1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 17

[ Page 4137 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. J. Cashore: Present in your gallery, hon. Speaker, are two outstanding people who are members of your office staff in Burnaby-Willingdon. They are also outstanding people for many additional reasons, not the least of which is that they have strong connections to Coquitlam. They are executive assistant, Jan Taylor, and legislative assistant, Leslie Roosa. Will the House please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: It's my great pleasure to welcome to the precincts today Mr. John Todman, Mr. Bryan St. George and Mr. Stafford McKergow, who are visiting us from the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce. They are here to discuss the benefits -- or lack of -- of the new labour bill and were given a very cordial reception in the Liberal caucus today.

C. Serwa: I'd like to introduce three constituents who happen to be members of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce: Stafford McKergow, John Todman and Bryan St. George. The gentlemen are here to transmit to the Minister of Labour their concerns with respect to the labour legislation. They will be available to significant members of the media for interviews in the Cedar committee room after question period.

B. Simpson: I'd like to introduce some constituents today who are visiting this great city: Mark Rogen; his wife, Sandy; their 13-year-old daughter, Danya; and their 11-year-old son, Seth. Mr. Rogen is participating in the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. conference. I urge the House to give them a warm welcome.

J. MacPhail: It pleases me greatly to introduce one of my constituents, George Lawson, who has been a long-time activist within the community of Vancouver on behalf of people with disabilities and ensuring that the social agenda of the New Democratic Party is carried forward. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

D. Mitchell: I notice in the gallery today Mr. Bob Mussio, a resident of the North Shore. Would the members please make him feel welcome today.

J. Doyle: I am pleased to be able to introduce Dr. Lal Mattu, the superintendent of schools for the Golden School District, who is here for the fall superintendents' meeting. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

BICYCLE SAFETY HELMET ACT

C. Serwa presented a bill intituled Bicycle Safety Helmet Act.

C. Serwa: The purpose of the Bicycle Safety Helmet Act is to reduce accidental deaths and prevent permanent severe head injuries to cyclists throughout the province.

The founder of the British Columbia Head Injury Association states that of the 6,000 people injured or killed in British Columbia each year as a result of head injuries, 14 percent, or a total of 840, are a result of bicycle accidents.

This silent epidemic will leave even more young people victims of paralysis, blindness and mental disorders. The tragedy of anguish, pain and disability of accident victims and the devastation to their families is, however, largely preventable. Wearing a bicycle helmet reduces the risk of head injury by 85 percent and brain injury by 88 percent. Most deaths could be prevented by wearing approved bicycle helmets.

In 1988 the British Columbia Medical Association took a lead role in developing greater public awareness of bicycle safety. They were joined by ICBC, the Bicycling Association of British Columbia and the British Columbia Home and School Federation. The report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs recommended mandatory bicycle helmet wearing by all British Columbia cyclists and their infant passengers.

This legislation should be accompanied by ongoing education to encourage safe cycling and bicycle helmet use. I hope that all hon. members will support this bill and enable speedy passage of this important initiative.

Bill M207 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RELEASE OF PHOTOGRAPHS

OF CONVICTED PEDOPHILES

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question today is to the Attorney General. It has to do with a very serious issue affecting the lives of many parents throughout British Columbia. Will the Attorney General tell us what the policy of his ministry is with respect to the release of photographs of convicted pedophiles who are currently under a warrant for arrest by the RCMP? Will he tell us whether those photographs will be made freely available to community groups that may be able to assist in the apprehension and reincarceration of those individuals?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a number of issues in and around this very important issue that are now under a very active consideration in my office. I hope to be able to go to cabinet with some recommendations in the very near future -- and by that, I mean in the next three or four weeks -- so that we can get some clear policy direction on this issue in this province. I agree with the member that it's serious, and I'm determined to do something clear and specific in as short a period of time as I can.

[ Page 4138 ]

G. Wilson: Can the Attorney General tell us what rationale there may be in a specific case, file number 914329 out of Williams Lake, for a Canada-wide warrant for the apprehension of a twice-convicted felon, which is essentially not being assisted by the release of photographs to community-based organizations across Canada that may assist in the apprehension of this individual? How can we capture somebody if we don't know what the individual looks like?

[2:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll take that specific question on notice.

FUEL EFFICIENCY TAX

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Environment, and it's further to a question asked last week by the member for Prince George-Omineca. Does the minister now know what his staff are doing in relation to the Automobile Dealers' Association? Specifically, can he confirm now that his staff met with the Automobile Dealers' Association to discuss the imposition of a fuel efficiency tax?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, officials from my ministry have been in discussions with the Automobile Dealers' Association. They have discussed a number of potential economic incentives that could be part and parcel of our mutual goal to reduce air pollution. So within that context, the answer is yes.

J. Weisgerber: The Ontario government introduced a similar fuel-efficiency tax. The result of that was an increase in taxation of about $800 on the average pickup truck and as much as $1,600 on a 4-by-4. Has the minister sanctioned a similar increase in British Columbia? Or was his ministry simply bounty hunting for its 25 percent share of this new tax windfall?

Hon. J. Cashore: In the answer that I gave a few moments ago, it was very clear that we have been in discussions with the members of the Automobile Dealers' Association. No decisions have been made. We are carefully reviewing an array of possibilities. We are also talking with Dr. Larry Berg of the South Coast Air Quality Board in southern California with regard to measures that are being taken down there. I thank you for this series of questions, because they indicate the good work that the government is doing on this issue.

J. Weisgerber: The Automobile Dealers' Association made a very detailed presentation to your ministry, which outlined a number of initiatives that could meet the goals of reduced air pollution and increased fuel efficiency without increasing taxes. Has the ministry decided to recommend these measures rather than the tax increases implemented in Ontario?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the work done by the Automobile Dealers' Association in providing us with that very worthwhile information is an indication of good government at work, and we are carefully reviewing it.

B.C. HYDRO RATE HIKES

F. Gingell: My question today is to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Is there any relationship, Mr. Minister, between your ministry's announcement of their plan to continue Hydro rate hikes up to 2 percent above the rate of inflation and the infamous reputation of the new Hydro chairman for exorbitant rate grabs?

Hon. M. Sihota: There is no relationship between the appointment of Mr. Eliesen and the announcement. The announcement was made and a cap put in to protect the interests of consumers in the province. We're making it abundantly clear, first of all, that B.C. Hydro is subject to private sector tests in terms of how it should be running as a utility. Secondly, we want to send a strong signal to B.C. Hydro that any rate increases it sets must recognize the interests of consumers, and that's why we've capped any potential rate increases to be 2 percent above inflation this year and 1 percent in subsequent years.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, you should recognize that B.C. Hydro has just announced record profits of $401 million, and that B.C. Utilities Commission rules have required B.C. Hydro to transfer to a rate stabilization account an amount in excess of 12 percent of the amount of money collected by it from British Columbia consumers. Why are you planning yet more rate increases, when you're already overcharging the citizens of British Columbia by over $181 million a year?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make a number of points. First, let me correct a point. I said 1 percent in subsequent years and 2 percent this year; it should be the other way around.

With regard to the question from the hon. member, we're not planning rate increases. We're saying that B.C. Hydro, as a Crown corporation, must be subject to the same type of stringent tests that apply to private sector utilities. We want some discipline within the corporation of B.C. Hydro, and we're encouraging it to find efficiencies within its operations to make sure that it maintains its obligation to consumers to provide cheap electricity and maintains its obligations to the Crown as well.

The hon. member should recognize that we're saying it also has a responsibility to consumers to not provide any type of rate shock, and, accordingly, by capping it slightly above the rate of inflation, we're preventing rate shocks.

Finally, let me say that the hon. member should know that the rates of electricity provided by B.C. Hydro right now to industrial and commercial users in B.C. are among the lowest in Canada, and that's the way they'll stay with this administration.

F. Gingell: The minister should know that B.C. Hydro's profits, after full provisions for depreciation, were 26 percent of their billings to B.C. customers. If they carry on at their present rates, they will have an

[ Page 4139 ]

additional $181 million surplus. Why doesn't this minister instruct B.C. Hydro to reduce their rates to the proper cost level for the benefit of British Columbia consumers?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that instructions are provided by the B.C. Utilities Commission. They are there to make sure that the public interest and the interests of consumers are there. We set the guidelines, and the guidelines are that it must have the discipline of the private sector. If, on the other hand, the hon. member's point is that B.C. Hydro is a well run and efficient Crown corporation, with that point I would agree.

KITIMAT SEWAGE SPILL

W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. The minister will be aware that his ministry has elected to lay charges against the district of Kitimat for a sewage spill earlier this year. Given the fact that municipal infrastructures are in decline all over the province, how does he reconcile this heavy-handed approach with the taxpayers' ability to pay?

Hon. J. Cashore: Surely the hon. member isn't advocating that we condone a lack of consideration for the law. The law exists. The charges were laid pursuant to the law. I'm not going to comment further on that. If charges were laid, the hon. member is stating the obvious. It's incumbent on me to leave it at that.

W. Hurd: I asked the question on behalf of the taxpayers who may have to shell out up to $2 million for a fine in this case. Since the legal costs are being borne by the province and by taxpayers, and since they are also being borne by the taxpayers in the district, wouldn't the money be better spent on addressing the pollution problem in the first place?

Hon. J. Cashore: I would call on this member to put his research on the table. Surely the hon. member realizes that, by his own assertion.... He has stated that this is in the state of charges being laid and is before the courts. Therefore he knows it's inappropriate for me to comment at this time.

COSTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

The Speaker: The member for Surrey-White Rock, keeping that caution in mind.

W. Hurd: The opposition waited so long for the government to table its bill, we accidentally asked a question about the bill for their table. [Laughter.]

Hon. Speaker, has the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks briefed the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the kinds of bills the municipalities will be facing for the infrastructure problems they have?

And while I'm on my feet, perhaps I can ask the minister if he intends to sue the district of Victoria, if their referendum in the upcoming week fails.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, in response to the question, I am in constant consultation with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing.

SALARY FREEZE AT LANGARA

C. Serwa: My question today is directed to the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. The minister has been quoted as saying that the two-year salary freeze at Langara College is justified, because the money is simply not there. Whether that's true or not, it's totally inconsistent with the government position, which recently awarded a very handsome wage increase to BCGEU employees that was nearly three times the average private sector settlement and apparently more than three times the recommended settlement by the government's own advisers.

The Speaker: The Chair did not hear a question in that, hon. member. Could you very quickly state a question.

C. Serwa: There was a question in there, hon. Speaker. Nevertheless, I'll move on to a supplementary.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: The minister is reluctant to answer.

The Speaker: Order, please. Just state your question please, hon. member.

C. Serwa: Can the minister explain why the wage freeze has been lifted from his own senior bureaucrats, who make $70,000 or more, and why they are eligible for this big pay hike when he is unable to find funds for the professors at Langara College?

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I did finally hear a question, but I didn't hear what the hon. member was referring to. Perhaps he would like to rephrase. He referred to senior bureaucrats, but he didn't specify who he was talking about.

EVERYWOMAN'S HEALTH

CENTRE SOCIETY

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. According to the registrar of societies, the Everywoman's Health Centre Society hasn't filed a financial report since 1990. Without financial information on the society, how could the minister accurately determine the appropriate level of funding to give this society?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm unaware of the information that the member has just given me with respect to their financial reports. I'd be happy to check into it and get back to her.

APPOINTMENT OF NEW CHAIR TO THE

MEDICAL SERVICES COMMISSION

Hon. E. Cull: I'm answering the question from the member for Matsqui, which was taken on notice for me

[ Page 4140 ]

by the Premier yesterday. I'm very pleased to be able to respond to this matter, because there has been a lot of speculation with respect to the new chair of the Medical Services Commission, and I think it's time that the facts were put in order.

I don't think anyone in this chamber is unaware of the fact that we are going through a major reform of health care in British Columbia. That reform is happening inside the Ministry of Health just as much as it is happening outside, in the community. Six months ago I recruited an experienced deputy minister from this government to come into the Ministry of Health to oversee changes in the ministry that are necessary in order to deliver that reform of health care. The termination of Dr. Henderson is part of the restructuring that is ongoing and will be ongoing in the future.

We are changing the Medical Services Commission from a one-person, government-run agency to a tripartite commission involving doctors, the public and the government.

I'm pleased to announce that the name of the new chair is Ms. Gillian Wallace, who has been with the government since 1985.

An Hon. Member: She's a lawyer.

Hon. E. Cull: She was formerly an ADM with Aboriginal Affairs and before that with the Ministry of the Attorney General. She was B.C.'s representative on the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Gender Equality in the Canadian Justice System. I hear comments over here that she's a lawyer. She's also an excellent career civil servant and an excellent manager. I am absolutely confident that Ms. Wallace will do a fine job.

[2:30]

With respect to the salary for Dr. Henderson's replacement, Ms. Wallace, it will be $94,124 per annum, which is the standard salary for that management level.

Hon. T. Perry: I seek leave to make a late introduction, with the consent of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. T. Perry: A rare but hopefully not endangered species has just blown in on a zephyr from the south. I wonder if I could invite other hon. members to join me in welcoming Mr. Joel Connelly of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, who is one of the few journalists from our distinguished neighbouring state to the south who has the good sense to enjoy the cut and thrust of debate which inevitably characterizes this chamber. I invite other members to join me in welcoming Joel Connelly back.

G. Wilson tabled two letters written in the spirit of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Presenting Petitions

J. Beattie presented a petition from constituents calling for the establishment of a rentals mediator.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 84; E. Barnes in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 6.

G. Wilson: As we recessed for lunch, the Liberal opposition was trying to convince the minister of the, from our point of view, obvious wisdom of deleting

section 6(3)(

e) of Bill 84. To refresh the mind of the minister, who, I'm sure, over lunch hour had a chance to reflect on the wisdom and sense of this, the deletion of this has nothing whatsoever to do with violence on the picket line, nor does it in any way demonstrate -- notwithstanding the remarks of the minister -- that the Liberal opposition is somehow opposed to language in the bill that would address the questions, as outlined in

section 68, with respect to bringing in replacement workers. To restate our position, with the

section currently under review deleted, the intended powers of the bill, in terms of protection from unfair labour practice, are better served in a reformed and revised

section 68 -- we will attempt to amend that when we get to it -- than if we were to amend

section 68, which hopefully the minister is amenable to, and leave

section 6(3)(

e) in. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have those two clauses in the same bill if one may be used in a manner that essentially allows for a tipping of the scale toward the union on the question of unfair labour practice. It is simply a deletion that does not in any substantive way modify or change the intent of this bill. What it does is allow us an opportunity to review that question of unfair labour practice fairly and more properly in the

section where it should be, where it belongs -- which is

section 68.

Hon. M. Sihota: As I said to the hon. member earlier -- and I'll have to repeat it -- this government will be proceeding with anti-scab provisions. We don't think violence has any place on picket lines in this province, and therefore we will be proceeding with

section 68.

When we get to

section 68, the hon. member will have occasion to propose amendments. Perhaps the government will agree with the amendments that he proposes. Perhaps the government will bring forward its own amendments. Perhaps the government will proceed with

section 68 as it's worded. In any event, the fact remains that this

section will still deal with

section 68 as it is passed by the Legislature, when the Legislature gets around to passing that section. This

section will refer back to the principles of

section 68,

[ Page 4141 ]

and hence this

section must remain here as it is so that it can deal with

section 68 in whatever way it appears at the end of the day.

G. Wilson: With the greatest respect to the minister, I'm not here to try to be an antagonist in this process. Can the minister give us some specific reason why this bill is better off with (

e) in it than it is if we were to delete it and put that section, with respect to unfair labour practice, in an amended

section 68?

I'm delighted to hear that the minister will entertain some amendments to

section 68. We're looking forward to that, and I think that there has clearly been a fair bit of negotiation outside this precinct toward the amendment of that. I think that's useful, and it's hopefully a positive sign that we are going to improve this bill.

But what is it specifically that the minister has a problem with in the removal of

section 6(3)(e)? What it does is essentially allow the kind of direction that he has been advocating over the last number of days with respect to every other

section we've attempted to amend

-- i.e., the long and rather detailed discussion on

section 10 with respect to the provision of protections. Why is it that it applies, on the one hand, with respect to what he talked about in the practice of this bill with

section 10, but he can't see that the same principle applies with respect to the question on

section 68? We need to delete

section (

e) in order to make this bill a better and more progressive bill.

Hon. M. Sihota: We think it is progressive to point out very clearly in the legislation that activities contrary to

section 68 -- the anti-scab, replacement worker provisions -- are unfair labour practices. To address the hon. member's question, what

section 6(3)(

e) does is indicate that it will be an unfair labour practice for someone to engage the services of an individual in contravention of

section 68.

The hon. member makes additional comments with respect to debate on

section 10. It's theoretically impossible for us to have had any debate on

section 10, given the fact that we haven't got there yet, hon. member.

G. Wilson: I'm somewhat amused by the minister's comment. I realize we haven't got there. There are a number of sections we haven't arrived at yet, but that hasn't precluded the minister's constant reference to them for the reasons why he can't accept any of the intelligent amendments we've been putting forward. It's a little bit specious to suggest that there hasn't been some considerable discussion on why future sections -- which are likely to come up for debate some time in mid-January or perhaps early February -- shouldn't be looked at now, as we start to amend this section.

I make that reference only because of the speed with which we seem to be getting through this material. I wonder if the minister could not recognize that, in light of the fact that on the

section with respect to an employee there was no amendment given.

Once again, I'm not trying to be obstructionist; I'm putting forward a point that I hope he will take seriously, because I'm offering it to him in a serious amendment. The employee is not further defined with respect to exempt members, those who will be allowed to legitimately go in and keep an operation operating through a labour disruption, whether that be a superintendent of schools who comes in to look after a school or extended family members in a small business -- whatever those kinds of situations may be. They need to be addressed, and we will be attempting to amend that in

section 68. If he does not recognize that subsection (e), as it stands now, is likely to be read at least as a method to confuse the language if it is not deleted.... It would clean up the act substantially if the minister was to simply say: "We acknowledge the point. Yes, we'll delete it." And we can move on.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should understand that the matter he referred to of superintendents or family members who will be brought in will be dealt with in

section 68. I see the hon. member nodding, so we're at first base.

Now let's move to second base.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm sure that silence may assist in getting the message across.

Subsection (

e) makes reference to

section 68, and will be read in conjunction with

section 68, in whatever form it appears at the end of the day -- whether that end of the day arrives in the middle of January, February or March, depending on the pace at which the opposition wishes to proceed. Of course, there is always generosity of spirit on this side of the House in order to accommodate the pace at which the opposition wishes to proceed with regard to this legislation.

I am not trying to be purposefully obstructionist, and I appreciate the sentiments with which the hon. member presents the argument that he puts forward. But I want you to know that it's my understanding -- I see you've got a call from the press there -- that (

e) will be read in conjunction with

section 68. We may have a difference of opinion in that regard. Because (

e) says "use or authorize or permit the use of the services of a person in contravention of

section 68," I'm confident that whoever is looking at (

e) will look at it in the context of

section 68, because it makes an explicit reference to

section 68. Therefore the amendment is not required.

Now if you want, you can have your scrum, and I'm sure that the rest of us can deal with it. But if you want to get out of here before the end of March, maybe we should just move on to another section.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just have one point for the minister, and then I'll let the member for Saanich North and the Islands get involved also.

Certainly towards the latter part of yesterday and this morning, the minister went on at great lengths explaining why it wasn't necessary for us to have substantive recourse in

section 5, because in

section 10 there was procedural recourse for people in the event that the union tried to fire them. The minister is now

[ Page 4142 ]

standing up and arguing just the opposite of what he has been saying all day. He's saying that under his bill not only will a person be charged under

section 68 if they violate that

section but they'll also be charged under

section 6 because of what they did under

section 68. So you're hitting them twice. For doing one thing, you can be charged for violating two sections under this code. In my opinion, if you violate

section 68, you should get charged under

section 68. Why do you have to then include a charge under

section 6? It makes no sense.

[2:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: If I may just step aside from this debate and give him an example.... I see that he's sitting next to a scholar well versed in legal affairs, who, I'm sure, is there to give him all of the advice that he can -- a man of great intelligence.

The Chair: Order, please. On the amendment, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: I am sure he will advise him that it is not unusual for people to be charged -- if that's the right word -- with more than one infraction for the same fact pattern under the same piece of legislation. There is no double jeopardy here, as the hon. member tried to suggest earlier. I believe his leader recognized, in response to my argument, that just because a provision is found in a code twice, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be punished twice. So there is reference to

section 68 in

section 6 in order to make it abundantly clear that it will be an unfair labour practice to engage a replacement worker pursuant to the provisions of

section 68.

With that said and with the comfort of that knowledge, he will now defer to the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unlike the minister, I am not as persuaded by his own arguments. The general public doesn't seem to be, either.

I would like to ask the minister why he needs to put it in twice if it's covered in

section 68? What is the need to put it in

section 6? What is the purpose? Why would he need to do that?

An Hon. Member: Sock it to me.

The Chair: Hon. members, there being no further members.... While the minister is preparing his response, I would caution the members to keep in mind that there is a rule with respect to repetition and tediousness. The question has been raised on more than one occasion with respect to the differences, and I think the Chair will have to caution members with respect to this violation.

Hon. M. Sihota: Over and above all the arguments I've put forward in terms of making it clear to people that it's an unfair labour practice to proceed with a replacement worker during a strike for all the reasons that I've articulated philosophically, and wanting to prevent violence on the pickets lines, the hon. member should know that under

section 68 it is a general prohibition, and under

section 6 it is a specific prohibition which then creates the opportunity to raise the powers contained in

section 14.

If the hon. member would look at

section 14, he will see that there is a connection between the

section that he refers to in the House now and

section 14, which creates certain opportunities as a result of the violation of

section 6, which albeit may commence because of a general violation of

section 68. Therefore....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. Let me try again so the hon. member really understands it.

The Chair: Order, please. I would ask that the minister address the Chair, and that other members would not intervene during his remarks.

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer is as follows.

Section 6(3)(

e) creates opportunities under

section 14 that would potentially not be available with regard to an application under

section 68.

C. Tanner: It has taken an awfully long time to get this statement out of the minister. It's like pulling teeth. Surely the minister could have said that this morning. But that isn't my question.

section 6(3)(

e) is so important to the minister and the philosophy that he predicates, why does he bury it down here where nobody can find it? Why isn't it right up front? What is the minister's opinion as to the most important part of

section 6?

Hon. M. Sihota: With respect to the first point, the hon. member knows that we had our general philosophical discussion about anti-scab provisions this morning, and we will continue to have that. I want to make it abundantly clear to all members that this government will not tolerate violence on the picket lines in British Columbia, notwithstanding the efforts of the opposition to do in

section 68 and

section 6.

If it's so important, why is it in

section 6(3)(

e) and not in

section 6 or

section 1 or

section 2? All I can say to the hon. member is that all provisions of this wonderful legislation have equal importance.

C. Tanner: Excuse me, hon. Chair, but I think I'm going to throw up after that last statement.

The Chair: Order! Hon. member, this is an example of the difficulty the Chair is having with extending latitude to members. I think we should be reminded that under standing order 61(2) the committee is required to be strictly relevant to the

section under debate. We have been shamefully straying from this standing order, and I'd ask all hon. members to assist the Chair in the way they conduct themselves.

C. Tanner: At the chairman's suggestion, I won't bring it up again. Fortunately I'm standing close enough

[ Page 4143 ]

to the door so if I feel something coming up I can get out before I affect the chamber.

The minister tells us that he can't enact his philosophy unless he has

section 6(3)(e). We're saying you can do it under 68. Finally you said you need this to enforce 14. If it is so vital, why isn't it first in 68 and why do you need it here? You still haven't told us why you need it here in 6(3)(e).

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, in all seriousness, it matters not where it's located in the statute. What matters is the fact that it's located in the statute, and it is in the statute. It's in the statute because this government fundamentally believes -- and I know that there's a difference of opinion between ourselves and the Liberal Party -- that there's absolutely no need for violence on the picket lines of British Columbia; we will not tolerate brute force and violence. Therefore we will proceed with anti-scab provisions. We will proceed with those provisions under

section 68, and we'll make it abundantly clear to the public that, because we will not tolerate that kind of behaviour, we will take action with regard to

section 6(3)(

e) if that is required.

That's the reason, hon. member, that this provision is here, and I would suggest to the hon. member that if he wants to get into philosophical debate again with regard to the anti-violence provisions and the anti-scab legislation, we'll have that opportunity with regard to

section 68. If he wants to have it now, we'll have it now. But I'll tell you very straight, up front, we will not apologize for bringing forward legislation which prevents violence in this province. That's why it's here, hon. member.

C. Serwa: Just with respect to the minister's last remarks, I think all of us are concerned about violence on the picket line. Certainly no one wants to see that. However, it was always my understanding that the labour code provisions are not that important with respect to that, but the rule of law and order should be the governing factor. What the minister is clearly doing in this particular

section has made the arbitrary decision that the solution to inhibit or stop violence is simply to stop service to a school, for example, from a public sector union or stop a business from continuing. I have a great deal of concern with the logic and the rationale in that, hon. Chair.

The idea is almost synonymous with the old western concept of frontier justice, where the prosecution attorney presents the case with respect to a man charged with cattle rustling, and the judge hears it and says: "We'll hang him in the morning." The defence lawyer gets up and says: "But Your Honour, you haven't heard my side of the story." And the justice says: "It wouldn't matter; it would only confuse me." Clearly that's what the minister is doing in this case. The rule of law and order has to be responsible for the reduction or elimination of picket line violence, not the labour bill.

I think it is inappropriate that the minister has chosen to withdraw the absolute requirement of service, as in education, because many parents are left with no option other than sending their children to school. We have a great deal of concern about that.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'll try to restrain my comments, because the hon. member should know better.

There is a need in this legislation to make sure that a firm signal is sent through labour legislation that violence has no place on the picket lines -- first point.

Second point. As to the issue of whether it should be dealt with through some other provision -- criminal courts as opposed to labour legislation -- the hon. member overlooks the fact that picketing and issues relating to picketing have been dealt with under labour legislation for as long as I can remember and, I would suggest, as long as the hon. member can remember.

The third point is that because of the peculiarities of labour relations, as a matter of public policy, it has been the practice in this country that picketing and issues relating to picketing are dealt with outside the courts through the mechanism of a labour relations board. There are some instances where matters go to the courts and to criminal conduct, but those are exceptional. The mainstream attitude in this country, for reasons of sound public policy, is to have issues dealt with under the provisions of the labour code, and the hon. member should know that.

With regard to frontier justice, the hon. member should understand -- and I'm sure he does -- that the purpose of this code is not to make those kinds of determinations. That type of attitude is not acceptable in this society of ours; it has not been for some time. That kind of analogy is, quite frankly, an affront to those entrusted with the task of administering this legislation.

For the edification of the hon. member, he should know that there is a process whereby the arguments of both sides -- all sides, because there are often more than two -- with regard to picketing are heard fairly and equally and in an independent and judicial fashion by the independent members of the Labour Relations Board. They hear those matters and conduct their inquiry as if they were a court of law.

They give the opportunity to all parties, as they must, under the rules of natural justice -- we talked about that earlier this morning -- to know the case against them, to cross-examine, to ask questions, to have a hearing, to know the case that they have to meet, to know the accusations, and then to know the reasons for the decision that's been made. That's how our system of justice should work in this nation of ours; that's how it has always worked. That's how it has always worked also with regard to administrative tribunals, such as the Labour Relations Board.

It is wrong, in my mind, for anyone to suggest that the type of analogy that the hon. member referred to has any place in labour relations matters.

I will accept the fact, knowing the hon. member, that he did not in any way intend to make adverse comments about the practice in the past with respect to the Labour Relations Board. I will also assure the hon. member that in the future the Labour Relations Board in this province will conduct its hearings and its inquiries consistent with the judicial traditions of our Commonwealth. That's why the message is clear. They must respect the other provisions found in this legislation, in keeping not only with the principles of natural justice -- as I referred to the other day on

section 10 --

[ Page 4144 ]

but with the safeguards provided in the procedural provisions found later on in this legislation.

[3:00]

C. Serwa: I thank the minister for his comments with respect to my query, and I appreciate the information that he has given me. Nevertheless, the concern I have is with the bias exhibited in this particular

section with reference to the sense of balance and fairness. In spite of the minister's comments, I'm certainly not quieted with respect to the fairness or balance being received at the moment within this Legislature or that which will be received by the Labour Board in situations on the picket line. That is a considerable concern: that bias is clearly evident in this particular section.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 22

Dueck

Serwa

Weisgerber

Hanson

Stephens

Warnke

Gingell

Farrell-Collins

Tyabji

Wilson

Reid

Cowie

Tanner

Mitchell

K. Jones

Chisholm

Dalton

Hurd

Anderson

Symons

Neufeld

De Jong

NAYS -- 33

Petter

Sihota

Edwards

Cashore

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

MacPhail

Lali

Giesbrecht

Gabelmann

Cull

Perry

Pullinger

B. Jones

Copping

Ramsey

Hammell

Evans

Dosanjh

O'Neill

Doyle

Streifel

Lord

Krog

Randall

Garden

Kasper

Simpson

Brewin

Janssen

section 6.

J. Tyabji: We on the opposition benches find it extremely regrettable that the minister did not take to heart our amendment to

section 6 with regard to the deletion of (3)(e). Therefore we have another amendment to propose, which we believe the minister will accept. Not only will he accept it; he will wholeheartedly accept it. It is:

[SECTION 6(3)(

e) be amended to read as follows:

(3)(

e) use or authorize or permit the use of the services of a person in contravention of

section 68, except in the case where the safety of the public is at risk, or]

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, we tried extremely....

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order. Before we get into any substantial debate on the amendment that the hon. member has just filed and which is before me now.... We have just dealt with an amendment put forward by the opposition, and I would argue that this provision has the same effect and intent as the previous motion. It effectively undermines the intent of

section 6(3) and seeks indirectly to do that which the previous motion tried to do directly.

I would argue, hon. Chair, that therefore the motion is out of order.

The Chair: Before recognizing the Opposition House Leader, I would suggest that the amendment is in order, in light of the manner in which it is extending the previous motion that the minister was concerned about.

Hon. M. Sihota: On another point of order....

The Chair: Just a moment, hon. minister. I am at the present time making a ruling with respect to this motion, so that it would be in order. The hon. member may proceed, unless you have another point of order.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, hon. Chair, you may wish to consider them both at the same time. I would draw your attention to

part 6 of the legislation, which deals with essential services. Those provisions are found in

section 72 and

section 73, and in total they can be found on page 49 of the legislation. They deal specifically with opportunities which may arise when the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia are endangered.

Therefore it would seem to me that it's redundant, given the provisions of

section 72, and hence out of order.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. Opposition House Leader on the same point of order.

J. Tyabji: On this point of order, and because I didn't get to respond to the first point of order, the minister should have known that that actually should have been part of the debate and not a point of order.

On this point of order, however, essential services is a completely different concept from trying to qualify one subsection of a

section in the first part of a bill. The minister should know that, especially with his background as a lawyer. He should realize that if we leave

section 6(3)(

e) unamended, it will not read with the same intent as if we amend it. It's really a very simple concept. Adding the words is different from not adding the words. It is not a duplication of the essential services section.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. As I pointed out earlier, the Chair is satisfied that, notwithstanding the remarks by the minister, the amendment is sufficiently in order and should proceed.

J. Tyabji: The opposition has spent a lot of time trying to convince the minister of the seriousness of not amending

section 6, especially with regard to subsection (3)(e). If this minister doesn't realize the

implica-

[ Page 4145 ]

tions of that and leaves it unamended, what he is actually risking is that, in the event of some kind of labour unrest, we could have a situation, such as the school trustees pointed out, where the very safety of children is at risk. I am sure that this minister, first of all, doesn't disagree with the School Trustees' Association and, secondly, would not want to risk the safety of children by not amending

section 6(3)(

e) to add these words. These words, especially to someone from a legal background, ensure that subsection (

e) is not misunderstood or abused in any way where the safety of the public is not provided for.

This minister must understand that if he does not amend that section, the opportunity is there to abuse it in a way that would not allow that

interpretation. In the final analysis of the legal implications of this bill, if you do not put the words in, it will be understood that that was not your intent. Because the amendment has been offered in the House, it is incumbent on this minister to either disagree with the words we've added or agree to the amendment.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: I listened carefully to the points that the hon. member makes. I have reflected on the comments that she makes. She talks about services that are necessary to the public when the safety of children or anyone else may be at risk. The safety of citizens -- perhaps that's the best way to put it -- may be at risk in a number of disputes. They may be at risk if firefighters, the police or health workers decide to go on strike. We do not need this provision to deal with those kinds of situations.

J. Tyabji: Why would you not put it in?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member says: "Why would you not put it in?" Let me explain why we would not put it in.

[3:15]

We do not need scabs, or replacement workers, to do work that can be done through the designation process under the essential services legislation. In other words, what happens under legislation.... Let's say that in the event of a police, firefighters' or health workers' strike, there's a process of designation. The process of designation ensures that basic services are provided to guarantee that there is no adverse risk to the health and well-being of the citizens of British Columbia. Accordingly, the harm to which this hon. member refers is prevented through that designation process.

That's the way the issue is dealt with. Those provisions are in this legislation in sections 72 and 73. They afford appropriate protection to children, adults or anyone else who may feel threatened. In a situation where the public is in some way at risk, they are protected through the essential service designation provisions that are found elsewhere in the legislation. Hence, there is no need for this amendment.

The hon. member keeps on shaking her head as if she's always right and I'm always wrong. I can assure the member opposite that if she were to take the care to read sections 72 and 73, she would realize....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't hear that, and I'm probably glad that I didn't. She would realize that the protections provided in sections 72 and 73 are there to prevent this kind of harm.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reason this amendment has been proposed is that it is specifically to deal with essential services as such, which come later in the bill, and we will have time to debate those at great length. The provision we're allowing for here is a case that we brought up a couple of times and which the minister has said warrants merit. That is the case in point brought forward by the B.C. School Trustees' Association about what happens when a picket line goes up around a school, teachers walk off at a moment's notice, or there's a study session and the students are at school or on their way to school.

As the act reads presently, if a volunteer or parent tried to come along to ensure that those children made it home safely, that they were supervised in some capacity until the study session ended, the employer or even the volunteer, for that matter, could be charged with unfair labour practices under

section 68. What we're trying to do here is provide for those specific occasions when that type of thing may happen.

It's a realistic amendment. We've already dealt with the removal of (e). This Legislature has decided that it would like to keep it in, and I respect that. What we're doing here is trying to ensure that in those cases where you need to have a fairly quick response to a situation -- and the school example is one that we've used before and will use again, because it is a valid one -- it would allow volunteers, the school board, the principal to bring people in to deal with those children quickly, expeditiously and safely without having to go to a designation of essential services.

It's going to last for all of about an hour and a half or two hours in the morning, and I can just see what would happen if there was a one-day walkout by teachers, which is likely in the foreseeable future -- maybe even more than a one-day walkout -- and the students are left either en route, or some or all are there at the school and have to somehow get home.

Phone calls have to be made to parents to come and pick up the students; parents perhaps have to help drive students home to ensure that they're taken care of. That doesn't fall directly under essential services, nor do I think the minister would think that having the school board go to the Labour Relations Board and try to get a ruling on essential services is going to help those children get home.

The intent here is that in those cases where, under the discretion of a superintendent or under senior management, there is a case where these students have to be dealt with quickly in a safe manner, they can use their good judgment and ensure that that safety is there without fear of repercussions under this bill. I think it's a fair amendment. It's intended for that specific use and

[ Page 4146 ]

for other ones that we perhaps haven't highlighted yet, but which are similar to that, without having to go through the huge, long process of a declaration of essential services, which this minister has removed from essential services anyway. Perhaps he would like to respond to that case in point.

Hon. M. Sihota: The opposition, in presenting its case generally with regard to this legislation, has been operating as an agent of fear and raising worst-case scenarios and situations that would create unnecessary fear and paranoia in the province. They've chosen to use this chamber in citing those kinds of examples to somehow strike fear into the hearts of British Columbians. They think that all sorts of doomsday scenarios will emerge if their amendments are not captured in this legislation.

I have enough confidence in teachers to believe that they will make sure that children are not left trapped in transit. It's not been the way it's worked in the past.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member asks about ferry workers. I note only in passing, hon. Speaker, that it was his leader who supported that illegal work stoppage.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order. The minister is digressing from the debate, and he's also mis-stating facts to state that the Leader of the Opposition is in support of wildcat strikes. It is simply not the case. No matter how many times he tries to say it, it won't be reality.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, hon. member. Differences of opinion should be the subject of debate, not points of order.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, the hon. member should know that he should not question the ruling of the Chair. In addition to that, I was just commenting on what I saw on TV the other day.

If I may continue then with respect to the argument of fear that's being put forward, the situation has not arisen. We've had disputes in the province before with regard to the teaching profession. The hon. member knows full well that the essential service provisions have never been enacted with regard to teachers and children. It is not necessary or wise, during the course of what ought to be rational debate, to move into extreme examples of fear to make a political point with regard to what one would consider to be a gap in legislation.

There are times in society when there is legitimate risk to the public well-being and the health and safety of British Columbians, and that is dealt with in an expedited fashion through the provision of the essential service components of legislation. That's what those provisions are for, and that's what these provisions will be used for, I'm sure, in the future once this legislation is passed by this House. My hope is that it will be, and it will be done soon.

In addition to that, let me say to the hon. member....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Not because of the Social Credit caucus, who I must say has been both effective and timely in their intervention. I must commend that caucus for its input to this debate.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, if the hon. member wishes to address the Chair, the appropriate way to do that is to rise and take his place in debate. But far be it from me to comment at this stage on the ineptitude of....

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. The minister is continually spinning his caucus line, is irrelevant in debate and is engaging in debate that has absolutely nothing to do with this section. I would call on the Chair to call the minister to order, please.

The Chair: Your point is well taken on relevancy, hon. member.

Hon. M. Sihota: I was referring to the relevant and timely comments from the member for Okanagan-Vernon in his capacity as the Labour critic.

In any event, the essential service provisions are there. They're designed to protect public well-being. The hon. member ought not to be so presumptuous as to what kind of fact patterns and areas of activity will be captured by sections 72 and 73. He shouldn't be so presumptuous as to assume that certain activities will be captured and others won't. I think it is a mistake for him to conclude that certain activities of the public or private sectors will be exempt from consideration by the Labour Relations Board by virtue of the wording of that section. We'll get to that when we get to that section.

We'll obviously have to deal with education, as the hon. member, I'm sure, will not heed my advice and cease being an agent of fear with regard to children in this debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would think that most people watching or reading this debate, if they do, would find it very clear that it has been this minister who has been totally ineffective in defending his own bill rather than any other members of this House.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. member. The amendment is reasonably specific in terms of what it attempts to do. I would urge all members of the House to confine their remarks to the amendment.

[ Page 4147 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I can't agree more. I hope that those interventions by the Chair are done in an equal and timely manner as the debate goes on.

The same minister was talking about the Liberal opposition's fearmongering not more than 20 minutes ago. He's doing that now as well; he's standing in this House going on and on about violence on the picket line, this incredible atrocity that occurs daily in British Columbia. The minister has been fearmongering in this House more than anyone in recent history, and he did the same thing during the debate on the Charlottetown accord. Fearmongering has been his code of ethics, and fearmongering it is again today.

Hon. Chair, I am not fearmongering; I am bringing forth the concerns of the British Columbia School Trustees' Association. And if this minister is calling the British Columbia School Trustees' Association a bunch of fearmongers, maybe he should say it to their faces instead of through me. It is those people who are bringing these concerns forward; it's not me. They've put those concerns onto me, because the minister fails to answer them.

That is specifically why this amendment has been brought forward. It has been brought forward in the sense of sober second thought to ensure that those types of scenarios do not occur. I would like to ask the minister very clearly: are there no instances in British Columbia where teachers have gone on strike or engaged in some sort of study session or work stoppage whereby students were left unattended in the classrooms?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm trying to determine the relevancy of that to the issue before us. It's obvious to me that some in this House who would seek to dish it out can't take it.

I'm sure there have been situations where teachers have gone on strike, and arguably, situations where parents have felt that their children have been left in an unsafe situation. There are ways in which those kinds of issues can be dealt with. There are also cases in this province where teachers have decided to take job action, and have acted in a responsible and mature way before they've taken the job action. I would suggest that the latter is far more prevalent than the former.

And I would suggest that with regard to the former, there are procedures which the hon. member, who is the Labour critic opposite, is familiar with and knows can be used to protect against those kinds of situations.

G. Farrell-Collins: Now that we have the minister admitting that there have, in fact, been cases in British Columbia where teachers have engaged in job action of one form or another and students have been left unattended in the classrooms.... Whether that is more prevalent or less prevalent is not the question. I know that the majority of teachers in British Columbia are extremely responsible people; otherwise they wouldn't be doing the jobs that they are. But the reality is that when labour disputes get heated, there are times when that does occur. The minister has just admitted that.

What I would like to ask the minister now is: is he saying that there is nothing in this piece of legislation that in his opinion would preclude a superintendent or principal from bringing in volunteers or people from other districts to deal immediately with the supervision, safety and security of the children?

[3:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well that the issue he refers to falls within the parameters of

section 68 of this legislation. If he seeks to bring about amendments or create loopholes with regard to

section 68, the time and place for him to make that argument is when we get to

section 68, not now. I fully understand that the opposition is opposed to anti-scab legislation in this province; and the opposition fully understands that this government is committed to making sure that there is no violence on the picket lines in British Columbia. When we get to that section, there will be an opportunity for the hon. member to make his case with regard to exemptions to

section 68. This is neither the time nor the place to make that argument.

The hon. member, as he raises the issue of teachers, knows full well that there have been disputes in this province regarding teachers. He knows that some of them have gone on for extended periods, and that some have been terminated very quickly. He knows full well, as the Labour critic -- at least he should -- that there have been instances such as we saw in Fort St. John, where the strike went on for somewhere in the neighbourhood of two months. And he knows full well that there have been cases in the jurisdiction immediately adjacent to his, in Abbotsford.

And he knows full well -- or at least he should, as the critic for Labour for his party -- that there has never been, with the exception of Abbotsford, even with the case that went on for two months, an application for essential service designation in the education field. The employer -- i.e., the trustees of that area -- chose not to make application in front of the then Industrial Relations Council for a designation of essential services. With regard to Abbotsford, there was indeed an application made, but it was never acted upon and there was no adjudication with regard to that situation.

The evidence in this province is clear, as I said earlier on: when we have labour disputes in the education field, generally the parties have been mature enough to deal with the situation that students find themselves in. The evidence is clear that under the provisions of this legislation, people who work at those schools in a management capacity have the ability to look after the children during any labour dispute.

The hon. member knows full well -- or ought to know full well, if he understands labour legislation -- that under the sections which he will have an opportunity to deal with later are provisions that will allow a principal at a school to remain on site during a labour dispute, whether it be to answer phones, to use the example that came up this morning, or to deal with children who are left in the case of an unanticipated event.

He also knows full well -- or he ought to know full well, as the Labour critic for his party -- that if the event which causes the problem to which he refers is a

[ Page 4148 ]

result of an illegal job action, there are other remedies. And he ought to know, by virtue of the events that happened in this province over the last few days, that this government will not hesitate to offer support to those who would seek to protect the public interest when there is an illegal work stoppage. That narrows the potential, hon. Chair, of harm being done to any members of the public. He knows that. And he knows that there is nothing more than political opportunism being attempted here by the hon. member to try to create a situation of fear which is unnecessary, unprovoked and unwanted.

He knows -- or he ought to know, as the individual entrusted by his caucus to be responsible for labour matters -- that there are ways in which those issues to which he points can be addressed.

G. Farrell-Collins: How?

Hon. M. Sihota: He asks me how, hon. Chair. I say to him: he ought to learn labour law before he comes into this House, rather than come in here to be educated with respect to labour legislation.

With that said, hon. Chair, let the hon. member understand that in this province, employers, or trustees, have not made the kind of applications that the hon. member suggests should be made, and they have not found students to be in the situation that he would suggest they are commonly in. There are exceptional circumstances, I grant the hon. member, which arise or may arise -- for the purpose of debate I will grant him that point.

But he must also understand, in furtherance of his responsibilities and based on the knowledge he must have with respect to labour legislation, that there are provisions in place in this legislation that allow management on site -- e.g., principals -- to deal with students if they find themselves involved in an unusual situation as a consequence of a surprise action.

So the hon. member should go back and do his homework and learn the legislation, and he should appreciate the nuances of labour legislation in this province.

C. Serwa: Obviously the member got to a sensitive nerve in the minister, with the shouting that has gone on in the minister's response.

Speaking specifically to the amendment and looking at the safety of the public, where it is at risk, the matter clearly falls into this

section and certainly falls into subsection (3)(e). It has also been clearly enunciated in the concerns of the British Columbia Teachers For Association, a group of professionals who are committed to professionalism and excellence in education.

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, I don't wish to be discourteous to the member speaking, but the Labour critic opposite knows full well that in this House one does not engage in tirades against the Chair and does not scold the Chair. If that's what you were doing, hon. member, you should know that kind of behaviour is not acceptable.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, I was merely pointing out to the member from Saanich -- not the Chair -- that he should be disgusted to be associated with a party that works with the types of organizations and systems that they do, and certainly with the Chair, who is blatantly unfair today.

The Chair: Hon. member, that is totally inappropriate in terms of decorum in this House, and I would order a withdrawal.

G. Farrell-Collins: A withdrawal of which part, hon. Chair?

The Chair: The withdrawal of the offending statements.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not sure which parts of the statements were offending.

The Chair: The Chair has no option but to request that you withdraw your remarks so we can proceed with the business at hand.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I will be glad to withdraw my remarks.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member.

C. Serwa: In recognizing the concerns of the British Columbia Teachers For Association, as well as professionals in the teaching area who are members of the BCTF, I think there is a valid reason for great concern among those individuals, who place the kids and education in the forefront. There are many of them, and most of them do so.

This particular amendment seems to have relevancy and importance to this section. I have listened closely to what the minister has stated about the fact that it should come up in a later section. But I have also been around here, and much to my chagrin I have found that if you don't cover something at the first opportunity, when you get to the next opportunity, that particular

section is gone and you can't come back to it. So it is relevant. I think the amendment is a good one, and it should be included in this particular situation.

The minister's position is not consistent with the position of his government. His government's position on the matter of doctors in Sechelt -- or Powell River, or wherever it is -- is dramatically different. In the one case they're using their politically correct NDP word "scabs" with reference to replacement workers, and the concern here is public safety. On the other hand, in spite of the fact that we're really overdoctored in the province -- and that's recognized -- we're going to bring doctors from further away. Again, that situation is clearly inconsistent with the government's stand on this particular

section -- but again emphasizing the public safety aspect.

We're all either parents or grandparents, or closely associated with the concern there. This happens to be one that touches just about everyone. So it seems reasonable to me that this amendment be seriously considered. It doesn't license the use of replacement workers, but it does give comfort to parents with

[ Page 4149 ]

children in the school system who may be at risk. The hon. minister has young children. He realizes what can happen in an unsupervised class of children. While it may be a small matter as far as a strike, picketing or study session is concerned, some injury can transpire that can have lifelong effects on some small child.

Surely the concern of this legislation has to be such that it provides some direction, some sensitivity for the welfare of students, for example, in this particular situation. That's consistent with the minister's own views. I find it unsettling that the minister is unwilling to accept this recommendation as a sense of direction for this section.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member referred to his experience and the chagrin that comes from that experience of not being able to speak to an issue in legislation later when there was an earlier opportunity to do it. I do believe that given the latitude shown in debate so far, which I'm sure will continue right to the end -- and should, for that matter -- there will be an opportunity to discuss this issue during the essential services provisions and also during anti-scab provisions, which will be found in

section 68 of the bill. There will be ample opportunity to discuss those issues at that time, because they are far more salient with regard to that

section than they are with respect to this.

I agree with the hon. member that it is troublesome for all of us to see situations where there are unnecessary victims or when children in particular are left on their own. If I may reflect, the hon. member talks about my own kids. I discovered today that the school got out at noon instead of three, and I was in a bit of a panic to find out that I had to get back and pick up my daughter from school. I managed to make other arrangements. Having experienced that as recently as three hours and 45 minutes ago, I know the concern that parents have. I'm confident, however, that those kinds of situations can be attended to, given the provisions that exist in sections 68 and 72.

I also know what the rules of the House are with regard to dealing with matters now that are far more salient later, and I will deal with those issues, as I'm sure the hon. member will. If the hon. member is worried because of his experience of chagrin that he talked about earlier on, I give him my assurance that I will not stand up and procedurally object to his opportunity to raise these issues in sections 68 and 72. Clearly there will be ample scope for debate. So, hon. member, rest assured that you not losing an opportunity.

You also have my assurance that from our analysis of the amendment that's before the House, it is not necessary. That is provided for under the provisions of essential services.

[3:45]

I want to underline the comment I made earlier to the Labour critic from the ineffective party in the House....

J. Tyabji: Point of order, hon. Chair. I've been observing this debate from my office for a few minutes, and the thing that really offends me is that not only is this minister weak in terms of his own understanding of his own bill, but he continually personally attacks the opposition.

The Chair: Order! Hon. member, that is not a point of order. It is appreciated that the tenor of this House has been raised somewhat. Perhaps we could all calm down and get to the task at hand.

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to underline the point I made earlier on, and that is that it would be presumptuous for anyone in this House to assume that certain fact patterns are captured by

section 72 and others are not. I think it needs to be understood -- and we'll deal with this when we get to

section 72 -- that applications can be brought before the Labour Relations Board and designation sought. What is captured within

section 72 is a determination that will be made in the future. I would again caution many against being overly presumptuous.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's fun to get back into the debate after the minister's tirade.

The minister made a number of comments related to this amendment to which I would like to respond. First of all, he has gone to the point of calling the BCSTA presumptuous, and he has taken it further and gone to the point of calling the BCSTA fearmongers and all sorts of names. I'm sure they wouldn't be very pleased if they were here to defend themselves. The minister has shown numerous times in this House his contempt for the public and for the parties with legitimate concerns in this labour debate.

The minister stands here in his arrogant way and tries to say they have no relevance in this debate, they don't need to be considered, all of their views are not important, and somehow the Liberal opposition is ineffective for bringing them up to the minister, merely because he doesn't want to listen to them.

Those concerns are being brought forward because the minister doesn't address them in his bill. The only place that they can go with that information is to the Liberal caucus, because we're the only ones who are going to bring it up in the House. If the minister didn't have so much contempt for these people, perhaps he would deal with them. The amendment we are dealing with today, right now, has been brought forward to address a concern of the BCSTA, a number of whose members are also members of the New Democratic Party. I doubt very much that they are impressed with the response this minister has offered them.

I can guarantee to this minister that the Hansard with this debate will be sent to all of them, so they know what his stance on this issue is.

This is a legitimate concern. We're not dealing with essential services. We're not dealing with

section 68, except that it relates to

section 6, as the minister has just gone on and on and on about.

Section 6 is something that needs to be dealt with; it's associated with

section 68, but

section 6 has to be there, and sub-subsection (

e) has to be in there. The minister said that -- I don't know how many times. So how come now, when we bring in an amendment to this section, the minister says it's not relevant, when he just went on for two hours saying it

[ Page 4150 ]

was relevant? His thought process is very poor. In fact, as Minister of Labour, he ought to know the relevance of this amendment.

We have given the minister one particular instance that was brought forward not by myself, hon. Chair, not by the Liberal caucus, but by the British Columbia School Trustees' Association. They are concerned that there exist in history, and there may well exist in the future, cases of job action by teachers that would leave students unattended in the classroom. The minister himself has risen and said that yes, that has happened in the past. He will grant us that point. What we are trying to do with this

section is ensure that the school board, the trustees, the superintendent and the principal are not held liable under

section 6 of this act to be charged with unfair labour practices when all they are trying to do is ensure the safety of students. That doesn't deal with an essential service designation. It doesn't deal with some long process of natural justice which the minister talks so long and hard about. It deals with a specific case, which he has granted us occurs; and we are trying to bring forward some concerns of the BCSTA to ensure that students are not left unattended.

If the minister has that little concern for the students in this province, he ought to resign his seat and allow somebody else who is perhaps a little more concerned with students in this province to bring forth this legislation and defend it.

This amendment is a rational amendment. This amendment is an important amendment. This amendment is a significant amendment. If the minister chooses to feel that it is irrelevant, that those people who have these concerns are, in his words, presumptuous or fearmongers, that's his prerogative. I don't feel that way, and I don't believe that the B.C. School Trustees' Association feels that way. Nor do the people who vote for those school trustees feel that way, and the hon. Minister of Labour will have to answer to them next election time.

The Chair: Before the Chair recognizes the next speaker, I would remind the House of standing order 40(2), which states: "No member shall use offensive words against any member of this House." It would appear to the Chair that some of the difficulty surrounding the debate is because there has been abuse of that particular provision by both sides. I would urge members to be more relevant in terms of the debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. Pursuant to standing order 40, I quote from Bourinot's rules, on page 364, where it states that personal attacks upon members will always be promptly rebuked by the Speaker. I assume that also applies to the Chair, and I assume that in the future, personal attacks levelled by the Minister of Labour will be dealt with immediately.

The Chair: The Chair is having some difficulty recognizing the member's concern, because there would appear to be abuse of this

section by both sides of the House. I would again urge members to be relevant and to avoid offensive words against other members, and perhaps we could get down to the task at hand.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have no difficulty with the BCSTA raising these issues; I have no difficulty with the hon. member representing them on the floor of this Legislature. I have some difficulty, however, with the issue being presented during the course of

section 6, when it is properly to be dealt with under

section 68 and possibly under

section 72.

I remind the hon. member that in my recollection of the BCSTA letter, which I don't have here before me and which the hon. member may, they were seeking clarifications with regard to the replacement worker provisions, which are found not in

section 6 but in

section 68.

C. Serwa: Certainly on occasion your task is a little difficult, hon. Chair, and I sympathize with you. But the only way this House can function is with the acknowledgement that there is neutrality in the Chair. I'm very confident in that neutrality, and I'm very pleased to engage in debate on this section.

Going back to this section, I'm very confident that the amendment is appropriate and that it should show up here. We had almost an undertaking by the minister that this would be dealt with, to a degree, in

section 68 later on in essential services. But that's not quite appropriate, hon. Chair. The reason that it's not appropriate is that the amendment does refer to the present section, but it says: "...except in the case where the safety of the public is at risk." Not all elements can be enunciated in

section 68. We're looking at a very fundamental issue here: public safety at risk. We have tried, in earlier sections, to include public interest, individual rights and the economic environment. In this particular situation we're talking specifically about including public risk: "...except in the case where the safety of the public is at risk."

Clearly that amendment is not only appropriate, but it should be included in this particular section. It is not clear to me why there is reluctance on the part of the minister to be sympathetic and to accept the amendment and include it. Because it cannot be included in

section 68. We were talking extensively about teachers in the school system, but there are many other elements in the province where the public safety at risk comes into play, whether of children or adults. I would suggest, in the actions of a responsible government, that public safety has to be a major issue, whether it involves highways and transportation and inherently dangerous conditions in the wintertime, or whatever else comes to mind. There are a number of issues where public safety is placed at risk. I'm confident that the minister has to acknowledge this and take that aspect into consideration.

I note that the minister has left the Legislature for a brief moment. I would like to re-emphasize the fact, while the minister is out, that it is a very serious and important issue, and it obviously has to be a serious issue with the ordinary British Columbian who expressed concern in this particular area. We have heard time and time again about the need for fair and balanced legislation. Public interest, which the minister

[ Page 4151 ]

has declined to take into consideration in the review of this legislation, for inclusion in this legislation, has been thrown away. It has been cast aside. Public interest is not a fundamental factor, but surely public safety has to be taken into consideration.

I cannot see how the minister can avoid taking it into consideration in this particular section. The amendment that was put forward is reasonable, balanced and fair. Any responsible member of any trade union would have no difficulty with this. I can't even conceive of a member of a trade union having difficulty with the acceptance of their responsibility and the unwillingness to withdraw services in a situation that places the public at risk. Hopefully, when the minister comes back, he will be....

C. Tanner: Point of order. I'd inform the Chair we haven't got a quorum.

The Chair: We'll ring the quorum bells to see who is present.

The debate continues. The member for Okanagan West has the floor.

C. Serwa: To conclude my remarks to the minister, I have been stating that it is my belief that not only is this amendment reasonable, but it should be required and should be placed in this particular section. I cannot conceive of any union member or any union having any violent opposition when public safety is placed at risk. The hon. minister has failed to acknowledge public interest to be part and parcel of this labour bill. I fail to understand how he can exclude that. But it would be unforgivable not to include the safety of the public as a main consideration in this amendment. Perhaps the minister would respond with his views on that.

[4:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to thank the hon. member for his comments. I apologize. I had to step out for a moment to attend to another matter.If I may say so, I think we've dealt with the issue most of the afternoon. I've commented on why I don't think it's necessary; I think there are other safeguards in place. For those reasons, I don't think the amendment is warranted, and somehow I'm confident that a majority of members of this House would agree with the arguments that I've put forward.

C. Serwa: Hon. Chair, just for the last time, could the minister perhaps give me a clear indication why it is so inappropriate to include the concern "with the safety of the public at risk" in this. It's not really clear to me why he is unwilling and refuses to include this.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, the reasons are as follows. First of all, there is obviously a need in labour legislation to deal with situations when public health and safety are at risk. That need is attended to under the essential-service designation provisions provided for in this legislation. Second, when there are disputes, such as police or fire or health, and public safety is at risk, we do not need to bring in replacement workers to attend to the problem; rather, we need to attend to the problem in an orderly fashion through the designation process.

The legislation that is before this House contemplates an orderly and systematic approach to essential-service designation, so that we know before a dispute commences who is to be doing what in order to prevent exposure of risk to the public. Third, there are situations when there may be illegal work stoppages during the mid-life of a contract. When they happen, there are quick and expeditious processes placed in legislation that are designed to protect the public in those situations.

I need not go any further than the evidence of what happened with the ferry workers the other day and to point out the dispatch with which this government moved to attend to that situation. I can assure the hon. member that illegal work stoppages will not be tolerated in British Columbia, and indeed the legislation makes reference elsewhere to that public policy imperative. Accordingly, there are three or four different provisions which attend, adequately in our view, to the concerns that the hon. member raises. For those reasons, it seems as if this amendment is unnecessary.

C. Serwa: Just a final question with respect to that. Is there the potential or the possibility of including in

section 68 the exception of "where the safety of the public is at risk" as a sort of broad consideration in the description of essential services?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member and I have had the privilege of being in this chamber together for six years, and he knows that both of us have open minds. If he proposes an amendment, he knows that I will attend to it in an open and considerate fashion, in much the same way as he addressed all those amendments I moved when he was Minister of Environment: in an open and honourable fashion. I need only advise the member in addition to that that

section 72 deals with situations which pose a threat "to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia."

J. Dalton: I was going to say that a few moments ago the minister made a reference to expediting an essential services obligation, but unfortunately it was about an hour ago that he made that comment, and we're still on the same point.

Hon. Chair, the minister insists on referring to

section 72 applying under essential services if a safety issue arises. Of course, our amendment deals with the safety factor. I would point out to the hon. minister that there is a process under 72 that will be time-consuming -- I don't think the minister will miss that point. The

section provides that an application must be made to the chair or, if the minister so wishes, on his own initiative. He could designate essential services. However, I don't think in either case, whether it goes through the chair to the minister or whether he takes the initiative, that he will necessarily be able to act promptly. This is the very point that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove made: if there is a problem at a school and the place is suddenly shut down, and if the only person on site is the principal, this minister cannot

[ Page 4152 ]

tell this House that an instant application for essential services could be dealt with on a safety factor, because that is not the reality.

I would also point out to the House that this very minister today indirectly referred to an example in his personal life where he had to go at noon to pick up his child at school. I'm also a parent of school-age children, and I can assure this minister that if there is a work stoppage or some disruption at my children's school, I would be the first parent on site. I would cross any line, whether it be legal, illegal or otherwise. Quite frankly, I think the designation of replacement workers in 68 to include volunteers is absurd, to say the least. I think it's totally unwarranted. However, we will be getting to 68 later.

I would also point out to the minister that sections 6 and 68 in his bill are connected. We didn't do it; he did. We are simply asking this House to consider a reasoned amendment, which is before us now. I would ask this House to approve it.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure to have that hon. member join this debate, I believe for the first time, with regard to these provisions. It's good to see that a former professor is engaging in the debate. I welcome the comments that he makes.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I just wanted to pay a compliment to the hon. member, who had the opportunity to educate members of my family and ensure that they're outstanding citizens.

In response to the point that the hon. member makes, he talks about situations where children, to use that example, may be left unattended at school, as if these are sudden events happening without notice or knowledge on the part of citizens. If I can paraphrase what he said, the hon. member seems to have missed the point: we have 72- hour strike notice provisions in this legislation. The reason we have those notice provisions is to give notice to educators, school districts and others that there might be a labour disruption, and it might be a strike.

That allows people to prepare and ensure that their children don't find themselves in the situation that the hon. member refers to. There are 72-hour strike notice provisions.

In addition to the foregoing, the hon. member seems to have missed the other point: that the legislation with regard to replacement workers makes explicit provision to allow management from that site to be there, so if there is a problem with regard to children, then the appropriate individuals are there -- this morning the Leader of the Opposition tried to suggest they weren't -- to deal with the situation. The hon. members opposite think that it might be just one individual. You could be wrong on that situation.

Depending on the nature of the worksite and the scope of management on the site, it may be more than one individual. Accordingly, the probabilities of a situation arising.... The hon. members don't wish to hear me talk because of the logic which flows from this side. They would rather heckle. The fact of the matter is that there is ample protection provided in this legislation which shields against that eventuality. The hon. members, accordingly, should recognize that protection is provided in this legislation, and hence recognize that the amendment they are proposing is unnecessary.

J. Dalton: I would like to pick up on two points that the minister has just commented on. Firstly, it's all very nice to say -- and it's true -- that there's a 72-hour strike notice in the bill before us; and that, of course, is the current law as well. Quite frankly, when a strike notice is given, parents of schoolchildren certainly don't start making preparations as to what they might be doing three days from now. If they send their children to school on, say, a Wednesday morning, and that happens to be the day when the strike hits, the picket line may very well go up after the children have entered the school.

Then we are truly dead in the water. I say dead in the water because I might also point out to the minister that on Monday morning this province was dead in the water. So forget 72- hour strike notice. We know the reality and the sorry state of labour relations in this province. It's getting worse by the minute. We are going to have work stoppages -- legal, illegal, notices, no notices. However, that's another story for another day.

There's another point I would like to make -- and I will use my children's elementary school in North Vancouver. It is the largest elementary school in the district; there are over 600 students in that school. There is a principal and a vice-principal. Is this minister telling us that two people could adequately supervise 600-plus young children? Well, I suggest not. I think that state of affairs is absurd, to say the least.

Hon. M. Sihota: A number of points. The hon. member is raising this in the context of replacement worker provisions, not in the context of general strike provisions. In the context of general strike provisions, I've already told you that you have 72-hour notice. Generally speaking, there is sufficient media attention around an issue so parents understand what may happen 72 hours hence. In addition to that, schools are very good at communicating to parents what may happen 72 hours from now.

Hon. member, the fact of the matter is that there is a 72-hour strike notice provision provided in the legislation to give people ample notice. The fact of the matter is that people react to that notice. The hon. members opposite may not be able to plan 72 hours in advance, but I'm confident that most British Columbians can when this kind of a situation arises.

Secondly, in the context of replacement workers, that fact pattern arises only after the commencement....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm trying to explain the legislation to hon. members, and they wish not to listen. That's their prerogative. I'll wait for them to settle down so I can continue.

With regard to replacement worker provisions, those provisions apply only after the commencement of

[ Page 4153 ]

a legal strike. At that point, everybody knows what's going on with regard to a strike. The probability of every parent sending their kids across a picket line -- 600 of them going across a picket line -- to sit there with the principal and vice-principal is unlikely. I think we all realize that in practice what happens is that parents adjust, and very few, if any, children find themselves in school once a strike has occurred. Hence, the likelihood of what the hon. member refers to is very low. It's not going to happen with 600 kids being caught in a room.

In addition to that, the situation which he refers to is one which probably would occur only in the event of an illegal work stoppage. As the hon. member knows, there are expedited provisions that deal with illegal work stoppages. We'll get to those provisions.

[4:15]

But I am sure the hon. member understands that the amendment before the House, on the floor of this chamber, deals with the second scenario that I outlined: namely, that of replacement workers. In that case, after a labour dispute, after everybody knows that there's a labour dispute, you know and I know that 600 kids aren't going to be sent from home to go to school. Parents make adjustments, which they don't like -- and which I don't like making any more than the hon. member opposite -- but they make them so that the situation he refers to doesn't arise.

If, calmly and logically, the opposition just goes with the various fact patterns, they'll realize that they're exaggerating a situation that is very unlikely to happen.

There is opportunity, as I said earlier, for the hon. members to deal later on with the central issue during the course of

section 68. They know full well that they ought not to do indirectly that which they can do directly; i.e., raise this issue during debate on both sections 68 and 72.

On the basis of the replacement worker provisions -- and I've been going through this all afternoon long and would have thought by now that the point was clear -- the probabilities of what the hon. member refers to.... I know him to be intelligent and wise, and I know that he appreciates the points that I've made and recognizes that on sober second reflection there are appropriate safeguards in the legislation.

J. Dalton: I've certainly listened intently to the minister's comments. I can assure the minister that I was tuned in, but I am certainly not convinced.

Let me point out a couple of realities to the minister. Let's not deal with hypotheticals, because, as I commented on earlier, the way things are building up in this province we are going to be facing some very serious work stoppages, and it won't be just in my children's elementary school, either.

In a strike -- if we, heaven forbid, have one -- whether it be in a school, hospital, ferry terminal, in Langara College, or what have you, notices are given and have to be respected. We have no idea whether the strike will occur at 8 o'clock in the morning, at noon or at 3:30 in the afternoon, so I would suggest to the hon. minister that if, for example, 600 children are in the school and the teachers decide that maybe a good tactic would be to put up the picket line at noon, then where are we?

As I've already told this House, I know where I am. I will be crossing that line to extract my children from that school, and if I'm conducting an illegal act, so be it. I certainly hope that this House is not going to invite a true safety issue such as leaving schoolchildren unattended. Admittedly, it is true, and I hope the minister is tuned in to these remarks, that once notice is given and the strike is underway, parents make their own arrangements. They're not going to send their children to a school that's unattended, but the fact is that they could very well be caught behind a picket line. I would reiterate the point I made earlier: volunteers are caught by the

section 68 provision, and I think it's patently ridiculous to say to parents and other people in the community that they're not allowed to go into their own community school, which is paid for by their taxes, to rescue children, conduct a day care or maybe become a teacher for a day if they need to.

G. Farrell-Collins: I note, with the departure of the minister and the last member of the NDP caucus, that there's no longer a quorum in this House.

The Chair: I shall ring the bell for a quorum.

J. Dalton: I don't want to be guilty of beating an issue to death, so let's put aside the replacement workers, volunteers and strike notices. Perhaps the minister could, however, indulge me by answering the question that I asked when I first got to my feet.

Under

section 72 there is a time delay in acting on an essential services application. If we're dealing with a serious -- or otherwise -- safety issue, will the minister not concede, on the strength of our argument, that it should be permissible, under our amendment of

section 6, that the public safety be paramount to worrying about the niceties of applying to the chair or to the minister -- or the minister taking his own initiative or lack thereof -- on a safety factor? I'm hoping that the minister will respond and give us a satisfactory answer to that.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister quite clearly does not feel that the interests and concerns of the school trustees in 75 districts of this province are of any concern to him. He obviously does not feel that the interests of the students and children of this province are of any concern to him. It is clear that the minister and the members of the NDP caucus, who don't even choose to participate in the debate in any form whatsoever, are not concerned about those issues.

I can assure the minister that copies of his comments today with regard to this amendment, which I think are quite a shame and are outrageous, will be forwarded to all 75 school districts in this province. I hope that they forward them to the parents, who have legitimate concerns about the way this government is abdicating its responsibility to take care of the children in this province. I think it is a disgrace. We will be voting in favour of this Liberal caucus amendment, and I hope that some members of the government will come into

[ Page 4154 ]

reality and vote in favour of this very serious and important amendment that affects school trustees right across the province. I know there are some members from the New Democratic caucus who sat as school trustees up until very recently; in fact some were chairs of various school districts. I hope that they will also vote in favour of the amendment.

Interjection.

D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, I can't help but respond to the invitation given from across the floor for government backbenchers to participate. I'd like to say how valuable I find this debate. It was only an hour ago that I faxed opposition speeches to members of my constituency, because the opposition speeches have not been adequately reported. My constituents have found these speeches so informative that I know letters will be flowing forth. They were very impressed with the total lack of commitment to organized labour shown by those opposition benches.

G. Farrell-Collins: I find it extremely interesting that that member would choose to rise in the debate and make comment on it, given the fact that he hasn't been here all day, along with the rest of the NDP backbenchers.

With regard to this specific amendment, I think it is critically important that the individual members of the NDP back bench take due consideration -- particularly those who have sat as school trustees or chairs of school boards in this province or some who may have graduated from a school in this province -- of this amendment to ensure the safety and security of young people in this province despite the NDP payoff to organized labour in British Columbia.

J. Tyabji: I stand to challenge the minister to give us the reason....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I have to preface these remarks by saying how glad I am that we called a quorum so we could have the hecklers back, because they will liven things up a bit. Perhaps they could learn something from this debate.

For the purpose of the people who have joined us, the loud ones in the back, I will read the words we are adding to

section 6(3)(e): "except in the case where the safety of the public is at risk." I would like the minister to explain why he will not accept them. I don't understand how, after over an hour of explaining to this minister that this provision is completely different from the one that is here for essential services.... It's a technicality. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt: it's something that he believes is already in the bill. But it isn't. We are helping him be responsible to the people of the province. Can the minister stand up and confine his comments to why he is deliberately not including those words in that

section of the bill?

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: I think we started this debate somewhere around 11:30 this morning. This amendment came to the floor around 3 o'clock, so we've been at it for an hour and a half. I would encourage the hon. member to read, with care, the response I gave to the member for Okanagan West, because he asked me the identical question. If the hon. member were to read Hansard , she would see that I've answered the question on several occasions and indeed answered in detail the question put to me by the member for Okanagan West.

As I said during my response to the member for Okanagan West, it's becoming abundantly clear to me that the Social Credit opposition is both effective and timely in its interventions. The Liberal opposition is both inept and ineffective.

J. Tyabji: In response to the minister, I would have to say that it is his own history of running his ministry through press releases and giving that example of responsibility and his own weakness as a minister that makes him stand up here and continually attack....

The Chair: Hon. member, on the amendment.

J. Tyabji: I am responding to the fact that this minister has stood in this House during our amendment and has repeatedly referred to the opposition as inept and incompetent. I have the right to respond to that and say that this minister would not be resorting to personal attacks on the opposition if he had any substance to add to the debate. We are still waiting to hear if this minister has a valid reason.

I listened to the dialogue that went on between the member for Okanagan West and this minister. There was no answer to the question that I asked him, and I will ask him again. Because this provision is not made anywhere else in the bill, and because we have offered this reasonable amendment to close a loophole in favour of public safety, will the minister please stand up in this House and tell us why he will or will not accept the words that we are adding, which are: "except in the case where the safety of the public is at risk"?

[4:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: To paraphrase what I have said on several occasions this afternoon,

section 72 deals with situations which deal with perils to the public. In fact, that

section in particular puts its mind to situations where the public safety and welfare of British Columbians may be at risk. It triggers when a situation "poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia." There's a

section --

section 72 -- that deals with the matter.

With regard to essential service provisions and education -- and any other issue which may arise -- the hon. member should not be so presumptuous as to assume that certain fact patterns are not covered by

section 72. They may or may not be; that will be determined by the Labour Relations Board.

In addition to that, the hon. member knows full well that the matter of replacement workers is a provision

[ Page 4155 ]

that this government is committed to. We see no place for violence on the picket lines of this province. However, we do recognize, as

section 68 explicitly recognizes, that in the case of a dispute -- to use the example the hon. member refers to -- a principal who works onsite can be there to look after the children.

In addition to that, I have already advised the hon. member -- for reasons which I need not get into again -- that there are 72-hour strike notice provisions which also mitigate against a potential for harm to British Columbians.

So there are provisions expressly to the designation provisions in

section 27 that are designed to deal with health and safety of British Columbians. There are provisions in

section 68 that allow for management to be present on a site at which they work and which is being struck. There are provisions in this legislation with respect to strike notice which prevent the kind of situation the hon. member refers to from occurring.

Hon. members, the situations are adequately covered. The shields are present in the legislation, and all of us in this House should recognize that. With that said, I want the hon. member to know that this is probably the seventh or eighth time I have provided an answer to that question. It is perhaps the shortest answer I have provided, given the fact that the hon. member has been in this House pretty well continuously from 2 p.m. until now, 4:35 p.m., and knows full well what I have to say.

With that said, I have now answered the question for the hon. member. She may not accept my answer; that's her prerogative. But that's the answer, hon. member. If I can't persuade you, call a division, and we'll see how the House feels about the matter.

J. Tyabji: As the minister is aware from our canvassing his response to our amendment, we have repeatedly stated to him that the provisions he has cited in sections 72 and 68 are not the same. This minister has stood up and said: "The example the opposition is giving of when we might need this amendment is extremely unlikely." He has said: "It may happen; it may not happen." The fact that this minister is admitting to the uncertainty and that there may be a situation where we need these words is exactly what the opposition is trying to say.

We're not faulting you for not putting it in there in the beginning. We're not saying to this minister: "You are grossly incompetent for this reason." We are trying to say to this minister that given the fact that you had so much of a giveaway in this bill, we understand that you overlooked a technicality. Somewhere in the way you tailored this bill to meet all the needs of the unions you forgot to put in the public safety. Here is a loophole that we're going to close for you. We're going to close it with these words.

The fact that the minister thinks -- and this is a quote from the minister -- that the media can carry the message of a 72-hour strike notice.... We know how this minister continually tries to have the media carry his message through press releases, and it hasn't worked very well in the past. In fact, his track record on press releases is not good. I would say that the media may chose to cover it in a way where it will not get out to the parents or the students. It may be a labour unrest issue.

For whatever reason, as this minister has explained, the unlikely may occur, and those students may end up on the other side of the picket line with one person supervising. This minister has admitted that to the House.

He has admitted that he thinks the 72-hour strike notice provision is adequate. He has admitted that he thinks the essential services provision is adequate in terms of safety, and we all know it's not. Either the minister is being naive about this, or he's not willing to admit to the House that the provisions in the bill right now for the public safety are not adequate. Because they are not adequate, we need this amendment. This is not a frivolous amendment; this is something that has to go in there.

If we do not have this amendment, then we will all find out, in our various constituencies, how this plays out when the unrest occurs. We will have this minister -- and unfortunately this will be the only redress we'll have -- up on his feet in question period and in future bills by saying: "We told you this was going to happen."

This reminds me of estimates, when we told this government that if they implemented this budget, this is the deficit they'd have, and they didn't listen. We told this government with Bill 29 that this is what you'd get in terms of fines and fees, and they didn't listen. Now we're telling this government that if they do not take this amendment, they will put the public safety at risk. I urge this minister to listen this time. In the first two instances we were talking about taxes, but in this instance we're talking about public safety.

We cannot jeopardize public safety because this minister is too proud to admit that in paying so much attention to the provisions for the unions, he forgot public safety.

V. Anderson: It's unfortunate that we get caught up in rhetoric when we're trying to work for solutions that can be understood and are beneficial to everyone.

One of our concerns is that we not only take into account the things that generally happen, but try to prepare for the things that might not ordinarily happen -- for the emergencies. In this particular case it's the emergencies that we're primarily concerned with.

Let me refer briefly to an area that probably has not been referred to so far. A friend of mine working as a chaplain in one of our institutions discovers that when a strike comes up, being a member of the union, he's caught between his professional duty, his faith's responsibility, and his union obligation. To be able to cross the picket line to provide the essential services that are needed in times of crisis is very important in these institutions.

This particular one that I'm thinking of happens to be a correctional institution, where in times of strike there are critical issues of personal relationships and the tension is considerably higher than the tension which is usually there. This puts at risk those who are there in essential service, as well as those who are the normal residents of that institution. These become times of emergency in which the rules and regulations need to be flexible enough so that that kind of person

[ Page 4156 ]

can go to meet the needs of those who are behind the strike lines.

In this particular case, those behind the strike lines do not have the option of being able to get on the other side, because legally they are bound to stay there. It would be very interesting if all the people walked out. You could hear the hue and cry of the community if suddenly all those who were "incarcerated" were free to go out and take their own free opinion as to whether they could be on one side or the other. I'm sure that those who are inside would be delighted to go out and join those on the picket line and be looking in, rather than looking out.

The chaplain is very important in that kind of tense situation, which can be, quite literally, a matter of life and death as these people struggle with the extra tension that has been caused and as they try to use the services of the chaplain. I would repeat for the benefit of the minister that I'm concerned about the area where a chaplain has had the difficulty of whether to cross the picket line or go forth and perform the service for which he is called, which is a very essential service in the area of a strike.

He's there to mediate and to deal with the crises of the people on the inside, which is intensified considerably by the people on the outside. So I would say to the hon. minister that we need to have this protection for those kinds of situations.

I've heard the minister say that it's understood that the principal of that school may be able to go in and perform his or her natural supervision duties in the school. But perhaps the minister has not thought that on numerous occasions, for sickness or whatever reason, that principal who normally would be in supervision in that school is not able to go in. Possibly they're not available to go in that day. In the past, when that person has not been able to go into the school because of illness or whatever reason -- perhaps they're caught in the ferry strike and can't get into school that day....

The upshot of this bill is that a substitute principal cannot go in to care for those children and make sure their needs are cared for. The very item that the minister says is covered is not covered, and he has created an emergency situation.

He may say that it is covered under sections 68 and 72 and that there is a way to respond to this. But at 9 o'clock in the morning, when children have turned up to school -- and some of those children are handicapped children who need special care over and above the principal's -- they need personal care and they need the normal care-people there in the schoolyard and in the school building. When they are not there, the principal is not able to cope.

[4:45]

If the emergency arises, as I mentioned earlier, and that particular principal who has the authority to go in is not able to do so, then by the time you would get hold of the chairman of the board and allow for the chairman of the board to report to the minister, it's going to be some time in the afternoon of that day, and those children are left in that classroom unattended and uncared for over that period of time. The emergency services provision here does not allow for the immediate substitution of another person. It does not allow for the needed care-person with the right kinds of skills to come in.

And it might be argued, hon. Chair, that in a real emergency situation perhaps the police and the fire and the ambulance have permission to cross the picket line. No doubt they would be questioned when they came to the picket line, but they probably would eventually get across. But the extra time that it would take for them to go through that line, because there would not be a person in the building to even take the telephone call saying that the emergency was created or that the situation demanded their attention....

I don't think the minister is taking into account the kind of emergency situations that we're trying to put before him. I would challenge the hon. minister to say that it is true that the kinds of emergencies that we're asking to be covered by this amendment may not happen that often but that when they do happen we need to have the skills in place to take care of them. I see the hon. Minister of Education speaking to the hon.

Minister of Labour, and I will trust that she is advising him of the reality of the situation that exists within the school system in order that he can clearly understand the concerns that we're bringing forward. I am sure in that consultation they will understand the kinds of concerns that we're expressing.

Therefore I would urge the hon. minister to reconsider and to support us in this very simple sentence: "...except in the case where the safety of the public is at risk...." I'm not sure why the hon. minister should be afraid of that particular sentence, particularly when in this case we are talking about children and their needs in our school system.

I'm sure that not only will the teachers and the parents be concerned about this, but the children themselves will be concerned if they discover that our minister is not willing to bend even that far to admit that one simple phrase cannot be changed because of his ego or that this demagoguery -- as he sees it -- across the House could be right. I suggest the minister can get past that idea and enable this amendment to go forward.

[ Page 4157 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I noted in passing that the hon. member had great difficulty in restraining himself when he mentioned the word "demagoguery" and couldn't say it with a straight face. I'll take it with the humour intended.

He did talk about whether or not his arguments were persuading me and other ministers. Let me tell you a point I didn't mention -- and obviously the hon. member has listened to points I have been making all afternoon long, so I'm not going to repeat them. Let's not forget that teachers do have a code of ethics. Their code of ethics requires them to look after and attend to children, and I think the fact of the matter is that teachers are not going to sort of willy-nilly get up and walk away and leave their students exposed to some kind of danger and risk.

They understand their professional responsibilities and they are mature enough and professional enough to carry out those responsibilities in keeping with the obligations that flow from the code of ethics that governs them. And I suspect that they will. I am sure the teachers have made it clear to the trustees that they're prepared to work under the code of ethics that governs them. I just think, for all the reasons I've outlined plus that point, that the situation you worry about ought not to be one that gives you worry.

V. Anderson: Thank you for your response. I too am very much aware of the code of ethics of teachers. I happen to have one of them within my own family. I'm very aware also of one member of my family who works with children with disabilities, and I'm very much aware that this is a concern for that kind of person.

Even with the code of ethics, if the teachers are outside on the picket line and children are in the building, there is no way for them to understand what's happening to the children. There's no way for them to appreciate the emergencies going on within the building, particularly if there is no adult in the building who has that kind of responsibility and training and experience to care for them. It only takes a few minutes -- it only takes a few seconds -- for that kind of emergency to take place, particularly if you have a group of children who are unsupervised. If you have a group of children who have handicaps and disabilities, the danger is even greater.

I think we have to take these extreme possibilities into account, because unless the legislation takes the extreme possibilities into account, it is not meeting the need. If it deals only with the average everyday activity and the concerns of the average union member, then it's not taking into account the kind of emergency situations that we're trying to put before the minister at this time. That's why we've added the phrase: "except in the case where the safety of the public is at risk." The public is one child.

If the addition of this phrase protects even one child in the next year or the next ten years or the next 20 years, it will be worth having in place. If it is not there and that emergency takes place -- we trust and hope it will not, but if it does -- then, unfortunately, the responsibility for that will come back upon this House and upon those of us who did not arrange that that emergency was provided for.

I would urge the minister to reconsider. I would ask him, as no doubt he's been asked again and again, as I've listened here earlier in the day: what harm can it do to add this phrase to this particular

section of the bill? What will it do to make this bill untenable? What will it do to turn around the intention of the minister, to simply say: "except in the case where the safety of the public is at risk"? The hon. minister has everything to gain by including it in the bill, and nothing to lose. Why will he not do it, then?

J. Dalton: I just want to cast our minds back to earlier in the day -- only for a moment, hon. Chair. We had a previous amendment on the floor on

section 6(3)(e), and we argued at that point that the reference in

section 6 is redundant. We have a provision in

section 68 dealing with replacement workers. We certainly raised the point and argued at length, although the government in its wisdom, or perhaps lack of it, decided that the amendment was not acceptable. But again I would point out to the minister that he has chosen, for whatever reason, to put a reference to

section 68 in the provision in

section 6(3)(e).

I don't think it's unreasonable that we are now dealing with a second amendment on the same provision. We're not destroying the substance of the provision in

section 6 by any means; we're simply adding a rather innocuous phrase to deal with a very important public issue: safety. It's a safety issue. If this House, and the government side in particular, cannot concede to the strength of the argument for public safety, we have to wonder why we are even arguing this bill at all. I think it is patently ridiculous to suggest that a very simple, straightforward provision for public safety cannot be conceded to at this point.

I will also point out to the minister that we did not connect 6 and 68