and prices can't be related to productivity, Canada, in my view, can well and regretfully spiral into economic disaster.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is of good principle. I support it without qualification. I also support my colleague's remarks that we can and shall look for a better way, and I say that has to be done.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it is clear as we look at the historical events leading up to today that the one missing feature in the negotiations on the bus situation has been good faith bargaining on behalf of the employer.

The fundamental premise of collective bargaining is that both parties must enter into the negotiations in good faith. As was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, the Cameron report indicated that all of the ingredients were present in the MTOC management in terms of their attitude and the political interference that comes directly off the floor of this Legislature in terms of two individuals who are actively participating in the board. The corporation was interfered with, and the ideological crusade that this government has embarked upon since July 7, 1983, is continuing and is embodied in this piece of legislation. When you have political interference and people cannot sit down in good faith and bargain in a fashion that an agreement can be hammered out that both parties can live with, and which is a foundation of good industrial relations, then you have trouble. What we had instead was interference so that the management side was clearly just doing the bidding that was coming directly from the cabinet room.

In sections 5 and 8 of Bill 34 we see language which gives the power to bargain on behalf of the government to the cabinet; the cabinet will determine the collective agreements and will negotiate the contracts for the bus drivers. We saw this with the pulp dispute. We saw the initiation in Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act, that more and more the bargaining power for all of the public sector will rest with the cabinet, and particularly with the key and strongest ministers. That does not bode well for working people in this province, nor does it bode well for the economy, because, as was also pointed out by earlier speakers, British Columbia's economy is suffering. It is the worst performer on the Canadian scene. Our unemployment is second-highest to Newfoundland. We have in our own capital city the highest unemployment of any major city in Canada, and it is getting worse. What we have is a lack of investor confidence. The government wants to scapegoat working people. They've been trying to do it with public sector workers of all types, whether they're nurses, people in the direct employ of the provincial government, or whether they happen to drive buses.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that the bus drivers worked for over a year without a collective agreement. They did not have a contract. Their contract expired on March 31, 1983. From that point to nearly the present, those drivers, believe, exhibited a very responsible attitude, and they continued to work, hoping that they could seek a negotiated settlement to their situation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Strictly on their terms.

MR. HANSON: Not strictly on their terms at all.

Mr. Speaker, collective bargaining involves two parts. If you get a situation where one side refuses to have flexibility, as was the case on the employer's side as a result of government interference, you have what is called bulwerism, That's what we had in this dispute.

The government contrived this dispute. This is the great tragedy, because as all members of this House know, in this community here in Victoria, the capital city.... All members are aware — and we have mentioned this on numerous occasions — that the population of senior citizens is very high here; it's the highest in the province. We've heard other members talking about the difficulties experienced by senior citizens, among others, and I use them as an example of people who rely almost entirely on public transit. Their level of activity — their health or their ability to see physicians, to visit friends, to get out and shop, to live their normal life, to have social activity — was impaired as a result of this dispute. But the tragedy is that this dispute was a contrivance of the government. The government created this for their own political objective. That's the tragedy of it — that this government was so cynical that it allowed that kind of suffering and that kind of inconvenience to go on when they could have used the good offices of their government to facilitate a resolution.

Numerous calls were made from our side, and the Leader of the Opposition wrote the Premier, wrote the Minister of Labour, asking him to appoint — even in the latter days of the dispute — an industrial inquiry commissioner Yet it wasn't for some significant span of time until that was finally done. Where were the initial mediation and conciliation officers? Where were the Minister of Labour's offices, which should have been made available to the people last year?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND. They were. What's the matter with you?

MR. HANSON: Not at all. You refused to involve yourself in any way.

[4:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, what we really have is a program to extend management rights — to roll back....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Shouldn't management have some rights?

MR. HANSON: Certainly management should have some rights, but employees should have rights as well, and that is what this government fails to recognize. You have to have more of an equal partnership — a consultative process. You don't have a process that is stacked in such a fashion that we have bills before us where the cabinet now writes the collective agreements of public sector workers. What I think this government has found so threatening is that in the three-year period that they were out of office there was a historical development going on all through the western world, and that was the emergence of public sector unionism. In other words, people traditionally denied rights of collective bargaining gained them throughout the western world. That was threatening to this government because they always wanted to have a different approach to public sector workers.

[ Page 4868 ]

They always wanted to have them to have a lesser status. They always wanted to use the commitment of those employees to their work and their job — whether they were looking after mentally disabled people, driving a bus, or working in the Forest Service — and the public service as a hammer over their head to give them substandard living standards and remuneration. They never wanted to see public sector workers have the status that they have in Europe, in Scandinavia, West Germany and other more advanced industrial relations jurisdictions. They never wanted to see that kind of development where consultation would occur, where talent, energy and expertise would flow through the ranks of the public service so the best possible service could be delivered to the public. That was not the approach of this government, and that is well illustrated throughout Social Credit's history. The approach of Social Credit is always a master-servant relationship based on a political objective of the government — to seek only their own political objective, not to see the best service provided to the public.

Over the last few years we've seen erosion in public transit in this province. The burden of financing has been shifted more and more onto the public in a constant and regular way. Also, I think the public recognizes that the bus drivers of this province, whether they be located in the lower mainland or in other areas of the province, have a commitment to safety for the travelling public. They always do a good job. The senior citizens of my community remark to me on many occasions bow much the bus driver is a person in their social milieu. They are people who give advice. They rely on them to assist them in getting where they need to go, to give that extra bit of encouragement and help, and so on. The bus driver enjoys a certain status in our society, on much the same level as a fire-fighter or a police officer. Bus drivers enjoy public support.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we have that member in the corner who has been instrumental in developing this chaos that we are now here to try to unravel. That member applauds the bus drivers. Well, I'm pleased to see that he does that. But it must be noted that he has been told by his superiors that he's not to speak in this debate. It's my understanding that he will not be entering into this debate.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will be enough of that, hon. members. The House will come to order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the point I'm trying to make is that the dispute was a political contrivance of this government. It was left to simmer and boil without any assistance or the normal facilitating that is done through the Minister of Labour's office. It was done according to the little brochures that the Fraser Institute and others send out, which is the main bedtime reading of this government. It's the crisis management situation that we've seen develop so often under the direction of this Premier: create the problem, let it fester and boil and become a real serious problem, and then we get a telegram, or we hear on the local radio that we're coming back to solve a problem that was the design of this government.

Mr. Speaker, it's already been noted that approximately $20 million was saved as a result of this dispute in terms of wages not paid and equipment not maintained, and so on. The levies were still charged. The taxpayers made the pay merits, the municipalities were still strapped, but the service wasn't provided.

We all know what a hardship this has been. On this side of the House we're all here with great sorrow to see the loss of rights to people. We see that the government is assuming their role as the employer of all public sector workers, and we saw it recently in the pulp dispute. They are going to do collective bargaining, and they can establish the terms and conditions in the event of any kind of problem in the forest industry. So they have become a super negotiating team. We doubt their competence. We know they're not competent. The problem is that the economy is suffering as a result of it. The investors abroad see it. It's not apparent to them, but it is well known because the investment is going into other provinces. It's going into Manitoba, where some of it should be coming from other provinces here into British Columbia.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day. It is positive in the sense that the senior citizens and other people will be able to have their transit again, but if we had a government of competence, a government that wasn't inept and didn't have an ideological plan based on removing rights of workers, the bus service would never have been disrupted, because the drivers were there in good faith. The problem was that the bad faith vested clearly on those benches.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, before beginning what will be a very brief discussion in support of this bill, I would like to add my congratulations to those extended this morning by the Premier to the new Leader of the Opposition. I think we who are in politics must recognize the fact that it takes a great deal of courage to enter the political arena in the first place, but even more courage to take on the onerous duties of the leadership of any party — and I'm not going to add — particularly that party. I do congratulate the member, and I do congratulate also all of those members who did seek the leadership. I don't know whether it should be my condolences or congratulations to those who lost. The Leader of the Opposition, I'm sure, could better answer that question than I.

Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill is Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act. I would like to think that we could for once accept such a thing as written and as stated. This dispute is not between government benches and the opposition benches. The impression I've had after listening to the debate thus far is that it's a political battle between two separate political views in this province, and we have to acknowledge that these views are in fact diverse in many areas. But I think in this we do have a common interest, which is to find some way that is acceptable to both sides to this dispute, both the management and the union sides, to resolve the dispute and to maintain the collective bargaining system — at least the bargaining part of it — that has over many years served our province very well.

I am rather disappointed, even beginning with the Leader of the Opposition.... I hope that as time goes on he will become more the rational person he has been over the years and not take the automatic political stance, in effect saying: "Because we think unions support our party, unions are right and management is all wrong." I guess sometimes we could

[ Page 4869 ]

be accused of saying: "Because it is perceived that the management side supports our party more than the opposition, management is always right and union is always wrong." That is silly. Both sides are a party to this dispute, and I'm sure if blame is to be allocated there is blame lying on both sides. The purpose of this bill is to try to get away from assigning blame or responsibility and get back to a bargaining system, and hopefully a resolution can be brought about between the two sides bargaining in good faith without any recommendations or direction by the government or anyone else. That is the idea.

People may wonder why I, as the member for Yale-Lillooet, should be at all concerned about a transit dispute in Vancouver and in Victoria. I haven't had a single letter from my constituency regarding this dispute. Strangely enough, my constituents are not concerned at all, because in my riding of Yale-Lillooet there's no transit system and the people don't need it. Because it's not there, they have devised their own way of getting about. Their own personal transportation systems are designed around a lack of any public transit system. That is certainly not the case in greater Vancouver and Victoria, where a transit system is very important to many people. As has been said so many times, the elderly people, who perhaps don't have the financial means or physical ability to provide their own transportation in motor vehicles, have been hurt. There are many other groups that have as well. I'm sure many merchants have suffered this year because of the lack of their normal transit system.

What we have to do, really, is find a way of resolving such disputes without the parties tearing each other apart and at the same time inflicting serious harm upon people who are not party to the dispute at all. When we look back through history at the ways of resolving differences of opinion and finding out if someone's guilty or not or who is right or wrong, we Find that many systems have been used that have eventually become obsolete. I guess at one time if someone was accused of having done something that he said he didn't, you would take him and throw him into a big pot of boiling oil. If the normal sequence of events happened and he perished, then he was innocent; if he survived by some miracle he was guilty, so he would be put to death. That system was found to be not too workable, eventually, and was abandoned. Other ways, burning witches at the stake and having people walk ever hot coals, or whatever — some silly means of resolving disputes — didn't work. In more recent history a much more logical system of resolving disputes between parties was used quite extensively, especially in Europe and Great Britain. If two parties had a dispute they each took pistols, marched away from each other, turned around and tried to kill each other with the pistols. The one who lost, of course, was the one who was not correct, I guess, and the other guy carried on. Occasionally both were good shots and both perished, and occasionally both missed so there was no blame attached to either side. That system, too, went by the way, and I can imagine the furor that went around the country when it was decided that dueling should no longer be used as a way of deciding who was right and wrong in a dispute. People would say: "How can we possibly resolve our disputes now, when we don't have the right to shoot one another to determine who is right and who is wrong?"

In British Columbia quite a number of years ago — I was just a baby at the time — in the thirties, when the labour movement really began to gain a head of steam.... It was a very necessary movement at the time and has been for most of the years since. But I can remember, having been raised in mining communities of this province, the terrible confrontations that took place, the pitched battles. the picaroons and pickaxes that laid people's heads open and caused real physical suffering and damage and economic disasters in many communities. That was not the way to resolve disputes, and the labour movement gradually moved into a more logical and less physical way of resolving their disputes called collective bargaining and the right to strike and lock out. By and large that system has served us well over the years. In recent years we have seen, as our economy has suffered and as people have all been scrambling to take what they feel is their fair share of a declining pie, that some confrontational approaches have come back again, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Even the strike and the lockout are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Those disputes of the thirties in the mining and logging camps and in the manufacturing centres of British Columbia and Canada gave way to more reasoned people in the labour movement. But the strike and now the lockout is something that.... I don't know if it is appropriate or not. The Minister of Labour doesn't know if it's appropriate or not, but he wants to pull together those people who have any understanding whatsoever of or input into the resolution of labour disputes to find out if there is a better way. I don't know if there's a better way, and the Minister of Labour doesn't know if there's a better way. I don't think there's any one person in this province who can come up with a system that will work to help to resolve these disputes without the terrible financial, personal and social losses that fall to both sides to a dispute and also to those who are innocent and caught in the middle.

[4:45]

I mentioned the dueling system of resolving disputes a few moments ago. In a confrontation such as the transit dispute, when two parties are in effect shooting each other and trying to cause financial harm to each other in order to resolve a dispute, it is like having the innocent parties standing between the two, taking all the bullets themselves and being hurt more than the combatants themselves. Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse and support the attempts of the Minister of Labour — and he will be following through separate from this bill and this dispute before us now — to find out if there is another way. Quite frankly I hope that as years go by we will have the same view of the strike and the lockout as a way of resolving disputes as we today have of the pistol duel as a method of resolving disputes.

This bill is very straightforward. It does provide that if perchance — and let's pray that it doesn't happen — the two parties cannot resolve the dispute the minister can take a part and help to bring about a collective agreement that is satisfactory to both sides. In fact, what we have are two sides who seriously and conscientiously think that they are right and that the other side is wrong. They have come to the position where each is unyielding, and something has to give. But surely we can come up with a resolution to this serious dispute without further damage to those people who really do need the service that is provided,

I have a great admiration for those guys who drive those big buses around the traffic in these cities. When I go to Vancouver I'm very nervous. I get in my car and I head straight for the hotel I'm going to. I get to my hotel, I park my car; and I don't want anything to do with driving in that traffic. When I see these guys herding these monstrous buses in and out of that traffic like I wish I could drive a bicycle, I

[ Page 4870 ]

have nothing but admiration for them. Indeed, it must be a frustrating and challenging business to be given drivers like myself to deal with on those roads. I wish them well in the resolution of this dispute, but they and management must both realize that each have responsibilities. They are somewhat diverse. They have to talk and bargain with each other in good faith. If they don't, and if this collective bargaining system which we have and which has worked so well continuously leads to strikes and lockouts — and it doesn't matter which it is, the result is the same — then I think that that in itself is ample proof that somehow the system doesn't work, and there must be another and better way.

We are gaining evidence year by year that in fact the system has some failings. Perhaps it was appropriate 10 or 20 years ago. Perhaps it needs some adjustment, The old saying, "If something works, don't fix it," is quite true. The system that has worked for years didn't require overhauling or fixing, but now it seems to be breaking down. As it appears to be grinding to a halt, I think the total system requires some preventive maintenance. I hope the Minister of Labour can gain the collective wisdom. of all those who have been and will be involved in the labour-management situation in British Columbia and help them find a better way, because I think there must be.

British Columbia is not as wealthy a province as it once was in terms of its ability to compete in the international marketplace. Not only does the confrontational approach in labour-management relations in the public and private sectors damage our reputation as traders; it also adds greatly to the cost of doing business for both sides — employees and management. We don't have that leeway and freeboard any longer. We must learn to resolve our disputes and do it together in a cooperative manner. Not only will it help us in our economy and our employment in British Columbia, but I'm sure it will also help everyone lead a much happier life, knowing when you go to work that that person, because he happens to be the boss or because he happens to be the employee, is not an enemy; he can be a friend. You are both working for the same objective.

With those few brief remarks, I would hope and pray that this bill, Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, will indeed be a way of assisting the two parties to a collective agreement which they can reach between themselves. I intend to fully support it. I would hope that other members of the House would do likewise.

MRS. DAILLY: I rise to take my place in this debate and to give my reasons to this House as to why I have decided not to support this bill. Before I get on to the basic reasons for my non-support, I would like to react to some of the comments made today in this debate — not all of them, Mr. Speaker, but the few that remain in my mind as worthy of some reply.

The last speaker, the Minister of Forests, gave a nice lecture to the House on why should we always be fighting, let's have conciliation, referring back to the old days of dueling, etc. It was a somewhat rambling speech. However, he was making his point. I want to say to that minister that he is a member of the cabinet, of the government, which is basically the employer in this situation. No matter how you cut it, it comes back to the government, which has been working and calling the shots in this whole mess, this area of having no bus transportation. They are responsible. I would have hoped that that minister would have brought to his cabinet colleagues this conciliation talk, which he is free with here in this Legislature. It's quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that we're here today having to debate this kind of bill shows that that minister has failed. If he ever attempted to bring about conciliation, I would not know. It has shown that this government has failed grievously in its attempt to handle the bus lockout.

I found it also interesting to hear the words of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the former Liberal. He and I came to the Legislature in the same year and at that time he was sitting with the Liberals. As he spoke today, I couldn't help but think how well suited he is to those new conservative Social Credit benches, I found the statements he made in reference to this bill somewhat frightening. If I recall correctly, the minister said.... I consider it frightening, because I believe that what he, as a senior minister, is saying is an expression of the cabinet. He said that they — I gather he was referring to the union and perhaps to the management in some degree — have been enjoying the luxury of their confrontation for too long. Right there we have a very strange interpretation of what happens between management and labour when a strike or lockout takes place. He called it a luxury. In other words, that minister is saying to the people on this floor this afternoon that some of those rights to free collective bargaining, which have been fought for down through many years, not only by unions but by obviously enlightened management in some areas who were able to cooperate, and enlightened governments.... He is saying that those are really luxuries. In other words, that minister is trying to point out to us that he and his government no longer consider those basic rights anything but luxuries. I find that very frightening. I think that kind of thinking is what is causing the problem with the Social Credit government and their handling of the labour force in British Columbia.

He went on to say that many of the things which we have taken to be our rights — the citizens of British Columbia — are really privileges. I'd like to deal with that, because that too is most frightening. For example, I have heard the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) make the same statement about medicare. I have heard him say that the right to health care in this province is not a right, it's just a privilege. In other words, if a government sees fit to grant you the privilege of basic health care.... If a government sees fit to grant you the privilege of free collective bargaining rights, good, but remember that it is not really a right. That is a very basic, fundamental difference between that side of the House and this side. We say that those rights to health care are rights, not privileges. We say that those rights which have been fought for by the trade union movement over the years are their basic rights. They should not be given to a government to take away when they so desire.

That's the situation that we find ourselves in in the province of British Columbia today. We have a government that is basically not committed to those rights. I was particularly concerned about this strike, Mr. Speaker — the lockout; I must refer to it as a lockout, which it was originally. I was particularly concerned that the people in the area of Burnaby North, which I represent — the people who could least afford the lack of transportation — were the ones who were being called upon to suffer once again. The people in Burnaby North who had the most difficulty during the strike — the senior citizens, the disabled, the students and those who cannot afford ever to own their own cars because their financial level would not give them the opportunity to own a car; and the many unemployed, of course, would fit

[ Page 4871 ]

into that.... Now it's interesting when you think of those groups of people, because they are the ones who suffered.

I, like many MLAs, I'm sure, who come from constituencies in the urban areas, would pick people up during the strike. I heard some pretty sad stories about what not being able to get a bus had done to their particular lives. I don't need to elaborate, because I know many people in this Legislature know what a serious effect it did have on the lives of these people. Just one particular example — the case of a 90 year-old woman who was attempting to go across to a shopping mall to carry her groceries home. She had always before, of course, naturally, taken the bus. She mustn't have known anyone. She must have lived alone. It took an 86-year old man to try to help her to get home, because the poor woman couldn't make it. We could all go on with many of those stories,

I'm bringing this up to you because, if you consider it, those people are basically voiceless. They are not the people who grab the government's attention as being powerful and influential in helping to keep a government elected. I couldn't help thinking that if this bus lockout had affected most of the people who are influential in keeping Social Credit in office, particularly many of those who have the influence and money to keep them in office, it would have ceased many months ago. It's obvious that this Social Credit government had no concern for the "ordinary people."

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: It's true. If you had concern for the senior citizens, for the disabled, for the people of low income, you would have done something earlier.

When people ask why we are voting against it.... You know, the beautiful thing about this is that in voting against this bill I know that many of the people who suffered out there are with us, believe it or not. Many of them said to me when they knew that this session had been called: "We can guess what the government wants to do. They're going to order them back to work. They're going to take this opportunity to come out with a heavy stick to the unions." I have never seen a situation before in a labour-management strike where there was so much support for the union — never before. I really believe that the government has indulged in overkill on this one. They actually believed that they could whip up a real anti-union stance in this particular situation. Why else would they have stayed all these months without making a solid move for something to happen? They had it within their power to do it and yet they did not move.

[5:00]

It goes even further than that. When they had a report commissioned, as was referred to this morning by the Leader of the Opposition — the Cameron report .... When it was brought forward, the interesting thing is that for some reason or other the government did not want to release this report which was commissioned to look into the Crown-owned Metro Transit Operating Company. Isn't it interesting what the minister in charge — the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is also in charge of rapid transit for the government — said about the report. "Mrs. McCarthy stated: 'It's just a smokescreen.' She said she had not read the report, but she understands that it is not well prepared and can't be taken seriously. As far as management-union relationships are concerned, I...." She went on to praise how great the efficiencies were that were put in the system, As only that minister can do, she went on and on and on.

The interesting thing is, what did that report say? Well, we know already. Excerpts from it were read to us by the Leader of the Opposition, and a section which I found unbelievable was that a government could receive a report on a Crown company and not take action when it made certain strong recommendations. If I recall, a section in this report referred to the adversarial scene that was developing in that corporation. If I can recall, because I can't find the actual line here, they said or implied that if something wasn't done there would be serious consequences. Can you imagine? The minister responsible for transit received a report — not only she; the cabinet did — warning them that a serious situation could develop in that Crown-operated transit system. A serious situation could develop because there was an adversarial environment being built up which could lead to nothing but trouble. And yet what does the Minister of Human Resources, who is in charge of rapid transit, say? Let me repeat: "I haven't read the report." The minister who is in charge of rapid transit for B.C. at this time had not read the report, when it was even in the hands of reporters at that time. She said she understood it was not well prepared and could not be taken seriously. What irresponsibility from a minister in charge of transit! She brushes off the fact that there is a major report coming out which seriously condemns what's going on in the transit system, saying: "It's ill prepared and can't be taken seriously." It's interesting, you know, that in one statement she says she hasn't read it, and in the next statement says it's not well prepared and can't be taken seriously.

Mr. Speaker, if that report had said that everything was beautiful, that management was great in Metro Transit, that it was all the problem of the union and management should keep going the way they are with no changes, I wonder what the minister would have done then. I don't think we would have had this kind of statement. We would have seen the immediate release of that report if it had favoured management. But once again we have this government that, for their own purposes, deliberately withholds a report that would not help their cause. As I said earlier, I consider that utterly irresponsible. But even more serious, the problem is that because the government ignored the recommendations of this report which predicted development of an adversarial scene, they are responsible for what happened when we had the final lockout.

They sat back, month upon month, and did absolutely nothing. One can only ask why. That's when one gets really concerned about what kind of government we have in British Columbia, with so little concern for senior citizens, the people on fixed incomes and the students of this province that they sat still and did nothing, and let the people of this province suffer, the people who needed the transit.

I'm not the only one who says this. That has become clear. Most of the public is seeing through this. The major editorials in the Sun and the Province have agreed. They said Victoria's lack of interest — this was before the strike — in what's going on was about to unleash its ultimate weapon. "The government is prepared to let the public suffer through a busless summer in order to impose its will on the bus drivers." This was a prediction in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun, and that's what happened. The Sun goes on to say: "In an economic climate that can be described at best as extremely fragile, it would be madness to keep workers from their jobs or shoppers from the stores in order to save a few

[ Page 4872 ]

more dollars on the operation of a transit system that has already cut to the bone."

People can see through this government. They've become so arrogant and stale after their years in government that they can't even do a thing like this and put up a proper screen. The tragedy is that they're still government, and they did it. They let the people of this province suffer through three bad months. They thought: "Won't it be nice; when we're ready and everybody's mad at the unions, we'll call the House in and clobber them. Then if the NDP happens to vote against the bill, won't that be great." Fortunately for the NDP, we have principles. Our principles are strong. Even though there are people out there who may say, "Imagine the NDP doing that," we know there are enough people in the province who know that we vote against this bill on principle. It's a callous, devious government that brought in this bill and for three months let the people suffer. They have brought in a bill that in the long run could still destroy the collective bargaining rights of a union, and we cannot support it.

Another thing that concerns me, and I would like the minister when he closes this debate to reply to us on this.... Maybe somebody else brought this up, I can't quite remember, but I have been told, and I'd like the minister to react to it, that the union asked for an industrial inquiry commission quite a few weeks ago, and it was refused by the government. I think that Minister of Labour who brings in this bill has a responsibility to explain not only to the members of the opposition here but to the people who suffered through this strike why they did not bring in an industrial inquiry commission weeks ago. Don't blame the union. My sources tell me that the union wanted one, and had agreed to have one, and for some reason or other....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I never asked you.

I consider that just another sort of answer that we could put down in black and white, which is probably correct. I therefore hope the minister will tell us if the request for the industrial inquiry commission went before the proper authorities, if not through him. I understand they asked for it. The minister may be the final authority, but maybe they were stopped at the level of the management of the Metro Transit, and that's what I want to know. If you don't know, then you're not doing your job as a minister. I would like the minister to check into that and to talk to us about that when he closes his speech, because that is very important. I cannot see the union making the statement publicly, over the airwaves, at this particular crucial, sensitive time, if they were not prepared to back it up. I ask the minister to explain to us why an industrial inquiry commission was not put into force many months ago.

When I call this government callous, we just have to look at what has been happening. We've already bad this mentioned, but I think it bears repeating: how much money has this government saved? This government is so obsessed with the so-called bottom line. In wages and benefits they saved $25.7 million; fuel and hydro, $3.5 million; subtotal: $29.2 million, less the fare box revenue lost, which amounts to $10 million. It's a net gain for the government of $19.2 million, but let me remind you that that gain was made on the backs of the ordinary people of this province — not on the backs of the cabinet ministers or the MLAs, all of us, who presumably drive cars, but on the backs of the people who suffered the most, like the senior citizens, those on fixed incomes, the unemployed and the students. It is indeed a callous government. There was more concern....

Interjection.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: Well, the facts speak for themselves. This government allowed.... I should finish my sentence: there was more concern about saving money and union-bashing than there was about the ordinary people of British Columbia. The facts are there. You could have done something about it right from the beginning when that report came down informing the cabinet ministers that the situation as far as the Crown corporation went was indeed serious, and that the adversarial system was being built up in the province of British Columbia, That is a part that I find almost reprehensible: to think that such a report would be available to the government and the government would sit back and do nothing. I can't help wondering if the Social Credit back-benchers were given copies of that report. I should certainly hope so, because I can't see some of them sitting back and not saying: "Hey, if this is true, if we've got a mess brewing there, let's do everything we can to stop it." But instead what do you get? You get the arrogance of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who, above all people, in charge of Human Resources for this province, should be aware of the people who are in need, and they were the ones who were going to suffer most. It's most interesting, that she has this two-pronged duty: to do everything she can in her portfolio to assist those in great need in our province, and, on the other hand, to be given the opportunity to ran this transit system.

I find it most interesting that during all of this strike most of the time the minister responsible had very little to say. But she was out in full, living colour to do a show with one of the local radio stations to explain how well the new rapid transit system was going. She was running around in a hardhat and showing off the new rapid transit system.. Yes, it was very interesting. But in the middle of this situation, when people were sitting at home who needed to get out, the minister is running around showing off this fantastic billion-dollar rapid transit system. I can tell you, the contrast made one really think. Again, it shows that this government is always captured with the big projects, the very showy things. The 86-year-old people who have to help the 90-year-olds get their groceries during a strike aren't the big showy, splashy thing, but they're the people who have worked and paid their taxes in this country and who shouldn't have to end their senior years being denied the right to proper transportation for three months.

[5:15]

I can get fairly worked up about this issue because this is one issue that shows a tremendous difference philosophically between the Social Credit and the NDP. I am not saying that only we in our party have a priority on compassion and feeling. I know that many people in the Social Credit benches have those feelings, but somehow or other the philosophy you espouse, when it deals with unions, finances or the economy, is not permitting the people who need help the most to receive it.

I recently heard someone make a statement which I thought was very true. They said that the problem with the United States right now is that yes, there are a lot of people

[ Page 4873 ]

making a lot of money, and yes, the economy seems good, but the interesting thing is that it has been done with the rich on the backs of the poor. I think we should think about that — the rich on the backs of the poor. We've always had that to some degree, but we were beginning to get away from it, and the NDP is committed to changing that.

We're not as obsessed as the Social Credit are with constantly talking about getting governments off the backs of the people — which means that you no longer have car-testing or child restraints. We're not that obsessed. What we are obsessed with is bringing about equality and justice for all, and the kind of bill presented to us today is not a bill that I could possibly support in any way, because it is inequitable, it is not bringing about justice, it is not maintaining the rights of trade unions in this province, and it will not solve the problems.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your attention, and I'll now take my seat.

MR. R. FRASER: I intend to do what I usually do: make a very short and succinct speech to let those on the other side, and indeed those on our own side, get a clear understanding of exactly what I think and how I feel. I will start by telling or reminding you all that I have been a member of a union, that I have worked for large businesses and for small businesses, and that I have been on the management side. So I have some experience with all those aspects of labour-management relations that we talk about in this Legislative Assembly. I would also remind you that the company I am now with is organized by the teamsters' union, and that in fact when they offered a contract to me they vested all the management rights completely in management; that was their suggestion. I can remind all of you that the relationship we have with our employees who are unionized is very good, and that I support the concept of collective bargaining and union membership. I would never deny anybody the right to join a union at any time and believe that unions are here for a very long time, if not absolutely forever, because with large groups of people — and indeed sometimes with small — it is much easier for everybody to agree on working conditions and levels of remuneration if you're working with collective groups. So that is my background.

I would also agree with those who suggest that it's too bad the government had to intervene, because it's my perception that every group should come to the realization that indeed they have an obligation to solve their own problems. Whenever they have a will to do that, they in fact can do it. The only problem with this particular circumstance is that there is one group of people supplying the labour and one group of people hiring. If there were more than one company in the transit business and there was a dispute in one company and not in the other, I would be quite happy to let the company who could not get along with its employees, or the employees who could not get along with their company, fail absolutely and completely, leaving the market open to those who could in fact work together and supply the services in accordance with their wish to work and to supply the buyers and the clients. But in this circumstance that doesn't prevail; in fact, we have a single, monopolistic circumstance which has affected everybody in the province whether or not they ride the bus.

Certainly the experience of many who have vehicles in the lower mainland or in the Victoria area is that the traffic congestion even costs money because it takes longer to go from A to B. So it costs all of us money for this dispute. I share the opinion of the Premier and the Minister of Labour that it was important to let the collective bargaining process go to the absolute end before intervening. I would have wished — I still do wish — that the parties had gotten together; it would have been much better, in my view, if we had not had to become involved at all.

The fact is, of course, that we have not had a long history of dealing with monopolistic circumstances of this nature. But what we are beginning to recognize is that the traditional strike-lockout circumstance does not work, in these situations and something really has to be done- I recognize, as Mr. King said in one of his speeches earlier in this very chamber, that you cannot prevent people from withdrawing their services on an individual basis. I would not discourage them from doing so, providing they recognize the individual consequences of doing that and accept the responsibility for their own action.

I continue to pound the theme that in fact individual responsibility and self-reliance is what we have to make everybody understand. We very clearly have to get back to the day when we can solve our own problems without requiring governments to step in and solve problems in the public interest.

We are learning day by day that traditional attitudes are changing. With the recognition of the large number of women working in the community we are finding that traditional questions to women, such as, "Can you type?" are no longer being asked unless every applicant for the job is asked the same question. So the roles of traditional employment are disappearing. It wouldn't surprise me if everybody will have to type soon so they can use the new modern computers that are in everybody's office and in fact on everybody's desk.

What we recognize, as any barrister would tell you, is that if you can't settle before you get to the courtroom, you've failed. I suggest to you that both parties in this circumstance have failed. I don't care why they failed. All I know is that they did and that the government had to do something, and I support that action. I regret that, but that's what happened. I will support the bill completely.

MR. COCKE Mr. Speaker, don't you find it passing strange? We've been debating this bill since eleven o'clock this morning. The Minister of Labour has spoken; the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has spoken; the minister responsible for transit has been here for question period and one or two other flights in and out of the chamber; and the member for Surrey (Mr Reid), who is the chairman of the board of the MTOC, hasn't said a word except from his seat. It strikes me that those members who are privy to what has been going on are too embarrassed to speak. Other ministers who probably are equally privy, but certainly not necessarily so privy in the public's eye to what's been going on, have spoken. I predict that the Premier will speak and give one of his flights of fancy.

Mr Speaker, the employer sits in this chamber. The MTOC is a wholly controlled Crown corporation of the government. Not only is their chairman appointed, but their entire board of directors is appointed. They are at the mercy of the government. "Do what we tell you or your directorship will be very quickly erased by cabinet minute." So we are actually talking to the employer.

[ Page 4874 ]

Then the employer comes into this chamber and says to us: "Bless this piece of legislation, which has become necessary because the labour relations negotiations are not working." Well, if they're not working, I ask the world: who's the culprit? The culprit sits across the floor in this chamber. All of those flights of fancy that we've heard, all of those high-minded statements about the fact that we believe in collective bargaining, are just a crock. And every one of you knows it. If it isn't, Mr. Speaker, then why haven't the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the member for Surrey been on their feet giving some explanation of what's been going on?

All I know is what's before me. I know, for example, that on February 24, almost a year.... The collective agreement between Metro Transit and the union was finished on March 31, 1983. On February 24, 1984, just a month less than a year later — and it's shameful that something couldn't have happened in the interim — the unstrike began. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said that that was one of the things that made the public recognize how responsible the drivers were, and that has to be restated.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE; The real strike never did start, You locked them out. And you did that on June 15, 1984.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense. Then why hasn't he been on his feet? He's mouthy when he's in his chair, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't say very much if I were he, either, after having read that report.

[5:30]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, the report on the labour relations, and the running of that corporation. I think I'd sit in my seat too. I think I'd be embarrassed. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that he's even in the chamber. He has at least had the grace, if you want to call it that, to sit in the chamber most of the time. But the minister responsible has hardly been here. "The back of my hand to this whole thing," she says. That minister represents a constituency in Vancouver with a great many people who have been paralyzed by this lockout.

I believe that this could have been resolved had the government wanted to resolve it. They have been so close so often that the government puts in the oar and says: "Hey, slow down. In the first place, it wouldn't be bad during this time of restraint to save $19.2 million net, or thereabouts, and possibly even more. Beyond that, we have to look tough and show that we're hard people to deal with." We listened, during the last few sittings of this Legislature, to some of the remarks from the member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) because the thing was beginning to heat up at that time. My interpretation of what he was saying was that as far as he was concerned union busting was the way to go. Mr. Speaker, it's not the way to go. Hasn't this government done enough to hurt our economy? Hasn't the government done enough to embarrass the province? I guess they don't think so. Here we are back in Victoria discussing something that should never have been brought to this Legislature had it not been for a government that through their principles refused to negotiate. They control it completely.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When they had a report condemning the whole idea of the running of the MTOC, and when they had the audacity to say that the report wasn't worth reading or circulating, that was just something else again. The recommendations are from a person who was commissioned by the very board that rejected the ideas they didn't like.

MR. REID: That's not correct.

MR. COCKE: Oh, the board was not the one that commissioned this report?

MR. REID: Never saw it.

MR. COCKE: "The terms of reference were developed by myself and forwarded to the board of MTOC for review and approval. Upon receiving approval, it was decided that initially the review of the most active organizations would be appropriate." The three chosen were B.C. Transit, MTOC and Coastal Bus Lines.

Mr. Speaker, who's right? The report is not right; he doesn't like the contents, The fact of the matter is that it was commissioned, and he was the chairman of the group that commissioned it. No wonder he is not up speaking. No wonder he is not on his feet. He sits in his chair, not giving anything to Hansard that may be there in perpetuity — and that's not a brand of scotch. This was commissioned by the board. Subsequently a series of questions were developed for the purpose of determining in general terms.... Then it goes into all the areas: technical skills, management skills, the problems perceived, whether the perceived problems are in fact the ones that are needed to be dealt with, and so on and so forth. "While management can change its performance through edict, the employees cannot be coerced into cooperation." That's part of the end of this first part of the report. In any event....

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

MR. COCKE: It's been tabled. It was tabled this morning, to your embarrassment. I was glad that you requested the tabling of this report, because it tells us all we want to know, It tells us that the government has interfered once too often. Now they're caught with their fingers in the pie, with that poor little second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) trying to deny that this report was commissioned by his own board. Obviously when it got in the hand; of the minister and government members, they said: "Holy smokes, we can't let this go out and be public. We can't even react to it. Do you know what it does? It's critical of us." We mustn't lose sight of the fact that they've been calling the shot from the outset.

The second member for Surrey — what does he know about running a transit corporation? The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — what does she know about it? And their people on the board may or may not know something about it, but their hands are tied. Management's hands are tied, because it's the will of this government that is going to make the decision as to where we go in negotiations and where to go in terms of the running of that corporation. They've goofed it. Now we come in here — the government having totally goofed their responsibility — and we're asked to send them

[ Page 4875 ]

back to work. That's an easy way out, isn't it? They should never have been out of work in the first place. They were totally responsible. They were patient beyond words. Remember that for some time the bus drivers were wearing civilian clothes and calling it a non-strike. They were responsible.

The government, through its agency, was quite irresponsible. I believe that that irresponsibility was carried through the messenger — the messenger who just denied having any responsibility for this report. He was the messenger. He went and told that board what the government wanted that board to hear.

Where are we as a result of all of this? We get in here with this piece of paper, which the Lieutenant-Governor is probably getting nervous about because he's going to have to sign it finally. I don't know whether he's been listening to the arguments, but I'm sure I would be nervous about it. The Premier's nervous about it. He's sitting in his seat now, so obviously he's going to speak. He's nervous about it because it is their responsibility totally and completely. I say that the way this has happened, the way it's been run and now us called in here to pass this legislation is just a bit much.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) said that the government has been patient. How were they patient? They just ignored it. They let it all happen they made it happen. It's part — and I'm convinced of this — of a plan to denigrate labour unions, to place them in a position of public disapproval. In my view the theory is that if you get enough people angry by denying them rides, by denying them access to public transport, that will bode well for you with your future plans for labour relations in this province. Those plans, to some extent, were made just a little bit more relevant this morning when the minister said he is going to have public hearings. His ministry is going to have public hearings around the whole question of labour relations in the public service.

The minister has available in this Legislature a committee on labour — a House committee, a standing committee — that can be empowered to move around the province. It can go from place to place to hear evidence and testimony and have both sides represented at the table accepting that testimony. Did he decide to go that route? No. Let the Legislature be darned. Let the members of this Legislature wallow around in the dark as much as possible. "I want to take you down the road that I have decided," is what he thought, Mr. Speaker. He feels, as his colleagues must do, that part of the way to that objective is to disenchant as many people as possible with organized labour. One of the ways you disenchant them is to have this kind of dispute, a dispute that can only be resolved by the Legislature.

Was there any evidence at all that there was any possibility of a resolution to this dispute? If it was ever made clear to me, it was made clear to me by what happened last night. As I understand it, the negotiators from both sides went back yesterday afternoon at 3 o'clock to negotiate the last three or four outstanding problems that they had between them — based on my understanding of some things that came out of the report of the commissioner. I heard the minister quoted on the radio before those negotiations were nicely started, saying: "We were meeting here today anyway." What would we have been meeting about had they resolved the dispute?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I see. We'd have been meeting anyway. Okay. They could have called it off. But, anyway, that's neither here nor there. We're all here, quite prepared to come in and adjourn. I presume that would be the thing to do — or recess.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How long have you been here?

[5:45]

MR, COCKE: Longer than you. In your opinion, too long.

But, Mr. Speaker, what happened as a result of them getting together last night? Zilch. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that management were even more reluctant than they had been before. They get their marching orders and they go in, and that's the way they are.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't have to listen to the news. All I had to do was learn to read. I did and you should. Then you should read a report like this, which is a condemnation of you and every one of your colleagues over there. It is a condemnation. Suddenly a person, who, in the government's mind, is worthy of doing a report on the whole transit situation does one, and they say that it's not worthy. "McCarthy said she had not read the report." This is the minister responsible, I'm quoting the paper: "She has not read the report but understands...." Note that she hasn't read it; it's only nine pages long. but she hasn't taken the time to read it. Yet she is the minister responsible, for crying out loud.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm not talking about Joe's report, I'm talking about the report from Cameron — the one that none of you have read, you erudite bunch.

Anyway, Mr, Speaker, it says: "She has not read the report but understands it's not well prepared and can't be taken seriously." How the blazes do you make that kind of a value judgment unless you've read it? There's something seriously wrong in the state — I was going to say Denmark, but how about the province of B.C.? — when we've got ministers charged with responsibility.... We've got a board that directs a report, the report comes down and the report is ignored by the minister because she's been told that it can't be taken seriously. "As far as management and union relationships are concerned, I think that management has gone a long way to put efficiencies into the system. It's a good system, and it will even be better when everyone gets back to work." What an irrelevant, fatuous statement for a minister of the Crown to make. It's irrelevant and it's something that we wouldn't expect from a government member.

Out of all this, and all the things that have been going on for these months and months and months, we wind up here with the employer telling us that we've got the right to drive them back to work. Let me tell you this: the structure should have been built in such a way that government would never be placed in a position like this unless they could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything was being done that could be done to resolve the matter. They haven't even touched the

[ Page 4876 ]

surface. They've hardly sat at the bargaining table. They've just sat back on their haunches and let it all happen.

We're not talking about a bunch of people out there who aren't well liked and well trusted. We trust these people with our lives. These responsible people tried everything in their power, in my opinion, to resolve this matter, and they couldn't resolve it because they met with a hostile group of negotiators who were probably not hostile of their own accord but because of who gave them the direction. It was that government that gave them the direction, that government that rum the show. Anybody who knows that government knows that they run everything they get their greasy little hands on. They don't let anything get out there beyond their total control.

MR. HOWARD: And they run it badly too.

MR. COCKE: They've shown us that over and over again.

I urge the government members to sit down, regardless of what happens in here tonight.... We know what the blazes is going to happen; it always happens. When they have an overwhelming majority, that's the way it goes. All right. But I urge the government members to read a document that was tabled in this House today, and read it thoroughly. If I had the time I'd read it to you. It is a document that should be read. The member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), who claims no part in it, hasn't read it, seen it or heard of it, and yet he is the chairman of the board that commissioned it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. He is the chairman of the board that commissioned this document. Mind you, he didn't know about it until we reminded him that part of the documentation was his involvement.

But it all gets back to the fact that it had to be the will of this outfit to have things go the way they've gone, because had they not had that will we wouldn't have had the series of events happen as they did. Governments and government agencies, of all people, should be the ones who are bending over backwards to see that the negotiating process works. I've listened to many of them today talk about negotiations and labour relations and say that the negotiation process should work. What irony! A government that has obviously wanted everything to take the shape that it has has succeeded in bringing about this disastrous situation.

I think that labour-management negotiations could have worked here, even if they had turned the corporation loose. But I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker, beyond anything else that's going to assist this corporation, I believe there are two things that should happen immediately. The minister responsible is going to be speaking soon. I hope he will make the following recommendations to his colleagues. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) should be relieved of her responsibility for transit. She has proved to be totally incapable and totally unreliable with respect to this whole question. And the member for Surrey should be relieved of his responsibility. I think that his participation here has not helped; it's hindered. He's been the messenger, and I don't believe that he should be part of this corporation at all. Why is it necessary to have a back-bencher as chairman of the board, and a government minister also the responsible minister for a Crown corporation? It just doesn't make sense.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we've allowed a lot of latitude on this bill, but the bill is in the hands of the Minister of Labour, and that's where it should remain.

MR. COCKE: I'm just giving some advice to the government, Mr. Speaker. I think that my advice may be listened to — probably 100 years from now — by that gang.

In any event, it's my responsibility to say what I think on behalf of the people of New Westminster. The people of New Westminster have been every bit as much affected by this, proportionately, as any other group of people in the lower mainland.

The other day I talked to a young woman who has ridden her bike to Vancouver from New Westminster every day because there's no transit. You know what she said? She said: "I'll continue to damn well ride on my bike all winter, because I believe in the cause of those people who have been locked out."

AN HON. MEMBER: Locked out! They walked out!

MR. COCKE: They're not locked out? I see. That's the most imaginative thing I've ever heard. They were locked out, Mr, Member, weren't they?

HON. MR. BRUMMET They went on strike.

MR. COCKE: They went on strike, the member for the deep north says. Listen, at Fort Nelson it's getting cold. Maybe you should run up there and chill your blood a little bit, because you're dead wrong on that. They were locked out.

Mr. Speaker, the whole thing was a plot by the government to do everything they possibly could to make the public just a little bit more hospitable to some repressive labour legislation in the public service that they expect to bring in ultimately.

I not only don't support this bill, I reject it in every way that I could possibly reject anything. It's a bad piece of legislation by a government that connived the situation that we are now facing. How could anybody, under those circumstances, support this piece of legislation? That was the whole objective of what they did in the first place. No, Mr. Speaker, not for me.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this bill, I want to make it very clear, particularly after listening to the last speaker and — if not in the House, listening on the speaker in my office while I had other appointments — to the speakers who took their place today from the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, what the bill is intended to do, why this bill was introduced at this time and why this government feels it is important not to take sides with the MTOC or the union representing the drivers but to try to find a basis to restore service to areas that have been denied service during this dispute and to provide an opportunity for resolution, hopefully by the parties but with the service restored, and that rather than fall into the trap, as the New Democratic Party has traditionally done — and that is to get involved in the politics of disputes, take sides in disputes, not recognizing that the people that work for MTOC, the management, the people that work there as well as the bus drivers are all public servants.... They work for the people of British Columbia. They are contracted on

[ Page 4877 ]

two different sides to provide the management and the actual provision of the service. Between them, in carrying out their responsibilities, they are sometimes each meeting their mandate and their commitment to both the taxpayers and the users, and not just provincial taxpayers, because in this case the service is a combination of subsidy by the municipalities who are represented on the board and the government of British Columbia, which makes a commitment from the provincial tax base to provide a service in which cost recovery from the fare box in its totality is not possible.

[6:00]

I was looking forward to this debate, not just because I want to see the bus service restored, not just because I want to see the people working, but because I want to see the change in the New Democratic Party, with the change of leadership that would be reflected in this Legislature, because I was led to believe — I guess wrongly — that it would be a whole new age of research, rational debate and a move towards trying to resolve the problems rather than take sides, cause divisions and pay off old debts. I guess today we saw that nothing has changed; in fact it's worse. I guess today we've seen that, particularly when you're dealing with an area of public service.

I agree with the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who at their convention for leadership ran up against a blockade because he, as a social democrat, preached reform in his party that they should not owe their allegiance to or be dominated by a few labour leaders, particularly the public service, because of the compromise it would create in policy and in even-handed administration of public services in this province. He was the first to feel the weight of the crush of that power as his leadership drive was stopped. Yet he was the only member calling for reform, as a social democrat; to be a true social democrat you could not, as others have said, be compromised in your ability not only to carry out but to be seen to carry out, by the people of this country, an evenhanded approach to all of the people, when in fact you had sold preferential treatment, and therefore direction, to some groups in society, or their leadership, that comes in conflict from time to time many times with others.

Therefore, not only do we see that nothing has changed with the new Leader of the Opposition of the New Democratic Party, we do see, through all of their speeches, no attempt to deal with the legislation that provides for the parties to get together and resolve the dispute after we pass this legislation, no attempt to understand that it is the fairest possible way. Yet they have had, after their mindless opposition before to the same sort of solution to those who work in our forest industry, the pulp industry, who the very same type of legislation helped get back to work after almost three months out of work, helped get them back to work because of a lockout, and in which, in fact, the bargaining process did take place successfully after they were put back to work, and that they showed the responsibility of being able to conduct that bargaining after legislation of this sort, and come to an agreement.... What you are saying, again, because you don't even represent them anymore — you have sold out to the public sector political union leadership — is that what's good enough for the private sector and the forest companies, and what has worked well there, is not good enough for the public sector in this particular dispute.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it's clearly shown that the hopes we had for the changes over there and in the type of debate are gone. I want to say that I was impressed — because there is a brighter note — with the remarks that were made by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — Although he is billed as an independent, he is a social democrat, While we'll never agree on many aspects of policy, I think he has shown from the opposition a reason that has not been coming from that side for many, many years. He has offered alternatives in a constructive way to what we have proposed; has attempted to deal with the legislation as it has been introduced; that is, let's get our buses rolling. Let's get the two sides back talking and see if they can effect a solution the same way the pulp companies and the pulp workers did in this province when we had to take the very same action. I have to admit that he has made it more difficult for us, because it's harder to deal with that type of criticism. It's harder to deal with the only effective voice in the opposition today when he offers alternatives to our proposals. While they are arguable, they show a basis of the type of solution that not only I want to see, but that the people of British Columbia want to see in dealing with public sector disputes in the future.

I think the member for Prince Rupert has this day been a breath of fresh air in the opposition, and it has contrasted with the lack of reform or change in the New Democratic Party with the change of leadership; in fact, a radical, more strongly committed move to those to whom they owe their political allegiance. I don't talk about the taxpayers, the bus riders or the broad, general public who just a few weeks ago we heard referred to in many commercials as the "ordinary people." What we have represented over there is not the ordinary people but the extraordinary. They are extraordinary people inasmuch as they represent power groups and political persuasions, but that's not the ordinary people who aren't banded together to deliver power. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I found the debate in itself and the lack of change very interesting. I'm sorry that the member for Prince Rupert wasn't here when I had some kind remarks for his proposals, which he might have felt uncomfortable with.

At least we have been given some constructive alternatives here today which may in the future be part of the solution. I'm hopeful that as we look for solutions we do not mindlessly turn our backs on proposals, such as the final offer that the member talked about as being part of a way in which.... If the New Democratic Party doesn't know it, the public knows it. There's got to be a better way for everyone than what we go through now — for those who work and manage the system, and the users in public services and, again, here in transit. This mindless attempt to politicize every dispute, to draw this wild type of political diagram and somehow eventually take every single management dispute or delivery of service and politicize it and somehow make it the Holy War confrontation between us and them that is still the mindset.... It's even worse under the new Leader of the Opposition than I experienced before under the old. Mr, Speaker, it's not only archaic, it's not in tune with the mainstream of the thinking of ordinary people in this province who want government to respond to them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support this legislation — not as a perfect answer but as the appropriate answer for this time. I hold no brief for the management of MTOC. They may be wrong in some of the aspects of their negotiation; I don't know. I'm not going to hold any brief for or against the transit union, because they may be right and they may be wrong in some instances; that is why we have an industrial inquiry commissioner. While people table reports, the only report we've had of any nature that dealt with the dispute in question was the Joe Morris report from his status as an industrial

[ Page 4878 ]

inquiry commissioner trying to come to grips with the dispute at hand. He came to a number of conclusions. I'm not going to defend Joe Morris's conclusions, because I wasn't there. I did not make the study, he did. I understand he's perfectly capable and eloquent in defending his recommendations and dealing with them. Anyone who tries, because it is politically expedient, to criticize the former president of the Canadian Labour Congress, an elder statesman of B.C. Labour, for somehow being a closet Socred stretches their own credibility beyond even those limits they achieved today. It was an honest attempt to try to get someone who had credibility on both sides, to try to get some resolution to the dispute, so that we wouldn't have to come to this position today, which is now a necessity.

To suggest that bargaining was easy and simple I find strange. Without getting into the dispute, if we're always saying it's easy and then when they get together it's never achieved.... I've got to say that failure to come to an agreement reflects fault on both sides. In any area of negotiation that I've ever been in or seen, you cannot blame a single side. I know that. I think the public understands it. The reason we have mediators and industrial inquiry commissioners and fact-finders and all of the other aides is to try to bring some common sense to both sides. That's what industrial relations is all about. That's what the Joe Morris position was all about. What has been so distressing in this Legislature is that the New Democratic Party in their criticism in this debate haven't dealt with how we're going to resolve it to make it easy. They've spent their whole time criticizing one side in such a biased and unresearched fashion that they continue to be a part of the problem rather than a part of seeking solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I support this bill as being a necessity. I do not look to this being a continuing tool of industrial relations in our province, to the Legislature continually or even occasionally having to come back because of the failure of the collective bargaining process. That's why — at least in the public sector, which is different than the private sector, where the economic repercussions aren't felt to the same degree, in which there is a different motive and in which you have the users and the public at large as the big losers — there has got to be a better way. There is a difference. I'm hopeful that we don't have to repeat this occasion time and time again in the future, I'm hopeful we will find a better way — not because of some dark, dire plot, because it's not a dark, dire plot — to try to see the ordinary people of this province served in a way they should be served by their tax dollars, in the services they purchase with those tax dollars. If anybody will stand up in this Legislature and say there's something wrong with trying to see that they're served for those very simple reasons and that what is perceived and experienced to be totally wrong now and not working.... Let them stand up and say that the status quo is fine and that what we've got is perfect, because you and I know and the people out there know that it darn well isn't. I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we proceed. I want to give some encouragement to the disputants. I hope they can find the resolution in a calmer, less political atmosphere than they've witnessed here this afternoon.

[6:15]

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave of the House to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a second cousin of mine who has travelled here from London He spent eight years as a Labour member of one of the local councils in the London area: Mr. Patrick Mitchell.

Mr. Speaker, in entering this particular debate, it was interesting to listen to our Premier go on and on attacking the NDP, because we have been pointing out continually that the problem of this strike was created by that government and maintained by that government. I know that is an embarrassment to him. I know it's an embarrassment for him to be reminded of that fact. Now he's going to sneak out of the House.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It bothers me that we do not learn from history at all. This government is now going to go back to the anti-labour policies that existed between '69 and '71 under the previous Social Credit government. It was only when the NDP came in and brought in some intelligent labour legislation designed by Bill King to stop the confrontation — which this government has been fomenting in the last two or three years....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Bill who?

MR. MITCHELL: Bill King, who was the best Labour minister this province ever saw, and who brought in labour legislation that should have been used before this strike started. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that — this lockout.

The industrial inquiry commission that was headed by Joe Morris.... The section in the labour legislation was there before the lockout started. That commission should have been set up when it was requested by the union, and they should have studied another report. Wages was not the only major problem in these particular negotiations. Another was the attempt of the government, through Metro Transit, to take away something that had been put into their agreements 70 years ago. That was the opportunity for the employees and the employers to sit down and consult — consultation, not confrontation — on changes in the working conditions of that industry. That was something that was put in 70 years ago, and for 70 years it worked very effectively. There had always been a certain give-and-take by employees and management. But there was a change in the government's attitude in the last two or three years. They were determined to have more confrontation. The real reason for this confrontation was to bring up a smokescreen to cover up the mismanagement that they have had in their economics, and the problems that face us today. They want a major confrontation as a smokescreen so that no one will start discussing their large loans or their debts that are killing this province.

But anyway, as I said before, they are failing to listen to history. One of the other proposals that management and Metro brought in.... They were determined to bring in part-time drivers. That wasn't something new in the transit industry. There are many operations in North America where they have attempted to bring it in. And on every occasion it has caused a lot of problems, confrontation and lack of service. Quebec City, I believe, had a nine-month strike, and the Quebec government set up a commission to study the problem. One of the major parts of that commission's report

[ Page 4879 ]

dealt with part-time drivers. Although I would like to read all 462 pages of that report into the record, I will not do it, Mr. Speaker, because it was all in French. If the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would read it for me, then we could all understand it when it was brought back. But I think, it's important that we get into his findings on the introduction of part-time drivers into the system on the record. I think it's important, because it wasn't only what happened in Quebec, Edmonton, New York and all the other transit systems that tried to bring it in. He unequivocally supports the union position that, contrary to the company's argument in support of part-time drivers, they do not save costs, and they do not improve working conditions or provide better service.

MR. KEMPF: What does 260,000 hours of overtime a year do? What does that improve?

MR. MITCHELL: What it proves....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. MITCHELL: I know that member will not get up and discuss this in open debate. He'll sit back in his seat and he'll heckle.

I'm saying that these problems have been identified. This commission report, at a cost of, I believe, a quarter of a million dollars to the province of Quebec — to prepare the 462 pages of studies and hearings — was available to those who were negotiating before the lockout started. They brought it to the commission's attention to study the report, to understand the report, and to set up an industrial inquiry commission to study it and bring in some recommendations; not to allow the negotiations to deteriorate to the point where they were locked out. It was management who failed to take that opportunity to do some research, because management were determined because they were instructed by this government to bring it to confrontation and deny the people of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island the bus service.

MR, KEMPF: What about the 10 percent absenteeism for sick leave?

MR. MITCHELL: The member for Omineca sits there and makes a lot of false statements and does not substantiate them with anything but his babbling in that corner. He does not get up and provide sound arguments to back it up.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not interested in that. I say that if there is an abuse....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the interjections are entirely uncalled for. The Chair would appreciate it if we could allow the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to continue uninterrupted.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your assistance.

I would like to take the opportunity to answer that particular member down there, who has been designated by the Social Credit caucus as my number one critic, and say if there has been abuse of any segment of the collective agreement, such as sick leave, or if certain people have taken an excessive amount of overtime, that is the problem of management — and mismanagement. It is not an attack on the trade union movement as a whole, but if there has been abuse then management should have looked after it. The member knows that. In any other organization, if there's anything substantially wrong, and it can be proven, then that is management's job to correct it.

I do believe that there should be less overtime and more people hired at full-time employment. It is management's job to organize the type of system where full-time employment is improved and enlarged, but jobs should not be destroyed to make part-time employment. I know that the philosophy of the government is to cut down part-time employment — not only to cut it down, but to cut out some of the conditions.

I would like to read from the report that was paid for by the Quebec government. It states: "However, the commission of inquiry notes that the bulk of these savings come from the fact that the part-time employees would not receive the same wages and working conditions as full-time employees." The Montreal transit system wanted to bring in a part-time system, and they said that the bulk of the savings would come because they wouldn't pay the same wages and have the same working conditions as for full-time employees. It goes on to say: "If we calculate the savings achieved if both groups of employees receive the same working conditions, the savings drop to 0.5 percent of the overall expenses...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must interrupt you. I would like to bring to your attention, and it has been mentioned earlier today, that there has been a certain amount of latitude allowed in this debate, but it seems to me that we are not here to debate those items which were on the table in the discussions that were going on between the MTOC and the union. We are here to debate the Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act. May I suggest, hon. member, that we direct our comments to Bill 34.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, that's what I'm doing — to the principle of Bill 34. The principle of that bill was brought in because this government and management of Metro Transit did not understand proper economic planning to make sure that we have a transit system that is running properly and serving the public.

In closing I would like to say that if they ran the operation with part-time employees being paid less than prevailing rates, the savings would only be 0.2 percent of the overall expenses. What I'm trying to say is that in negotiations many policies are promoted, many arguments come up. When it's something as serious as part-time drivers, as serious as taking out of the contract, conditions that have been in operation in B.C. for 70 years, I believe this government should have given some leadership, some direction to those negotiations, instead of providing them with a big club to bash down those they were negotiating with.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think we made a big mistake, and I think it started when the government started to centralize the transit system and took all of the transit planning and development of better service under the wings of the first member for Surrey, at that time Mr. Vander Zalm. They attempted to centralize the planning, the service and the negotiations. I think the break-down started there two years ago, and it continued in such a way that the government has used it as a red herring, a political football. We have not taken

[ Page 4880 ]

the same attitude of a former colleague of mine, Jim Lorimer, when he was Minister of Municipalities; when he went out to enlarge the services of the transit system; when he brought in the plan for the SeaBus in Vancouver; when he put out the original plan to move out....

[6:30]

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: I am sticking to the principle of the bill. The Premier can talk about the member for Prince Rupert. I know I'm talking about the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is that this government has gone out of their way to cut transit services. They have gone out of their way to have confrontation with their employees. They have used it continually as a smokescreen. And before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I say I'm going to vote against the bill because this government has mismanaged this operation like they have mismanaged many other operations in this province. They've mismanaged it because they have not done the proper planning for negotiations, as the Ross Cameron report says. They have no plan for proper negotiations, no plan for increasing services, no plan to make it a better service for the users and a better place to work for the employees. We must get back to negotiations, back to firm negotiations.

If we're going to get back to those negotiations, I implore the Minister of Labour, before he starts manipulating the contract, before he starts using his big club, to study the report that came out of Quebec. Study the arguments that come up when you attempt to take out of a contract something that has been very workable for 70-odd years. Study some of the history of the trade union movement. Study the development that is needed to improve our service, and the most important thing in an improved service is proper morale of those who are working in it. The confrontation that was led by the member for Surrey against the employees and egged on by the government caused our biggest problems. We have to take those three steps back. We have to start looking at the problem and coming up with an answer. There are answers. There are answers in order to have a workable transit system, good employer-employee relations. Splitting labour up by saying to the unemployed that we're going to create a lot of part-time jobs.... It works. All it does is divide the trade union movement. It divides the unemployed. This is not the way to get a good service. This is why this bill should be defeated. There should be a proper attitude to labour negotiations. This bill does not give it. It's up to the minister to give some leadership, to take an attitude that is positive, that is not only going to solve this problem, but not create another one. We want a good transit system, we want happy employees, and we want management that does a proper job of managing.

HON. MR. SMITH: The bill is a very modest intervention in the collective bargaining process, which comes after every process has been exhausted. It provides for resumption of operations of the bus system. It provides for a special mediator to be appointed immediately. It restores collective bargaining, and it provides the machinery with which the minister may, if all else fails, impose conditions which may become a collective agreement, as a very last resort. It provides a stimulus to two parties, who have not been able to get anywhere, to finally cut an agreement. I would have thought that the members opposite, the official opposition, while perhaps having critical comments about the features of the bill or the Process, would nevertheless have come down in favour of this bill and supported it in principle. I'm absolutely astounded that they have not done so in the debut in the Legislature of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly). He set the tone and is going to oppose this bill.

I don't understand it at all, nor do I understand their attempt to wrap themselves in a cloak of non-interventionism and to criticize us for intervening in the collective bargaining process. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, they were the experts in intervention in the collective bargaining process. Look at all the times that they intervened. Look at the sections that were put in the Labour Code of an interventionist nature. The essential services sections were put in by them. The power of the Labour Relations Board to impose first agreements under section 70: they put that in there. They passed the Essential Services Continuation Act in August 1974, which took back the firefighters on the mainland. They passed the Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act in November 1974, which imposed a settlement on the industry. They also passed the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act in 1975 to deal with both the food and the forest industries, In their last year in office they were embroiled in disputes in both the public and private sectors that couldn't be settled, and they used legislative action to bring it about.

But today, after the Minister of Labour has tried all reasonable avenues, including the appointment of an industrial disputes commissioner of absolutely impeccable credentials, who can't bring about an acceptance of terms that he recommends, finally, this bill comes forward, and the opposition are opposing it. It absolutely astounds me.

I tried to search around for some kind of reason why they would oppose it. I think the reason has to go back to earlier in the year, to the divisions that occurred on that side of the House, to the warnings given during the leadership contest by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who said to them many times in public.... He had the courage at that convention to make that speech in which he said that you were embracing and becoming too closely identified with the arm of organized labour; as soon as a party embraces too closely one segment of society, whether it's labour, industry or whatever, then it can't function and represent all the people. He gave that warning. He didn't win, and he left that party.

I can only say that his prophecies have come true. Look at the results in the federal election, Mr. Speaker. In this province, sitting NDP members lost their seats. They lost their seats because they aligned themselves with a Luddite philosophy. They spoke out against the interests of the people of their riding, their economic interests. Mr Miller did that in Nanaimo when he opposed the pipeline and the project at Duke Point. The two federal members in the Kootenays did the same thing: they opposed the Crow legislation. Can you imagine representing the Kootenays and opposing the Crow legislation, when it would bring widened tunnels and double tracking and ensure that that coal gets down to the port? They voted against it. They behaved as if they were the members for Gull Lake, not the members for the Kootenays. Their constituents threw them out.

What we really have now is an NDP that is anti-progress, anti-any stimulus to the economy. It has wrapped itself in the archaic Luddism, protectionism, of those want to enshrine process and not get on with the job, those who want to protect the old ways of special privileges in collective agreements, to hang onto those instead of getting on with the business. That's what we have in the New Democratic Party. They have

[ Page 4881 ]

really become reverse elitists. They are the ones who have become doctrinaire. They have taken stands constantly against economic recovery. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition's brother had a very narrow squeak in his riding. The handwriting is on the wall in that riding; provincially that Comox riding is going down the drain. The public of this province are not going to like their opposition to this bill. They're not going to understand their opposition to this bill, because the principle of this bill is very simple. That principle is that the public interest comes before the interests of any vested interest group, whether it be a management group or a union.

I don't care a whit about the history of this dispute. I don't care if somebody did something wrong three months or six months ago, or whether a particular bargaining meeting didn't turn out properly. Whether this dispute is rooted in management inadequacies or the inadequacies of this new union, I don't care a whit. What I do care about is that the public interest now has to be served; these buses have to get operating and be back on the streets on Monday. This is what the bill does, and does so in a fair way. It leaves open collective bargaining and lots of process there for the union and management to resolve this dispute. I am absolutely horrified and appalled that the official opposition is voting against this bill I think they'll live to rue the day. I think it'll be a day that'll come home to roost in the new Leader of the Opposition for the next four years. It'll never be forgotten. I'm going to vote for this bill, and proudly.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, in concluding the debate for our party in second reading, I would first like to point out to the House, to the Legislature and to the public that it is the New Democratic Party that today gave permission to have this legislation go through in one day. It's extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, but our party wishes to see a resolution to this issue, and wishes those buses to run. We have wanted those buses to run and that issue to be resolved for nearly a year and a half. Indeed, if you look at the times and the dates in this particular issue, you can only come to one conclusion about what has been going on in this dispute.

This issue is about public trust, public confidence and public responsibility. I don't think there's any question in the province of British Columbia, particularly in those ridings that very much rely on public transit, that the government has been on a hidden agenda and mission in this particular issue. For example, the Cameron report, tabled today, is a very serious indictment of the actions, or lack of actions, by the MTOC management, in particular the chairman of that board. That report, commissioned in January 1983 — it came down, we presume, in the middle of 1983 — indicated to the government and to those responsible for transit on the government side that there were some serious problems in the management and operation of transit — indeed, interference in proper labour relations. Being able to resolve problems and get a collective agreement was going to be thwarted. The government should have made that document public. They should have taken action and ensured that a collective agreement was achieved. That Cameron report will, I believe, convince the public that there has indeed been a hidden agenda with this particular issue. This government has not wanted to resolve this dispute quickly. If it did, it would have gotten a grasp on MTOC and taken a look at the recommendations of the Ross Cameron report. It would have ensured that collective bargaining proceeded and the issue did not fester and get us to the position we are in today.

[6:45]

In my riding for the last two or three months, over and over again people have expressed that they have been pleased with the way the union has handled this particular dispute. They have tried in every way to get those responsible for transit to take a serious look at the issues, but nobody wanted to come to the table. Nobody wanted to take a look at what was happening with certain members, particularly the chairman of MTOC. The serious indictment in the Cameron report clearly indicated that if we knew the document existed, or if we had known the terms of that document or what it said a year ago, we would not be here today. They hid that document. They covered it up and would not allow it to come out in public. That is a serious indictment not only of the MTOC management and the chairman of that board, but of this government and those who art responsible for transit in this province.

We don't know if the things the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) shouts out are accurate or where he gets his facts from. If he happens to read the Ross Cameron report he might see why there are indeed some deep-seated problems in the transit operations in this province, and why the union has been trying to tackle those particular problems in what I think, and our party thinks, is a meaningful and responsible way. They wanted to bargain in good faith but they were not given that opportunity. I certainly believe it has always been the game of this government. as shown by this document before us today, to once again suspend or eliminate the collective bargaining process in a very important public sector — transit. It gives the minister the power to vary the agreement, and gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the opportunity to direct that collective agreement in any way the cabinet sees fit.

Mr. Speaker, this issue could have been resolved months and months ago if the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the minister responsible for Transit (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and those on the MTOC board did indeed in good conscience want an agreement and settlement. However, as has been stated already, this transit dispute has been utilized to once again try to undermine those who happen to participate in organized labour and happen to support that movement and the rights entailed in that movement.

Once again there is an attempt here today to say that they have to introduce this legislation because they have tried every other opportunity to resolve the dispute. That is not accurate and I don't think the people of British Columbia are going to swallow that, particularly with the Cameron report being tabled today. There are all sorts of things, and I know that I can speak from the experience of having sat on the boards when decisions were made by local regional districts. The operation, system and management style of transit in British Columbia is cumbersome and is not understood by the public. It cries out for a full public inquiry into how we can try to get a sensible way to manage transit without two or three operators and a number of agencies, levels and people responsible, confusing the public and ending up where we are today.

There should be room, for example, in a positive way.... Maybe there should be one or two transit boards for urban areas that arc directly accountable to the users or those who pay the taxes in that area. There should be a process whereby there are perhaps elections to transit boards

[ Page 4882 ]

— public elections to make them accountable. At the moment the system is hidden and no one really understands it. No one really knows who is accountable. We wouldn't have ended up where we are today, with the public totally confused over this issue. Maybe there is room for some progressive discussion, for instance, around the whole question of consultation by the union on matters that directly affect them in their working relationship with the company. Rather than move in the direction of the Morris report, which says that consultation should be eliminated, maybe we should take a look at the ferry and marine workers, for example, who have negotiated a position on the board of the ferry corporation. There have to be some new ways for looking at how we have come to the state we are in in British Columbia in terms of this particular issue, and this government's constant confrontation of those who participate in organized labour. The way in which this is currently being carried out — the confrontational tactics, the sitting on reports like the Cameron report and not making every attempt to ensure a collective agreement — will only continue to poison the labour management areas in this province.

We have examples whereby we can improve these particular important areas. I would suggest in a positive vein that if an inquiry is necessary, it is a public inquiry into the Cameron report that we tabled today to find out exactly why we have come to this state in transit in British Columbia. I think the majority of people in British Columbia know why we're here. They know that there has been a cleverly orchestrated program to utilize the transit workers for nearly a year and a half to create further unrest and bad feeling about workers who happen to work in the public sector and participate in a union. That's why I said, when I started the closing of this debate, that not only is this issue about transit, it's about public trust, public confidence and public responsibility. In our estimation — certainly in my estimation — of those who are responsible in this transit area, those three things have not been met in this issue, and we have proved that today.

This government has not availed itself of all of the methodologies and systems at band to ensure that a fair and natural collective agreement was achieved through the normal channels. If the Cameron report had seen the light of day a year ago, I can virtually guarantee that we would not be where we are today, because everybody would know that something had to be done about the interference in the labour relations and personnel, and the thwarting of any chance to achieve a collective agreement.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are prepared to see this bill go through in one day because we want to see transit back; but we want to clearly emphasize that in intent this bill has been orchestrated. There was no need for it. If the workers and the union had been given the opportunity to negotiate in fairness, and had not been up against part of this continuing Socredization, which is part of this game plan to further alienate and destroy unions and the collective bargaining process in this province, we would have had a solution a long time ago. The public now knows the dates. They know how long ago the current agreement came to an end. They know when the Cameron report was commissioned. They know how long the government has had to see the sickness in transit management, and why it has created a confrontation and breakdown in the system.

In closing, I say again that this issue is not only about transit and a lockout, it's about public trust, public confidence and public responsibility. I state categorically today that those three items have been broken by this government by their lack of action, their lack of candour in bringing forth that Cameron report, their lack of desire to ensure that the union has a greater role in terms of consultation and decisionmaking on how the company operates.

The people of British Columbia are tired of confrontation. They want labour peace and management harmony. They cry out for it. But once again here we are, in a confrontation that clearly has been orchestrated. We believe the people of British Columbia have seen through this game plan. They know this resolution could have been achieved a long time ago. They know the powers are in the Labour Code to resolve this particular dispute without having us in here today. The people of British Columbia see how transparent the Premier was today in his attempt to try once again to put it as an issue between Socred and NDP This issue is not Socred or NDP, Mr. Speaker, it is public trust, public confidence and public responsibility. Those issues have not been met because the Cameron report clearly indicates that this government did not heed the wisdom and the words of that report. The member here who is responsible for that particular board said he hasn't even seen that report.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I think the people know what this is all about. Because of the sections in this bill that continue to undermine the democratic collective agreement process that is a tradition in British Columbia, I and this party cannot support this bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't think there's very much more that can be said that hasn't already been said on one side of the House or the other, except that I don't think I've ever, in the time that I've been in this House, heard so many people talk out of so many sides of their mouths in any one day.

You know, "We believe in collective bargaining, but don't let them go on strike. We believe in strike for the public service, but don't let them ever do it. Jump in and stop it." In fact, the Leader of the Opposition said: "We believe in collective bargaining but as soon as a contract ends, you get your government in there and start fooling around with one side or the other to make sure the contract comes out the way the government wants it."

One of the problems with collective bargaining in British Columbia today is the style that the NDP set following the passage of the Labour Code. The style was that you do thrust yourself directly into contract negotiations and take a position for one side or the other. That was made very clear with the Labour minister and the Premier. In fact, the former Premier and opposition leader, and the current not-so-hot hotline host, used to brag in this House about the way he kicked people around in his office in labour negotiations. He used to brag about it! That kind of style has actually set back collective bargaining in this province, and it has had to be restored.

We have begun to restore the integrity of collective bargaining. The other side of the style practised by that government was that when one side got into trouble in contract negotiations — and it was usually the union only because of

[ Page 4883 ]

the close association between the union and the NDP, but sometimes it was management — that side knew that all it had to do was come running over to Victoria and cry on the minister's shoulder, and the minister would interfere in that dispute in one way or another. What that did was to take them off the hook. I was here. It took them off the hook for real collective bargaining. That set back collective bargaining for many years. We have restored the integrity of collective bargaining because we believe in it, You never did.

[7:00]

I want to set the record straight on the idea that nothing was done during the term of this dispute and no facilities of the Ministry of Labour were made available. A number of people, from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), made that bald comment. Every facility of the Ministry of Labour was made available to the parties. The proper collective bargaining procedures under the term of the law of British Columbia, which happens to be the Labour Code, were made available to the parties. The moment — which is the practice — that the parties asked for a mediator, that mediator went immediately into the dispute. I don't have the dates, but it was a long time ago. The mediator was asked to leave the dispute, which he did. When I found that nothing further was happening, I put the mediator back into the dispute. He has been there continuously since.

When it was reported to me by the most senior mediator in this province — we felt this dispute was important enough to make sure that it was the chief of the mediation services who did the mediation — that there didn't seem to be any chance of a mediated settlement between the parties, I took the very unusual step in this province of appointing an industrial inquiry commissioner, a very highly respected labour statesman, as he has been properly described in this House. Frankly, I was quite surprised to hear some of the remarks made about that person by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I was surprised not only about the actual remarks he made about the member; he told me that the union did not approve of the IIC. The union never told me that in any meeting I was at with them. I think the comment was, "Isn't he a little old?" but there was never a rejection of Mr. Morris as the industrial inquiry commissioner. I'm very surprised too that the member for North Island called the Morris report a pathetic piece of work. The union doesn't seem to think that's what it was. I have a letter addressed to the Premier from the transit union which says. "Although the union rejected the report, it did so because of certain unacceptable aspects. That is not to say the report was a failure. In fact, it was a success." It was signed by Colin P. Kelly, president of Local 1. I just want to go on record as saying that I find those comments about one of his brethren in the labour movement, one of the most respected people in the labour movement in Canada for many years, to be pathetic in themselves.

I want to talk about one question that was asked by a number of people: why didn't we appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner back in July? The practice in this province, by two governments, has always been that the unusual step of appointing an industrial inquiry commissioner has never, to my knowledge, happened without both parties requesting it. In this case neither party requested it of me, nor of my deputy minister The only request that I heard from the other side — perhaps I don't watch television enough — was made to the press. Well, that's not good enough. I never had a request for an industrial inquiry commissioner, but when it got to the point where we realized that the dispute had gone on to the extent that it was not possible to reach the kind of normal agreement that we all still hoped would happen, we took the unusual step of appointing that industrial inquiry commissioner. He made his report, and for one reason or another that report was rejected. The next step, Mr. Speaker, was when it then became clear that there was no other step available, and we decided, as perhaps the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) pointed out, that it was the time to take another unusual step, and that was to call the Legislature back into session to be able to put a stop to a dispute which undoubtedly was causing suffering in the community. And so we took that step, because we're not afraid to act on our convictions and act in the public interest when it becomes necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the only other thing I want to say is that we should not lose sight of the fact that there are two important aspects to this bill that we're dealing with in this Legislature tonight. The first is that it puts the buses back on the street, and the second is that it still reinforces our commitment to collective bargaining by saying to both sides: "For gosh sake, now that the pressure of the buses out on the streets is off, get back to the table and bargain yourselves a settlement." Now the people over there said it won't work. They said that about the pulp dispute too, When we brought in legislation dealing with the pulp dispute they said: "You're all hypocritical! You're crazy, and you're nuts. They'll never get the parties together." Well, what do you know! The parties got together and reached agreement without the government having to intervene. I pray to God that the same thing will happen here. With that I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 16

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

Bill 34, Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[7:15]

[ Page 4884 ]

METRO TRANSIT COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

The, House in committee on Bill 34; Mr Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. LEA: In the directive that was released in the dispute between the Metro Transit Operating Company and the Independent Canadian Transit Union, Locals 1, 2 and 3.... Mr. Chairman, under section 5(2) I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he would be willing to change, wherever necessary within this document — let's take paragraph 3 section 1 — the effective date, which is stated as effective on September 7, 1984, back to June 14, 1984.

The reason I believe that should be done is that after this dispute is over and resolved we have to live on, and it seems to me that the way this is worded is throwing a bit of cold water in the face of the unions. If we're going to go back to the terms of the collective agreement as it was, then this should also be changed to bring it entirely back into the collective agreement that was in effect before the dispute took place. I think that if that were done there would be a great deal of cooperation between the union and management, not only to resolve this dispute but to be able to live with one another after it's all over. I don't think it would make any difference to the government. I think the dispute would be resolved in the same way, and it would be a good thing. It would show that the government was truly interested in ending this dispute with good feelings all the way around.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have a little difficulty discussing a document which is not contained in the bill while we're debating a section of the bill. But we didn't arrive at that letter rashly. We gave it an awful lot of thought. We've been dealing with this dispute, thinking about it and having reports from our mediator for some time. I've been convinced that the suggestion that the member is making is not possible. But I can give him the guarantee that should there be any problems in the seniority sign-up or any delays, and if it appears in any way that the company is thwarting the opportunity for that seniority sign-up to take place, I would very seriously consider amending the order in one way or another.

MR. LEA: I understand what the minister is saying, but it would almost be too late to do it that way. Unless it's begun that way, I don't think it could finish any other way than the way it's begun. What this would allow is for the transit system to go back into service. It would be done on the schedule that was in effect and the sign-up on June 14. On June 14 school children were going to school. We wouldn't have a situation any different than we have now, and I think that the minister and the government would find the union very cooperative in getting their own people back on the schedule that was there on June 14. I think it would be worth a try.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I have said we won't change the date. I've been convinced that it is impossible to change the date, but if there are other problems that arise, I will be happy to try to achieve some resolution of those by an amended order. I think that this matter, of course, is one of the major matters in dispute, and it's been in dispute for some time. I know what the member wants to do, but I honestly believe that it cannot be achieved.

MR. GABELMANN: The same effect, of course, could be achieved by deleting subsection (2) of section 5. If the minister was interested in introducing and having made law legislation that was at least more traditional, he would take the action of deleting subsection (2) rather than changing the date on an order made under this particular section. The effect, of course, would be the same.

There's a principle involved in section 5 that, as I said during debate in second reading, has never been adopted by this Legislature. I've not had time to do the research; I don't know of any place in the country where it's ever been done before. The principle is a simple one: in normal circumstances — and in this case "normal" applies to every circumstance in the history of this province, ever, to date — the collective agreement continues in force until the new collective agreement is signed.

What this section does, and the order that flows from it, is say that the collective agreement is no longer in force. The minister doesn't like the collective agreement that's in place, and he wants to take one of the most contentious issues — as he himself said — in the debate and choose sides on that issue. That's what subsection (2) of section 5 does, when combined with the order from it.

The minister has said. "Here is one of the major issues in dispute. I agree with management, and I'm going to see that management gets its way." He's guaranteeing not that there will be orderly return to work but in fact running the risk of having the opposite happening. In a sense he's patting a red flag up in front of a group of workers who have had enough humiliation and enough done to them under this legislation, and who are then told that their position is meaningless and that the company's position in terms of return to work, scheduling and all of that is going to be accepted by the government and imposed by this Legislature. That is wrong in principle.

The technique that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) sought to use to achieve this goal would be acceptable as far as I'm concerned, but the obvious way of doing it is to delete subsection (2). It's wrong. The government can't say that it doesn't like the collective agreement that is in place. It's still in place in effect. It wants to pick one issue that the companies have a clear position on and run with the management side. That's not how you begin to develop cooperation in this province; that's how you make sure there is a continual and continued sense of unease about labour-management relations in this province and a fear that we don't have a stable climate. Why the government wants to try to make it worse all the time is beyond me, except that they've got this political agenda to bust the trade union movement. There's nothing else to it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if you look at the way that things have been happening, you will see that the last statement made by the member is an absolutely nonsensical statement. I hope that that member is not counselling civil disobedience in the comments he just made. It sounded a bit like it to me, Mr. Chairman. I also find it very interesting that that member tells me that if I use this section to what in effect is partial support of the management

[ Page 4885 ]

position, that's no good, but if I use this section to give full support to the union position, that's good, I don't understand that. It just doesn't make sense to me, but it does point out that it's a problem that we have.

MR. HOWARD: There's the old twist again.

HON. MR, McCLELLAND: It's not a twist — read Hansard.

No, I'm not prepared to drop this section, nor make.... Again, I can't really deal with an order which is not part of this bill.

MR. SKELLY: The drivers have indicated, I believe, publicly on TV, radio or whatever that they would be willing to go back to work under the terms that existed at the time of the old sign-up when they refused to get involved in the new sign-up. I think what we're talking about in this section 1s the procedure for getting back to work. The old sign-up was done during the spring when kids were in school. As the member for Prince Rupert has suggested, it's probably going to be very much like the fall sign-up that hasn't taken place yet. From the reports that have been made public by MTOC, I understand that they've destroyed the tapes for the spring scheduling. The bus drivers, on the other hand, are saying that the tapes do exist, that they always keep spare tapes and that it would be possible to run the tapes on the spring sign-up and get the people back to work as quickly as possible, based on that spring sign-up. If the tapes exist and they're able to go back to work, based on the spring sign-up, is the minister willing to accommodate the drivers and the employees to that extent? I understand they are very concerned about being put back to work on schedules that are assigned strictly by MTOC and concerned about the lack of respect for seniority and the sign-up procedure which has been in effect for so many years. Is the minister willing to accommodate, as closely as possible, the sign-up procedure that was followed during the spring?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, as much as the Leader of the Opposition would like it, I'm not going to get into the debate about which side is right or which side is wrong, or who said what and who went where. The Leader of the Opposition asked the same question as the member for Prince Rupert, and I've answered it.

MR. GABELMANN: Going back to the earlier discussion, the minister suggests that I might be counselling civil disobedience. Not so, Mr. Minister, but the government is provoking people to civil disobedience. That's a fact. By deliberate actions and policies, the government is provoking that kind of response, because a law not respected is a law broken. When that happens consistently in society, the respect for the law is diminished, and we in this Legislature have a responsibility not only to make laws but to ensure that they are respected. If they are to be respected, Mr. Chairman, they have to be fair, and this law is not fair.

The minister suggests that if we were to remove from this legislation subsection (2) of section 5, somehow that would be taking sides in the dispute. It would not. It would be taking the side of the status quo. It would be taking the side of what has been and what is now in the contract. What the minister has done, in fact, is to choose a side, as he half admitted. He's chosen the management side. By asking to delete subsection (2), we have chosen to go with the contract that was negotiated and is still in effect. That's not choosing sides. That allows for the resolution later on, but to have taken a clear position in this legislation in favour of one side. as the legislation does, on one of the more contentious issues doesn't improve industrial relations, It doesn't make it easier to get the buses rolling again. Certainly it doesn't do anything for the long-term health of labour relations, not only in transit but in this province in general. When you couple this with the veiled threats of earlier today about the possibility of the ending of the collective bargaining system as we know it in the public sector, we face some very serious times ahead. I think the government should recognize that if they were seriously interested in economic development in this province and seriously interested in jobs, they wouldn't make every effort, like they're doing now, to make sure that industrial relations in this province is inflamed in the way they do.

[7:30]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to say that I have made no apologies for making veiled threats to go out and talk to the ordinary people of British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: That's not what I said.

Section 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 17

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. GABELMANN: I was disturbed by the response earlier by the minister in referring to what he considers a successful conclusion of a similar provision in the pulp legislation of earlier this year. The suggestion by the minister, as I heard it, was that this was a good approach because it worked. Without getting into analogies, there are any number of pressures, threats and intimidations that can be brought to bear in situations that might have a positive result in terms of what's being desired. But that doesn't necessarily mean that

[ Page 4886 ]

the method used is appropriate or right just because it might be successful. If you want somebody to quit badmouthing you, there are several ways you can do it. One is that you can have him done in. He's not likely to badmouth you any more. There are a variety of ways of achieving goals. Just because in that particular dispute a resolution was agreed to in the face of this kind of invidious proposal doesn't mean that this kind of approach is appropriate.

Take it the next step, Mr. Chairman. In the pulp dispute, as bad as that was, at least the government wasn't the employer.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That wasn't in response to me, I trust. To make it really clear to the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), the government was not the employer in the pulp and paper dispute of earlier this year.

As wrong as I thought that was then in that bill, and as wrong as I still think it was in that bill then, it's worse now, because the cabinet is taking unto itself the right, should other things fail, to write the terms and conditions of the collective agreement. They are management. They run buses in this province, through their agencies.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you suggest?

MR. GABELMANN: I talked for ten minutes in second reading about what I suggest when you get to a stage like this. You make sure that if you have to go to resolution by compulsion, it's done through arbitration that's mutually acceptable. You don't have the cabinet write the terms and Conditions of the collective agreement when the cabinet runs the buses. If you want fairness

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I've made suggestions. The Premier went on with this nonsense earlier about us not making suggestions. I took some time and some care to make some suggestions about what legislatures could and should do in the event that they're forced into situations of resolving collective agreements. I took some time and care about that because it's an important issue in our society. It's an essential issue for politicians to think about and to resolve, and not to be so mindless about, as so many in this House seem to be. It is wrong for the employer to have the right by legislation to write the collective agreement. It's wrong.

If the minister is going to suggest that there is some arm's length relationship between the Labour ministry and the other ministries, it will be the first time that's ever been the case. The member is a full-fledged member of cabinet and participates in economic development programs, among other things, as a part of cabinet, so he does not have an independent relationship, as the minister should have in these kinds of cases and, for that matter, as the Attorney-General should have and once did have. Both ministries are now caught up in the political machinery of government; they can't separate themselves from it and therefore can't be independent.

This provision is wrong in principle. It is particularly wrong in this case for the government to be both employer and supposedly the neutral third party. It's pure nonsense.

[7:45]

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 17

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 34, Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[8:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

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

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

[ Page 4887 ]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual report of the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

Hon Mr. Smith tabled the report of the Task Force on Public Legal Services in British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: 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 thirty-third 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 as the case may be may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and that 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 purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 8:10 p. m.