1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2575 ]

CONTENTS

Seating of new member

Mr. D. Barrett (Vancouver East) seated in the House — 2575

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2575

Mr. King — 2576

Mr. Gibson — 2576

Mr. Wallace — 2576

Mr. Barrett — 2576

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Food price increases. Ms. Sanford — 2576

Mount Stephen property. Mr. Wallace — 2576

Transfer of BCR to the federal government. Mr. Gibson — 2577

Ferry fares for senior citizens. Mr. Macdonald — 2577

Disposal of government forest product companies. Mr. Skelly — 2577

Safety regulations for fairground rides. Mr. Wallace — 2577

Minister of Labour on Swan Valley Foods board of directors.

Mr. Nicolson — 2578

Ladysmith Harbour report. Mrs. Wallace — 2578

Fares on Sechelt Queen. Mr. Lockstead — 2578

$15 fares on ferry routes. Mr. Gibson — 2578

Review of grazing permits. Mrs. Wallace — 2579

Discussions on humane trapping. Mr. Skelly — 2579

Food standards on Sechelt Queen. Ms. Sanford — 2579

Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 58). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2579 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2601

Mr. King — 2584 Mr. Gibson — 2601

Mr. Gibson — 2588 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2601

Mr. Wallace — 2591 Mr. King — 2602

Mr. Kempf — 2595 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2602

Hon. Mr. Williams 2595 On

section 7.

Division on second reading — 2598 Mr. King — 2602

Committee stage. Hon. Mr. Williams — 2603

Amendment to

section 1. Mr. King — 2603

Mr. King — 2598 Mr. Lauk — 2604

Mr. Chainnan rules out of order. — 2598 Mr. Lloyd — 2604

Amendment to

section 1. Mr. King — 2604

Hon.'Mr. Williams — 2599 Mr. Lauk — 2604

section 2. Hon. Mr. Williams — 2605

Mr. King — 2599 Mr. Barrett — 2605

Mr. Lea — 2599 Mr. King — 2606

section 3. On

section 8.

Mr. King — 2599 Mr. King — 2606

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2599 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2606

Mr. King — 2600 Mr. King — 2607

section 4. Mr. Lauk — 2607

Mr. King — 2600 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2607

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2600 Mr. Wallace — 2607

Mr. Lea — 2600 Hon. Mr. Williams — 2607

section 5. On

section 10.

Mr. Wallace — 2600 Mr. King — 2607

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2607

section 11.

Mr. King — 2608

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2608

Mr. King — 2608

section 14.

Mr. King — 2608

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2609

Amendment to

section 15.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2609

section 15 as amended.

Mr. Lauk — 2609

Amendment to

section 16.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2610

section 16 as amended.

Appendix — 2613

Mr. Wallace — 2610

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2610

Mr. King — 2611

Amendments to

section 17.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2612

section 17 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 2612

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2612

Amendments to

section 22.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2612

section 22 as amended.

Mr. King — 2612

Report and third reading — 2613

Royal assent to Bill 58 — 2613

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today, from the great constituency of Coquitlam, are some very special

guests, Mrs. Waring, Mrs. Sheren and Mrs. McEachern. I would ask the

House to make them welcome, please.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery with us this afternoon is Mrs. Marlene Smale, a constituent

from the riding of Vancouver Centre. I would like the House to welcome

her.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, we will also have in

the gallery this afternoon the students from Mt. Klitsa Secondary

School in Port Alberni, under the supervision of their teachers, Tom

Paul and Russ McLaughlin. I would like the assembly to make them

welcome.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to welcome to the gallery this afternoon a group of some 12

constituents from Cowichan-Malahat and, if I may, I would like you to

especially welcome my husband Robert and my son Gregory.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would

very much like to welcome to the gallery a lady who has spent many

long-suffering hours sitting in this gallery, Mrs. Shirley Barrett.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in

the Speaker's gallery today we have Mayor Boothe of Surnmerland,

accompanied by the recreation director and a member of city council. I

would ask the House to welcome them.

CLERK:

Office of the Deputy Provincial

Secretary

Parliament Buildings

Victoria, British Columbia,

June 14, 1976

Mr. Ian M. Home, Q.C.,

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly,

Parliament Buildings

Dear Sir:

RE: By-election, Vancouver East electoral district, June 3, 1976

I enclose herewith certified copy of the certificate of

Mr. K.L. Morton, Chief Electoral Officer, representing the election of David

Barrett to represent the Vancouver East electoral district in the Legislative

Assembly.

Yours very truly,

(Signed)

L.J. Wallace,

Deputy Provincial Secretary

Chief Electoral Officer,

June 14, 1976

Mr. L.J. Wallace,

Deputy Provincial Secretary,

Parliament Buildings

RE: By-election, June 3, 1976, Vancouver East electoral district

Dear Mr. Wallace:

The resignation, effective February 27, 1976, of Robert Arthur

Williams, the second member for the Vancouver East electoral district, caused

a vacancy to occur in the Legislative Assembly. A writ calling for a by-election

to fill that vacancy was issued on April 29, 1976; polling day being June 3, 1976.

From the writ now returned to me, I hereby certify the election

of David Barrett as the member to represent the Vancouver East electoral district

in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours truly,

(Signed)

K.L. Morton,

Chief Electoral Officer and

Registrar- General of Voters

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the letter of

the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificate of the chief

electoral officer of the result of the election of the member be

entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, having been declared duly elected,

having taken the oath of allegiance and having signed the parliamentary

roll, please take your seat.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure

on behalf of the government to welcome the new member, the second

member for Vancouver East, to this House once again. Our second member

for Vancouver East has served this House well in the past. He has in

the past many years in this House contributed to the political life of

this province in no small measure.

I would say to him that we welcome him back on two accounts. We welcome him back because it

[ Page 2576 ]

certainly will be a load off the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who has had a double load to carry

these past few months. I know it's been very strenuous on him.

I say, through you, to the new member for Vancouver East, Mr.

Speaker, that I welcome him on behalf of the Premier, who is attending

a first ministers' conference in Ottawa, along with four other members

of our cabinet. On behalf of them and all members of our House, I bid

you a very warm welcome.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I just want to say on

behalf of the official opposition and as the interim House Leader of

the official opposition how gratified and pleased I am to turn over

those duties formally to our leader, the second member for Vancouver

East. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the warmth of the

government's welcome is in no way dissipated as the weeks roll by in

this House. (Laughter.)

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of my party and following an extremely close contest in

Vancouver East with the Liberal candidate, I want to express warm

personal regards to the Leader of the Opposition, returned to

articulate so forcefully his deeply held views for the benefit of the

province.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I also would like to

congratulate the Leader of the Opposition in his tremendous victory at

the polls. I feel that regardless of one's political philosophy it is

important in a democratic system to have a strong opposition,

especially when we're all outnumbered two to one.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Oh!

MR. WALLACE: The undemocratic member for Columbia River

thinks otherwise, but I do believe that strong opposition is important.

I have the greatest respect for the Leader of the Opposition and I look

forward to the style and flair and the good humour that he so

frequently brings to the House. Although I say all these nice things

about him, that doesn't mean that there's any kind of coalition

developing. (Laughter.)

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, since

everybody else is out of order, I suppose I can continue being out of

order. I hope that I can respond as positively to my constituents as my

colleague, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and my

predecessor, the former second member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A.

Williams).

I wish to thank all the members for their very kind welcome. I

appreciate the well-thought words and well-chosen comments. I would

only ask one favour, Mr. Speaker — that during my maiden speech I not

be heckled.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents a report, the opening statement of the

Province of British Columbia to the federal-provincial conference of

First Ministers taking place in Ottawa.,

Oral questions.

FOOD PRICE INCREASES

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer Services.

The minister has reported that he sent a letter to the chairman of

the Anti-inflation Board asking "exactly what he intends to do" about

the huge increase in food costs in B.C. The minister is reported as

admitting that B.C. has the authority to control food prices. Will the

minister please tell the House exactly what he intends to do and when

he intends to get around to doing it?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

I do not intend at this time to relay to the House what future

government policy may well be in this field. I confirm that a letter is

about to go to Mr. Pepin. I had thought it had actually left the office

when that report was given. But it has been signed. It has not yet left

the office. It is going today.

We will continue to monitor food prices. We will continue to insist

controls in the private sector. As far as the government's policy is

concerned, I'm not prepared to make a statement about that at this

point.

MS. SANFORD: On a supplementary question. Well, Mr. Speaker,

on Friday, for instance, increases were announced in the price of bread

and chicken and turkey that were about to take place before the end of

this month, and I'm wondering if the minister could advise us if he is

taking any action in those three specific areas.

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer is no.

MOUNT STEPHEN PROPERTY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing, and perhaps the minister was intending a

[ Page 2577 ]

statement, but I'll ask this question anyway.

Can he confirm that the so-called Mount Stephen property close to

Hillside and Fernwood, which was purchased from the city of Victoria in

1974 for $190,000, is now being offered for sale to private developers

at an asking price of $600,000?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, to the

hon. member for Oak Bay, as well as to the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber), who raised this matter last Thursday: I take the question

as notice. We'll have comments later.

TRANSFER OF BCR

TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Economic Development. On June 9 I asked the minister if there were

talks going on inside the government with respect to the possible

transfer, one way or another, of the BCR to the federal government or

the CN. The minister apparently took my question to mean talks with

Ottawa. I meant talks inside the government, and I'd like to follow

that up.

Could the minister tell us if there have been, or are in progress,

any studies of the costs and benefits of such a potential transfer and,

if so, whether that study will be made public?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, not to my knowledge.

FERRY FARES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Transport and Communications is he aware that in fact

senior citizens travelling from Vancouver to Victoria, or back the

other way, do not, Monday to Thursday, get a free ride on the boat,

because in fact they pay more for their bus ticket when they don't buy

the ticket on the boat? In other words, if they pay the $4, they get

that bus ticket for $2.25, from downtown to downtown, but if they are

riding free they pay $3.50 for the bus ticket. The result is that

they're really paying $1.25 for what is supposed to be a free ride. Is

the minister of that?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes, and it's under investigation.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary. If you're advertising that it's

free for senior citizens, and in fact they're being done this $1.25, is

that not under the Consumer Protection Act?

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT

FOREST PRODUCT COMPANIES

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Forests:

have there been any correspondence or discussions between the

government and MacMillan Bloedel, or any other company, concerning a

management contract to operate B.C. Cellulose, Canadian Cellulose or

Twin Rivers Timber?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question, not to my knowledge.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Have there been

discussions or correspondence concerning disposal of the government's

equity in any of these companies to MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, no.

SAFETY REGULATIONS

FOR FAIRGROUND RIDES

MR. WALLACE: To the Attorney-General: in view of the near

tragedy which occurred in Colwood at the weekend, when one of the

scrambler rides at the fairground caught fire, I would assume that the

Attorney-General has some responsibility under the fire marshal's

office. If not, perhaps the Attorney-General could direct my question

to whichever minister is responsible.

I understand there are absolutely no licensing or permit

requirements to operate such highly risky pieces of machinery. I'm

wondering if the provincial government, through the Attorney-General or

the appropriate minister, is taking any initiative to review the need

for regulations in order to assure public safety.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the hon. member for the

question. I'm unaware of the matter he has referred to. I'll have it

looked into and give him a report.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the cooperation of the

Minister of Labour, who has just raised his hand and wants to answer

the question. I gather that the Minister of Labour has some

responsibility in this matter and perhaps he could help the

Attorney-General answer my first question.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, to the

member for Oak Bay: The matter of safety of devices used at fairs in

the province — merry-go-rounds, ferris wheels, scramblers and the like

— appears to follow the purview of the Factories Act, which is the

responsibility of the Department of

[ Page 2578 ]

Labour.

Several weeks ago instructions were given to the associate deputy

minister in charge of that part of the department to examine into the

appropriateness of regulations which might be imposed to ensure that

just such accidents as this do not occur. I hope that t we will very

soon be in a position to provide regulations which may preclude

repetition of such incidents.

MINISTER OF LABOUR ON SWAN

VALLEY FOODS BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Labour: has the Minister of Labour been appointed to the

board of directors of Swan Valley Foods, and if the answer is yes, is

he still on the board of directors?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is yes.

LADYSMITH HARBOUR REPORT

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my question

is for the Minister of Environment. I wonder if he could yet tell me the date

he expects the Ladysmith Harbour report finalized, and also whether or not he

intends to file a copy with the House when it is complete.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): I'm afraid I do not have a specific date, but certainly a copy will be filed.

FARES ON SECHELT QUEEN

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the hon. Minister of Highways: is the minister aware that the fare

structure on the Sechelt Queen, which is operated by the Department of

Highways, has been doubled since June 1 of this year?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, to the member, yes, I am aware.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplemental to the hon. minister: in view of

the fact that B.C. Ferries has reduced fares to residents in the Powell

River and Sunshine Coast area regional area, has the minister any plans

to reduce fares on the Sechelt Queen to residents of the Powell

River–Comox area?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

$15 FARE ON FERRY ROUTES

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Transport and Communications: will any of the vehicles paying a $15

fare on routes one and two of the B.C. Ferries, on the grounds they

take up more space, be parked under or on the ramps of the ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member means will

they be parked under the wings, those special wings that were installed

in the stretch ferries, the answer is no.

MR. GIBSON: What I mean, and the question I would now ask the

minister, is why certain camper vans that will fit underneath the

ramps, even though they're technically over the height limits, should

be charged extra on the grounds that they take up more space when in

fact they take up less room than a full-sized standard North American

car. Some of the small camper vans.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the regulation has to do with

height, and there are areas in the larger vessels in which height is a

limitation. That is the only proviso at the moment. Investigations have

been made as to the feasibility of measuring length of the vehicles as

well, but that is difficult; the apparatus isn't available at the

moment, and it's under consideration.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, to put the question in another way,

and I hope the minister can answer this in the affirmative: will he

guarantee that any vehicle, irrespective of the measured height, that

will fit under those ramps will only be charged the ordinary fare?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, before the minister answers the question I would just like to draw to his attention Beauchesne and point out to him that it's out of order to repeat in substance a question already answered.

MR. GIBSON: He hasn't understood it yet, I don't think.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the criterion, essentially, is

that of height. There has to be an allowance for vehicles to clear that

height; if they are approaching at different angles there has to be

some latitude given. One figure had to be chosen — that of six feet,

five inches was chosen. It does allow, for example, a Volkswagen van to

just get under the height; similar vehicles are all paying the $10 fee

and not the $15 fee.

[ Page 2579 ]

REVIEW OF GRAZING PERMITS

MRS. WALLACE: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Forests in his

capacity as Minister of Forests. I wonder if he could tell me whether

or not he is contemplating a review of the grazing permits as presently

issued to ranchers and whether or not he has, in fact, instituted any

changes in the requirements in order to obtain those permits during his

tenure of office.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member's

question, a consultant has been employed by the Department of Forests

for some time now. In fact, he was engaged prior to the change in

government. He has been studying possible ways of making the range

management more effective. He has not yet concluded his work. However,

there are some moves being Made into fuller management of the range on

a cooperative basis by various ranchers. No significant changes have

been made to this time.

DISCUSSIONS ON HUMANE TRAPPING

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Recreation and

Travel Industry. I understand that the Association for the Protection

of Fur-bearing Animals has wired her asking that the issue of humane

trapping be referred to a select standing committee of the Legislature.

Has the minister responded to that telegram? If so, what are the

contents of the response?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as to the contents of the

telegram I have received from the organization involved, I have visited

with them about a week and a half ago. We are trying to arrange yet

another visit because our visit was interrupted and we didn't get all

of our business concluded. My office is attempting to get a time with

them so that we can directly involve ourselves with the matters at

hand. I was able to give them 45 minutes of my time, but we were

interrupted by the visit of the Governor-General of Canada to Victoria.

FOOD STANDARDS ON SECHELT QUEEN

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister

of Highways. Last week I asked the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) a question with respect to the food standards aboard the

Sechelt Queen with respect to the food that is being dispensed there

since the cafeterias have been done away with. I am wondering if the

minister is aware of any complaints that exist on those ferries with

respect to food and, if not, if he would kindly investigate the

situation.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford), when the question was directed to the Minister of

Health last week, I did look into it. I am not aware of complaints, but

I did find out that the food that is placed on those vessels is

prior-inspected where it is packaged, and I believe that is in Campbell

River, where it is supplied. But I will look into it further.

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the question period today, Hon. Members.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 58, by leave.

Leave granted.

RAILWAY AND FERRIES

BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased to place Bill 58 before the House for second reading and to

commend it to all of the members as an important piece of legislation

for all of the citizens of British Columbia who rely to any degree on

the maintenance of efficient transportation systems in this province.

Bill 58 has been specifically designed to achieve two distinct

purposes. First, it employs binding arbitration to bring an end to the

existing dispute between the United Transportation Union and the

British Columbia Railway. This is the effect of

Part II of the bill. I

draw to your attention that this part will expire when it has served

its purpose of restoring normal operations to the railway. All members

are aware of the long saga of the dispute which this bill will bring to

a conclusion. I will provide some details of this later in my remarks.

The second purpose of Bill 58 is to provide some new legislative

measures that will assist collective bargaining — free collective

bargaining — in these two paramount public transportation services of

provincial significance, the ferry system and the railway.

Taken together these measures offer the negotiating parties what has

been aptly described as the choice-of-procedures approach to public

interest disputes. Labour relations experience has provided ample

evidence that genuine negotiations are hampered when there is the

certainty of government intervention. In those cases neither side

wishes to make necessary compromises because the hope exists that the

intervention of the government will better their positions — one or the

other of them.

As the former Secretary of Labour of the United States once observed: "One possible conclusion from

[ Page 2580 ]

the debate about whether an emergency labour

dispute should be handled by injunction, seizure, compulsory

arbitration, fact-finding or mediation is that the Answer to this

riddle lies perhaps less in any one of these devices than it does in

all of them."

It is my feeling, Mr. Speaker, that the choice-of-procedures

approach encourages collective bargaining and genuine negotiations at

the same time it preserves uncertainty about any role which the

government might play.

Under Bill 59 the choices provided to improve industrial relations

in the railway and ferry service are several. First, there is the

provision for the establishment of a special commission whose function

it will be to take a long thorough look at the basic relationships

between the employer, the employee and his union and to make

recommendations regarding methods to improve those relations. I

consider this to be a paramount objective of this bill. With particular

respect to the British Columbia Railway, I would like to refer to you,

Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by Mr. Owen Shime Q.C., the chairman of

the three-man board of arbitration which recently brought down a

binding award in the case of three of the four unions which have

outstanding disputes with the railway. Following the conduct of the

arbitration hearings, Mr. Shime concluded:

"The industrial relations condition of the British

Columbia Railway was chaotic and unstable, and, where it was not

implicit in the submissions, it became not only a reasonable but an

obvious inference to be readily drawn from the submissions. The main

source of the difficulty appears to be the fragmentation by separate

unions with the inherent problem of each bargaining representative

vying with the other to demonstrate its prowess in the collective

bargaining arena."

I find that to be a telling quote, Mr. Speaker. From it the members

may well conclude, as I have, that personalities as well as conditions

are a contributing factor to the unhealthy labour relations climate

which exists today and has existed for some considerable time on the

railway. Indeed we can conclude that something is very seriously out of

joint. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the members that in recent

history labour disputes affecting this railway have been remarkable by

their frequency and by their effects. If I may just refer very briefly

to dates going back through September 1973, there was a dispute between

the railway and the United Transportation Union involving 450 workers

and 1,350 man-days lost; in October 1973 the shopcraft union — 383

workers, 3,064 man-days lost; again in November of 1974 to January 1975

the shopcraft — 550 workers, 18,150 man-days lost; August of 1975,

United Transportation Union and CUTE — another 70 man-days lost; the

same two unions later in the same month, August 29, 1975, there were 60

man-days lost; the same two unions again in September of 1975 — 90

man-days lost; the United Transportation Union again on September 12,

1975 — six man-days lost; the Teamsters in January of 1976 — 290

workers involved, 1,450 man-days lost; the Teamsters again in March of

1976 — 290 workers involved, 5,510 man-days lost; and more recently,

since May 6, by reason of action taken by the United Transportation

Union which has been characterized by the Labour Relations Board as a

strike, responded to by the railway in laying off those employees who

are not required because of the action of the trainmen's union, we have

had a strike and extensive layoffs which still continue.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 58 empowers a special commission to develop and

implement a job-evaluation scheme for the railway because of the need

to remove any inequities that have developed over the years from the

fragmented bargaining which has taken place in this transportation

service, together with political interference in the management and the

operation of that railway service which is so essential to the economy

of this province — political interference which this government has, as

a matter of policy, determined to end. The British Columbia Railway

will be run by railroaders, and not by politicians. I have made that

clear through all my involvement over these past six months in my

discussion with both management of the railway and the representatives

of the unions who are involved in this operation.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): How about the board of directors?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the board of directors will be people who are equipped to manage a railway in a businesslike manner — for the first time.

MR. LEA: Any politicians?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: And there will be no politicians on the board of directors.

MR. LEA: Or ex-politicians?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: And no ex-politicians on the board of directors.

Mr. Speaker, in referring to the responsibilities of the special

commission, while I do not wish to be out of order, I think it

appropriate to direct your attention and that of the members to the

provisions of

section 3 of the Act, where the special commission will

be charged with an inquiry into all matters pertaining to the

relationships between an employer and its employees or their trade

unions, and the

[ Page 2581 ]

disputes and differences arising between them, with

a view to securing and maintaining industrial peace and furthering

harmonious relationships between them. It will apply both to the

railway and to the ferry service as may be required.

It will not, however, Mr. Speaker — and I emphasize this — be the

function of the special commission to involve itself in the problems

that arise during the negotiation of collective agreements. This kind

of assistance will be provided by other methods, one of which is the

appointment of a special mediator. I regard the provision for the use

of special mediators as the second basic measure in the choice of

procedures offered by this bill.

I shall refer to that in a few moments, Mr. Speaker, but first I

wish to draw to your attention a parallel that exists between the

appointment of a special commission under the terms of this bill, and a

step which was taken by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr.

King) when he was Minister of Labour in May of 1975. At that time the

former minister saw the need to do something to help straighten out the

labour mess on the B.C. Railway. His answer was to appoint a special

officer, Mr. Clive McKee, with the following terms of reference:

"To examine the conduct of industrial relations by management and by the certified trade unions of the British Columbia Railway.

"To make recommendations to management and to labour

for improving the climate and the structure of collective bargaining

and the administration of collective agreements in the British Columbia

Railway.

"To make such orders as he considers necessary or advisable pursuant to

section 114 of the Labour Code of British Columbia.

"To report on developments of collective bargaining procedures by the railroad to the Minister of Labour as soon as possible."

Mr. Speaker, the generality of the terms of

reference given to the special officer are not different to the duties

outlined for the special commission which is provided in this Bill 58.

We may use different language and different numbers, but the similarity

in the objective must be quite evident to all members.

I point out to you, however, that unfortunately the work of the

special officer appointed by the former minister came to nought.

Through no fault of Mr. McKee's or the minister's, his appointment was

pre-empted by the immediate and overwhelming problems of contract

negotiations that the railway was then and still is experiencing. The

labour relations mess that Mr. McKee was to confront was so chaotic as

to bog him down from the outset due to the negotiations then underway,

and his work was therefore aborted. No report or recommendations were

ever received. The Labour Code of British Columbia is obviously

inadequate. Once the contract expires, then any special officer

appointed into such a dispute cannot discharge his responsibilities.

I believe the former minister had embarked on a proper course of action in

attempting to find a way of bringing order to industrial relations on the B.C.

Railway. He may recall that I welcomed the appointment of the special officer

at that time.

However, nothing was achieved, and in fact the situation continued

to deteriorate, as the former minister recognized in October 1975 when

Bill 146 was put before this Legislature. The purpose of that bill,

entitled the Collective Bargaining Continuance Act, was to permit

negotiations to continue during a three-month cooling off period,

during which no strikes or lockouts would be allowed, and the people of

British Columbia would be assured of the continued operation of the

railway.

I remind the House that the British Columbia Railway and its unions

were included in the back-to-work order of Bill 146, even though there

was no general work stoppage on the railway at the time of the

introduction of the bill, yet the former government was obviously

concerned about what might happen on the railway in the weeks and

months ahead, for the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) said

during the course of the debate of Bill 146:

Some people may ask why, since there is no general and

widespread work stoppage on the railroad at the moment, we have

included the railway and the two unions involved in the bargaining and,

incidentally, in a legal strike position — the United Transportation

Union and CUTE which now represents the engineers on that property.

I must say that we have had work stoppages. We have

had rotating strikes on the railway, and when we look at the history of

negotiations on the railway over the last number of years, we have to

be concerned that the distinct possibility of a further and prolonged

work stoppage does exist.

Mr. Speaker, how prophetic the member for Revelstoke-Slocan was when

he made that statement in this Legislature. This bill is designed to

eliminate the consequences which have arisen since his prophecy became

true.

Mr. Speaker, the former minister went on to say:

I had, just a few days ago, appointed an industrial inquiry commission

to investigate into and make recommendations regarding a collective agreement

between the United Transportation Union and the B.C. Railway. Yesterday, I received

a telegram from the chairman of the bargaining committee for the UTU, Mr. Glenn

Bowes, requesting that I withdraw the appointment of Mr. Sherlock and attacking

the manner in which Mr. Sherlock had initiated his investigations.

The former minister continued:

I can say that I am saddened and upset by this turn of events.

I can say that this is the first time since I

[ Page 2582 ]

have been Minister of Labour in this province that the integrity

or the approach of any third party that I have ever appointed has been attacked.

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with those remarks for, as the

members will recall, I also had occasion to appoint an industrial

inquiry commissioner into the B.C. Rail dispute. The commissioner was

not Mr. Jack Sherlock; it was Mr. Justice Craig Monroe of the Supreme

Court of British Columbia. And he, too, was attacked by the same person

who attacked Mr. Sherlock. You may recall that I expressed my sense of

outrage at those remarks and solicited an apology; that apology was

never forthcoming. So the former minister and I have that, at least, in

common; our shared regret that the independent third parties whom we

had separately appointed have both been the subject of unwarranted,

incomprehensible attacks and, more importantly, we share the desire to

make right the labour-management situation on the British Columbia

Railway so that its service can continue for the benefit of the

provincial economy in general and for those individuals and communities

who are dependent upon its services.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, in third reading of the bill dealing with

the hospital disputes, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) rose to express his appreciation to those people in our

community of skill and experience who make themselves available as

third parties in labour-management disputes. I would remind you, Mr.

Speaker, and all the members, that we are very limited in the number of

people of skill and experience in this province who will make

themselves available for the very difficult and challenging task which

is placed before them in attempting, as a third party acting

independently, to resolve serious differences between management and

labour.

I would also remind you that unwarranted criticism for the job that

they do, to the best of their ability, only limits the number of people

who will stand forward for this service and, indeed, discourage some

from ever doing it again. The loss of that kind of assistance is to

lose one of the most valuable tools, and there are so few of them

available to us in this difficult field.

Mr. Speaker, let me refer once more to a statement made by the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) during Bill 146 debate:

In the light of past history, in the light of these developments

— and he was then referring to the history which he had experienced with regard to the British Columbia Railway —

I have little confidence, quite frankly, that unless this dispute

were included in the bill that is before this House

— that was Bill 146 —

that I may not be back here within a short time asking for remedies

to a vital link with the northern part of British Columbia, the railway which

provides needed supplies and needed commerce to isolated areas of the province.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I am here introducing this bill today. It is

because we must have a remedy for this vital link with the northern

part of British Columbia which provides needed supplies and needed

commerce to isolated areas of the province; and it is so essential to

the economy of this province, the regrowth that we require and the cure

to serious unemployment situations which are affecting us in all parts

of this province.

It could hardly be more clear that even at the time of the

imposition of the no-strike, no-lockout cooling-off period on the

British Columbia Railway, the former minister realized that some other

remedy might be needed to ensure the future operation of the railway.

The question is: what remedy would he have in mind which, as he

stated, would necessitate the recall of the Legislature? It is apparent

there is only one obvious and workable answer to that under all the

circumstances, and that is a provision for binding arbitration by

legislative enactment.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there have been four disputes

unresolved since the end of Bill 146 — four contracts with regard to

the railway. Three of the unions, following discussions with the

Minister of Labour and with the management of the railway, saw fit to

use binding arbitration as a method of resolving those issues. The one

union still remains unsettled, with no mechanism for the resolutions

between it and the railway management.

This bill provides, in

Part 11, for the settlement of the UTU

dispute with the BCR by binding arbitration. I emphasize:

Part 11

provides for the settlement of the UTU dispute with the B.C. Railway by

binding arbitration. I have concluded that there is no other way out of

this impasse, and I am sure this must be recognized by every member of

the House.

In turning to the other long-range objective of this bill, may I

remark, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 146 served a worthwhile purpose in that

it put thousands of members of our labour force back to work at a time

when the existence of four separate disputes in the province was

threatening the well-being of the economy of British Columbia. In that

sense, Bill 146 was welcome. Yet Bill 146 was a failure as an

industrial relations measure, for after the expiration of the 90-day

cooling-off period and the subsequent 14-day extension permitted under

the legislation, every one of the four disputes covered by that bill,

and outstanding in October, were still outstanding in January — every

one. Not one was resolved: pulp wasn't resolved; food wasn't resolved;

rail wasn't resolved; and the propane dispute was not resolved. Four of

them.

[ Page 2583 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the IWA?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: One part of the forest industry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But the significant part was the pulp — still not resolved.

The bill we have before us today also provides for a 90-day

cooling-off period, but with one essential difference. Should the

government decide to enforce a cooling-off period in the case of a

dispute on the railway or in the ferry service, then the Minister of

Labour would be required by cabinet action to appoint a special mediator to inquire into the dispute.

I referred earlier to the importance of the role of the special

mediator, for it will be his function to mediate the dispute and, if

the mediation fails, to consider and recommend to the Minister of

Labour an appropriate method for the resolution of the dispute.

The special mediator's role places emphasis upon flexibility as the

essential quality in any effective government approach to the crisis

resulting from a I collective bargaining stalemate in vital public

services r such as railway and ferries. The special mediator will be

able to recommend a remedy that is tailored to the particular dynamics

of the dispute.

Mr. Speaker, this is a new approach in our law. It s recognizes the

threat to the public interest caused by t a strike or lockout, but at

the-same time it supports free collective bargaining as the best method

of resolving labour-management disputes. It provides the government

with an objective proposal for any future action which it might take,

whether that action might emanate from the office of the Minister of

Labour, from the cabinet or in this Legislature itself.

I would hasten to add that if we had such a provision in our statute

law today, perhaps

Part II of r this bill would, have been unnecessary.

One of the prime choices that special mediator will consider in

proposing remedies will be what is referred to in the legislation as

fact-finding.

All too often labour disputes are fought over a I misunderstanding

about the basic problems that I confront the party or a difference of

opinion as to c the facts which must be brought to bear upon the I

resolution of those problems. So personality r situations and rhetoric

have so often been substituted I for fact and reason. When this happens

everyone loses. Therefore a special provision has been inserted a in

Bill 58 to allow for the report of a fact-finder to be published in

such manner as the Minister of Labour I considers necessary. The

fact-finding option will rely on the power of persuasion, which is, in

my view, a most significant power in our society today.

There are other choices which are available to the I special

mediator. He may also recommend t arbitration, final-offer selection,

mediation to finality or any combination of these. Unless it is agreed,

however, these procedures will not be binding upon the parties.

Mr. Speaker, from the foregoing it should be evident to every member

of the House that Bill 58 restates this government's support for the

principle of free collective bargaining. Throughout Bill 58 emphasis is

placed on the uncertainty of governmental intervention and the

flexibility of having a choice of procedures available to the parties.

This bill also recognizes quite clearly that there is no single answer

to the problem of a breakdown in collective bargaining. Each dispute is

different, and therefore a multiplicity of remedies must be designed.

Mr. Speaker, when we discussed the subject of the hospital dispute a

few days ago, it was indicated by members on both sides of the House

that there was a need, a desperate need, for measures which would avoid

the effect of crippling strikes, work stoppages and all their

consequences in those services which are deemed to be essential in this

province.

The definition of essential services is not easy. But t can be

clearly stated that the operation of our railway is essential to the

economy of this province. The consequences of work stoppage on that

railway are devastating to the industries and the employees of hose

industries throughout this province which are served by this railway.

Similarly, with respect to hose communities in this province which

depend upon the ferry service for their transportation link, for them

such service is essential. So the government, at this time, is

directing its attention to methods by which work stoppages can be

resolved or, indeed, whether those services can be continued without

any work stoppage at all.

But at the same time we are obliging the public employer who is

involved and the unions who represent the employees — providing them

with assistance to resolve their differences on their own. With the

special commission technique we can, over a continuing period of time,

resolve some of the deep-seated problems that exist in

labour-management relations in the railway and, indeed, in the ferry

service. With that we hope to create attitudes which will ensure that

free collective bargaining in subsequent disputes will be able to

resolve speedily and quickly, without any intervention, the

difficulties between the parties. But we must give them assistance, and

that's what we are asking the Legislature to do in Bill 58.

So saying, let me assure you that there is nothing n Bill 58 which can or ever

will diminish the power of this House and, just as the former Minister of Labour

(Mr. King) said in Bill 146, then I repeat, in respect of Bill 58, that if these

methods do not work, f there is not the willingness to make them work by he

parties who are involved, then this government or

[ Page 2584 ]

any future government may have the need, as it has

the right of obligation, to return to this House for the final

resolution of that difficulty.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Revelstoke-Slocan. Before the hon. member starts, are you the designated speaker, Hon. Member?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. KING: I hope Mr. Speaker wasn't clarifying that because

he anticipates me going on for three hours. I don't intend to go on for

that long — but yes, I am the designated speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I've listened with a great interest to the presentation

from the Minister of Labour, and I must say with all modesty that the

highlight of his speech was the quotes he read from my former

statements to this House.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition recognizes....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have some others. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he didn't get any tapes of some of the comments from my office.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition do

recognize that indeed a serious problem does exist on the British

Columbia Railway. It's a problem that has been going on for some number

of years, and the Minister of Labour indicated...he traced the

background of it very well on the basis of disputes that have taken

place, of man-days that have been lost over the past number of years.

He indicated in the whole thrust of his remarks, recognized that there

are deep-rooted problems on that property which manifest themselves in

conflict between the unions involved and management.

I want to say that that kind of deep-rooted hostility and conflict,

that kind of mistrust, that kind of acrimony between a group of workers

and their employer does not develop in a short time. It develops over a

period of years also, and quite often it is a matter of conflicts of

personalities, not only at the bargaining table, I would point out, Mr.

Speaker, but on the various divisions and divisional points upon that

property under which the workers are placed under the supervision of

the company officers. Quite frequently the kind of acrimony, the kind

of insensitivity that is exercised at the local level, ultimately ends

up being expressed at the bargaining table, with devastating results.

No question about it.

But I'm concerned about the approach that the minister's taking to

this dispute. He has quoted at length from my remarks when I introduced

Bill 146, I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 146 was one-shot

legislation. Bill 146 was an interim step to deal with a specific

economic problem that this province faced at the moment, and it did

indeed serve its purpose — which was to provide a cooling-off period

for 90 days.

It should be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that at that particular time

we had, being thrust into the realm of industrial relations in British

Columbia, superimposed upon our system of collective bargaining, a

programme initiated at the federal level — the federal wage and price

controls, which has put extreme additional pressure on the collective

bargaining system in this province. It was in its embryonic stages at

that time.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the terms of our government expired

before the 90-day cooling-off period expired under Bill 146, and as

a'consequence the new Minister of Labour was unable to pick up the

pieces and conclude some of the collective agreements that had been

frozen for 90 days, and I regret that. But I would say, Mr. Speaker,

it's a subjective matter to determine whether Bill 146 was the failure,

or whether it was the new administration. However, be that as it may,

that is really not the point. The point is that we do have a problem

before the province at the moment.

I have said many times in this House that we as a party, the New

Democratic Party, are committed to a system of free collective

bargaining. That implies the right for employers to lock out when a

dispute arises. It implies the right for a trade union to strike,

within the framework of the law that's provided, and when the exercise

of those powers and those rights reach the point where they threaten

the overall interests, either economically or in terms of safety,

health, life and limb, then obviously the government has an obligation

to move in.

But our position has always been, Mr. Speaker, that government

intervention should be when that point is reached and an emergency

confronts the province, and not before. It should only be on an ad hoc

basis, because the Minister of Labour has said himself, and he said it

correctly, that part of the strength of government intervention comes

through the uncertainty of what they might do.

If we find on the statute books of this province a mechanism for the

continuing involvement of the government into that process, if we find

a mechanism that serves only to absolve the parties to collective

bargaining — labour on the one hand, management on the other — of their

primary responsibility to solve their own problems, then I suggest that

they are in a position where they can simply shrug off those

responsibilities, secure in the knowledge that there is a statute on

the books of this province which

[ Page 2585 ]

provides for inevitable government intervention.

Hence there is no inducement upon them to accept their full measure of

responsibility and solve their own problems. They'll walk away. They'll

walk away secure in the knowledge that all they have to do is hang

tough and the minister's 90-day freeze is going to come in because it's

provided for in a continuing way — not a one-shot approach just to

solve the dispute that is before us and the problem that is before us

but, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, something that shall remain on

the statute books, something that shall act as an interference with the

collective bargaining structure on that railway for all time.

That grieves me, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that this is not a politic

al-philosophical difference. It's a matter of those people being

involved in industrial relations.... You can look to most experts in

that field and find agreement that where there is continuing provision

for statutory interference by government, it does a disservice to the

collective bargaining system. It provides the parties with an escape

hatch from their own responsibility. I think that is extremely

ill-advised.

There are those people who argue with the need for calling the

Legislature to deal on an ad hoc basis with labour disputes when they

achieve emergent proportions in the province. I say that part of the

strength of the system is demonstrating the government's and this

Legislature's dedication to the collective bargaining system, with all

its imperfections, as being the best system that there is. One can only

dedicate that reliance and that respect for the system by providing a

structure under which the free collective bargaining system functions

without threat, without a statutory and continuing mechanism for

government involvement and interference.

I want to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, that I have a

great deal of sympathy for the Minister of Labour in terms of the

statements he made about the conduct of some of the parties involved in

this dispute. I want to associate myself completely with this

proposition of a trade union negotiator or, indeed, a management

negotiator shooting the messenger. That is, in effect, what they are

doing when they quite often ask for a third-party appraisal. They are

unable to bargain a settlement, which is perhaps some reflection upon

their proficiency as either a representative on the management side or

on the trade union side. They get themselves in trouble because they

can't solve the problem and they inevitably involve a third party. Then

when he brings down a report which fails to provide all of the things

they happen to believe in, they immediately launch a public attack on

that third party. I completely agree with the Minister of Labour, but

I'd go one step further and I'd say it's absolutely unprofessional

conduct on their part.

I suggest that when people in the realm of industrial relations —

it's becoming more and more a discipline than an art — do that kind of

thing, their own qualifications should be seriously looked at by those

people whom they presume to represent. I have no hesitation in saying

that there have been occasions, both in the railway and in others,

where management on one occasion and a trade union representative on

another have made a public attack on the third party who did a good,

impartial job. I think that it is regrettable. It is an indication of

their ineptitude and an indication that perhaps their own membership

should be looking at their qualifications more closely.

But the whole point of this bill that is before us now is that in

the first instance, Mr. Speaker, it violates some of the basic premises

which I hold. As I indicated to you, it is less on a political basis

than it is on a sound industrial relations basis because it does appear

to me subject to questions that I will be asking in the committee stage

on this bill. It seems to me to contain some extremely dangerous

concepts — some new concepts, indeed. I am not opposed to new concepts

if they are equitable and fair but in the first instant,

Part I of the

bill, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely redundant and unnecessary as far as I

can see.

The Minister of Labour went to great lengths to point out the need

for some continuing commission to investigate the bargaining structures

on the railway to try to come to grips with some of those underlying

conflicts that are apparently creating havoc at the bargaining table.

In case he hasn't done so, I want to read to him

section 122 of the

Labour Code of British Columbia, and it says this:

"The minister may, either upon application or on his

own motion, make or cause to be made such inquiries as he considers

advisable respecting industrial matters and subject to this Act, and

the regulations may do such things as he considers necessary to

maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions

favourable to settlement of disputes."

Mr. Speaker,

section 122 of the Labour Code was designed

specifically to give the Minister of Labour the authority to look

beyond the conflict at the bargaining table. It was designed to provide

the necessary powers to set up an inquiry that was not confined just to

the collective bargaining issue, but that may continue on after to come

to grips with some of the root causes of that dispute that created the

problem in the first instance.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

As far as I can see, Mr. Speaker,

Part I of the bill that the

minister has presented before this House is completely redundant. It

wasn't necessary. He had

[ Page 2586 ]

those powers anyhow and was empowered and entitled,

subject to 122 of the Labour Code of British Columbia, to pass an

order-in-council or a regulation specifically setting out the terms of

reference and the ground rules for any commission which he wanted to

serve this function for him.

I wonder why then

Part I of the bill is before this House at all.

Why do we not have a bill that is before this House confined to the

problem of solving the dispute? That's what the minister should be

proposing to the House in clear and concise terms, a resolution to the

dispute.

I don't want to abuse the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I find that the

language in

Part I appears to remove from the realm of bargaining some

of the issues which have traditionally been there. I wonder if that is

part of the reason for drafting this whole

section which was already

provided for in the Labour Code in general terms — I wonder if there

was some extra provision that the minister was trying to seek and dress

up in all of the redundant language of

Part 1.

I'm going to have a lot to say, Mr. Speaker, about this bill in

committee stage, and again I don't want to get very specific in second

reading. But I want to say to the Minister of Labour that never in the

history of industrial relations before have I heard of the kind of

involvement or the kind of statutory intervention by government which

removed issues from the bargaining table that by custom, by practice,

and within the framework of law have always been bargainable issues.

That appears to be another consequence of the bill that is before us

today.

I have taken the position, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes when a

government does act on an ad hoc basis, when a government concludes

that a dispute has reached the proportions where intervention is

necessary — and that's a matter of judgment on a day-to-day basis —

when they make that judgment sometimes it's appropriate to tailor the

remedy to the responsibility of the parties.

I find it interesting that the Minister of Labour made an assumption

from one of my comments that if it's necessary to convene the

Legislature it's only for the purpose of compulsory arbitration. That

assumption indicates, Mr. Speaker, that it's the workers who must be

hammered in every case. The natural consequence of compulsory

arbitration is to militate against the rights of workers to a far more

serious degree than against the rights of the employer. The workers

inevitably suffer more from compulsory arbitration because they are

stuck in the position where they must live with the existing contract

that they have, the one which they have gone on strike for, or into

dispute for in the first instance to renew and improve.

To take away their strike right by introducing compulsory

arbitration is to interrupt their powers to exercise economic sanctions

against the employer so he might respond. The employer, on the other

hand, conversely can sit and wait it out; he's not suffering. He's

getting away with the same rate he paid last year, but the workers'

ability to exercise their economic power has been severely restricted.

Of course, it goes without saying that in this bill, as I read it, the

right of the employees to pick up retroactively that which they have

lost is arbitrarily eliminated. I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether

that's the minister's intent or not. I suspect it is not, but it

certainly appears to be the only

interpretation that can be placed upon

the language of the bill. I wonder who the draftsman was, because it

seems to be incredibly poorly drafted, but we'll get more specific

about those points when we get into committee stage on it.

I have to say that I regret the fact that the ferry workers have

been thrown into this particular bill. There's no strike on the ferry

system now, and while the minister went to lengths to point out that we

took action in the case where a strike was not in effect, it seems to

me to completely fly in the face of propriety for the minister to come

into this Legislature, as he did a number of days ago, and report that

he had an agreement with the union and the ferry management for no

interruption in the service of the Ferry Authority. He had an agreement

for 30 days, and then to come in here and drop a far-reaching bill

which ties them in with the railway people.... There's no dispute

underway in the ferry system, and it seems to me that it might be

viewed as

an act of bad faith by both the management and the union in

the ferry system when they had given the minister an undertaking and

then he arbitrarily comes in and ties them into a bill of this nature.

So I hope there are no repercussions from what appears to be, Mr.

Speaker, a bit of a stab in the back by the minister to parties from

which he had gained a responsible agreement. I hope we don't find that

this bill turns out to be a red flag to secure industrial relations in

the ferry system rather than a realistic and useful mechanism for

bringing about more stable relations.

The other thing that bothers me about introducing the ferry dispute

into this bill is the fact that the government is much more directly

the employer with the ferry system than is the case on the railway. The

reason for that, I suppose, is the fact that the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) has imposed himself into the scene

by announcing huge layoffs of manpower on the ferry system unless the

workers agreed to reduce their wage demands or their overtime demands

in contract-renewal discussions.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour where he's been on that issue,

because that is known in labour circles, and pretty well throughout the

nation, as an unfair labour practice — to use layoffs, to use

[ Page 2587 ]

economic sanctions against the work force as a

device in bargaining has historically been viewed as an anti-labour

practice and a violation of legislation. Certainly it is in the case of

new bargaining units, and it's certainly questionable in terms of the

morality of this government, which I think has an obligation to

demonstrate that they are not only a responsible employer which

respects the spirit of the law, but also has the responsibility and

obligation to go further and demonstrate that they are beyond any doubt

an enlightened employer, an employer that would not attempt to use a

doubtful legal club to take advantage of the ferry workers at the

bargaining table. And I say doubtful not only from the proposition of

being a device that in labour law generally is frowned upon, but

apparently, under the specific Public Service Relations Act, it is also

questionable in terms of its legality and certainly questionable from

the viewpoint of the collective agreement that union has with the

Government of the Province of British Columbia.

So I think it's indeed unfortunate that the ferry workers have been

thrown into this bill. I appreciate that they are excluded from

Part II

of the bill, I believe it is, but nevertheless the terms of reference

of the commission give me pause for great concern as to what their

purpose is.

I appreciate that the minister stated that it's just to get at the

root cause of problems, but I find their terms of reference intruding

on areas that have been traditionally issues that were recognized for

solution at the bargaining table. In that sense they are being

subjected to compulsory arbitration, as I read it, on issues which they

used to have as an option to going to the bargaining table with.

I hope that in committee stage of this bill the Minister of Labour

will get up and give a much more detailed explanation of precisely what

he means by some of these sections. I hope I'm interpreting it rightly,

Mr. Speaker, in believing much of it is sloppy drafting rather than

intent and design by the Minister of Labour, because I'm certainly

going to have many questions to ask about these specific problems.

I'd have felt much better, Mr. Speaker, if the minister had come in

here with a clear, concise bill that sought to remedy the dispute that

is threatening the economic life of the province and had put forward

his appraisal of some of the responsibilities for the impasse, and then

provided a simple, short, one-shot recommendation for bringing about a

solution. Instead of that he's brought in quite a large bill of nine

pages with great conflict within some of the sections of the bill. It's

a bill that certainly, on the basis of legal advice I have had, has

been difficult to interpret as far as intent is concerned.

I find it a bit regrettable that the minister came in with a rather sloppily

drafted bill, a rather lengthy one — a nine-page bill — and presumed to ask

this House to pass that bill through all stages after a perusal of only a couple

of hours. I think that would be an abnegation of the responsibility of every

member of this House if we let a bill of this nature, which does have the effect

of curbing and curtailing the rights of citizens in this province, go through

with such cursory appraisal.

Mr. Speaker, even declarations of war receive full debate in the

parliament. When I hear statements from government members suggesting

that a bill of this nature should pass all stages of debate in one day,

after being introduced the previous evening, then I think it's a bit of

a contemptuous gesture on the part of the government.

I'm not going to speak too long on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm

looking forward, quite frankly, to a more detailed discussion when we

go into a committee appraisal of sections of the bill. I do want to

restate, though, briefly, that if this bill — as I understand it does

and I must interpret it on the best legal advice I've been able to

obtain so far — does contain continuing mechanisms for intruding into

the collective bargaining system, I cannot support that bill. I support

the right, and indeed the obligation, of this Legislature to come to

grips with specific disputes when they reach emergency proportions, and

to provide resolutions, but I think it's improper and ill-advised of

the government to seize an opportunity for continuing intervention and

continuing curtailment of the rights of either trade unions to exercise

their rights to lockout.

The parties do, under a free collective bargaining system, have the

responsibility for resolving their own contracts. They also have a

right — and it's implied in every free democratic country in the

western world — to fail to disagree. It's the area of private

contracts, and it's very difficult — I agree with the minister and I

sympathize with him in his dilemma. I think he's aged a couple of years

since he took over that portfolio a couple of months ago. He seems to

be a good deal whiter than I am even, now.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You both got grey hair in that job.

MR. KING: Well, I'm not sure that was the grey matter that member needed.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is the basic difference that we seem to

hold with the government. We agree that it is the government's

responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens of the province,

because even in the realm of private contracts and private

negotiations, while the parties have a right to disagree and exercise

the powers given to them under legislation, they do not have the right

to override the interests of all the people in the province. So

occasionally, in emergency situations, it is necessary to intrude and

to protect the rights of all of the

[ Page 2588 ]

people of the province. When that occurs it should

be simply on an ad hoc basis. It should be in the light of that

dispute. It should not be some continuing threat to the process and the

system, and that appears to be what we have before us today. So

certainly I do not intend to vote for this bill on second reading.

I do hope, though, quite frankly, subject to the close scrutiny that

I'm sure all members of the opposition will be giving it in committee

stage, that the necessary assurance can come from the minister and

perhaps the necessary amendments that will remove some of the really

serious concerns that I have, Mr. Speaker, and that perhaps we'll find

it more palatable under those circumstances.

I have a couple more remarks I wanted to make. The main concern I

have — I just want to stress once again — is that if some statute books

of this province which poses the threat of government involvement,

whether it's specifically for compulsory arbitration or even if it's

for a 90-day cooling-off period, it presupposes problems. It

presupposes that those parties are going to be unable to resolve their

own differences, and I think it should remind everyone in this House of

the reason why the mediation commission of old failed in this province.

It failed because it was seen as the last step in the process. Either

the employer or the union could perceive that all they had to do was

sit tight and improve their image as a tough bargainer, score the

political points with their own principles, secure in the knowledge

that Big Daddy was waiting down the road to impose a settlement for

them.

Sometimes it's necessary to experience and live with some public

inconvenience, to let the system itself discipline the parties to it,

because it's not a pleasant thing to go through a strike. It's not a

pleasant thing for the members. It's not a pleasant thing for the

employer, and usually, even though they may be rather irresponsible at

time and rather anxious to exercise the powers they hold, you usually

find that after the sobering experience of being involved in that kind

of conflict for a few weeks has occurred, then their own interest,

their own self-interests and the interests of their principles start to

take on a different perspective. There comes about a reassessment and

usually the next time around they're a little bit more responsible and

a little bit more sober about determining whether it's advisable to get

down to the task of solving the problems or to just go out on a dispute

for the sake of exercising those powers they hold.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister when he closes debate, and

again in committee stage on this bill, is able to answer many of the

real concerns I have about it. I'm not sure that I'm interpreting it

all correctly, because it's somewhat of a confused bill. Had he

completely left

Part I out — because he already holds those powers — it

would have been much easier to determine precisely what his objectives

are.

So I'm just going to leave it at that for now, Mr. Speaker, and look forward to hearing the minister close the debate.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, at

the outset, I would compliment the minister on his opening remarks. I

thought he covered the bill very well, and I was particularly glad to

see that he found it possible to trace some thread of continuity

between the labour relations philosophy of his government and that of

the former government. One probably shouldn't put too strong a point on

that, but it seems to me that the Labour Code introduced by the former

government has generally worked well and that the flexible ad hoc

responses, as the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) referred to

them, worked well also.

The minister, in introducing the bill, paid great attention to the

need for flexibility in the response of the government to the various

industrial relations conditions that might arise. Certainly in that

context, this bill, Bill 58, is an enormous improvement on Bill 22.

Bill 22 addressed itself to the same problem of the British Columbia

Railway but sought to solve it in a way that was wholly unsatisfactory

and, I trust, as a result of Bill 58, will be allowed to die on the

order paper.

There can be no question in my mind that the British Columbia

Railway and the British Columbia Ferries are essential services for

this province. They are essential for different reasons, the British

Columbia Ferries being an essential service because they are the

lifeline not only in terms of the flow of commerce, but even the flow

of essential services such as foodstuffs. There can be no doubt in my

mind that the ferries, except for short periods, have to be kept

running.

The British Columbia Railway is perhaps something that admits of

slightly more flexibility in the short term, in the sense that a strike

of even a month's duration, as we have effectively had during the last

month, doesn't totally cripple the province's economy, but it does

almost totally cripple the economy of some of the towns along its

route. For that reason, it is no less essential to that sector of the

economy than are the B.C. ferries themselves.

But the BCR and its continuity are essential in a longer-term aspect

than that, Mr. Speaker, and that has to do with the reliability of

British Columbia's reputation in this world as a supplier, which has

been very seriously injured over the last three or four years, during

which time the BCR has been down something like 10 per cent of the time.

It has made it difficult for manufacturers to plan their operations

in a way that allows British Columbia to be a reliable supplier to the

world and allows those

[ Page 2589 ]

manufacturers to be a reliable provider of

employment in their own operations. There are some services to the

economy which have such ramifications throughout it that the lack of

their continued operation is disrupted far beyond the number of persons

directly involved, and such operations must always be given special

consideration by this Legislature — and the BCR is one of those.

While this legislation, it seems to me, considers the BCR and the

B.C. Ferries as essential services, it does not at this time go so far

as to provide for continuing binding arbitration — binding arbitration

beyond the existing specific dispute in the BCR; and in that omission I

think the legislation is wise. I think it is good at this stage that,

without a great deal more study, no attempt should be made to put

together a general binding arbitration package in this area, and I'll

get into some of the reasons for that later.

Following the minister's opening remarks, the former Minister of

Labour (Mr. King) Made what I thought was a most reasoned and

constructive statement, and I think that this House is well served to

have two such knowledgeable spokesmen on labour matters. I share the

concern of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) on any kind

of continuing machinery which would, in effect, put the settlement onus

for industrial disputes on the government. But if I understood the

opening words of the present minister, he shares that concern as well.

It seems to me that a cooling-off period, which is the essential

question we are looking at in this context, in no way guarantees that

the government will, in due course, intervene. It simply provides a way

of stopping the clock for 90 days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read

section 14.

MR. GIBSON:

Section 14. Well, that's a matter of possible

interpretation of language. But that relates to

Part II, not

Part III.

I am talking now about

Part III, Mr. Member. The cooling-off period

does not seem to me to be the kind of thing which would lead the

parties to a dispute to say: "Well, we don't really need to settle,

because the government is going to step in and do it eventually."

All that the cooling-off period does is say that the government will

eventually step in and stop the clock for 90 days and say: "Talk about

it some more." A maximum of 90 days. It doesn't say that we are going

to impose a settlement of one kind or another and thereby encourage the

party which thinks it might benefit from a government settlement to

hold off from settling in any other way. It seems to me that the

flexibility of the government remains open even with this cooling-off

period, and I think it's an additional handy tool in the minister's

workbag for dealing with industrial disputes.

The former Minister of Labour said that sometimes in almost every

area a strike is required to bring about an educational process to the

parties concerned. That may be, but I suggest to him that this

legislation does not foreclose that possibility.

Dealing with the bill,

Part I, which provides for a special

commission, it seems to me largely unobjectionable with one exception.

It may be, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan says, that this

section

1s redundant. But I don't think it is out of line, with respect to such

an important part of the province's infrastructure as these two

transportation services, that a special procedure should be set out in

addition to that contained in

section 122 of the Labour Code.

What bothers me far more about

Part I is the very extraordinary

powers conveyed to the special commission in

section 5 whereby they

have the rights to make findings and make them binding and a part of

the collective agreement — absolutely with respect to anything else

that is not otherwise treated in the contract or collective agreement.

That seems to me to be a very wide barn door, and I hope that the

minister either at second reading or during committee stage will give

us some assurances as to how this apparently very wide power might be

circumscribed either by this bill or by amendment.

The next part,

Part II, relates to arbitration of the existing

situation on the British Columbia Railway. Once again we are getting

into a short-term solution for a long-term problem. I fear it's a

short-term solution that for the moment is unavoidable, but sometime,

somehow, we have to grapple — or preferably the railroad and its

employees must grapple — with a long-term change from confrontation to

cooperation in the operation of that line. For the moment, four out of

the eight unions involved have reached an accommodation and another

three have agreed to arbitration of a binding nature on a volunteer

basis, leaving only one, the UTU, as odd person out. In view of the

great difficulty this is causing to literally thousands of people

around this province, I think that the short-term solution of

arbitration, as imposed by

Part II, is correct for the moment.

The arbitrated solution clearly must be such as to be acceptable to

both parties. There can be no doubt about that because the job action,

in terms of work to rule of the UTU some weeks ago, makes it very clear

that in a legal way the unions on the BCR have the power to make it

very difficult for that railroad to operate in an acceptable way. Any

agreement, even one that's imposed by arbitration under this Act, must

be one that has the good faith acceptance of the parties concerned.

The minister, during his opening remarks, decried past political

intervention on the railroad, and I believe this is right and his

philosophy is right in respect of operating practices, but I would ask

him as a philosophical point whether in a money-losing

[ Page 2590 ]

railroad that is unavoidably so for the time being

and perhaps for the foreseeable future, where the deficit is made up,

either year by year, or eventually by the taxpayer via the government,

the government can in fact avoid responsibility for wage settlements

any more than they can avoid responsibility for wage settlements in the

area of health services and the Hospital Employees Union, which matter

we had to do last week.

It seems to me that there is a general, continuing and unavoidable

duty for the government to act as the custodian of public funds, and

that arbitration sidesteps that duty. It can be used from time to time,

and if it is used as a matter of general practice it may bring general

labour peace, but the cost may be unacceptable. I don't know what the

answer is to that, Mr. Speaker. The minister cited in evidence last

week the case example of the Public Schools Act, which provides for

arbitrated settlements between school districts and teachers. The

Public Schools Act has unquestionably generally given rise to a history

of labour peace in that area. The minister mentioned that the other

side of that coin was a rate of settlement which was higher than

otherwise might have been the case. I don't know what the facts are on

that, and I hope that the minister will cause a study to be made or

make public such evidence as he has available.

What puzzles me is material that I have seen distributed by the BCTF

which would seem to show that settlements paid to teachers over the

past few years have not gone above the general rate of industrial

increases in British Columbia. So as I say, Mr. Speaker, I'm perplexed

on this point, but it is a question that absolutely must be addressed

before any long-term essential-services legislation can be reasonably

contemplated in this province. But I am concerned that if we go too

routinely to the answer of arbitration it has two problems. It has

first of all the problem of a denial of the right to strike on behalf

of the employee or to lock out by the employer, and secondly, where it

relates to public services, it is an avoidance of responsibility by

duly elected officials for their stewardship of the public purse.

Part II contains

section 8, which I think probably gives rise to the

concern of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) that the

terms of any new agreement might not be retroactive. I see the minister

shaking his head; I would be glad if he would clarify that when he

closes second reading, because

section 8(1) does read, Mr. Minister,

that the term of the collective agreement — that is, those which have

previously expired — is extended until the new agreement starts up.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Good, that's what we want to clarify.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Moving on now to

Part III, I think the general

concept of a cooling-off period is a good one. The minister, in his

opening remarks, suggested that it hadn't worked all that well under

Bill 146. But I wouldn't write it off that quickly because, although at

the end of the cooling-off period the disputes were still in question,

most of them were settled shortly thereafter. This may have been as

much through the operation of the federal AIB as anything else. But a

cooling-off period is not to be despised simply in and of itself; it's

a useful tool. The concept of a special mediator and of fact-finding in

this

section as well I believe to be a good one.

I am surprised that nowhere in any of the parts of the bill is

provision made for a bargaining council. Perhaps the minister considers

that this has been sufficiently effected by the voluntary action of the

eight unions and that this will remain a continuing and stabilizing

influence on the bargaining scene on the BCR. Failing that, perhaps he

has power under the Labour Code to make that designation if required. I

compliment his general choice-of procedures approach, as he calls it,

and the objective of preservation as to uncertainty on the eventual

role of the government which can only operate in such a way as to bring

the parties directly affected closer to a resolution of their own

accord, which is to be preferred to that which might be imposed

otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few general things in

conclusion. There is a need in our economy, right across the

labour-relations field, for a spirit of cooperation and not

confrontation. We are becoming uncompetitive in the world. Our economy

is one that simply must export to live; our export industries are

becoming thoroughly uncompetitive. Capital costs have in the last five

or six years doubled and in some cases even tripled. The only way that

that can be overcome is for higher productivity to pay for those extra

capital charges which are unavoidable and to pay for the fact that we

have the highest wage and salary scale in the world in these

industries, something we should be proud of but something we have to

deliver the productivity on or we will lose it. That productivity is

only going to come about by a spirit of cooperation.

In the general economy, I hope we can see more and more a meeting of

minds between the government, labour and management at senior levels on

a regular, routine basis in a non-crisis atmosphere gradually to

generate the kind of understanding and agreement at least on where we

are in the economy and what the statistics are as a basis for

intelligent

[ Page 2591 ]

discussion throughout the labour-relations field.

Is there not some way on the British Columbia Railway, with its sad

history, that we can turn the thing around and show the way to this

kind of model labour relations in this Crown corporation, show the way

in terms of unified bargaining, and there we get back to the bargaining

council necessity, show the way in terms of continuous talks between

management and labour on the British Columbia Railway throughout the

year, talks normally in a non-crisis atmosphere so that when you get

into a crisis atmosphere you've got the foundation and the background

you need to deal with it intelligently and with as little unnecessary

conflict as possible, and show the way on the BCR in terms of worker

representation in the decision-making process?

By that I am talking about the corporate board level, and I'm

talking about the operational level. The details are complex. Other

countries in the world have experimented in these areas. One thing I

know is that British Columbia's productivity, both on the BCR and in

every industry in this province, is capable of substantial improvement

if those who manage those enterprises and work in those enterprises

wish it to be so, and that is only going to materialize if they work

together.

The workers in every operation have ideas about how those operations

can run better. That ranges from the simplest type of operation to the

most complex. The people who live there and work there have a great

deal to contribute to how it should be done. I would like to see the

British Columbia Railway, a Crown corporation, being one of the

institutions in this province which might lead the way in that kind of

cooperative decision-making process.

Mr. Speaker, human relations, industrial or otherwise, can go two ways: they

can go the confrontation route which we've had on the BCR for many years,

or they can go the cooperation route which I hope we will have for many years

to come.

I hope that this legislation will be seen as the watershed where

that transition started to take place. I devoutly hope that to be the

case. It's certainly not guaranteed by what we do here today, but if

the way is opened up by what we do today, then I think we've done a

good thing. I intend to support Bill 58 on second reading.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This bill is like my old Latin

textbook that said that "all Gaul is divided into three parts." I

apologize if I can't recite the Latin at this late stage in the game.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est. I appreciate the help from the Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, it's a bit like mutatis mutandis, I guess.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's introduction

to this bill. As we've stated on other bills in this House, a scholarly

introduction by the minister piloting the bill can often prevent

misunderstanding by the opposition and, I think, diminish the acrimony

that sometimes develops in this House when opposition members are not

quite clear exactly what the minister's driving at when he gives a very

brief and cursory introduction of a bill. So I very much appreciate the

fact that the minister on this bill has given us a clear outline, at

least, of the goalposts that he's functioning under and telling the

House and the public the reasoning behind the provisions of the bill.

There is no question whatever that on the record the B.C. Railway is

a sorry sight, both in terms of its inefficiency and the apparent

inability to sustain any kind of labour-management peace, particularly

if you look at the record which the minister quoted in second reading.

He went through and recorded the various strikes that have occurred

since September, 1973, up until the present date. So first of all it

would seem inevitable that all parties in this House should agree that

there is indeed serious trouble on the B.C. Railway. Furthermore, I

would suggest this is not really the time to look back — other than to

learn how we can do a better job in the future — and lay blame or to

stir up old political battles; it is simply a time to learn what went

wrong rather than why it went wrong, and to attempt to spell out, as

the minister has attempted to do in Bill 58, some of the new directions

which might be followed. I welcome his statement that the railway in

future will be run by competent people who know something about

railroading and that they will not be politicians or ex-politicians on

the board of B.C. Rail.

As a layman and citizen and taxpayer in this province, in

conversation with individuals around the province I have often heard at

the layman's level of the terrible inefficiency on the railway and of

the bad blood, or the lack of harmony and trust and mutual respect

which seems to exist between management and employees. The minister

mentioned in his comments that rhetoric and politicking are no

substitute for facts when two parties are trying to hammer out an

agreement that's mutually acceptable.

The impact of strikes on the BCR has been emphasized and does not

need to be repeated. I would like to associate my remarks in support of

the comments of the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) that while two parties

to collective bargaining have every right to expect fair play and every

right to try to reach the best possible agreement they can for their

own particular interests, there has to be a point at

[ Page 2592 ]

which somebody says that enough is enough. When we

are faced with the tremendous economic damage along the railway line,

unemployment of related workers whose work depends on the functioning

of the railway, and the matter of keeping our commitments to our

customers who should have every reason most of the time to expect that

we will deliver on our commitments of goods, instead of being able to

rely on us most of the time, it looks to me as though the record shows

quite clearly that they cannot rely on British Columbia most of the

time where the B.C. Railway is the key to the delivery of raw materials

or manufactured goods.

I believe that on the record the time has come when, despite some of

the provisions which may be debatable, the bill in essence is timely,

and like the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), I would like to

hear some questions answered in committee stage. Some of the language

in sections like

section 8 is a little difficult for a person not close

to the collective bargaining field to understand.

Basically the minister seems to be tackling a short-term and a

long-term problem. The long-term problem is tackled in

section I in

Part I of the bill, and it seems to depend on giving very considerable

powers to the special commission and whatever number of commissioners

might be appointed. In committee I would hope the minister would tell

us a little more about

section 5 and the degree to which in principle

the special commission has the authority to bring in matters that are

not included in the collective agreement, which seems to me to be

asking the special commission to take a very substantial wide-ranging

look at the situation, which in some circumstances may be all right but

in other circumstances the two parties may not be brought any closer

together by an outside body bringing in some issue which they're not

particularly interested in having in the collective agreement. The

minister may have some specific examples which will clarify the

question on

section S. And the fact that the special commission can

make its recommendations final and binding for 90 days is also

something that I would like to hear discussed in committee.

The short-term problem is solved clearly enough in

Part II, but once

again I would, with respect, hope we will have some explanation about

the full impact of

section 8 in that part of the bill, particularly

under the paragraph dealing with the extension of collective

agreements. As one

interpretation of the bill, it seems to me that it

prevents any further strike or lockout action at the expiry of the

agreement that we're now about to implement through the provisions of

Part 11. In other words, one of the

interpretations that can be placed

on this part of the bill is that when this present agreement expires,

and in the absence of a new agreement at expiry date, the provisions of

this bill would prevent any strike or lockout at that point in time.

I don't know if that is the

interpretation the minister has in mind,

but it has such far-reaching significance, if that's what he does mean,

that it brings us back closer to the concept of Bill 22 which prevented

strikes and lockouts for four years. The mention of Bill 22, Mr.

Speaker, has me wondering just exactly what the priorities of the

government were earlier on this session on two accounts.

First of all, we really all recognize that there are certain

essential services. It was very surprising to me that when the

government did take some action and introduced a very strong bill, Bill

22, to deal with the problem of the B.C. Railway while at the same time

we were embarked on a strike and withdrawal of services — or a partial

withdrawal of services — in the hospital field.... I would just put

forward the comment that one has to recognize that there are certain

essential services, and some of them obviously more essential than

others. One would also have to wonder whether this government maybe

considers that commitment to the economy and the essential nature of

the economy is even more important than essential services being

provided to sick people.

But at any rate, Bill 22 contained this very far-reaching provision

that strikes and lockouts would be prevented for four years — or would

be made illegal for four years, and certainly Bill 58, which we're now

debating and which the minister has said replaces Bill 22, is much more

moderate and seems to illustrate the very essence of the minister's

conviction that there has to be a wide variety of alternatives in

dealing with labour-management disputes.

It's quite clear, as the minister mentioned right at the end of his

comments, that each strike or each dispute is a little different and

that there must be the greatest range of choices for both parties and

some alternative choices for the government. But I do wonder if the

minister would at least enlighten the House as to why Bill 22 came in

like a clap of thunder, was not proceeded with and now we have a more

more moderate bill. One has the uneasy feeling that the government was

really trying to show the labour movement in British Columbia that it

meant business, and if pushed, it could go to the extent of a bill such

as Bill 22 which, in my observations in this House, is quite foreign to

the nature of the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams.)

I can't recall the present Minister of Labour, when he sat on this

side of the House, ever supporting or suggesting the kind of principles

that were embodied in Bill 22. We were told that the province was

facing a great difficulty and an urgent situation on the B.C. Railway,

and yet that bill was left to sit on the order paper for some weeks.

Now we see a much more reasonable and much more moderate bill in the

form of Bill 58. It seems to me that it wouldn't be unreasonable at

this stage in the game that when the

[ Page 2593 ]

minister closes debate on second reading he could

explain just what kind of strategy the government was trying to

implement in Bill 22, and whether there's been some substantial change

of direction with the bill that we now have before us, which I

certainly feel is a vast improvement over the former one.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Simple blunders.

MR. WALLACE: There are questions which seem to be surfacing

in the media these days which, perhaps based on Bill 22, are asking if

this government wants a confrontation with the labour movement in

British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, we are discussing Bill 58, not Bill 22.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to discuss it

intelligently without referring to another bill for the same reason, or

the same kind of content, which is still sitting on the order paper. I

would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you wouldn't be so restrictive as to try

and pre-empt any opposition member from at least passing lightly over

Bill 22 as we debate Bill 58.

The reason I think that's very important, Mr. Speaker, is that, as I

was just mentioning when you interrupted, there are many questions

being asked in the province as to what this government's basic,

underlying approach to the labour problems appears to be. Judging by

earlier events and earlier legislation, the impression was fast

developing in this province that this government, concerned at the

fact, as we've all accepted, that there are very serious problems —

repeated strikes causing hardship to innocent parties and the economy —

felt that something had to be done.

But what has happened within the space of a few weeks is that we had

a very strong, punitive measure introduced or proposed. And now, within

a relatively short time, the government seems to have either backed off

or seems to have recognized that its initial steps were a form of

excessive government action and would have very serious long-term

effects on any confidence the labour movement might have in this

government to the degree that it would expect to be treated in fairness

and equality with management.

That's why I found the minister's earlier, initiative so surprising

in the light of many years in this House when he's made it very plain

that in labour-management relations, a little bit like in the courts,

justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Unless the ground

rules and the philosophy of the government and the legislation that the

government brings in clearly makes every attempt to ensure that both

sides are given every possible access to fair play and to even-handed

management in the various techniques the government puts into

legislation, then it just can't possibly work. This bill seems to go

much further in that direction in an attempt to provide both parties

with the various alternatives.

Another element in the bill that the minister commented upon was the

importance of government uncertainty — and I think that was precisely

the word the minister used, uncertainty of intervention — and the type

of intervention and the degree of intervention. Well, once again, Mr.

Speaker, I can appreciate the minister's comments, but I can't

completely agree, for the simple reason that one of the factors that I

think has prolonged recent disputes, rightly or wrongly, has been the

public perception that the government isn't keen to take decisive

action and give some leadership.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There's been a feeling, particularly in the several days that the

hospital strike lasted, where the man on the street or the person who

contacted their MLA clearly had come to the conclusion that this

government, for whatever motive, was not prepared to show some decisive

leadership and say, "enough is enough, " and that the third party

concerned, or the public, or the economy, whichever is being seriously

damaged.... . that the government in these circumstances was not

prepared to take strong action.

Now while it may be just as bad, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan

(Mr. King) mentioned, for parties to a negotiating situation to know

that sooner or later the government is going to take a certain step,

while that may be bad also, I think it would be even less desirable to

have the situation so uncertain that the parties make no serious

attempt to finalize an agreement and the government sits on the fence

and, on its part, does not take some kind of decisive action to protect

in this case the economy, and in the case of the hospitals, to protect

and provide service to sick people. So I am not sure that the

uncertainty as to what a government may or may not do is, in fact, the

advantage which the minister claims, and which the speaker for the

official opposition (Mr. King) mentioned.

One of the other areas of this bill which is very interesting, since

it again relates to the debate we had on the hospital legislation, is

the emphasis the minister places on job evaluation. The essential

function of the special commission will be to pay great attention to

the whole matter of job evaluation because, indeed, it was that

particular element, not wages, that brought the hospital situation to

an impasse, as the minister well knows.

I might say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibility of special commissions or special

[ Page 2594 ]

mediators I think is such that it entitles these

third parties themselves to be free to make public statements. We heard

in the minister's comments that he was perturbed at the attack on an

industrial inquiry commissioner — in that case, Justice Munroe — and I

would agree entirely with the minister that a third person functioning

in that very difficult capacity just cannot succeed under public

recriminations by one or other party. But on the other hand, I think

that because the third party has a very difficult job there is scope

for that third person to be more articulate in public in explaining to

the public the nature of the dispute.

We have a well-established and worthy tradition that, for example,

when cases are before the courts there should be no public debate.

That's when you are dealing with a matter of civil or criminal content,

and I agree with that entirely. But it isn't quite the same where

you've got two parties very often causing serious public disruption and

perhaps actual physical or mental suffering to individuals — in the

case of the hospital strike — and the facts of the situation are not

always articulated by the third party.

I took great exception, for example, to an almost full-page ad that

appeared in the newspapers over the weekend inserted. by the Hospital

Employees Union, at some considerable expense, to castigate the HLRA

and to leave out of that great big ad the most significant reason that

there ever was a strike, and that was job evaluation and the fact that

the government has come up with $6 million to solve that part which

HLRA couldn't do.

It's just an example of how there can be a very one-sided

articulation of some very basic issues in a dispute. I was angered when

I read that ad, because any person who had not had any real association

with the hospital strike would read that ad and it would sound

completely reasonable because it left out a very, very key part of the

whole story. I often wonder, from a lot of the skilled people in this

House who talk about labour disputes and how personalities and rhetoric

and misrepresentation of facts lead to a serious confrontation or an

impasse.... I listen to that and I wonder what kind of image of

disputes the public gets when they read either misrepresentation of

fact or incomplete presentation of the facts.

In the ferry dispute that we had, I met with the union

representatives and there was a lot of apprehension on my part as to

what was appearing in the press, for example, as to the real nature of

the dispute and some of the basic commitments which I am told the union

was prepared to make. So where public awareness and knowledge is pretty

important in this kind of dispute, it seems to me that it would not be

unreasonable to consider that the third party who is called in should

perhaps take more initiative in informing the public along the way as

to what the issues really are and perhaps even correcting the

misrepresentation of facts.

When I first read this bill, Mr. Speaker, again as a

non-professional person in the labour-management field, I was amazed at

the emphasis on the words "fact-finding." I would have thought that

with all the highly priced, highly paid help that very often management

and unions both have.... It staggers my imagination that maybe after

weeks and months of negotiations and all kinds of collective efforts by

the parties and the government with a mediator or whatever, we have to

come up with this bill with such a specific proposal that there be a

mechanism to establish the facts.

Again, I make no claim to understand the highly skilled discipline

that has become bargaining in our modern society, but it really did

jolt me to think that this agreement, as I recall, expired in July. The

reason why we are here debating this bill is that the preceding

agreement expired many months ago. We have had all kinds of

negotiations and offers of help from the government for a third party,

and apparently one of the fundamental things that this bill has to

emphasize and try to bring in to greater importance is fact-finding. I

can only conclude in that case that a lot of the time that has been

spent around the negotiating table in recent weeks and months didn't go

anywhere, because one or the other or both sides weren't even

presenting accurate facts. I regret to say that the same seems to have

been somewhat the case in the ferry dispute.

The ad that I referred to a minute ago by the Hospital Employees

Union refers to the very expensive salaries paid to those negotiating

on behalf of hospital management. They quoted some inclusive figure of

the annual budget for HLRA. I am not here to get...

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going.

MR. WALLACE: ...back onto the hospital debate, Mr. Speaker. I

am just trying to make some of these points that we have the two sides

of these very important disputes spending a great deal of money, being

highly paid, being in a position of power to cause great public

disruption, and we find that in this bill half the time, or a lot of

the time, they're sitting around the table and they are not even

debating accurate facts.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Inaccurate facts.

MR. WALLACE: They're debating inaccurate facts. As a

physician, I have to wonder how ridiculous it would be in the medical

field, for example, if when you started making a decision about how to

deal with a problem, you didn't make every effort to at least get your

facts straight first. Admittedly, often in the

[ Page 2595 ]

medical field we still prescribe the wrong

treatment, but at least in good faith we believe we are reaching a

conclusion based on the facts as we can determine them.

MR. BARRETT: That doesn't help the patient.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill

does emphasize fact-finding and it emphasizes the advantage in

providing various alternatives, both to the parties and to the

government, seems to me to be the best thing that can be done at this

particular juncture. In fact, one could be a little cheeky, I suppose,

when I sit here and listen to various well-meaning members trying to

contribute to this debate and getting uptight about binding

arbitration, or implying that that isn't really a very good solution.

I suppose what I would like to ask every member in this House is:

has anybody else got a better idea at the present time? Whatever's been

going on has been a miserable failure. Perhaps the cause for the

failure, as I said a moment ago, is even as basic as the fact that the

parties haven't even got their facts right before they start to argue

about them. If this is the case, while it would be, I suppose, much

better if we could avoid this kind of imposition of binding

arbitration, the more I try to learn about this whole field and the

human problems involved, I have to say that I'll listen to anybody who

has a better idea.

But within all the circumstances that the minister has described and

in the debate that I've listened to — the speeches by the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) — I

haven't yet heard anybody coming out with some dramatic alternative to

the basic proposal of

Part II, which of course is binding arbitration.

That might sound like a somewhat negative approach to the problem, but

sincerely, Mr. Speaker, it isn't intended that way at all. I think the

problems are enormous. The record is there for all of us to see. As the

minister said, there's no one simply black-and-white approach that will

solve all labour-management disputes. Since we've reached the point

where the economy of the province is very seriously damaged, and since

the two parties have had lots of time to try and work out their own

satisfactory arrangement, this kind of attempt in this bill, we hope,

will solve the immediate problem. Through the proposals in

Part I and

III we may also be starting on the road to providing the various

mechanisms that in the long run will give us some kind of continuous

peace in the ferry system and on the B.C. Railway.

There are some specific questions that I think must be answered in

committee stage. I'm sure that these will be asked by the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), but unless I find something very unusual

in committee that doesn't appear in this debate today, I will certainly

be supporting Bill 58.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): In rising to speak in favour of

Bill 58, I will relate my remarks solely to the British Columbia

Railroad and I will be very, very brief, as I want in no way to delay

the passing of this legislation today.

The people of Fort St. James and the areas in my constituency and,

in fact, all of the people in all of the areas served by the British

Columbia Railroad have suffered long enough. Mr. Speaker, any delay

whatsoever will only prolong that agony.

For far too long now, stoppages and slowdowns on this railroad have

been financially and psychologically devastating to all of the families

of the railroad workers and to all those directly or indirectly

dependent upon the operation of that railway. Some of the damage, Mr.

Speaker, is irreparable. Due to the length and sporadic nature of the

slowdowns and stoppages on that railroad, much financial hardship has

been experienced, both for family units and commercial and industrial

operations. Damage in some cases has been instrumental in families

being totally uprooted and broken up and in businesses and operations

going bankrupt — in some cases totally losing life savings.

As well as that, Mr. Speaker, many social wounds have been inflicted

on the communities involved, wounds that will not easily heal but will

commence to heal with the commencement of operations of the BCR.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan

(Mr. King) indicated a few moments ago in this House, I believe, on

behalf of those affected in my constituency and in fact in all areas

served by this railroad, that we do have an emergency in the BCR

dispute and we must have legislation such as Bill 58 immediately.

Mr. Speaker, not only do I fear for those whom I have mentioned, but

I fear also for the total economy of British Columbia. The BCR is a

lifeline to over one-half of this province and provides, directly and

indirectly, many hundreds of jobs for our citizens. We must as

accountable, sensible legislators, totally concerned for the people of

British Columbia, pass this legislation today without further delay.

I call for the cooperation of all members of this Legislature, from

both sides of the House, to immediately allow passage of Bill 58. Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation for the comments which have come from all sides of the House concerning this

[ Page 2596 ]

bill. I took very careful notes of what was said by

the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), in his great

experience. I was particularly pleased to note that he said, "I'm not

sure I'm interpreting the bill properly, " and I have to agree

wholeheartedly with those words.

I find it a matter of surprise.... When Bill 146 was brought in last

fall we were given 30 minutes to make an assessment of that bill and

prepare ourselves for debate. Mind you, the opposition had a little

higher calibre in those days than is the case today. Mind you, the

official opposition has some very....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That was referring to Bill 146. I

appreciate that the official opposition has some very distinguished

legal talent available to them — and that's probably why the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan is confused about the bill, because I think if he

just read it as a labour-relations document he would have had no

difficulty in understanding what was taking place. I must say I was a

bit confused to hear the member for Revelstoke-Slocan say that he and

his party are committed to free collective bargaining. I understood

from none other than the paragon of parliamentary practice, procedure

and propriety, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in the

press over the weekend that that was not the position of the NDP and

because they were in favour of a completely controlled economy,

collective bargaining was something that they weren't going to support.

I thought he would have risen in this place to have assured us that we

weren't being confused by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

I would just like to address myself to a couple of matters that each

of the members in speaking have contributed to this debate. I

appreciate that

section 122 of the Labour Code has extensive powers and

enables the Minister of Labour to appoint people to make some rather

extensive inquiries, and we could certainly have adopted that course of

action so far as the railway and the ferries are concerned. However, in

light of the difficulties that the member himself recognizes, the fact

that it has been a matter of continuing problems, division by division,

a great deal of research to be done, and that attention has to be

focused upon this particular activity, it was deemed to be appropriate

to provide for a special commission, highlighted by this legislative

process so there would be no doubt that as that continuing commission

did its work, it would have far greater effect than would otherwise be

the case if there was simply an appointment under

section 122 of the

Labour Code.

It has been found as a matter of experience in other jurisdictions

that when you have a continuing commission, identifiable with a

particular problem, that continuing commission being accountable for

its actions even to the parties with whom it must associate, it does a

far more businesslike job than is otherwise the case, and therefore it

was deemed to be appropriate to highlight this commission in that way

and to enable it to discharge its responsibility more effectively.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan touched very lightly upon

Part 11.

I'm sure he recognizes that after the lengthy involvement of government

in the disputes of B.C. Rail some definite assurance has to be given

that that railway is going to function. Of course, there are times when

strikes are appropriate and the parties have to recognize the

consequences of their actions, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this

government will not stand idly by when the consequences of that

game-playing — because that's what it is — have very, very serious

effects upon the economy and upon people who are completely innocent.

To understand the depth of concern there is in this regard — and the

member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) touched upon it very

briefly — as well as having difficulty competing on a straight price

basis with regard to our major resource industries, those suppliers of

wood products who depend upon B.C. Rail — these are some of our major

pulp producers — are finding that when they are going out into the

international marketplace and attempting to settle contracts, they are

being met with the question: "Can you deliver?" Customers abroad are

becoming increasingly concerned that their supplies which they contract

for from this province are unreliable. They are getting tired of being

given the answer: "I am sorry; we can't deliver, because there is a

strike on the B.C. Rail."

We are going to see that that doesn't continue to be the case in

every way we can by offering every possible assistance to the company

and to the unions to resolve their difficulties through the collective

bargaining process. It should also be a matter of interest that the

hon. Minister of Mines and Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has just today

received a letter indicating that since 1974, forest operations.... The

Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association, since 1974, again in 1975

and again now, are asking the B.C. Forest Service to give them special

consideration with regard to appraisals because they are obliged to

rely upon the inconsistencies of B.C. Rail. So the extent to which work

stoppages affect not only the railway and its employees but all of the

industries and the communities along that rail line cannot be

under-estimated.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) said he regretted that

the ferries were included in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure

the member, and in that way to assure the people who are currently

negotiating for the employer and th