[ Page 6101 ]

CONTENTS

School Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Introduction and first reading –– 6101

Oral Questions

Cowichan School Board. Mrs. Wallace –– 6101

B.C. forest resource. Mr. Williams –– 6102

Hospitals funding. Mrs. Dailly –– 6102

Bingo operations. Mr. Hanson –– 6103

British Columbia Railway Dispute Settlement Act (Bill 39). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 6104

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6105

Mr. Macdonald –– 6108

Mr. Lea –– 6108

Mr. Howard –– 6109

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 6111

Mr. Lauk –– 6112

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 6112

Hon. A. Fraser –– 6114

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 6114

Division –– 6115

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates. (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 75: minister's office –– 6116

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Rose

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Davis

Ms. Brown

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, we have eight Ontario legislative interns and their director visiting the B.C. Interns for a three-day stay in Victoria. These university graduates will be meeting with numerous government officials and watching our Legislature. Would the House welcome Beth Arnott, Dave Docherty, Marilyn Domagalski, Catherine Fooks, Ron Hoffman, Joydeep Mukherji, Tim Welch, Michael Yeo, and Dr. Fred Fletcher, the director.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would certainly, with pleasure, associate ourselves with that welcome to those visiting us from Ontario, and bid them a pleasant stay and a safe journey home — with added information to impart to the government of Ontario from British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today from East Kootenay Regional District: Jim Smith, chairman; Stan Wilson, director; Margrit Thierback, director; and Wayne McNamar, administrator. I'd like the House to welcome them here today.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'd be grateful if the House would welcome old friends of mine from Mission — once called Mission City, but now called Mission: Mr. and Mrs. Jack Campbell. They're here today visiting the Legislature with a group of friends.

MRS. JOHNSTON: On May 5 one of our eight legislative interns, who is currently working for members on this side of the House, was involved in a cycling accident in which she fractured her skull. Haidee Parker spent five days in Royal Jubilee Hospital and is now home recovering from what was a most frightening accident. Fortunately there have been no complications. She will be returning to work very soon. On behalf of the government side of the House I would like to ask everyone to join me in wishing her a very speedy recovery, as Haidee is in the gallery this afternoon.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I would be ever grateful if the House would welcome a special friend of mine from Everett, Washington, Dr. Paul Moore.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, visiting today is a constituent of mine and good friend. He is the president of the Social Credit constituency association in Yale-Lillooet. Would the House please welcome Hal Billings.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I have one other introduction to make. In the gallery and in the precinct today we have 20 grade 11 and 12 students visiting us from the Bible Fellowship Christian Academy in Surrey. I would ask the House to please welcome these students.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Heinrich presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This particular bill removes teachers from the Public Sector Restraint Act, Bill 3, and incorporates the administration of terminations and layoffs within the School Act. The purpose of the legislation is to break an impasse that has prevented 21 school boards and teacher associations from negotiating the terms of necessary teacher layoffs. Under the provisions of the School Amendment Act, 1985, school boards and teachers' associations will continue to be able to negotiate agreements covering layoff procedures, but in the absence of an agreement, an agreement in legislation will apply.

The legislated agreement will require that boards take into account the demonstrated ability and qualifications of teachers, as well as seniority, in determining which teachers to lay off. Seniority will be considered on a school district basis.

Many boards have complained that the present arrangements are unworkable. I have received innumerable requests from the B.C. School Trustees' Association to introduce legislation to make this change. If a board and its teachers are unable to reach an agreement, no layoffs could take place even though enrolment had fallen. A number of boards and teacher associations have been reluctant to sign agreements and were thus stalemated on how to make necessary staff cuts. The amendments provide a fair way out of this impasse for both teachers and boards.

It is fundamental to a sound system that the most qualified teachers remain in the classrooms. It is critically important, therefore, that abilities and qualifications be taken into account along with seniority in considering layoffs.

Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

COWICHAN SCHOOL BOARD

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The Cowichan School Board, when it existed, recognized the minister's legal right to impose a budget and were willing to administer that budget. They were not willing to be bullied into voting against their conscience. Now that the compliance budget is in place, will the minister reappoint the board to administer the district's business?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no.

MRS. WALLACE: Two hundred concerned parents have indicated their support for the action of their board, and their officers of the home and school association have so informed the minister by telex. Has the minister decided to stop his campaign to override the democratic process?

[ Page 6102 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the member, I think, are unwarranted. The budgets for 73 of the 75 school districts were submitted — compliance budgets. Unfortunately, two districts refused to submit compliance budgets; hence the action which followed.

B.C. FOREST RESOURCE

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests, who has, I believe, a bumper sticker that says happiness is a well-managed forest. To the unhappy minister a range of questions in view of the fact he wasn't in the House during Forestry Week. We have non-satisfactorily restocked forests in British Columbia where the lands have either been not replanted or regenerated. Could the minister advise if in British Columbia it's on the scale now of, say, the size of the state of Luxembourg or the country of Holland; that is, NSR land?

[2:15]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, no. I can't advise.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding that it's a swath 50 miles wide and 200 miles long. It is the equivalent of the country of Holland.

A further question. Mr. Speaker, the amount invested in the forest industry — that is the capital applied per metre of wood — is critical in terms of generating wealth in the forest economy. Could the minister advise us in terms of the capital applied to the forests of British Columbia compared to Sweden, for example? Would it be 40 percent or equal or 70 percent?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think anybody who tries to make a simplistic comparison like that between the forests of Canada and the forests of Sweden is rather naive.

MR. WILLIAMS: The answer, I believe, is 40 percent, and that indicates the lack of wealth in British Columbia.

Could the minister advise us, in terms of intensive silvicultural activity in British Columbia, how we compare with the state of Finland? Would we do a quarter or would we do a half or would they do four times as much as us in terms of silvicultural activity on their lands when they cut almost the same amount of land as we do?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if perhaps the member would review the purpose of question period. The member asks questions and then proceeds to answer himself. Perhaps if he would go into a closet somewhere he could have a good little conversation with himself.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe part of the problem is that they don't have the answers and it's time for those who do have the answers.

Finland treats four times the amount of land that we do silviculturally.

Could the minister advise us what percentage of our newsprint machinery in British Columbia is now more than 35 years old?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think we should ask the House statistician that question.

MS. BROWN: Who is that?

MR. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding that the number is 58 percent and that Sweden is only 7 percent. That's why we're failing competitively. Could the minister advise the House how much we spent on pre-commercial thinning in British Columbia last year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This last year the amounts of money spent on various silvicultural applications will be presented in the next annual report of the Ministry of Forests.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding the amount was nil. Could the minister advise us how much was spent on seeding in British Columbia last year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Over $80,000.

MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is nil. Just a final question. Could he advise which of the following experts have advised all the public and the government of British Columbia that we face a 30 percent decline in productivity in our forests if we maintain what we've been doing under this administration: Mr. Bill Young, the former chief forester, Prof. Les Reed or Prof. Sten Nilsson?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If we did no silviculture work in British Columbia, I'm sure we could predict an even worse disaster.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think we all know what the answer is — all of the above. All of the experts predict a 30 percent decline under this administration.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wonder if perhaps that member for Vancouver East, when he was Minister of Forests, did everything he possibly could to discourage the investment in the forests of British Columbia. I wonder if the Speaker could advise that member of the purpose of question period, and perhaps if he did the members in the opposition would not appear to be such a completely incompetent bunch of nincompoops as they have been in question period so far this year.

MR. WILLIAMS: Methinks he doth protest too much, and I think the rating was zero and the grade would be E.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. This is question period. The time is limited.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I withdraw the word "nincompoops."

HOSPITALS FUNDING

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Health. The government's restraint program for hospitals is obviously continuing with a vengeance since the recent announcement of the hospital operating grants for this fiscal year.

[ Page 6103 ]

My question to the minister is: in light of the general concern from the public and from the workers in our hospitals regarding the ability of our hospitals today to provide quality care to their patients because of the Socred restraint program, will the minister initiate an inquiry into our hospital situation in B.C.?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If the wording were not almost precisely the same as the ads carried by the nurses' union, I would think that the member perhaps had developed the question herself.

Mr. Chairman, the preamble to the member's question is wrong. There is no need for an inquiry into what is perhaps one of the best hospital systems in North America.

MRS. DAILLY: I just wish the minister would pay attention to the content of my question, instead of having to make some specious remarks about the creator of the question. But Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister, in rejecting an inquiry into the hospital system, is saying to the public of B.C. that the money that is presently given is quite adequate for good quality care. Is that what you're saying?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the public of British Columbia they have every reason to expect the best level of hospital care available, as they have for many years and will in the future. Yes, we are providing adequate funding for our acute-care hospital level in British Columbia. This year it's approximately $1.8 billion, and the hospitals are getting along quite well. I know it's disappointing to the opposition that there haven't been great complaints from the hospitals since they had their budgets.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm tempted to reply, but not to that kind of a statement that is not helping the situation in our hospitals whatsoever.

But Mr. Speaker, I want my next question to be off the paper, completely original, as all my questions are. Mr. Speaker, my next question to the minister is: in light of the fact that the hospitals are experiencing an almost 4 percent increase because of inflation, they need that increase in their budget. In light of the fact that the minister's increase, barring some new formula, still only comes to around an average of 3 percent for most hospitals, and in some even less, how then can the minister possibly say that hospitals which are already down to the bare bones in operating can possibly give good quality care?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Quality care comes from the people who work in the system. I can assure the member that those people are quite capable of providing quality care.

The hospital budgets have been reasonably well-managed over the past number of years, and I can assure the member they are not down to the bare bones.

BINGO OPERATIONS

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. Another major organized commercial bingo chain called the Bingo-Go Emporium has opened up in Prince George and in Abbottsford. These new bingo parlours have caused major havoc among charitable organizations, especially in Prince George. My question is: what consideration has the minister given to the detrimental effect of his policy of allowing major organized commercial gambling to operate without provincial regulation in the province?

HON. MR. CHABOT: What was that? I'm always surprised by the NDP who ask questions about large bingo halls in British Columbia when they operate the biggest one in Nanaimo in this province. I'm really surprised that they're so concerned about other people doing the same thing as the NDP is doing in Nanaimo. Two officials of my ministry have gone to Prince George to meet with various charitable and non-profit societies in that community, and I am awaiting a report from them either today or tomorrow.

MR. HANSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Many charitable organizations in this province are trying to pick up the pieces from this restraint program of this government. There are Elks, Eagles, all sorts of charitable organizations, the Legions and so on — all of them — and it just so happens that these organizations which are strapped for revenues.... In fact, in Prince George they're having difficulties maintaining a seniors activity centre because of a loss of revenues.

He may think it's funny, and he may want to draw an inappropriate analogy with a private bingo operation in Nanaimo, which is not appropriate whatsoever; there is no comparison whatsoever. These charitable organizations, Mr. Speaker, are lacking revenues because you're allowing large-scale commercial bingo parlours to come in and strip away those needed revenues. My question is: what has the minister decided to do to adopt the recommendation of several service clubs for an inquiry into the new commercial bingo operations, requested by those organizations?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member fails to understand that bingo licences are issued to charitable and non-profit societies; they're not issued to people that rent halls to charitable and non-profit societies. The laws that exist vis-à-vis Prince George, and all the lotteries that take place there, are done under the auspices of charitable and non-profit societies, the same as at pinko-bingo in Nanaimo.

There is absolutely no need for an inquiry. I'm getting a report from officials in my ministry, either later today or tomorrow. An inquiry is strictly a figment of the imagination of the NDP.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. members, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) having advised the Chair, he wishes to raise a matter under standing order 35.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the debate, pursuant to standing order 35, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the indication and fact that this current government looks upon the forest industry as a sunset industry, and that the government's agenda is seedlings for tourists and soup kitchens for citizens. Given the desperate need here in British Columbia to plant seedlings in our soil to provide jobs now and forestry for the future in this province, and, inasmuch as we have just heard of the action by this government to acquire and transport to Japan some 500,000 seedlings to give to tourists in that country, there are already indications that there will be a shortfall of seedlings in British

[ Page 6104 ]

Columbia for our own use — something in the neighbourhood of eight million fewer seedlings than was anticipated — and that the gift to tourists in Japan constitutes about 6.5 percent of that shortfall. The government has spent some $135,000 in acquiring these seedlings and getting them transported to Japan. If that....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this stage the Chair must inform the member that you've gone well beyond the need to fill us in on the essentials for the 35, and now clearly are entering into the realm of argument and debate to sustain the very motion which the member is asking the Chair to rule upon. Therefore, without further ado I ask the member to now take his place and give the Chair opportunity to review the matter and bring a response back at the earliest opportunity.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take my place in debate and move second reading of the bill. I'd like to make a few comments before concluding on second reading.

I want to say first that as a government we're fully committed to the process of collective bargaining in British Columbia. It's an area where the government moves with extreme reluctance. It's a process that has been chosen by the parties as a means of arriving at the terms and conditions of their employment. It's always regrettable, we feel, when government is obligated to intervene in the collective bargaining process, removing or limiting the rights of strike or lockout and giving direction to the parties involved on the type of settlement that they should achieve. These are areas that are granted to the parties under the Labour Code and which government encroaches upon with extreme reluctance.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Translated into the context of the present dispute, the rights granted to the parties under the legislation always remain subject to the legitimate requirements of the broader public interest. The government is now concerned that the present labour dispute at B.C. Railway and the broader public interest has been threatened by the bargaining impasse which culminated in last Sunday's breakdown of negotiations between the parties. As legislators we are the custodians of the public interest. In industrial relations matters we have a responsibility to determine how and when to act. In fact, in all matters dealing with public interest, as legislators we have to determine how and when to act.

In other earlier times the common wisdom was that it was acceptable for all of us in the key sectors of our province to allow the full process of collective bargaining, including lockout and strike, to take its course, on the theory that after the parties had suffered some pain and had inflicted some pain on each other, a new collective agreement could be reached and everything would return to normal, with lost time, lost revenue and new markets readily and easily accessible. Times have changed. Our businesses and industry have worked hard to create new employment opportunities for our people over the past few years, to find new markets in an extremely tough and competitive world with extremely tough and competitive world competition. Our coal mining industries, our forest industry, our pulp industry, have struggled hard, and all are participants in the private sector over the past few years to gain new markets that were lost to them by the downturn in our economy.

The transportation sector is one of those key areas where efficiency and reliability are the basis of British Columbia's economic prospects and trading reputation abroad. With an even keener competition in world markets for our wood products, coal, mineral resources and manufactured goods, our province and our country can ill afford to have our credibility suffer and trading opportunities lost to our competitors through uncertainty in the key transportation sector of our economy. A shutdown at the British Columbia Railway would have a tremendous impact on British Columbia, our industry and our private sector, and thus tough decisions have to be made. Labour uncertainty of the kind now created by the prospect of a British Columbia Railway dispute affects not only the future of our economic recovery program, but also the immediate effect of our economy, the lookout and concern of British Columbia communities and the livelihood of all individuals across our province.

The British Columbia Railway carries more than 665 carloads of traffic per day. The current traffic breakdown per day is as follows: coal, 23,000 tonnes; lumber, 8,700 tonnes; pulp, 3,700 tonnes; plywood and veneer, 1,000 tonnes; grain, 4,000 tonnes; other materials, 13,200 tonnes — a total of 50,000 tonnes per day. That's not counting the traffic into Roberts Bank and the port of Vancouver, where traffic moves from southeastern British Columbia to our export markets. The value of this product to shippers is approximately $7.5 million per day. That would be the amount of money lost by direct customers if the British Columbia Railway were to serve shutdown or lockout notice, or if there were to be disruption in that area of our economy. A shutdown would result in the loss of thousands of jobs across our province — in forestry and in mining, in the northeast and the southeast of our province.

Following a strike or lockout, we know that the loss in production could be made up after the dispute, and we know that our industrial capacity could handle that makeup. But the question that we've got to ask ourselves today is whether those markets will be there after the dispute is over and after the parties have inflicted pain on each other. That is the question that we've got to answer in the next couple of days. It is my belief that, with the tough competition our industry has faced across our province over the past couple of years, those markets would not be readily accessible after the parties had inflicted pain on each other in order to achieve collective agreement.

I think that the employees recognize the consequences of a strike, and the employers have recognized the consequences of a lockout. So both parties have worked hard to negotiate for the past 15 months under the provisions of collective bargaining, with the assistance of our mediating services, our deputy minister and the full resources of the Ministry of Labour. Both parties have recognized the serious implications of a strike or lockout for our province. So they

[ Page 6105 ]

too are to be congratulated for working hard to achieve a collective agreement over the past 13 to 15 months.

But British Columbians cannot afford the loss of our trading partners and investment in new opportunities in the key resource sector of our province. Nor can we allow British Columbians whose livelihoods are tied to the railway to be harmed by the continuing uncertainty of an actual work stoppage on the British Columbia Railway. So I introduced a bill yesterday that I hope will be able to solve the dispute between the parties involved in a fair and even-handed way. The collective agreement on the British Columbia Railway expired 15 months ago. Since that time the parties have continued bargaining, and employment has continued on the railway under the terms and conditions of the old agreement — the same basis on which employment will continue under the new bill, once it is an act.

The mediator was appointed last August to assist the parties in the bargaining process. Mr. Speaker, some progress was made, but an impasse developed, which has resulted in the parties delivering to each other lockout and strike notices on May 6. Last Wednesday, as hon. members will know, I announced that I would release the mediator's report. I decided to take this action at the request of the parties, to allow them an opportunity to negotiate under the pressure of deadlines, in the hope that they would achieve a settlement under the bargaining process.

In making my announcement, I asked the parties to use the time between then and the weekend to recognize the interests of their customers, their membership and their families, and the broader interest of the British Columbia economy I spoke of earlier on. I reminded them that people in the resource sector of our province, people who work in the private sector, have been hard hit with the world recession over the past few years, and that a strike or lockout would have a devastating effect on the parties involved, on our economic recovery program and on our future employment prospects.

Unfortunately, even with the assistance of the mediator and my deputy minister, Graham Leslie, along with Clark Gilmour, director of mediation services, the parties were unable to work towards a collective agreement. Although some issues were resolved, it came to an impasse. As I suggested earlier on, in the transportation sector of our economy a premium is placed on reliability of service, and the very threat of a work stoppage is cause for uncertainty, economic loss or harm to our reputation as a supplier, just as surely as if a shutdown had already occurred. The uncertainty and loss and harm we simply cannot afford in the 1980s. So we needed to take swift action as soon as it became evident that a negotiated settlement without strike or lockout was not forthcoming.

As for the form of intervention, the bill takes the existing dispute resolution mechanisms available under the Labour Code and makes them mandatory. The mediator shall report to the minister, and the minister shall appoint an inquiry commission which shall submit binding recommendations on matters referred to it, unless they are settled by the parties. The purpose here, again, is to bring a greater measure of certainty to the resolution process, while at the same time not preventing the parties from continuing to negotiate towards a settlement while the inquiry process is underway.

In doing so, I hope that they will continue to avail themselves of the services of the Ministry of Labour. I hope that they will avail themselves of those services on an informal basis. I feel that this would help in achieving a settlement and reaching a collective agreement. As for the binding nature of the industrial inquiry commissioner's recommendations, it is true that this approach has in the past only been adopted with the concurrence of both parties. But in the present circumstances, where bargaining has gone on for so long with no resolution, the government believes that binding recommendations are necessary in the interest of harmonious and productive relations between the parties in future negotiations.

I hope that all hon. members and parties will support this legislation in the hope that it will work out with them a way of achieving a collective agreement and get the parties back to working with each other, to bridge those gaps that may be lost if the negotiations continue. It's dangerous for both groups when both sides heat up and uncertainty in the workplace continues.

I've been out in the workplace quite a bit myself. The worst thing you can have out there is uncertainty and people saying we should do this, that, or the other. It doesn't do anything for the industrial relations climate.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is always the danger, too, that the eventual settlement will not be acceptable to either party despite the efforts of the arbitrator. For this reason we have adopted a slightly different approach in the present case. We have indicated in the legislation itself that the provisions allow for the parties to vary, by agreement, any term or condition of the collective agreement resulting from the IIC's recommendations. They have maximum opportunity under this legislation to reach agreement before the commissioner brings forward his recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading, and I urge all members to support the recommendations.

MR. GABELMANN: In his first test, the Labour minister has failed. He says he's fully committed to collective bargaining and then introduces legislation before the process has even completed its normal course of action. He says he's reluctant to move, but he introduces legislation within days of the mediator booking out, and before there was any indication that either party wished to strike or to lock out. In fact, there is indication to the contrary. He says it's regrettable. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if it's regrettable, he doesn't need to do it.

I suggest the minister has failed. I'm going to talk about that in terms of the legislation itself in these comments, but I think he's failed in another way. I think he's failed to live up to the mandate that is required of the Minister of Labour in this province. That mandate requires that that minister protect the collective bargaining system in this province. That's a major mandate of that minister. He was faced with cabinet pressure: "Terry, make sure that railway doesn't shut down." Instead of saying: "I have some long-term collective bargaining interests to protect, " he said: "Yes, sir, whatever you want I'll do. I'll bring in a bill saying there shall not be a strike or a lockout on the B.C. Railway, even though one has not yet occurred." In fact, one may not have been imminent judging by the mood of both parties, neither of which particularly wanted to hit the bricks, if what we hear can be believed.

[2:45]

[ Page 6106 ]

Mr. Speaker, let's just assume for the moment — and I don't — that it was necessary to make sure today that B.C. Rail continue to operate, that there be no strike or that there be no lockout. The minister had every remedy that he could possibly desire at his disposal with the Labour Code and the Essential Service Disputes Act. The only remedy that was not directly and clearly spelled out in either of those statutes is the remedy to impose a binding arbitration award. It's the only one. Yet the Essential Service Disputes Act allows for that mechanism should one of the parties desire to move in that direction.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I think you're asking me if I'm going to be the designated speaker. I think I'm going to have to tell you as we go. I doubt it. I do intend to be brief, but we'll see.

Mr. Speaker, to make the point again, the minister has shown in the last couple of days that he has an inclination to use section 122 of the Labour Code — the industrial inquiry commission section. I applaud him for that, because I think that's a useful Section 1n the Code. It was developed in the early 1970s under our government. I think it is a section that has not been used to its full potential over the years. But in this dispute, unlike apparently the police dispute in a nearby municipality, the purpose and the procedure under section 122 of the Code has been thoroughly sabotaged by making — by government or legislative order — a report of that industrial inquiry commissioner mandatory without the parties' agreeing that it should be made mandatory, which is a provision of 122. That process could have happened. An inquiry commissioner could have been appointed. The railway could have been kept running, if that was the concern, and I recognize there's a concern about that in terms of the economy of this province. The railway could have been kept running by using section 8 of the Essential Service Disputes Act.

But no, the government said to the Minister of Labour: "Look, we're in trouble. We're in trouble on education; we're in trouble on the economy; we're in trouble on northeast coal; we need a diversionary tactic. Do something so we can make it look as if we're really taking some action on the economy." That's what this bill is about. We don't need the legislation, except to try to make the government look good. That's the only reason. The minister fails in his responsibility to defend collective bargaining and to defend the industrial relations community in this province when he succumbs to that kind of political pressure from his colleagues.

The government would wish that the bad publicity would go away. It wishes that it could get out from under its economic bungling. It attempts to divert. It does it by circuses and by gimmicks like this. It's not good enough for the Minister of Labour to abdicate his responsibility, as I said before, in protecting and enhancing the interests of the collective bargaining system.

While there may be some political gain for the government in this kind of move — bringing a bill to the Legislature which isn't necessary but forces a debate; which isn't necessary because he could go and do the same things anyway — there is no long-term economic advantage whatsoever, because, as I've said many times before in this Legislature, when governments intervene in labour disputes it becomes easier and easier to do it again, more often and in situations less demanding of that requirement. What happens then at the bargaining table? One of the inevitable results, and we've seen it time and time again, is that one party or the other — and it can be one party or the other — says to itself: "We don't have to negotiate an agreement giving up some things our members want or our principals want. We can continue to be the good guys in the eyes of our principals or in the eyes of our members by not giving up those rights or giving up those points, because we know the Legislature or the government will come in and bail us out."

I've seen that happen from both directions, Mr. Speaker. When that begins to happen in our society, and it happens increasingly.... W.A. C. Bennett never found the need to do this kind of thing. With all the many criticisms I had of his labour-management or industrial relations policies, he didn't find the need to do this kind of thing. But as we've been doing it increasingly and more frequently, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We will have to do it that much more frequently in the future, because one side or the other will say to itself: "Why do we have to bargain? We can look like good guys, and if we know we have the ear of the government, we know we can get what we want."

In this case, as in so many others, not only does the employer have the ear of the government; it is the government. Members of that same cabinet who ordered the Minister of Labour to bring in this bill are the employers, members of the board of directors of B.C. Rail. Don't you think they might have whispered a word or two in the ear of their negotiators? "Hang tough. Don't give up anything. Don't feel you have to conclude an agreement. We'll bail you out. We've done it before. We don't do it if poor people are deprived of their transit services; we don't do it for months then. But if it is threatened that one piece of wood or one ton of coal might not move at some point in the future, we'll do it right away." It's hypocritical. It's totally political.

The minister talks about being custodians of the public interest, and then proceeds to tell the House that the only public interest is the economic interest. I agree that it's a major element of what the public interest is — protecting, enhancing and promoting the economy of the province — but the only time this government seems able to do anything, by its own definition in terms of enhancing the economic wherewithal of the province, is when it says we have to send people back to work, or we have to prevent them from going out on strike or being locked out. They can't seem to do it in any other economic or developmental policies. The public interest doesn't matter a damn when it comes to reforestation, or to proper development of our industries, or enhancing the value of our resources, The public interest is irrelevant. But now it suddenly becomes important.

Well, the public interest is not something that finishes a few days or a few weeks or a few months or a few years from now. The public interest is something that lasts and lasts. It goes on forever, and the public interest requires of at least one minister in that government that he protect the public interest when it comes to free and democratic collective bargaining in our society. The government, with some exceptions, no doubt, would argue strenuously against this kind of involvement in private contracts. They're prepared to interfere frequently, willy-nilly, without thought, without the necessity of doing it, when it comes to a contract between an employer and the delivery of the labour, but they don't make the same kind of interventions when it comes to the goods or services that that employer might purchase.

[ Page 6107 ]

The government would be appalled by a suggestion that the community out there should have its contracts vetted by this Legislature. There are so many contracts to buy a certain number of widgets, and the government says: "Oh, no, we didn't like the deal you made. We're going to veto it. We're going to bring in a bill saying you have to buy fewer widgets, and you have to pay more, or the other way around." What nonsense! But somehow labour gets treated like that.

Now that's not to say that there aren't occasions — I've said this before; I feel I need to say it again — when the Legislature has a full and proper responsibility to intervene in the collective bargaining system. I regret when that happens, but I agree that it has to happen on occasion. But it only happens as the last resort. It should not happen at this stage of the process.

The last time we had a serious industrial relations dispute on B.C. Rail, the current Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was the Minister of Labour — in late 1979, the beginning of 1980. I give that former minister a lot of credit for the way he handled that dispute and some others. He didn't come crying to the Legislature saying: "I've got to have a bill to make sure they don't go out on strike." He had the guts and the courage to demand that the parties came down here, sat in one of the committee rooms and bargained, with his presence either directly or hovering.

Now a minister of the Crown has a fair amount of clout and a fair amount of influence. He shouldn't get involved too early, but there is a time when a minister needs to be involved. Under W.A.C. Bennett's regime, the Premier himself got involved occasionally, and I remember when parties were quite impressed and quite prepared to have a look at what they were saying at the bargaining table, quite prepared to take a thorough look at the whole situation because the Premier of the province had invited them into his office to talk about it. You don't do it very often, but when you do it, if you do it sparingly, it works, and it enabled that Premier to avoid having this kind of legislation in whatever form it takes being introduced in this House.

The bill takes a different approach, and I've alluded to some of it before. It thoroughly discredits the role of an IIC and, I think, makes impossible the proper fulfilment of what an IIC would do under section 122 of the Code. Because the recommendations aren't mandatory as a request of the parties; in fact, they're mandatory as a request of a third party who's theoretically not involved, or theoretically involved as an independent.

Unfortunately in this case, of course, the government is involved as a principal, and that makes very difficult the proper work of an IIC and — I think history supports this — makes very difficult future improved industrial relations on the railroad. Because what's going to happen inevitably is that the parties are going to be given a contract that they're not happy with; one or the other, or both — most likely both. And there are going to be provisions in the collective agreement which aren't dealt with by 7 (2) of this bill; provisions that one party will find repulsive and repugnant, and another section that the other party will find the same way. Then you're going to have that chafing and complaining — I don't want to use the word that comes to mind — that goes on when people live under a collective agreement that they haven't been party to and haven't been part of resolving. You will then be back to the bad old days of B.C. Rail labour relations, which we began to get away from post-1980. We began to see, with the industrial relations policy developed by the railway in the last few years.... Unfortunately, those policies came to an end last year as a result of the death of an individual who played a very important role, I think, in beginning to put industrial relations back on track, as it were.

Rather than attempting to continue those policies by using its role as the employer, the government let B.C. Rail slip back into the bad old days. Fifteen months now, or whatever it is, without a collective agreement; a year and a half of bargaining. I don't want to get into the issues that are involved, because I don't think that's an appropriate item for discussion in this House. But when I see what some of the issues appear to be.... And none of us knows. Not having sat in on those negotiations, we don't know for certain what went on. When you see what appear to be the issues involved, when you see what seems to be an intransigence build up on both sides, one can only say that B.C. Rail has slipped backwards in the last year or so, back into the bad old days when disputes were rarely resolved amicably.

[3:00]

You know, Mr. Speaker, if the government really wanted to ensure that good days were ahead in industrial relations on the BCR, they would not have brought in this legislation. They would have worked to make sure that the bargaining team that works for the government and the industrial relations policy of that railway were modern and perceptive to the needs of the situation; that's obviously not happened. Anytime a bill like this is brought in, it's an absolute admission of failure. In this situation in particular, it's an admission of failure tenfold when the bill is brought in before there is even a strike or a lockout; only the potential of one, in the sense that both parties are free to strike or to lock out. All kinds of labour disputes in our society are in the situation where people are in a legal position to strike or to lock out. Sometimes it goes on for months. The bargaining continues, the pressure is on.

I was pleased last week when the minister said he was going to allow the mediation officer to book out. He felt that after God knows how many months of the mediator's presence there was no possibility of resolution with the mediator being involved, and therefore the strike or lockout option being precluded. I was pleased with what I thought was a sense of maturity, an indication of a new era in labour relations in this province, when the minister allowed the mediator to book out. He even made a press release about it, which I thought was a bit unusual. I saw the press statement. The mediator books out on the weekend, and on Monday we get a bill. There hasn't been time for the pressure to begin to work. Let it go for a while. And if — I say "if" — a strike or lockout did develop, then the minister has, as I said before, the option of the two pieces of legislation that can apply in this situation.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The beauty from his point of view — if not mine from a philosophical point of view, but perhaps the good point of view for many people in this province; certainly many people in this House — is that the Essential Service Disputes Act allows for what the minister wants to accomplish, without having a binding collective agreement imposed on the parties by some third party, an IIC. I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that in his first test the minister did not stand up for collective bargaining, but decided instead to stand up for the wishes of those of his colleagues who do not understand that we're

[ Page 6108 ]

talking about people who work for a living. These are people whose very livelihood depends upon these collective agreements, whose place of residence depends upon the conclusions of these collective agreements. Very important issues. Not issues that I intend to judge — I don't believe that's my role — but important issues to people; and they want an opportunity to talk about those issues and to resolve them. When people resolve an issue by talking about it face to face — even when the result is an unhappy one — they are more likely to live with it than if it's imposed on them. What the minister has done is to take us back to the dark old days of bad labour relations on the BCR, and it will be a long time in recovery from this kind of legislative interference.

Mr. Speaker, I intend during the committee stage to take a little bit more time on some of the specific aspects of the way in which the legislation is worded. It's a departure. It's unlike the NDP legislation in 1975 which simply ordered a cooling off period and required that the parties bargain and reach their own agreement. It's different from the last two pieces of legislation, the one on pulp and the one on transit, that were brought in by the former Minister of Labour, inasmuch as the legislature is not given, directly at least, the right — the cabinet does, that bill really implies — to impose a collective agreement.

So it's a different approach, but it's no better. In some weird ways, Mr. Speaker, it's worse, because as bad and as repugnant as I found the pulp bill and the transit bill, at least there was an immense pressure on the parties to try to reach an agreement, which they did in both cases, because the very worst thing that could happen to workers in this province — and most employers would agree privately — is to have that cabinet impose a collective agreement on anybody. So they had that kind of pressure on them. As bad as I find that, at least it was an intense pressure to resolve the dispute.

The minister has, in this bill, tried to walk a middle kind of road. He has rejected the cabinet determination of a collective agreement, trying to win favour by appearing to use a good section of the Labour Code. But in doing so — in trying to walk that middle ground — he's got nothing. He has done a dastardly disservice to collective bargaining on one hand, and he has given no incentive to the parties to put it together on the other hand. So what have we got?

We've got a minister bringing in a political bill, at the political direction of his cabinet because they're suffering in the polls, just to try to recoup, if they can, a few points — especially between North Van via Squamish up to Prince George and on to Tumbler Ridge — in the opinion polls. That's all it's about. Mr. Speaker, that does disservice to one of the basic democratic freedoms in our society, the freedom to bargain collectively for your terms and conditions of work.

Mr. Speaker, the bill and the minister are a disaster.

MR. MACDONALD: I think the minister, Mr. Speaker, is being awfully jumpy. I don't think that's going to be good for labour relations in this province, as the member for North Island says here. Look, the Labour Code, which has passed as the law of the province.... I think section 122 says that we can have the report, at this stage, of an industrial inquiry commissioner. Why shouldn't we be allowed to read it, sitting here in the Legislature, before we're jumping away ahead of ourselves and passing this particular legislation? During that period, nobody can strike and nobody can lock out. That's a fairly limited period, I agree, Mr. Speaker. I think it's 14 days.

But then you've got another piece of legislation on the statute books, the Essential Service Disputes Act. You go to the back of that, and you see right written into the schedule as the affected industry British Columbia Rail. Has the minister read that? Why hasn't he used it? There's a cooling-off period, if that's what you want to call it, of 90 days. Why are we so jumpy? Why are we launching our boat while the tide is still out? There's no strike. There's no lockout.

The minister hasn't even met with the parties, as I understand it from listening to the hon. member; he can correct that if he likes, but I don't think he has. Have you had the parties in for a tongue-lashing in your office, Mr. Minister? Have you said: "This is an important, vital public utility" — which of course it is — "and you'd better get down to business and settle"? You didn't even give the trustees a tongue-lashing; you gave them a leave of absence. But at least the Minister of Labour, before he jumps at.... My heavens, we're going to have all kinds of labour disputes in this province during the remaining month or two of your administration, Mr. Minister of Labour — of your occupation of that office. Are you going to jump at them before there's a strike notice issued? Well, there are strike notices out, but nobody's intending to go on strike right away.

It can be prevented by using existing legislation. Now this is a jumpy minister. You're jumping too soon, you're jumping too fast. You're going to do more harm in the field of industrial relations than good.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member direct his comments to the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: But the Chair is not jumpy. Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I've said what I meant to say. I think it's a shame that we should be asked here.... Is this a bit of light summer theatre that we're engaged in here? Get up at the end and tell us whether any legislature has been asked to rule at this stage of a dispute, when there can be cooling-off periods — 90 days under the Essential Service Disputes Act; 14 days at least under the Industrial....Has any legislature anywhere been asked to go through this kind of exercise? My gosh, to prevent a divorce before there's a marriage — before the baby's born.... I think we're jumping at things. This has got to be political theatre on the part of the government. But it's bad theatre, because when you get jumpy in that Labour portfolio, you create waves out there that always cause more harm than good.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, this legislation, in my opinion, is not designed to deal with a labour dispute in any way. This legislation is designed to inflame. There are provisions in already existing legislation that can deal with the impending problem on B.C. Rail. The Essential Service Disputes Act is one that can be used. There is no need for this legislation. There may very well be a need for government to step in at a later date. That would be the prerogative of this Legislature, and something that has been done before under every government. But why, you have to ask, does the minister bring in a bill that isn't needed when he already has the power within legislation to deal with this situation?

Mr. Speaker, there can only be one answer. If the minister already has the power under legislation, then this legislation that we're dealing with here is nothing more than a political game. They've read the polls. The latest Decima poll shows

[ Page 6109 ]

that 63 percent of the people in this province are more than a bit discouraged with the leadership in the labour movement. Whether their opinion is correct or not, it is their opinion. The government has access to those polls. They are taking advantage.... They did it with the teachers. Every time they take a poll where they find that the majority of people are against the minority, this government will act on that information. They divide in order to conquer. They bring about confrontation where cooperation would be better suited. It is a shame on politics in this province. I don't believe that this is the minister's legislation anyway. He just happens to be the willing messenger who has brought it forward.

[3:15]

There is a design, not by the elected officials in this House — with the exception of the Premier.... The Premier and his non-elected advisers are the people running this province. Even ministers have no sway within their own council. Ministers have ended up being lackeys to public servants and the Premier. I cannot believe that this minister does not believe, as we do, that it is a political ploy, that it is nothing more than doing something in this Legislature with which they hope to catch the imagination of people who are prone to bigotry — nothing more, nothing less. The legislation is there to deal with this situation, or any situation that we can imagine arising out of these negotiations between management and labour on the B.C. Railway.

This bill is a political sham and I for one will not be voting for it. As the only member of the United Party in this House....

MR. HOWARD: Ever.

MR. LEA: Maybe ever, maybe not. I'm sure people probably said that to the people who founded the CCF: maybe never — never up until now.

There are two areas where I could probably have walked out of this House a hero. I could have been a hypocrite on the pay raise in this House and stuck it to both the major parties and walked out with people saying: "Isn't Lea a good guy?" I could probably vote with the government on this legislation and take advantage of bigotry and ignorance around this dispute and the kind of legislation that's already available.

I don't have to shave in the morning, but I still have to look at myself in the mirror. I will not be part of this political sham. That's what it is, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows it; the government members know it. It is short-term politics. Surely we have a bigger obligation to the people of this province than we have to our own political parties. There isn't anyone in this House, in my opinion, who will vote for this legislation in good conscience. There will be people, however, voting for it. I won't be one of them.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I suppose always, when a member is elevated to the cabinet, there is a generosity on the part of other members in the chamber to wish that person well, to hope that his first formal efforts in that office bring forth something that elevates that person's stature. That's the nature of the chamber: to give a new member or a new person time to find himself, and hope that the individual comes out for the better in his first efforts. Regrettably, that ain't the case here. The first formal act, as much as we would have hoped otherwise, makes all of us wish that the minister was made of something better, and that he had brought forward something better to serve the public.

What this indicates, as others have said, is that the minister has immediately become absorbed in and become a part of and a spokesman for the concept of manipulating public opinion for his own party's good. He's become a part of and a spokesman for the concept of confrontation and attack against groups in society. If there is something that identifies this government over the past number of years, it is simply that: manipulative and confrontational, seeking to divide and conquer, to divide and rule. The minister has proved immediately that he's a part of that foul game, of that foul part of politics in this province, and that's unfortunate.

He says one thing but does another. He follows the course of saying, "I do this reluctantly, but I do it for your own good," as if people don't know what is in their own best interests. In addition, either the minister does not trust himself or the Premier doesn't trust him, because in the bill, looking at section 6 and without referring to it in detail, Mr. Speaker, and looking at section 122 of the Labour Code.... This bill says: we don't trust the minister to carry out his options under section 122 of the Labour Code, so we'll spell them out for him; we'll remove the options available to the minister by nailing down precisely, if he does seek to opt under 122, what he's required to do. That means the minister either doesn't trust himself to make the value judgment about his options under section 122 — or he wouldn't have incorporated that in here — or he is reflecting the lack of trust that the Premier has in that minister for those options under section 122; otherwise they wouldn't be in there. That doesn't speak very highly, I would think, of what we are seeking to accomplish in this chamber to the benefit of collective bargaining and the benefit of society.

We've had collective bargaining in the province of British Columbia by provincial statute for something like 40 years. It's had its ups and its downs, and under the collective bargaining process and under the statutes that have existed there have been lockouts by employers, strikes by employees, and simultaneous or mutual actions by the two of them at given times. And there have been excellent collective agreements bargained for under whatever our legislation was over the years, indicating that it is possible for fair-minded people in the collective bargaining process to reach a mutually acceptable and a fair agreement that's available to all.

I think we all know that in difficult economic times the group that has the power in any set of collective bargaining primarily is the employer. That power is stronger, generally speaking, than that obtained by the working class, through their organizations. In bad economic times the power of the employer increases. Those are the times when we should be extremely careful about what we do as legislators to intrude into that collective bargaining system. As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out, every time we intrude we make the next intrusion that much easier. Every time we intrude we injure the collective bargaining process. Every time we intrude we diminish the process; we make it less workable, less manageable. We give a signal to both sides in the collective bargaining process that maybe it isn't worth bending every effort for a mutually acceptable collective agreement, because government will stand in the background and will offer to intrude.

We will attract employers who want to be that way or workers who want to be that way. We will attract them to be intransigent in the collective bargaining process. We've done it already. We are saying to them: you really don't need to try to come to a fair settlement between yourselves, because big

[ Page 6110 ]

government will move in and bail you out, deciding for you what's best for you. The result will be an unhealthy, injured collective bargaining process, not a vibrant and a healthy one, which is what we all desire.

The minister — I wrote down his closing remarks — said that he hoped for harmonious industrial relations in the future. In order to have that, I'd suggest the minister and the government stay out of the way and stay out of the process until all other attempts have failed and there is no other recourse left. Don't get into the process partway through it and say: we're going to fix it for you; you don't need to bother. If the minister truly, honestly believes that he has a hope for harmonious industrial relations in the future, I'd suggest to him his course of action is to withdraw this bill at the moment or set it to one side, but not to proceed with it. By proceeding with it he will injure his own expressed hopes. Whether he actually had those hopes is another question; I won't embark upon that.

In order to have that harmonious industrial relationship, there has to be a will to do it and a will on both sides involved in the collective bargaining process — employers and workers and workers' organizations alike. Sometimes it's there; in fact, most times it is there. We only see and have drawn to the public's attention the times when it doesn't work. But mostly it does. It works because in the past there has been an approach on the part of government and on the part of legislators — it goes back as well to the time when the New Democratic Party was the government — that the moment of involvement was only when all else failed and there was an obvious inability or refusal on the part of the people involved in the process to come to mutually acceptable terms. Only after ministers had called both parties together, sat them down in a room, beat their heads together and said, resolve this; only after mediators got into the picture; only after industrial inquiry commissions; in some instances, only after free collective bargaining had been permitted to run its full course, and there appeared to be no other choice available, did government intrude. This bill is a departure from that historic position, and it's a bad and injurious departure.

Collective bargaining, we know, has as its foundation a kind of confrontational atmosphere itself. There is an adversarial aspect involved in which people physically indicate that they are adversaries by sitting on opposite sides of the table. They don't even sit next to each other and try to work cooperatively that way. That's the way it is, so it has that atmosphere about it.

[3:30]

We have a government here, Mr. Speaker, that wants to continue that adversarial complexion to collective bargaining; it likes to see it continue and be available, hoping that confrontation will be the rule of the day in collective bargaining and that collective bargaining in given instances will fail so the government can step in and impose itself upon that situation. That's what the government seeks to have happen. It does that by doing things that it is doing now, and it does that in periods where there is relative harmony in collective bargaining. It does that by being silent about the whole process, and only steps in when it seeks to have it be to the advantage of the government.

Either side in collective bargaining can exploit the process, and has exploited it in the past. There was a time when we had in this province a step-by-step mechanism of conciliation officers — direct collective bargaining. If that failed, then either party could take the next step to a conciliation officer. If that didn't work, either party could proceed to the establishment of a conciliation board. It had hearings, and if that didn't work, either party then had a vote on what the conciliation board recommended, and eventually there might be strike votes, lockout decisions and so on. In some instances, participants in that collective bargaining process then deliberately did not bargain in good faith at any of those stages, because they thought: "We can get a better deal at the next stage." They can do that today.

I see the minister nodding his head, and I take it that he is nodding in agreement with what I have just been saying. If he is nodding in agreement with what I am just saying, then he'd better nod in agreement with what I said earlier. That is, every time that government steps into the picture it's enticing the participants in collective bargaining to delay and not to collectively bargain in good faith, because they know the government's going to step in and maybe they'll get a better deal when the government steps in. If you agree with one, then you have to agree with the other. If you agree with what I've just said about not bargaining in good faith in the earlier days, hoping to get a better deal later on, then you've done the wrong thing by bringing in this bill, because that's precisely what you're enticing people to do right at the moment.

I don't know what happened in B.C. Rail's activities. I was a member, and other members in this House were too, of the now defunct, destroyed, eunuched Crown Corporations Committee, and a few years ago we had the opportunity to have a number of meetings with B.C. Rail officials with respect to the operations of B.C. Rail. We were delighted at the progress that had been made within that company and within its council of unions with respect to collective bargaining in the post-1979-80 difficult period. The committee was overjoyed to hear that.

That came about — I'm not attempting to lay blame here now on anybody — because B.C. Rail had then, perhaps in the aftermath of those horrendously difficult times they had in 1978-79, 1980 — somewhere in that period of 1979 and 1980 — the foresight to employ a very personable, knowledgeable, determined and committed vice-president in charge of industrial relations, who knew the history of collective bargaining from the trade union point of view and from the employer's point of view. He brought to that corporation common sense and was able to effect a very harmonious set of circumstances with respect to collective bargaining. Regretfully he's gone now; he's not around any longer to do that.

What I'm saying doesn't say anything at all about the person whom I believe is named Foley, isn't he? The vice president of industrial relations, Brian Foley; I don't know that person at all. I've no comment about his capacity or anything else. But I do know what happened before, and I do know there were harmonious relationships, and I do know that there can be again if government will keep its long nose out of the affairs, if government won't accelerate the whole system.

Here's a group that's been without a collective agreement for 14 or 15 months, a long period of time. Here is a group — employers and employees, through the member council of the trade unions — that had a difference of opinion last fall about crew size on the trains. How long that difference of opinion existed I don't know, but they made a decision in the process of collective bargaining to refer that subject matter to arbitration. The union and the company finally concluded, as a result of collective bargaining: "We can't resolve this at the bargaining table for one reason or another. Let's ship it off to

[ Page 6111 ]

arbitration." The annual report of B.C. Rail, which appeared in our mailboxes today, points out that hearings began early in 1985 and a ruling is expected in May on that one subject.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I say that if this group can exhibit — that is, B.C. Rail and its council of trade unions — a few months ago the cooperative spirit of sending one subject to arbitration, then they can cooperate together to do other things, regardless of how difficult those times may be or the feelings may be between them. Interference by the government for whatever ulterior motive the government may have, whether it's rotten crass politics or PR or a diversionary tactic to take the minds of the public off the horrendous mess this government has got the economy in, whatever its reason, will injure the process by proceeding with this particular bill.

There are other ways of approaching things. I submit that B.C. Rail and its council of trade unions, even though they have been bargaining collectively for some 14 or 15 months and even though that may be frustrating — and I know from personal experience that it is — and even though hard feelings may develop between them.... If the word is given to them by the minister: "You guys figure this out yourselves. You've done it before. You did it just a few months ago with crew sizes. You figured that one out yourselves without any legislation, You determined that you'd send that one to arbitration. Obviously you have the capacity to do it. Obviously you have the desire to do it in one instance.... Indicating that desire in one instance indicates that there is desire in other instances as well.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not worthy of support. It does not have anything whatever to do with whether one has a particular bias about corporate strategies or trade union strategies with respect to collective bargaining. I say from the outset that I don't, that I'm not a handmaiden to one or the other in this House or anywhere else. I'm talking in the purest sense of what is decent and fair and correct for this government and this minister to do.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The hallmark of this government's activity has just been blurted out. It's to be confrontational, attacking and manipulative — three words that identify precisely what this government is all about and what that muttering ninny over there is saying. That's what they believe in. That's what they do every day of the week, and here it is again.

I say to the minister, maybe this government won't change its ways, and that looks to be the case; then the only solution is to change the government. And the sooner we have that opportunity the better.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I may not be as eloquent as the member for Vancouver Centre. However, I would like to make a comment or two about this bill.

Unfortunately the two parties to the bargaining process have not been able to agree. Unfortunately, also, there is another party or group of parties who would be very seriously affected by disruptions of that very critical transportation system in British Columbia. They've gone through a very difficult time these last few years — our resource industries — and recovery is slowly taking place. Our markets are slowly improving for our forest products and for the other commodities transported by B.C. Rail. But more important than day-to-day transportation of goods is the reputation that our province has in the marketplaces of the world.

A couple of years ago when I was in Beijing in the People's Republic of China a very brief lockout took place. I believe the Tahsis Co. was involved. That morning I and my associates on the trip had a meeting with the China National Light Industrial Products Import and Export Company, which is responsible for the import of pulp and paper into China. The people in that agency knew within 15 minutes of that lockout taking place, and when we entered the meeting we were asked immediately: "Will that lockout have any effect on your ability to deliver pulp and on the contracts that we have with your country?"

No matter whether a labour disruption takes place or whether it is anticipated, whether it's for one day or three months, any indication to the world of a labour climate of disruption in British Columbia that would make it difficult for us to deliver to those world marketplaces will give our competitors an advantage over us and make it more difficult for us to sell into those world marketplaces. Not only is the reputation of our province as a reliable supplier of goods at stake, Mr. Speaker, but the very recovery that is taking place throughout the central part of British Columbia in the forest products industry and in the mining industry is at jeopardy. The union members on the railway have been working steadily throughout this difficult economic time, but many of their union brothers employed in other industries have had extremely difficult times indeed. There have been layoffs. There have been temporary plant closures, and in some places permanent plant closures. Now as these people are once again enjoying relatively stable employment, I think it unwise and really unfair that one sector of the economy should once again put them out of work, or be a party to putting them out of work.

We so often approach the labour situation in British Columbia, as the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said, in an adversarial way. I think there is a gradual change taking place in British Columbia — and I think it's a change for the good — and that is the realization that the employers and the employees really depend upon the same enterprises for their well-being. Without healthy competitive industries there would be no jobs in British Columbia. Without being able to deal effectively in world marketplaces, we'd have a difficult time maintaining the industrial levels that we have, particularly in our resource industries.

I don't think that we can have B.C. Rail go on strike, even for a moment, because when it does, that word is immediately broadcast about our market areas and makes it more difficult for us to convince the world that the problems that they perceive in British Columbia are more perceptual than real — because we quite frankly have been rather reliable, and it's been very seldom that British Columbia's products have been delayed from marketplaces and that contracts haven't been filled as a result of labour disruptions. Nevertheless that reputation is abroad and we are not favourably looked upon. Wherever I go throughout the world trying to help the promotion and sale of our forest products, these questions are asked. 1, with some degree of confidence, tell them yes, there have been occasional strikes in British Columbia, but normally they are among smaller groups of

[ Page 6112 ]

employers and employees and they don't really drastically affect our ability to deliver.

I think it's unfortunate that at times the collective bargaining process does break down. But when it does, I don't think it very appropriate that we allow our very reputation as a province and a country to suffer. I don't think it appropriate that those people who will be hurt, and who are not present at the bargaining table — those other workers and enterprises that depend upon that transportation system — be forced to suffer any more than they have in previous years.

[3:45]

I think the Minister of Labour, even though he is relatively new in his portfolio, has demonstrated a willingness to listen, to hear both sides of stories and to understand the problems that he has to deal with. That minister was up in my constituency last week in the mining communities of Logan Lake, Ashcroft and Cache Creek, and he met with members of the employer group and with employee groups as well. He was very well received, and people from both sides — if there have to be sides — acknowledged the fact that here is a minister who wants to listen and to understand, and to make the system work.

I think that we, as members of the Legislature, not only have a responsibility to the collective bargaining process and to the two sides of a dispute, but we have a greater responsibility to the economy of British Columbia and to those other people who from time to time are hurt and who are not a party to the individual collective bargaining that hurts them. I have no hesitancy whatsoever in supporting the minister's bill.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Forests indicated in the first part of his remarks that he was worried about the attitude of some of our customers. It's little wonder to me that a totalitarian administration, without the democratic institution of free collective bargaining, would be wondering what free collective bargaining was all about. I find the first part of the minister's remarks totally unacceptable, because his suggestion is that there should be no free collective bargaining on the B.C. Railroad. That's what he's saying.

Without taking an overly sentimental view about working people — the vast majority of people in this province, who work with their hands and with some skill to provide the wealth in this province — they're one of our democratic institutions. All of our democratic institutions are very — comparatively speaking — expensive. They're expensive in terms of the total commonwealth. They're expensive in terms of time, and wear and tear on the nerves. They require patience, judgment, wisdom, tolerance, shared civil liberties, shared responsibilities in protecting our neighbours' rights as well as our own — protecting our neighbours' rights because we're protecting our own. That's a democratic system.

I'm not surprised that the Minister of Forests would make such an uneducated remark — uneducated and unappreciative of the integrity of the democratic institutions of our country. It's incredible to me that people like this are elected and re-elected in a democratic system, and they have nothing but contempt for the very democratic system that has elected them. I appreciate the Minister of Forests' remarks that other people suffer when there are shutdowns. Yes, there is some evidence that people in the forest industry and in some related industries are now experiencing slightly more stable employment, and we do not want to risk that stability for the sake of a labour dispute that some may interpret as irrational or rational.

Democratic institutions arc expensive. If we're to take the point of view of the Minister of Forests, we can abolish all of the democratic institutions and go to a form of totalitarian government; then we'll have stable employment, stable economic conditions. Our customers around the world can be assured of delivery of our product, but we will not have a democratic system of government. We will not have a free economic system in our society, and you put the stability — the social and governmental stability — of our system in jeopardy. It's no longer the ballot box; it then becomes the gun. It's this attitude on the part of the government that concerns me.

Every once in a while people take office and they rise in office — I think that's the expression used; and every once in a while people take office and they lower the office itself. As Plato said, "A measure of a man is how he uses power, " not whether he has it or not. He could be gracious; he could use it sparingly, with wisdom and in a timely way. If he uses it like a bludgeon, he reveals his own innermost weaknesses, his lack of skill, his lack of training in his office. He uses power to hide the fact that he's afraid and lacks the courage to be steady at the tiller and go through those tested steps that other people in that office went through before him. He could add to the prestige and the strength of his position, but if he acts in a mean-minded way or, as in this situation, Mr. Speaker, in a transparent political ploy that has misused the power of his office, then it is a mark of Cain in political life that he'll have to carry with him and pay the price for. In the final analysis he makes that decision. The office is given to him by the Premier, but how he handles that office, and how he stands up to those about him is watched, is recorded, and will not be forgotten.

In this situation, Mr. Speaker, the move of the government is decidedly premature. It's embarrassingly transparent as a political ploy and should not be forgotten. I will be voting against this bill.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I certainly welcome the opportunity to be able to support this bill in, if you like, very broad terms but also because of a very parochial interest. The area that I represent, northeastern British Columbia, is very dependent on rail transport as a means of maintaining the industries in that area. I know that applies to many parts of the interior. I'm certainly amazed at some of the specious arguments that have been made so far by members of the opposition. They seem to be unaware that many industries in the north absolutely and entirely depend on rail transport. The farmers had a very difficult season last year. They've managed to rescue some of the grain this spring because of good luck, and now to have B.C. Rail, the only method of shipping the grain out of that area, shut down would be a catastrophe on top of an already catastrophic situation. We must not let that happen.

The lumber industry, particularly in Fort Nelson and in Fort St. John, is to a large extent dependent on the shipment of chips. That's what keeps those companies alive. You cannot afford to ship those chips any other way than by rail. So the jobs of people in those industries in that area are completely dependent on B.C. Rail. Every time there is a suggestion of B.C. Rail's closing down, it affects hundreds if not thousands of people in my area. Just the threat of it has a harmful effect.

[ Page 6113 ]

The petroleum industry ships a lot of petroleum products north and south from the refinery at Taylor. Many other operations are dependent on whether that fuel gets to Fort Nelson in tanker cars from the refinery at Taylor and from other places. The products they manufacture there, the byproducts of the petroleum industry, have to be shipped south. Certainly some of the products go by pipeline. But some of these have to go by means of rail transport, and that is the only way.

So what we're talking about in this situation is the vested interests of a small minority in our society being able — for their democratic rights, as some of the opposition members state — to put all of those other people out of work, not just for the period of time that they shut down the rail, but if those markets are lost........ Remember, these shipments that I'm talking about depend on somebody buying those products, and if those people quit buying those products because they can't rely on the shipments arriving, or because the cost becomes prohibitive because some other method of transportation has to be brought in, then those people could lose those jobs over an extended period of time. All it would take is one major industry to shut down because of a loss of markets, and you would have another catastrophe. Remember that it may not seem that important to people who live in the heavily populated southern portion of the province, because of the diversification available to them. But certainly those areas of the province feed that diversification, and our resource areas are very important to the total economy of the province and must not be jeopardized.

When I hear a member, like that member from Vancouver with a tiny little constituency — with a diverse situation dependent on the resource development in this area — talk about the democratic rights of a small minority........ Democracy to me was always defined as the rights of the majority of people in our society. If you're going to talk democratic rights, then does that mean that those democratic rights are exclusive to a small group who can undermine the democratic rights of the rest of the people in this province? I cannot accept that, because if democracy means anything at all, then one individual or one small group does not have the right to undermine the livelihood of all of the rest of the people in the province.

For that reason, what this bill is doing is supporting democratic rights. I know the opposition, with their debt to small groups, believe that democracy consists of total support for one small group. Do you ignore the rest of the people? I don't see how you can talk democracy when you say that the power that's vested in democracy should be the exclusive rights of a small minority. If power in a democracy has any meaning at all, then it must consider the rights of the majority of people and the rights of others, as well as those with a particular vested interest. I think we must keep that in mind. I'm certainly proud to be part of a government that will not let one small contingent of our society destroy the rest of the rights of livelihood for the others.

[4:00]

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) will come to order. Also, the Speaker has a requirement to maintain decorum in the House, and I'll ask the member for North Island not to put his feet on the chair. Thank you. Please continue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Members of the opposition constantly refer to this sacred collective bargaining process. The collective bargaining process, at any price to the majority of the people in this province: is that what you support? Well then, no wonder you'd never get elected as a government.

I think we've had statements that this is a rotten diversion, protecting jobs of thousands of people by taking some collective bargaining process which hasn't worked out and saying to people: "You must settle this." That member also said something about: "You should go to them and say, 'You work it out yourselves."' After 15 months! One of the ways that they were going to work it out was to shut down a very critical and major transportation link in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It would certainly appear that was it. And it still, in this bill, leaves it open. For instance, the bill does recognize that any agreement that can be reached between the parties will not be affected by this legislation. So they still have the opportunity to reach that agreement, and yet protecting jobs of thousands of people in this province is called by that opposition a rotten diversion. Well, I think it's a courageous move; I think it's a necessary move. We could not afford the shutdown. The threat of that shutdown has done enough harm to the people in my area and to the people in the central interior, and we cannot do that.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I'm just appalled at how the very people over there who decry confrontation tactics foster and feed them in any way possible, because what they try to promote is the confrontation tactics. I know that some of them would love to see B.C. Rail get into difficulty. I know that some of them would love to see northeast coal shut down, because that would suit their partisan political purposes, but certainly not the purposes of the people who work in that area, who make their livelihood from it and who provide a lot of revenue to the province.

So, certainly, I can easily and readily support this bill, because I think it's necessary because it protects the rights of the majority of people in this province who have the right to make a livelihood. That maintains the democratic rights of the people of this province, not at the expense of the democratic rights of a small group. I will never accept some of the things that are happening in the Charter of Rights — that an individual has the right to drive drunken and accumulate points and drive dangerously in British Columbia without considering the victims. That's what we're talking about here, the same principle: because of the rights of one individual or a small group, the rights of others should be taken away. No, that is not democracy; that is anarchy.

Certainly I would hope that some of those members would reconsider and support the fact that other people in this province want to work not only now but in the future, and that this bill assures that, while at the same time saying that anything that is reached by agreement between the parties will not be affected by this bill. I think that is about as far as they can go without letting B.C. Rail shut down, and we certainly cannot let that shut down for the broader public interest.

Interjections.

[ Page 6114 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for North Island and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing come to order.

HON. A. FRASER: I would like to say a few words under Bill 39, and I want to give a little history — it will take me two minutes — of the railroad. I've lived along the railroad all my life at Quesnel, my home town, and that used to be the terminus of the railroad. This railroad has had quite a turbulent history. To bring you up to date, it used to be called the PGE. We in the interior said that meant "pigs going east" and it also meant "Prince George eventually." I was in this Legislature when we changed the name to the British Columbia Railway. So that's what we're talking about.

Just a minute more on history. Since the railroad started and over the years we have built this into a very vital transportation link in our province, from North Vancouver to Fort Nelson, with branch lines to different other places. All British Columbians, I am sure, are proud of that railroad today. I can recall debates in this Legislature when safety was a big factor, and, believe me, in those days they had something to complain about, the working people of the railroad. That railroad has all been brought up to high safety standards and modernized in every respect, including electrification of the new branch line into Tumbler Ridge, really leading the nation in that. I just want to put that on the record.

Dealing with Bill 39 itself, first, as the MLA for Cariboo, in my riding we are the largest shippers of the railroad, no matter what the products. Whether it be forest products, agricultural products or mining products, the Cariboo riding contributes more than any other area of the province to the commodities that they haul, northbound or southbound. They are the lifeline not only of the Cariboo, but also the Peace River. It's vital that this line be kept in operation.

Dealing specifically with Bill 39, I support it fully. We don't want the railroad to stop at all — "we" is the government of British Columbia that I'm a part of. I would make the observation, Mr. Speaker, that probably both sides, not only the union but the company.... They've had 14 months to settle this, and they haven't been able to do it. It's not a case of jumping in, as the other side has been trying to imply; they've had 14 months. I'm not very happy that with all that expertise, they haven't been able to settle it.

We're saying in this bill that it goes to an industrial inquiry commission, and that will be the final way it will be settled. But the big point is, we won't lose any time in the operation of the railroad. Quite frankly, we can't afford to, with the jobs and so on that are affected. I think it's safe to say, on behalf of the people that work on the railroad, that they don't want to lose any work either. I think we forget that. They want to be gainfully employed. They don't want to go out and, as they say, hit the bricks.

With this high-priced expertise not being able to settle in a period of 14 months, certainly we as a responsible government, in the interest of the economy of our province and the general welfare of the province, have to do something. I'm amazed, Mr. Speaker, at the attitude of the NDP. I'll give you a little history. They ordered this railroad back to work in 1975 when they were government. We haven't heard anything about that today. They called a special sitting of this Legislature in October 1975 and ordered these people back to work with a bill; the Legislature was called specially to do that. Now they switch right around and say that we're the bad guys. I just would like to remind you of that, Mr. Speaker.

Dealing with the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I would give you a little more political history in regard to labour. When his party was the government and they brought the bill into this Legislature to order that railroad back to work, which was on a nonsensical strike at the time, they acted responsibly, But that member for North Island voted against his own government; he was one of three. That's why he never made the cabinet. Anyway, it all worked out fine. They did that in October 1975, and then we pitched them out of office in December 1975. So everything worked well.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour for coming up with a proper and sensible solution to this, and to remind the House that this railroad is no longer a tinkertoy train. It's a well-established railroad with 2,600 employees; they get a reasonable salary. It serves the export market, and all British Columbians — even the ones from Vancouver Centre, I might say — rely on the revenue that we get out of exports. This railroad hauls forest products, grain, coal — you name it — to our export markets, and gets it on its way. It's a real part of the total economy of our province.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, again, I am happy to be part of a government that will take this leadership in these times and make sure that none of the railroad employees will lose any work, and that a reasonable solution will be arrived at.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I appreciate the comments of all members who took part in the debate.

Just to rehash a little, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) talked a bit about alternatives. Certainly there are always alternatives.

The members also talked about me not being willing to meet with the parties. I guess I should go back a little bit to what I said earlier. The dispute started 15 months ago, and both parties engaged in collective bargaining through that period of time. All of the assistance and support of the Ministry of Labour and the provincial government was put at the disposal of the parties to reach an agreement through the bargaining process. Mediator Fred Geddes, who worked night and day and weekends with the parties to try to resolve the outstanding issues in the dispute, helped some but a collective agreement didn't materialize. The parties served lockout notice and strike notice on each other on May 5.

On the weekend prior to last Wednesday, both parties asked me to withdraw the mediator from the dispute. I did so in the hope that it would provide the stimulus necessary for the parties to reach a collective agreement. The director of mediation services was involved with the parties in trying to reach resolution of the dispute, and my deputy minister, Graham Leslie, was working with the parties in an effort to resolve the dispute.

Yesterday morning I phoned Mr. Foley and Mr. Farley and asked them to meet with me. One of the parties said it was inconvenient for him to meet with me, so I proceeded with the legislative action that I took yesterday. I would have liked to have had the agreement of both parties to submit the outstanding issues to binding arbitration, but I didn't have the agreement of both parties.

Members talk about bad labour relations. The worst labour relations that can develop are from the frustration of individual members of unions out in the community trying to do their jobs, wondering when they're going to be on the job or off the job. Their customers come to them calling them all

[ Page 6115 ]

sorts of names, not knowing what kind of security they're going to have in getting their products to market, and there are fights between various unions in the community. That's the other side of the labour relations aspect that the member didn't talk about.

The members are careful to talk about one side only having a responsibility in the area of labour relations. They went to great extent to mention the need for improved labour relations at the company and employer level. But as I understand it, there's a responsibility on all parties to work at achieving a healthy labour relations climate in our province. It's not exclusive to management, nor is it exclusive to employees or government. It's a daily, weekly and monthly process that you need to develop. We need to work slowly at eroding old barriers, breaking down old traditions and putting away suspicion and emotion to try to work out a relationship in which both parties can achieve their mutual interests.

[4:15]

The member for Vancouver Centre also talked about the democratic process and the need to look at our province and not use the power of this office or the power of government. I don't look at it as a situation of power. Only the member for Vancouver Centre would use the word "power" in any of these circumstances, because with that power goes responsibility. I have a responsibility not just to the two parties involved but to all British Columbians who have gone out and worked hard to achieve market success over the course of the past few years.

People who work in the private sector — whether it's in our mining communities or leaders in the mining industry, whether it's in the forest industry or small business — have gone out and have worked hard over the course of the past few years. Yes, they've had some tough decisions to make with respect to the management of their facilities and their plants. They have made those tough decisions. They have made sacrifices in the course of making those tough decisions. It would be the height of irresponsibility for me or the government of British Columbia to allow a work stoppage of this nature on our economy and our province at this time. This dispute doesn't just involve two parties or two people; it involves the whole industrial complex of our province. It involves a major transportation network servicing all of northern British Columbia, north central British Columbia, northeastern British Columbia and northwestern British Columbia. It also ties up vital transportation links to southeastern British Columbia. Our industrial leaders and our steelworkers, mineworkers and operating engineers have gone out and made those tough decisions over the course of the past few years. Yes, our markets were eroded due to the tough economic recession. We have achieved new markets. Our coal mining industry has gone out from southeastern British Columbia and sought new markets for their coal in Brazil, Korea, China, Taiwan. In northeastern British Columbia they've done the same. A tie-up of this vital transportation network would put that industrial development and those markets in jeopardy, not just for today but for years to come.

People who work in the IWA, in the pulp unions across our province, have done the same thing. Our industries have done the same thing. They've gone out in a very competitive tough market, and they've sought new opportunities to keep their employees employed, and they've done a good job, and they've made sacrifices. It would be the height of irresponsibility of me or the government of British Columbia to allow our competitors throughout the world to come and erode those markets today. The same with plywood; the same with grain and a number of other commodities across our province. So when the member for Vancouver Centre talks about power, I prefer to look at it as responsibility: the responsibility of all members in this House to accept the responsibility for which they were elected: that is, to keep the people of British Columbia employed and to help them provide new opportunities for the many people who are out of work across our province today. We accept that responsibility.

I intend to work with the parties involved to see if we can't still reach a resolution to this conflict. Today, while this bill is being debated in this House, I would like both parties to get together and to work toward a solution to the problem. Seventy-two hours after the bill becomes law, they have an opportunity to reach a settlement, and I put my faith and trust in them last week by asking the mediator to pull out and file his report. I put my faith and trust in them and in the collective bargaining process in our province, and I hope that they will put the same faith and trust in the process that they believe in and come to a resolution of this agreement before this bill becomes law. In the meantime, we will carry on our responsibility as elected representatives on behalf of all of the people of British Columbia and not to a special interest group who may be the concern of some people. Our interests have to be the broader interests of the economy of British Columbia and Canada as we adjust to a changing world economy.

So I would hope that we would put our self-serving goals aside and work at trying to get the agreement resolved. As I said earlier, it was easy in days gone by, or acceptable, for one part of the economy to inflict injury on another to achieve a collective agreement. The question is, can we afford that in 1985, and can we afford to have scars placed on each other? While we talk about sharing the pie, our competitors throughout the world are in there stealing our markets at every opportunity and creating an even worse unemployment problem across our province and across our country. That is a position that I cannot take.

I accept the responsibility for the actions that I have taken, and I hope that the parties will continue to work at reaching an agreement under the collective bargaining process while this bill is being legislated and indeed while the industrial inquiry commissioner is in place — to help him, and he will help them come to a resolution of the dispute.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading of the bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 6116 ]

NAYS — 18

Bill 39, British Columbia Railway Dispute Settlement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,
SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 75: minister's office, $127,740.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to deal briefly with a subject that I think has been covered to some extent but I want to return to it briefly, and that is the UBC School of Rehabilitation Medicine. I have been approached by people in my constituency, particularly people involved with the hospital there, where they are extremely concerned about what is happening with that program. This person who writes to me about it has worked for 16 years in the rehabilitation medicine field, and has worked from Nova Scotia to B.C. The case made is that this is a very cost-effective service to the public. They help people to remain at home rather than in hospital, and facilitate their earlier return to a home environment, all of which is cost-effective. There is a shortage of qualified therapists in B.C. There are very few trained here. At Cowichan District Hospital alone, there are both full- and part-time vacancies and no applications for those vacancies.

[4:30]

The other issue is that those people who are currently enrolled in these courses — the students who are enrolled and have invested one or two years of their time in taking that course — are really concerned about being faced with the disappearance of that course from the curriculum and a total waste of the years that they have invested in the course.

It's obviously a false economy to do away with that course. Here are just a few statistics. We know that there are shortages of both physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The therapists' association advises that in their journal some 13 vacancies on average are advertised each month, and the average rate for occupational therapists is eight per month. We are the third largest province in Canada, but we train the lowest number of both physiotherapists and occupational therapists. We are only training 20 per year; 73.2 percent of B.C.'s physiotherapists were trained outside B.C. and 58 percent of our occupational therapists. A maximum of 20 physiotherapy and 20 occupational therapy students are accepted at the school. In 1983-84, the last year for which we have any records, of course, there were 288 applicants, which meant the entry criteria.... That's 255 hopeful physiotherapists and 63 occupational therapists.

The question I would ask the minister is: why are we relying on foreign trained therapists? Why should the sons and daughters of British Columbians not have the opportunity to train for these positions and these skills in this particular role in the field of medicine whether there's 100 percent assurance of being employed? Why are we relying on other schools to train those young people for those classes, and why are we putting those young students who have those two or three years invested in the position of not having that particular field available to them? It seems most strange to me. I know the minister will probably get up and say it's all the universities' fault, but it boils right down to the fact that the minister is not providing enough funds for those courses.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the government, through the Legislature, provides approximately $180 million to the university. This is a university program. The universities demand autonomy. When we provided more money to the universities, it was not used in the fashion the member describes. You can't have it both ways. Either you're going to interfere with the universities' affairs and say, "You will spend your government allocation in this fashion, " or we're going to give them autonomy and say: "Do what's proper." We've got to do one or the other.

Having said that, I want to agree very much with what the member says. It makes absolutely no sense in British Columbia, when there's a shortage of physiotherapists, that we should be bringing in — what is it? — 73 percent from outside. I think it's a matter that we will have to take a very close look at to try and find some other solution. It may be that the appropriate solution is to establish new programs in different educational institutions. I think that may be the most effective method of solving this problem. I don't know whether the member would agree or disagree with that. But I doubt that the 73 percent who come from outside are being trained in university programs. They've got the qualification and therefore they're being hired. Our problem may be the type of training program that we have opted to introduce.

The only comparable situation, I guess, is in medicine, where exactly the same applies. We did make special funds available to expand the faculty of medicine, but this was very vigorously resisted. Indeed, the funds that were supplied never reached their objective. We're still bringing in almost three times as many doctors per year as we graduate. That may be reduced now that Bill 50 is before the House. That may not be a bill that the opposition supports, but the fact remains that in medicine we're still denying our young people opportunity while we're providing that same opportunity for a very excellent living to be given to those from outside.

What applies to doctors applies to physiotherapists, but there may be an easier way to solve this problem, which is to get on with something not at a university where the necessary skills can be supplied in a very directed fashion, and therefore the opportunities that you talk about can be made available to British Columbians. But I want to say in principle that I understand what the member is saying, and I agree that it is an educational situation which is inexcusable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Briefly again, the committee is cautioned about offending the rule of anticipation with respect to

[ Page 6117 ]

a bill on the order paper. That's to the benefit of the minister, not the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: Just briefly in response, the minister brought up the question of the medical faculty. What was the point in expanding...? I understand there was some political pressure put on UBC to expand that medical faculty, to train doctors that we don't need here when we've got too many doctors. Yet there is an inference also that there's been political pressure put on UBC to do away with these courses. If the minister has something else in mind for training those people, then he should tell us and not just wipe out those courses and destroy the opportunity of those young people who have invested time in them.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, to the member, the objective of expanding the medical school was to give our British Columbians an opportunity to go into the practice of medicine. If it were only for the need to obtain doctors, we wouldn't need a medical school at all — if that were the only reason. But our youngsters can't get into medical schools elsewhere. The demand to get in is always so high that there is geographical protection. So British Columbia youngsters can't get into medical schools in Ontario or in other jurisdictions, The medical degree is too highly prized as an earning opportunity. Everywhere the demand is there, because the education supplies an unparalleled opportunity to earn. That's what goes with the degree.

Yes, I admit to the member that pressure was put on the university to do its duty by our youngsters. The same argument applies to physiotherapy: duty should be done. Duty is not being done. It may be that the big problem is where the program itself is located. You can say: "It's all your fault, because you didn't give the money." How do we know the money is going to go to rehabilitation medicine? If we gave $10 more or $1 million, would it go to that or would it go to something else? If you say you'll only give it for this, then what we're into is program funding. We could program fund. We could determine how much money should go to each individual program in each university. We could also dictate the size. All of that's a possibility. But then what you have is government running the universities. That's a possible option, because after all the governments are putting up 85 percent of the money, but one has to decide one's choice. Should we let the universities run it themselves, or will we run them?

I said earlier today, Madam Member, that I felt the universities, because they're 85 percent supported by the taxpayers, should have accountability not to politicians but to the public who put up 85 percent of that money through the government. Perhaps a different government might have given a little more or a little less, but if you look across the country, about the same amount of money is being supplied in each province via the taxpayer. They're the ones who should be asking the sharp questions of the universities — the parents who want their youngsters to have first choice in the program that they desire to have, knowing there's employment down the line. They should be able to get that.

All I can do is say to the member that in the case of physiotherapy, the system is not working well, and we need to seek solutions to that. I will certainly undertake to explore the options, because I agree with the member that we have a bad problem here.

On the other hand, the universities have the money, and if they had wanted to put this at the top of their priority list, they have $180 million to do it. You have to decide where the first dollar goes and where the last dollar goes. If you're taking the most important program and giving the last dollar to that, then I say the management is just unforgivably bad. The most important programs, the high-demand programs, should be the ones to get the first dollar.

MRS. WALLACE: Just a final comment. Obviously the minister takes a hands-off policy as far as university management goes in everything except the medical faculty — the training of doctors — which is an elitist situation that can only be afforded by those children from wealthy families. It's just prohibitive for the average citizen to get into that particular faculty. Yet he's prepared to make spaces there and through his limited budgeting sets up a situation where we have other young people refused the opportunity for education.

[4:45]

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't think I said that, because that's absolutely not true. The medical training program admission is based on academic competence and nothing else. The subsidies that go into medical training are comparable to the subsidies that go into every other program. They're extremely generous, the one difference being that people going through medicine can take out loans and they have been able to get grants and their fees have been very low compared with the cost. Their subsidies from society have been very high. The one difference with medical graduates — and it's available to the people of the most modest means in British Columbia.... Don't start that class warfare business, because it's absolute nonsense, and I'm not going to listen to it and accept it as reality. It simply isn't. It's the NDP revealing its prejudice that has such dangerous effects when it gets into power. The one difference about medical graduates is the speed with which they can pay back whatever loans they have taken out. As the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) knows, the earnings for people in medicine are very high compared with every other profession.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could ask just a very quick question on subsidies, since the assertion by my honourable friend seems to have caused him some emotional stress.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just the class warfare garbage.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister wouldn't agree that within the university itself there are cross subsidies where certain courses, in terms of the fees, are used to cross subsidize other more expensive courses, such as education, for instance, and arts, Are the fees of students there completely returned to those faculties, or are they not used to subsidize higher-cost courses such as engineering or medicine or pharmacology or whatever? There are all kinds of subsidies, and so for the minister to say that the subsidies available in medicine are exactly the same as in every other faculty or for every other particular area of interest is simply not true.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Member, no, I was referring to subsidies to the student. Sure, the marginal cost of courses in any educational institution varies a lot according to the

[ Page 6118 ]

course, and one of the reasons why universities like to get a lot of first-year arts students is that, by their own admission, they can make a profit on those just from the fees, because they are the lowest per unit cost to deliver. The universities, I believe, quite properly state that they can deliver these courses — I'm talking about courses like first-year arts — cheaper than the colleges can deliver them. That's true, they can.

But the colleges have been built not because it was the most efficient way to deliver the service but because it was the fairest way in terms of spreading the educational enterprise around British Columbia. From the point of view of cost — setting aside the student — doing it right there on a university campus is by far the cheapest way of doing it.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister, then, since he has agreed that first-year art students are very profitable in terms of their fees and what is delivered back to them in cost.... Is that why the university this year for the first time is sending out application forms to every school district in Washington seeking applicants for the first year program?

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't know they were doing that.

MR. ROSE: Well, they are.

MR. NICOLSON: It's the University of British Columbia.

Well, the minister in responding to my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) again used that same argument about autonomy, you know. But the fact is, I guess, that some universities are more autonomous than others. When the participation rate in the province is well below that, when we are graduating fewer people and granting fewer baccalaureate degrees and fewer graduate degrees among the young people than other provinces, and when we rank tenth in the country in terms of the degrees that we're granting to 24- to 29-year-olds, the fact is that there is much less scope to exercise autonomy.

And there is a crying need not only for maintenance of many of the excellent programs that are offered — such as rehabilitation medicine, as was mentioned by my colleague — but also there is a need to expand. We should be thinking in terms of new programs like optometry, maybe, at the University of Victoria or Simon Fraser University, since it's pretty obvious the medical faculty won't allow it to take place at the University of British Columbia.

You know, we just aren't doing enough. We aren't doing enough on a per capita basis; we aren't doing enough on a per student basis; we're not doing enough in terms of students between ages 18 to 21 participating and entering first year; we're not doing well enough in terms of the people that we're graduating; we have slipped to number ten on just about every criterion. Statistics from Statistics Canada: we have gone through that; we have demonstrated that in this debate.

Now before turning to communications, I'd like just to say something about what is happening with foreign students, and I'd like to caution the government. You know, university means universal. One of the experiences that one has in going to a university is meeting other young people from other countries — some from the United States, some from outside of this continent, many from the Caribbean, as I recall in my days at UBC, and now we have the phenomenon of students from the Pacific Rim. And we hear so much about the importance of the Pacific Rim.

Yet we are discouraging and putting a caution fee or a disincentive on one of the most positive things that we could possibly do in encouraging communication links and in building up the networks that will be the economic and political networks of tomorrow, by making it very difficult for young students to come here and take education. I've met young students from Japan — and they aren't from wealthy families — I've met young students from Germany, again not from affluent families, people who have worked and saved and set a budget for themselves of maybe $10,000 a year and come out here. A student that comes out here on a budget of about $10,000 a year is contributing to the economy. If you were to take any kind of an economic multiplier at all, it really would create a job, in terms of goods and services.

Mr. Chairman, lately the B.C. universities have followed a worldwide trend that started in the U.S. of charging differential fees to foreign students. The minister and the government majorities on the various boards of the universities have acquiesced to the views, of one member in particular, that foreigners should pay for the full cost of education. They've certainly moved in that direction. They're now paying two and a half times as much as Canadian students, and this will doubtless increase as the universities become subject to further budget cuts, as are being contemplated right at this time.

The U.S. has now recognized that discouraging foreign students has been a basic mistake. The U.S. Agency for International Development this year has boosted foreign scholarships 50 percent for 15,000 foreign students.

Foreign students in British Columbia never take university or college places away from Canadians. They contribute to the economy, because they bring outside dollars into this economy and spend it. They probably generate a job at least for each one of them that is present here.

But I want to come back to the very important necessity, I think, that for us in British Columbia as part of the Pacific Rim.... We should be doing a lot more to encourage students from the Pacific Rim countries to come to British Columbia. Some 33 heads of state and 450 cabinet ministers around the world were educated in the United States. Can you think about the value of that investment, of having that kind of linkage? As a member of the Legislature, I know that you do set up networks. Sometimes when you're maybe going through high school and going to university, early work experience, and so on, you don't realize the kind of network that is being created. But when you get into a position of being in public life, you suddenly come to a realization of just how valuable it is to know so many people in so many different places. I can call up an Italian senator over somebody who has immigrated here and is having trouble with his veteran's allowance at retirement age, or something like that, because of contacts that I never would have dreamed would have been so important at the time. Think of the value, then, and the necessity to set up and start building those networks here today. A government that is going to spend millions of dollars on a new ministry, to send people out.... It is probably much more valuable in the long run to have friends in those foreign lands who have been educated here, who know the Canadian people, know the Canadian ways and have friends and people that they will keep contact with throughout their life.

[ Page 6119 ]

1 think that British Columbia should be encouraging foreign students, and they should be charging them regular fees, rather than forcing them to go elsewhere. Apart from straight economics of their contribution to the economy, it's an extremely economical form of investment in terms of linkages and networks which will see us perhaps being.... Maybe it could even be looked at as foreign aid today. At the rate at which the Pacific Rim countries are going, maybe the foreign aid will be on the other foot, if we don't get up to speed and smarten up. We might need all the friends that we can get in the Pacific Rim in the next decade or so. An enlightened policy, rather than a very negative policy, will certainly help us.

I'd like to shift now to another very important aspect of the ministry: technology and communications. The ministry's annual report says that the ministry was created in 1979 and has "a single common thread: high technology." This minister has said that high-technology industry offers two advantages: growth and higher wages. The average growth of high-technology industries since World War 11 has been nine times greater than that of the resource of low-technology industries, and higher wages which follow become possible as these industries increase in size and profit. This, in turn, leads to higher taxes which provides benefits for all British Columbians. That has been the minister's outlook.

I'd like to look at a very important aspect of high technology and how it affects us here in British Columbia. B.C. Telephone — the minister has had in his ministry some people who worked as watchdogs on B.C. Tel. He's had a policy that the charter for B.C. Tel should be returned to British Columbia, but I'd like to look at some of the things that have been happening.

In 1983, which is the latest year for which figures are available, comparing B.C. Tel to other B.C.-based companies, B.C. Tel was number one in net earnings, ahead of Westcoast Transmission and Kelly Douglas. It was number three in assets and number five in sales. The minister has slashed the ministry staff who were watching over B.C. Tel. He has refused to intervene in the last rate application hearing when B.C. Tel was asking for a 15 percent rate hike. Other provinces, mind you, did come and intervene at those hearings. He's said that he would rather deal with the federal cabinet, while his officials were saying that it was because it costs too much and should be left to other groups. That was in the Vancouver Province on February 6.

[5:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The NDP caucus presented a brief in intervention, and I'm sure there was some cost attached to it. It's rather strange that we could intervene and yet the minister couldn't, in spite of the budget and the staff and everything else that he has. B.C. Tel has added $1.1 billion in plant in the five years ended in 1984. There certainly has been growth, like the minister says, in high tech. But they've eliminated 2,780 direct jobs in three years, ending in 1984, and maybe another 5,500 in spinoff losses in towns across British Columbia. They've maintained earnings per share at the 1980 levels or better every year. So the minister's statement about growth is true. He says there has been a 40 percent increase in plant and technology since 1980 but at a direct cost to subscribers, who are paying for this, and at the cost of about 8,000 British Columbian jobs. Those British Columbians had to give up those jobs so that those earnings per share could be maintained.

Mr. Chairman, B.C. Tel shows that high tech does not bring growth in the shape of higher wages and taxes for the treasury; in fact, the very opposite is true. This province refuses to defend the public interest to make sure that this company complies with provincial government social policies. The government has been deliberately silent in this area. They have no social policy on job protection as far as high technology is concerned. B.C. Tel, as an example, has been centralizing its operations in the larger communities at the expense of the smaller ones. Nelson and Cranbrook are going to have their service centres cut. The area manager says he's rather vague as to timing, but we've already seen probably a couple of hundred jobs lost in the area, and we look now to seeing most of the remainder of them lost.

Time is running out a little bit there. I'd like to say that we have tremendous change going on, yet this government doesn't appear before the CRTC. There still seems to be a move toward deregulation going on in spite of the experience of the United States. I just attended a conference the other day in which communication expert Walt Walters from Washington D.C. was talking about the tremendous problems and the increase in costs. Local telephone subscribers saw over 100 percent increase in their rates in California. That went on for most states in the United States, and some are even higher. Some increases can go even as high as 200 percent.

When is this minister really going to take on the B.C. Tel issue at every level, not just by supposedly talking with ministers? He talked about this new national government, then he said that he was getting nowhere with Marcel Masse in his opening remarks. When are you going to take the gloves off and take them on, whether it be the CRTC, whether it be minister to minister, in every form and every opportunity?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Member, just to put it in its broadest context, the CRTC is a monkey. The organ grinder is the government. You don't talk to the monkey when it's appropriate to talk to the organ grinder. Governments talk to governments; it's that simple. If the jurisdiction for B.C. Tel is here in British Columbia under our Utilities Commission, then of course the organ grinder becomes the provincial government instead of the federal government.

I want to deal again with this phony statistics business that we keep getting. This time I'm going to quote from Statistics Canada, because the stuff that's in there happens to disagree with what the member says. He said here we are, lowest in graduate students. Let me read you right from a Statistics Canada table about graduate students. Percent of full-time graduate students enrolled. Source: advanced statistics of Canada, Table 8, 81-220. You can write that down. Newfoundland, 7.3 percent; P.E.I., 0 percent; Nova Scotia, 7.4 percent; New Brunswick, 4.8 percent; Quebec, 15.6 percent; Ontario — great Ontario with this fantastic participation rate — 11.1 percent; Manitoba, 11.1 percent; Saskatchewan, that was so many years ruled by that NDP government, 5.9 percent. Aren't you ashamed of what the NDP did there? Alberta, which our British Columbia universities are all saying we should emulate, 11 percent; British Columbia, this terrible, deprived educational wasteland, 14 percent — the second highest in Canada. The Canadian average: 11.6 percent. How come? If things are so terrible

[ Page 6120 ]

about participation rates and the sky is falling in, the universities are collapsing, why, according to Statistics Canada, the bible of those people over there, is it second highest in the country? Because all you're doing is selecting from these tables and tables of apples and oranges the things that suit you. That's why.

It's the same, Mr. Chairman, as all that phony established programs financing business that we got from the NDP. You know as well as I do that that's for health and education, the two together. We had the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) asking today for more money for health. They know there's only so much money to go around, and that there's block funding for higher education and health. Yet here you have it, you see, all these phony arguments being raised by the opposition. We're doing a great job here, and I say that on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia who are footing the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the people will be the judge of which statistics tell the story in terms of participation rates across this nation.

I really would like the minister to comment in terms of what is happening with this hands-off laissez-faire attitude toward B.C. Tel. Why can't this minister get the control over B.C. Tel? He couldn't get along with the Liberal government. Now he has this new national government, whatever political strip that may be. I don't know if saying "Conservative" offends the minister so much, or what the problem is. And Marcel Masse: he still can't do it. He has the support of the official opposition in terms of this position. We believe the regulation of B.C. Tel should be returned to British Columbia.

So what is the problem? What progress do you have to report? What have you really done? You talk about talking to the organ grinder, but what do you talk about? We see no progress. What we do see is a government that does not go before the CRTC. We see, though, that when other provinces such as Manitoba and Ontario appear before the CRTC, and various corporations — and the NDP make presentations — instead of granting a 15 percent it's kept down to 3 percent. But no thanks to this government.

At the same time, we're talking about the displacement of jobs around this province again. Of course, I guess, it's small wonder. When the government shows that you can throw people on the scrap-heap, I guess it's a signal to B.C. Tel that they can throw people on the scrap-heap. But we have people all over this province who are now being told to either move or quit. A great number of them are spouses whose spouses have jobs; they have commitments and ties in these various communities. What we're talking about now is centralization — B.C. Tel going in and taking money out of the nonmetropolitan areas of British Columbia, and taking the jobs out of those areas as well. There's nothing being put back. They're automating. Why is this minister not showing leadership?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: With the kind of technology that we have today, the head office of B.C. Tel could be in Chetwynd, my friend. With the technology that we have today, there'd be nothing to stop that. And certainly B.C. Tel could currently be moving just as easily toward decentralization of its services as it is toward centralization. I don't know how many of the members in this House who represent some of these smaller communities.... We're again having jobs taken out of the smaller areas, the rural areas, the northern areas: the Kootenays, the Okanagan, the central interior, the Peace River country and parts of Vancouver Island. We're having those jobs taken out of these areas and centralized; and, of course, the numbers are being reduced through this technology.

There is no involvement, no apparent concern about the effect that this is having on our economy. Who is paying for all of this capital improvement? Is it really cost-effective? We're talking about an investment of $1.1 billion over five years to put thousands of people out of work. Who has to pay the bill? Has it led to lower telephone rates? Has it led to lower long-distance rates? What is the cost benefit? When is this government going to get involved and start raising holy Cain about this type of a travesty?

What do they do? B.C. Tel buys all of this........

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. I think the Chair has allowed considerable leeway in discussion, but my understanding is that B.C. Tel is a federally incorporated company subject to a federal commission and not subject to provincial jurisdiction as such. I can't see where it falls within the minister's purview or his estimates. The minister is responsible for government telecommunication services and not those of a private corporation.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will relate my remarks to his ministerial responsibility. We see telephone services within his vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the government telecommunication service.

MR. NICOLSON: This minister has people on staff who are responsible for being the watchdogs for the British Columbia interest in this area — not as many as he used to have, but the government has from time to time been an intervener. It is a legitimate responsibility of that particular ministry to supply the information for the intervention, and to supply the experts and the people who intervene on behalf of government.

[5:15]

It is also the responsibility of this ministry to look at the effects of technological change — more so than any other. This minister has talked about the mandate for this ministry. Their annual report says that this ministry, created in 1979, has "a single common thread, high technology." That's from the ministry's 1980-81 annual report, page 6 — "a single common thread." The minister has talked so much about how the future of this province is locked up in high technology as opposed to other technologies. This minister recognizes an open-skies policy. I think it's fair enough to ask him under which government he feels responsibility falls for some of the new technologies — for various kinds of closed-link services, for using technologies such as fibre optics, satellite transmissions and all the other kinds of transmission of information. What about data bases? Has the minister taken any kind of position as to where British Columbia sits in terms of regulation of data bases, or is he going to allow the federal government to just run roughshod over him in this area? Telephones are not quite the old things we used to crank up, Mr. Chairman, and operate on direct current. It is a whole

[ Page 6121 ]

new technology. We certainly have some aspects of that technology here in British Columbia. Some of the suppliers are here in the province of British Columbia and are linked — some of them directly — with B. C. Tel as sister companies in the GT&E conglomerate chain.

Telecommunications technology is a rapidly evolving field. The government ought to restore its capability to the ministry to keep abreast of these developments. Telephone companies and the federal government are lauding the virtues of deregulation and yet they dismiss the U.S. experience. Dislocations down there are just absolutely incredible. Even Barry Goldwater has said it's been a disaster. I think any of us who have friends or relatives who are experiencing the rate increases and the dislocations in terms of service.... The breakup means that now....

I don't think one need look beyond these buildings. Look at the services which are under the direct responsibility of this minister to realize that.... You try and make a TelPac call, and you have to dial about three or four times before you get a proper dial tone, Then you call in somebody and they say: "Well, that's not our problem. We own this part of the system, but probably the problem is in the other part of the system that is owned by B.C. Tel" — or it's owned by MTI or Mitel or somebody else.

That is the kind of problem that is being faced now all over the United States: this lack of responsibility due to the breakup of Ma Bell. It is something that we as a province really had better get into. There is the whole business of the bypass problem. Bypassing local companies will have three effects: it'll cause skyrocketing local rates as companies try to recoup their losses. U.S. rates have doubled in a year and will redouble at least once and perhaps twice in the next 12 months. Local company service is deteriorating and would here, as revenues are depressed and due to the change of....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's the date of that Time magazine?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, the date is that I had some very first-hand information, Mr. Minister, from a conference which was held only last week in Vancouver.

The local companies will be going bankrupt with the industry in return for supporting this monopolistic structure with one very important difference: it's going to be entirely unregulated. This government has really taken a hands-off approach where they have a responsibility and they really have a mandate. They have the support not only of what they say is their own policy, but they certainly are continuing a policy which was taken by the NDP and hasn't changed in recent times. We believe that we do have a role to play in terms of communications here in the province. I'd like to know just what the minister has been doing. What papers can he table that have been presented to this new federal government? What action has actually been taken?

HON. MR. McGEER: The most important action taken is to reaffirm that this government believes in the private enterprise system and will not be taking over the telephone company. Now the policy of the NDP and its predecessor the CCF was to expropriate the telephone company. They coveted the telephone company. They wanted to take over.... And I was right here in the Legislative Assembly when Tom Berger said yes, they would take over the telephone company. That was his number one policy as leader. "We will take over the telephone company." What happened? You know what happened. He went out with that policy to the people, and what happened in 1969? The NDP was defeated. That was what happened. It's the same thing that happened in 1966 when they were going to take over the telephone company, and in 1963 when they were going to take over the telephone company; and 1960, 1956, 1953, 1952, 1949, 1945, 1941, 1937 and 1933. If they had been around when Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, they would have set their policy then. From the very first days that the CCF existed, they were going to take over the telephone company.

What happened when they got elected in 1972 by accident? They were afraid to take over the telephone company, but they still coveted it. They took taxpayers' money and bought shares. Yes, they had people who were interested in taking over the telephone company right here in government. We inherited people who were there to prepare the government for taking over the telephone company. We inherited the shares of the telephone company, all those things. But what did we say, Mr. Chairman? We said no, we do not intend to take over the telephone company. That's socialist policy, not Social Credit policy. We're not going to keep a whole retinue of civil servants at taxpayers' expense preparing for the day when we will take over the telephone company, because we're not going to do it. If the NDP, by some miraculous mistake, ever happens to get into office in British Columbia, they are not going to have sitting there a civil service ready to take over the telephone company.

I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, that the NDP, as part of their policy in the future, abandon this coveting of the telephone company and say it's better off with private enterprise.

I want to say something more, Mr. Chairman, about regulation. Regulation never has brought technological change or improvement. Regulation is there to stop it. Tell me any area in any jurisdiction or any field of activity where regulation has done other than inhibit change, prevent technology and reduce advancement of the human enterprise.

MR. NICOLSON: You're for deregulation.

HON. MR. McGEER: You bet your life I'm for deregulation. The less regulation the better, and this is why I say that the federal government and the CRTC ought to get out of the business of regulating reception. They ought to reduce tremendously the inhibition they've brought to the Canadian broadcasting enterprise with all their oppressive regulation — get out of it. All you do is damage. I would plead with the NDP, now that they have a new leader, and the leader has actually come into this chamber: change the policies of your party. Renounce this business of taking over the B.C. Telephone Co. Say it's not part of your policy any longer. Say, Mr. Leader, that you believe in free enterprise and maybe we'll start to worry about you and your party. But when you keep coming back with these same old policies, "We want the telephone company, " like your former leader Mr. Berger did, that's the downfall, and that's why you're going to lose the next election in 1986 or perhaps 1987 or whenever it comes, because you won't recant the policies that result in your defeat every single time.

[ Page 6122 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. B.C. Tel is obviously not part of the minister's mandate, and I think the argument that has gone on could probably be best in another estimate. The minister's responsibility is for government and telecommunication services and has no bearing on British Columbia Telephone Co. as such on the overall corporations.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to ask the minister whether he supported the CNCP and B.C. Rail application to the CRTC.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have said as a policy we believe in competition.

MR. PASSARELL: A couple of questions to the minister. We've dealt with this issue previously in discussions, particularly in regards to Mr. Sneberger of Cassiar: satellite dishes in this province, and the way the federal government comes down on individuals in small communities who have satellite dishes for television reception. Any of us who live in the far north know that the only way you're going to get television in small communities is having your own satellite dish, or if the government subsidizes the dish for Knowledge Network or so.

It's been an ongoing problem. I know the minister's personal feelings in regard to satellite reception in British Columbia. I think we're on both sides of the fence on this one, because the federal government has, time and time again, tried to put its big hand upon small individuals who own satellite dishes in the far north. The federal government notified Mr. Schneeberger that he had two weeks to take American television programming off the satellite cable company that he operates in the mining community of Cassiar.

Can the minister state that there will be some changes in the regressive acts by the federal government in trying to limit Canadians on what they can watch and who they have to watch on television? I'm not a proponent of the CBC, but the constituents in the Atlin riding and throughout the rural parts of this province want protection by the provincial government in dealing with the federal government on the regulations that they try to bring in to tell people who live outside the mainland what they can watch on television. So, that's a question that I address to the minister. What will he be doing in the near future to protect residents of British Columbia in civil liberties and what they can watch and what they can't? I don't think the federal government should be telling people anywhere in this province or this country that we can only watch one television program that's a Crown corporation out of Ottawa.

HON. MR. McGEER: I will do anything I possibly can to assist people in this regard. I consider that the CRTC is acting as a disgraceful, unforgivable bully to people in communities like Atlin, Salmon Arm and Fort St. James — all of the small, helpless communities. They're the ones they try to pluck off and bully.

We even had, if you can believe it, a case where a British Columbia licensed operator was intimidated by federal regulators and told he was illegally distributing channels to his customers that he had received via satellite. While one federal regulatory body was telling him it was illegal and he mustn't do it, another federal regulatory body, i.e., the tax department, was around to collect money for what the one arm said he couldn't do. So we've got one part of the federal government very pleased to collect taxes on this sort of thing, while another arm tries to bully them into stopping doing it. I think perhaps....

[5:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, we've given as many as we possibly could.

But I think that when in addition to everything else federal regulators attempt to impose censorship on what may be watched and listened to in communities like Atlin, they are violating the human rights of those citizens. Citizens themselves should take the CRTC and the federal government to court on the issue of human rights, because we have through this mechanism imposed censorship. We have said: "You may not watch what comes from that electronic signal onto your property." As you know, we launched a suit — which at the moment is inactive — against the federal government, saying Parliament didn't have the authority, implying instead that British Columbia had the authority. We don't want to assert censorship here. We have open skies. We want to eliminate the censorship. If there's something I could do that I haven't yet done, I would be open to the member, our ministry and our government to help citizens in any way we can to end this disgraceful bullying on the part of the CRTC. I accuse them in this Legislature this afternoon of acting on behalf of the vested interests in Canada and against the interests of the average citizen, especially those in small communities in rural Canada.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased at the minister's response in regard to censorship by the federal government. I would like to ask one question. First, he mentioned that residents in the far north should take the federal government and the CRTC to court under human rights legislation. Secondly, he mentioned that the suit against the federal government was inactive at this time. Would it not be proper, Mr. Minister, for the government at this stage to activate that case against the CRTC, against the federal government, instead of putting the onus on residents who feel that the big law of government is coming down on them also? Even though the province isn't doing it, it's dealing with another level of big government. Wouldn't it be more logical, Mr. Minister, for the province to continue activating the suit against the federal government on this issue?

HON. MR. McGEER: There's no reason why these should be mutually exclusive, one substituting for the other. We're both trying to do the same thing, which is to help the average citizen. I'm not so sure that a provincial government would be perceived in a court as anything more than self-serving provincial interests and not really as an ombudsman for the average little man, though that might be our motivation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It isn't the provincial government that's being bullied; it's the little citizen that's being bullied. This is the way we have to try to respond: to reflect upon regulatory agencies acting against the little person and for the great big bad business interests.

[ Page 6123 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, sure. I wish you would, because I think in this case we do have great big bad interests that are attempting to exploit little people in the smaller communities.

MR. DAVIS: Briefly, I'm for an open-skies policy. I think most of us in this province are. Certainly the customers at the listening end must be for an open-skies policy. I think that in that context, we're for deregulation.

The minister has had numerous conversations with his federal counterparts. I'm sure the federal side, at the political level anyway, is saying: "Look, this is a loser politically, especially in the northern areas. We don't like doing this. We agree with you." But what the minister isn't telling us, and I'd like him to describe the federal arguments at the very least.... There are international agreements and there are international sawoffs in the radio area, as we are all familiar. There are a limited number of channels allowed by law in order that there not be too much broadcasting and therefore confusion of messages. So licensing and a measure of regulation is required.

One of the federal powers is deemed to be that of deciding which frequencies are broadcast and which are not, and the same applies to television. The American originators of the programs themselves, whether they be the broadcasting entities or simply film studios and so on, have insisted on their fee or their share of the market. So this, as I understand it, shows up in international agreements, not just between Canada and the United States but between nations around the world. So there is some problem there that's international. It's a matter of allocating frequencies; it's a matter also of ensuring that some revenue, some benefit, derives to those who not only produce the films but transmit the message from the viewers wherever they may be. That, as I understand it, is the problem. The problem is not totally one of open skies versus no open skies, or regulation or no regulation. I wonder if the minister therefore would let us know what argument, if any, the federal side uses in this regard.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's less an argument of the federal government than an argument of the vested interests to the federal government. On the one hand, talking about satellites and copyright, the biggest ones to attempt to have agencies like the federal and provincial government act as their policemen are Home Box Office and Time-Life. It's expensive to scramble a signal — that's how they would be able to protect their copyright — so it's easier just to throw the signal up at their lowest cost and then have us pass laws and regulations that will ensure their profit.

When the former minister, Mr. Fox, and I had our penultimate meeting before the whole thing got into non-discussion, the point I tried to make on behalf of British Columbia was: don't expect us to act as the policemen for Time-Life, because if they want to protect copyright, their defence is to go ahead and scramble the signal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, this is for the benefit of the public, really.

There are over 100 unscrambled satellite signals coming from the United States at the present time. If you talk to the people who put the signals up, as we did at the time we put our little dish on the lawn, they say: "We want you to receive it." It's only a few special interests like Home Box Office that are trying to get gullible governments to be their policemen. They've got a perfectly good defence, and as far as I'm concerned it's up to the satellite broadcaster to arrange his own protections.

Sure there's spectrum limitation. This is why we put satellites up in Canada — to protect our parking spaces. We've got more than our share of channels up there. The only trouble is we can’t use them. Why can't we use them? Because the regulatory side of that federal ministry has put so many restrictions on it that we have to try and rent it out to United States businessmen to do on our satellite channels in Canada what we won't permit Canadian businessmen to do. It's the most ridiculous circumstance that ever could have been created, but it was done because we bound ourselves in regulatory red tape.

As far as other signals are concerned, for example, border stations.... Take KVOS in Bellingham. Like all border television stations, they are among the most profitable in North America. Why? Because they get revenue from Canadian advertisers because they know perfectly well their signal is going to be picked up by a larger Canadian audience than an American audience. What do we do to prevent that? Because we're stealing the signals and broadcasting them over cable. So they said: "Well, what we'll do to protect the Canadian advertiser is steal the signals, then we'll delete the advertising, and then we'll put in our own advertising." Now that really is stealing, but that's not a sin according to the CRTC. That sort of thing is being a good Canadian. What's a sin is to pick up the satellite signal in Atlin, where the broadcaster wants you to receive it, where there's no advertising, and show it to the deprived individual in Atlin who has no access to these border television stations. Those people are the ones who are doing the stealing, not Rogers cablevision or the other people who pirate the signals and delete the advertising. We're supposed to believe, as Canadians, that those poor citizens whom the CRTC is prosecuting are thieves, and we're supposed to believe that Rogers cablevision in Toronto and Ottawa and Montreal are upstanding Canadians. All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that it's a crock. The sooner we get rid of the CRTC and all their censorship, the better off all Canada will be.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to return to a subject that's not nearly as exotic as all these signals flying around in the air. I want to return to something very close to home. The regulations put in place by the telephone service here in British Columbia stipulate that long-distance tolls will not apply to the exchanges on either side of a given exchange: you can access the adjacent exchange without being subject to long-distance tolls. That's the rule in the regulations — except that it doesn't apply in a lot of instances.

There are two instances in my constituency that I have been arguing with B.C. Tel over, yea, these many years. I haven't bothered the minister with this, but he talked about the monkey and the organ-grinder, and I'm hoping that maybe he can talk to the organ-grinder — and maybe he can even talk to the monkey; that might be quite apropos. I live in the area of Cobble Hill. I'm next to the Duncan exchange. I can access the Duncan exchange. Naturally I can't access Victoria or Keating — I think it is — because it would be no use to me. I'm not objecting to that. But in other instances,

[ Page 6124 ]

when you can only access one side, they let you have that second step. That second step is Chemainus, which is actually the community in which I live — Shawnigan, Mill Bay, Cobble Hill, Duncan and then Chemainus. But I have to pay long-distance tolls to call Chemainus. I feel I'm being discriminated against, because I certainly can't access the Victoria area and yet I'm not being allowed to access that extra step to the north.

An even worse situation exists in Lake Cowichan, which is some 20 kilometres from Duncan — an adjacent exchange, yet there is no access there. It's always a long-distance toll. The hospital that serves that area is in Duncan, so it's a long-distance toll if you want a doctor or a hospital. Many of the business services are there.

[5:45]

B.C. Tel is disregarding its own regulations in doing this. I have contacted the office many times, and I always get long song-and-dances about how it's not economically viable or very low on the priorities. They have this whole list that they're.... It's not an isolated instance. There are many areas like this where they are not living up to their regulations. I would like the minister to have a look at that, because that's certainly a communications problem in this province.

HON. MR. McGEER: Could I ask the member to send me a letter and I'll look into it in an unofficial way. We often do that sort of thing.

MR. NICOLSON: A few things in the annual report of 1982-83, which is the latest. It mentions in there that the federal and provincial Ministers of Communications met in May 1982 in an attempt to harmonize their divergent positions on pay-TV jurisdiction and to consider a report of the federal-provincial task force on joint regulatory mechanisms. A fun time was had by all. Section staff are continuing to participate in the project, and a report to the ministers is near completion. This is in the 1982-83 report, which is the latest annual report that I have a copy of. Has that report been given to the minister then?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's pending.

MR. NICOLSON: There's another research paper in here that I wanted to ask about. One thing I would like to say, though, is that in this annual report there is reference to B.C. Tel, the CRTC and some interventions, and there was some discussion a little earlier as to whether or not such discussion was a part of the minister's responsibility. Neither I nor the minister seems to have any objection to talking about B.C. Tel. Certainly there are references in the most recent annual report to B.C. Tel and activities being taken by the ministry, so it would be rather interesting to continue with that.

Another thing that I would like to talk about is the.... I think it is very symptomatic that all of a sudden government changes its priorities. Look at what we're losing in terms of highly trained technical people due to the B.C. Hydro layoffs: about 3,000 highly qualified people laid off since June 1982. While we know that the job market for engineers, teachers, university faculty and graduates is relatively high in other parts of Canada and the U.S., their prospects in B.C. are pretty dismal because of this government's policy. I would like to know why this ministry, with its concern for high technology, could not have really spearheaded a move to beef up the B.C. Hydro international consulting arm. I know that they're doing some offshore work. Should you not really put a concerted effort into beefing up that arm of B.C. Hydro for its international consulting work? When you consider that a recent study projected that 92 percent of those personnel being terminated in B.C.... Of those, 48 percent were going to go to other provinces, 22 percent to the United States, and 22 percent overseas. What does the minister see in terms of the potential waste in losing all of this highly trained expertise, and what we might have created in terms of an industry here for offshore consulting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hate to frustrate the debate, and I will allow some latitude, but we really are straying somewhat from the ministerial responsibilities.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just a 30-second answer, because it can be canvassed in more detail with the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers) at the time of his estimates.

I do sit as a director of B.C. Hydro, and I can outline very quickly the general problem. We won't be needing to build further dams in British Columbia until we absorb the block of power from Revelstoke. Because the people engaged in designing and supervising the construction of dams will have an indefinite period of no activity, an attempt has been made to find other work for them in the international sphere. The difficulty is that there aren't too many jurisdictions in the world at the present time that are building large hydroelectric developments. China is one area that has a lot of undeveloped hydro power. Here in British Columbia we're only a third developed. But we don't need it all. At the present time we've got power in surplus. That's the main reason.

What we're trying to do alternatively is to develop local industries for the kinds of things which B.C. Hydro purchases from outside. One that I'm quite hopeful for is that we can get into the business of making smart meters, because eventually all the meters in the world will be thrown away, just as all the old telephones were thrown away. There's a big international business, I think, in building and distributing next-generation meters. That's the kind of thing that we're looking at. Unfortunately, dam engineers are in surplus in the world.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you know, they are and they aren't. There's a great deal of activity going on out of Quebec. It has reached much the same point. As for oversupply of hydroelectricity, one need not inform me. I delivered a little monograph to the government in 1978 that said there would be a ten-year surplus when the Revelstoke Dam was completed, and I regretfully was somewhat accurate. So I least of all need to be reminded of that. I would have to give some credit to a few people that suggested I look into that area.

It's interesting to hear the minister's suggestion about the new generation of electrical meters, and certainly that is something that we can all anticipate. There's been very little change in that technology, I guess, since I can remember — since I was born. They run on the very same principles today as 50 years ago, I guess. So that's very heartening.

At the same time, British Columbia has not really moved ahead in that area. There is another paper that was mentioned in here. It referred to looking into the labour aspect of high technology development and the labour profiles of high technology companies. I'd like to ask the minister if that

[ Page 6125 ]

paper has been produced now. This annual report was for 1982-83. If it has been produced, could it be released?

HON. MR. McGEER: Do we have a report that we haven't released?

MR. NICOLSON: The annual report refers to this study of high-tech companies and their labour profiles and labour aspects relative to high-tech. I'm wondering if the paper has been completed and if it has been released.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll have to check into it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister will tell me whether he has any control over the pension plan at UBC, because a report released on the status of academic women at UBC pointed out that the UBC pension plan discriminates on the basis of gender. It uses a different gender base for computing what the pension should be, which is obviously quite contrary to the Charter. If he has any control over the pension plan I wonder if they're going to do anything about bringing it into line.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Madam Member. That's run entirely by UBC. At one time I thought it would be fair if there were a single pension plan for the universities, like the colleges and institutes, but UBC did not want that. They were the ones that held out. At Simon Fraser it's entirely funded by the provincial government, so we don't have that. Not everybody at UBC, by the way, belongs to the UBC pension plan. When I was there I belonged to TIAA-CREF. If there's discrimination, I think the proper way to go about it — you might know better — would be through the Human Rights Commission.

Vote 75 approved.

Vote 76: ministry operations, $1,959,618 — approved.

Vote 77: government telecommunication services, $10 — approved.

Vote 78: universities, $330,603,700 — approved.

Vote 79: science and technology, $9,500,000 — approved.

Vote 80: economic renewal, science and technology stimulation program, $2,345,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) sought leave to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35.

Upon examination of the hon. member's written statement of the matter, I am of the opinion that it contravenes standing order 35 (10) (c), as well as improperly importing argument therein, and fails to disclose facts which indicate the existence of some sudden emergency. In fact, the subject statement falls so short of qualifying under standing order 35 that the Chair must observe that in future, in order to ensure that standing order 35 does not become a vehicle for fraudulent abuse of the rule, the Chair will feel compelled to intervene and immediately terminate any such application.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I wish to advise the House that we intend to sit tomorrow afternoon, and I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.