1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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, APRIL 2, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4151 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Unemployment levels in B.C. Mr. Stupich –– 4151

Sale of B.C. Systems Corporation. Mr. Nicolson –– 4152

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines. Mr. Passarell –– 4152

Serving of court documents. Mr. Macdonald –– 4152

Investment incentives. Mr. Nicolson –– 4152

Education for the disabled. Mr. Rose –– 4152

RCMP report on Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Macdonald –– 4153

Pulp And Paper Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill IS). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4153

Mr. Barrett –– 4154

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4157

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4159

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4164

Mr. Stupich –– 4167

Mr. Campbell –– 4170

Mr. Lockstead –– 4172

Mr. Segarty –– 4174

MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Today in the gallery we have a British

Columbia builder. I am pleased to welcome a friend, and on behalf of

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and myself I would

like to ask all of the House to welcome Mr. Guildo Vit.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today you have a young

aggressive businessman rep from your constituency of Delta, Mr. Bill

Sullivan, and accompanying him is one of my most gorgeous daughters,

Gail Reid.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Would the House please extend a welcome to Mayor James Rabbitt and his counsel and clerk, Leo den Boer, from Merritt.

MR. MOWAT: In the gallery this afternoon I have two special

friends, Mr. Robert Morritt, who was with the federal Department of

Indian Affairs but now is employed with the school board in Surrey, and

his wife Brenda Morritt, who has just completed and obtained a

government homemaker's certificate. I'd ask the House to make them both

welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this

afternoon from the Municipality of Fort St. James, that jewel of the

north, are Mayor Russ Gingrich, Aldermen Alex Mitchell, Sandra Kovacs,

Phil Lawrence and Frank Schroeder, and their clerk, Gary Williams. I

would ask the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to help

me welcome to our Legislature today a group of about 36 students from

the Langley Secondary School in Langley. They are accompanied by two of

their teachers, Mr. Charles McGill and Mr. Peter Good. Please make them

welcome.

Oral Questions

UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS IN B.C.

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

Finance. B.C. Central Credit Union published a report stating that the

major deficiency in the budget — that's the February '84 budget — was

the lack of any proposal to reduce record levels of unemployment. In

the face of this further concern about the failure of this year's

budget to deal with the number one economic and social problem in B.C.,

has the minister now decided to reconsider his budget proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Nanaimo — and I

say kindly that I know he has been absent from the House on a number of occasions

— that question was pretty thoroughly canvassed in the course of the budget

debate and in my remarks at the close of the debate, and in addition during

debate on my estimates in Committee of Supply. The answer to the question is

no; the budget which was prepared for and presented at the start of the fiscal

year just now underway is one which I believe will prove to be worthy through

the entire fiscal year for which it was designed.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that I have

been absent on other business, I've been well aware, having

participated for several hours in the budget debate and in the debate

on the minister's estimates; however, the minister produced a budget

speech which failed to mention unemployment, let alone to deal with it.

Is the minister at least prepared to examine reinstatement of the few

pre-election job programs which were cynically chopped from the Social

Credit program after May 5, 1983?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is misinformed on some aspects of that question.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the election was on May 5? That's

not one of the aspects on which I'm misinformed? I'd like to ask the

minister, if I may, Mr. Speaker, on what items am I misinformed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, that is for the member to

determine. not me. If the member is misinformed on certain aspects of

the budget, then any one of a number of us can be of assistance to him

should his research staff be failing him again.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, certainly one of the urgent

questions in the province right now is unemployment. If I'm misinformed

with respect to the minister's failure to mention unemployment in the

budget speech, then I would appreciate some reference from him to where

he did, indeed, deal with the problem of unemployment in the budget

speech.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that there was a question there.

MR. STUPICH: Do I have the minister's attention, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. STUPICH: One of the points I made was that unemployment is a serious problem.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. STUPICH: And one of my statements was to the effect that

the minister did not even mention the word, let alone deal with the

problem. I ask him for a reference to the budget speech where indeed he

did deal with the problem, or mention the word, so that I will know

where I'm misinformed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is....

MR. STUPICH: What page?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, do I have the member's full attention?

MR. STUPICH: I'm listening — rapt.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Okay. Great.

[ Page 4152 ]

Earlier I indicated that it is correct: the word "unemployment" was

not mentioned in the budget speech. That's a matter of record for that

member and for anyone who reads the budget. Nonetheless, I suggest that

the member and others who have focused on that one omission of one word

have overlooked the fact that the whole thrust of the budget for

1984-85 and indeed for 1983-84 — we've had two budgets since the last

election, Mr. Speaker, as you well know — has been to create jobs in

British Columbia and to ensure that jobs will remain for the future in

British Columbia. I can be faulted for the omission of the word, but

the thrust, the whole purpose, of the budget activities which this

government has undertaken in the past two budgets has been to create

the kind of employment climate which I believe the majority of British

Columbians seek and which can be achieved as a result of our

initiatives.

[2:15]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, with an unemployment rate worse

only in the province of Newfoundland, as far as Canada is concerned, I

think it's well that the minister now says that he dealt with it.

May I ask how many new jobs were created in the province of British

Columbia when he gave $470 million to BCR to pay for old debts, some of

which are so old they'll not be due until the year 2005? How many jobs

were created by what was one of the major proposals in the budget?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I suggest, with respect, that

that question is really a refighting of a debate which occurred in

relation to the resource revenue stabilization fund bill, which has

been given royal assent. If the member wants to separate the question,

I'll be happy to assist. But I'm not going to refight a debate which

has already been dealt with at length in this House.

SALE OF B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Finance. Last Saturday, March 31, was the minister's deadline for

the sale and liquidation of the B.C. Systems Corporation. Has the

minister decided whom the government will award the contract to, and

will he so advise the House?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet decided, nor have I advised the government in that regard.

MR. NICOLSON: Has the minister decided whether he will be able to recover all of the current and long-term liabilities — some $80 million?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the question is with respect to

the B.C. Systems Corporation. Quite clearly, any recommendation that I

carry to the Premier and my colleagues — and indeed, any recommendation

which I'm sure they look favourably upon — would take into account the

security of a public investment.

MR. NICOLSON: Is the minister giving assurance to the House

that the B.C. taxpayers will not continue to be liable for mortgage

payments, lease payments and other payables following the sale or

liquidation of the B.C. Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At this particular point in time that question is hypothetical. It may not be in a matter of weeks, but it is so now,

MR. NICOLSON: Has the minister decided to undertake a

commitment to table in the House all contracts and agreements related

to the sale of the B.C. Systems Corporation, on an urgent basis?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for transit in the

province. The month before last the minister was asked to table

contracts and other agreements pertaining to the sale of Pacific Coach

Lines assets. Has the minister now located these documents, and is she

prepared to table them in this House?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as I responded the last time

this question was brought to the House: when all the business

surrounding the sale of the Pacific Coach Lines is completed, I will be

pleased to file all documents pertaining to same in the House.

SERVING OF COURT DOCUMENTS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the

Attorney-General about summonses and subpoenas out of the provincial

court, because I am a little out of touch. Who is serving them today?

HON. MR. SMITH: You are occasionally out of touch, hon.

member, but on this matter the reports that I have from across the

province are that the police are serving the documents. The RCMP, which

police parts of the province, were directed late last week to serve the

documents and are doing so. The chiefs of police in areas that are

served by municipal police boards were directed by me on Friday

afternoon to commence serving those documents on April 1. That was done

following a meeting with the mayors of the lower mainland in Vancouver,

which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) and myself

attended. At that meeting some of the mayors indicated that to have

that course followed in their municipalities we would have to give a

formal direction, so that direction was given by telex on Friday and

the mayors were notified that same day. In every instance that has been

reported to me, hon. member, today the serving of subpoenas and

summonses is being done by the police.

INVESTMENT INCENTIVES

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications, Mr. Speaker. Dynatek Electronics Corporation announced

last week that it could not find a major investor to participate in the

proposed manufacturing in Victoria. This project seems to have

fulfilled one purpose and that was to get people all excited about

employment prospects during an election, but it has been a single

failure in terms of the government strategy of attracting offshore

dollars to invest in high-tech. What steps has the government taken

[ Page

4153 ]

to reconsider its approach to attracting qualified investment in view of the

complete lack of positive results in this case?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, what the government has done is

to cooperate with the federal government to extend the deadline for

Dynatek in the hope that they would be able to come up with the

necessary capital investment to get this project underway. I think it's

a great disappointment to the member opposite as well as to all people

in this area of high unemployment that this project has not yet got

underway, but we remain optimistic, and I think the best course one

could take at the present time is one of patience.

EDUCATION FOR THE DISABLED

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Minister of Education. It

has to do with the termination of the provincial coordinator for

services to disabled adults, effective August 1984. I'd like to ask the

minister whether this indicates a lower priority in his department for

such people as disabled adults.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like to know the name of the

person to whom the member refers, because there are more than one in

the area of people who are disabled. But I might point out that if it's

a gentleman to whom he refers, he was seconded to the Ministry of

Education. He had fulfilled his contract, and I believe he has been

employed by a school district — which shall remain nameless; it's no

help now — within the province. This is certainly not at all any

indication that we are not spending a great deal of time and money and

involving a lot of personnel in that particular area.

MR. ROSE: For clarification for the minister, the person I'm

speaking of is Dr. Cassidy, and he is probably unparalleled in terms of

qualifications, acting as coordinator and coordinating the whole

province for post-secondary education for disabled adults. That's why I

wanted to know whether or not his mission is finished. It would

certainly be regrettable if that were the case and there's no one else

to take over his work.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's the gentleman to whom I was

referring, and my understanding is that his contract had expired and he

wished to be employed by a school district. That being the case, I

think the member is entitled to an answer in greater detail, and I'd be

quite prepared to seek further information and bring it back to the

House.

MR. ROSE: I'm pleased that the minister has agreed to look

into this, because it would be a shame either to consider the work

finished or unnecessary again, or to feel that all progress towards

this very important end will cease. This concern has been expressed by

the B.C. Coalition of Disabled Persons. I don't think they would make

that frivolously.

RCMP REPORT ON MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question to the Attorney-General, to see

if I can't do any better. The auditor-general's report on the Tourism

ministry was referred to the RCMP for investigation. Has the Attorney-General

made a decision as to when that report or its contents will be released to

the public?

HON. MR. SMITH: Very soon, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 18.

PULP AND PAPER COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place today

to move second reading of the Pulp and Paper Collective Bargaining

Assistance Act with very mixed feelings. I'm not going to take a long

time in introducing seconding reading, because I know that many members

in the Legislature wish to make their views known on both this piece of

legislation and on the dispute itself.

I said that I have mixed feelings. All of us in this House, I'm

sure, regret that tens of thousands of workers have been thrown out of

work by the recent lockout in the pulp industry. As well, I'm sure we

are all saddened by a labour relations climate that ultimately relies

on the exceedingly blunt and exceedingly damaging weapons of lockouts

or strikes. I am also disheartened that the opponents in this dispute

have become so entrenched in their respective positions that they

resisted, and in fact even rejected, the assistance offered privately

by myself and by respected and experienced members of the labour

relations community. It is not — and never will become — the policy of

this government to legislate resumption of work in labour disputes.

I feel proud today to be part of a government that takes its

responsibility seriously. I feel proud to be part of a government that

can move to protect the public interest. I can assure you that the

decision was taken with full knowledge of the impact of the action we

are taking. We agonized over this decision, preferring always — and

still preferring — that the parties themselves seek their own

resolution. However, Mr. Speaker, we could not in the end escape the

fact that the dispute was having a devastating effect on the economy of

our province, especially in those communities heavily dependent upon

the forest industry. Twelve thousand pulp workers were idled by

management's decision to shut down its operations. Almost immediately

thousands of woodworkers were also put out of work by secondary

picketing. More workers were thrown off the job, as their woodchip

supplies ballooned and clogged their sawmills. The towboat industry was

nearly idled. Hundreds of companies providing service to the forest

industry, in almost every community in British Columbia, were forced to

lay off employees — many perhaps coming close to having to close their

doors.

Mr. Speaker. all of this happened when many of these workers were

enjoying their first work in months. Some hadn't worked in two years.

As the forest industry is just now beginning to climb out of what we

all know was a crippling recession, entire communities were thrust back

to the brink of disaster. Port Alberni, Powell River and Mackenzie, to

name just a few, are almost entirely dependent upon the forest

industry, and they had just barely begun to recover from the

devastating effects of the recession. The government made

[ Page 4154 ]

the hard choice and came down on the side of

protecting those workers and those communities from further damage.

There was no end in sight for this dispute, and we saw no hope that

collective bargaining was going to achieve a resolution in any kind of

reasonable time-frame. Meanwhile irreparable damage was being inflicted

on workers, on communities and on our provincial economy.

[2:30]

In

summary, this bill provides for the following: lifting of the

lockout and recall of the workers, with resumption of operations within

72 hours; and the appointment of a special mediator, who will report on

progress directly to me as Minister of Labour. All of us felt that this

dispute was of sufficient severity and the resolution of sufficient

importance that we named the chief mediator in the province to mediate

this dispute — Mr. Clark Gilmour, who is the executive director of

mediation services. Finally, it provides for the imposition of a

settlement, should there be any further work stoppages or disruptions,

whatever their origins — or should collective bargaining fail —

following reports from Mr. Gilmour as mediator.

I feet extremely sad, Mr. Speaker, that the pulp unions in this

dispute have chosen to ignore this law. The bill is very clear in that

its responsibility came into force on March 30, 1984, and the workers

should be back at work today. It's hard for me, I'm sure it's hard for

members of this Legislative Assembly — and it sure is hard for members

of the public — to understand how the pulp unions could be continuing

to put their own members continually at risk and out of work. I am told

that in membership votes at the various pulp union locals some of them

are voting not to return to work, but some are voting overwhelmingly —

as much as 90 percent — in favour of going back to work. And their

union is not letting them go back. I don't understand that. I'm sure

that the public doesn't understand that either.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'm telling the truth. Mr. Speaker,

I'm very surprised at some of the members opposite, especially the

member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), whose constituency has more

workers out of work, perhaps, than any other part of this province. And

he doesn't care. I don't understand that. I can't understand it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will have an opportunity to take

part in the debate.

MR. HANSON: Continue your provocation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the first member for

Victoria says: "Continue your provocation." The kind of provocation

that I've been talking about over the past several weeks has been: "Get

back to the bargaining table. Get back to work." If you call that

provocation, Mr. Member, then there is a warped sense of your own

reality as well.

In this bill we appeal to the parties to settle their own

differences, and we make the opportunity available for those parties to

settle their own differences with the help of the top mediator in this

province. Again now, in moving second reading, I appeal to the parties

to get back to the table; I appeal to the leaders of the unions to

remember their responsibility and where it lies. And where does it lie?

It lies in their duty to their members; it doesn't lie in some

hide-bound and outdated philosophy or in inter-union jealousy at the

expense of the work of their members. I urge both sides in this dispute

to think of their responsibilities: the employers to the employees, the

union leaders to their union members. Think of those members and take

the action that will find them back at work providing sustenance for

their families.

In closing and in moving second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I say: "Go back to work, and go back to the table."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is the minister leaving the

impression with this House that at the moment we're debating this, the

ordinary rank and file, men and women who are members of the unions

involved, have completed a vote and have voted against this order? Is

that what you're trying to leave with this chamber?

Mr. Speaker, at this very moment free citizens, men and women of

this province who are members of the unions involved in the walkout,

are meeting all over the province of British Columbia to determine, as

free citizens in true conscience, what their response to this potential

bill will be. But to leave the impression....

MR. REID: It's a bill.

MR. BARRETT: It's not a bill, my good friend. You may have a

majority, but you must go through democratic form in this House. When a

back-bencher thinks that just because a government introduces a bill

it's law, that back-bencher doesn't understand what British

parliamentary democracy is all about.

A bill was introduced Friday. The minister said that they agonized

about the bill, and I believe that. I believe it too when the minister

says that he has mixed feelings about it. But all of that argument

disappears in a puff of illogic when that minister attempts to leave

the impression at this moment in this chamber that an overwhelming vote

has taken place by the men and women in that union to go back. Why?

Yes, you did. Mr. Speaker, he deliberately left the impression in this

House that a vote had been taken and that 90 percent of them wanted to

go back to work.

I know of no vote taken place overall for the whole union. The

meeting is taking place now. How does he know what the vote is? They

haven't even voted yet. He says they're breaking the law. Has anybody

seen the L-G come in here and tip his hat to this bill yet? The anxiety

that the minister has and the mixed feelings he has are because he's

worried that the unions may vote to go back to work, and this bill

won't be necessary, and the political clout won't be used. That's

what's going on over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: That would be great.

MR. BARRETT: If that would be great, then adjourn the debate

and wait six hours for them to vote. You stalled and dilly-dallied and

fudged and hummed around and beat around the bush for eight weeks. Mr.

Speaker, I've been around here a long time. If this were a strike,

they'd be up screaming about the terrible, dangerous trade-union

leaders. I haven't heard one word of irresponsibility against the

companies who brought in the lockout that we're dealing with

[ Page 4155 ]

here — not one murmur from the minister about the

companies making the immoral decision to go with a lockout when

negotiations were still going on. I think it should be clear, to record

the history of this government, the circumstances and where we are

today — exactly today. I think you have to understand that on February

2, when that lockout was imposed, there were negotiation meetings set

up and ready to go. The company made the decision to lock out; it's not

a strike. I have never yet heard the rhetoric about company boards of

directors not giving the poor little shareholders the right to vote.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Not on your life. The attitudes of that

government are schizophrenic. When the lockout was imposed, there was

no director-bashing, as there is union leader-bashing when there's a

strike. So let's put that in perspective.

Number two: two solid months went by. Can the minister tell this

House when the last time was that he met with both sides? Was it within

the last ten days? Was it within the last five days? What efforts were

made by that minister up to the final minute? Did the minister have

both parties in his office the day before this bill was introduced? Not

to my knowledge. Did he have them in his office two days before it was

introduced? Not to my knowledge. Did he have them in within a week? Not

to my knowledge. Mr. Speaker, I find it almost unbelievable that at 18

minutes to 3 o'clock this afternoon, while the meetings are going on

all over this province, while the men and women concerned are

attempting democratically, within the membership of their union, to

make a decision, the government would bring the bill in and attempt to

play politics, because that's all that's going on right now.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I believe in the right of free

citizens in a free society to make up their own minds freely when faced

with a choice. That choice is in front of them now.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will have an

opportunity to speak in this debate. At the present time the Leader of

the Opposition has the floor and, as such, is entitled to speak

uninterrupted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we were left with the impression by

the minister that he has been working day and night to get a solution

on this. Now, when a solution is in sight, he has decided to use the

hammer for political purposes. Is the minister not aware that the

meetings are going on now?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What prompted them?

MR. BARRETT: I understand what prompted them. I mentioned

what prompted them. The threat of this bill prompted those meetings. No

one disputes that. Now that the meetings are starting, and now that the

threat — if that was its purpose — has worked, why are you going ahead

with the bill? If you had anxiety, if you said you had mixed feelings

and you used the bill Friday to prompt this, then why don't you wait

another few hours for the vote? The only reason you're not waiting for

the vote, Mr. Speaker, is now you're playing politics with it rather

than letting democracy function.

If this government were sincere, if this government were serious,

the minister would get up and say: "I will wait three hours for the

results of that vote that is now taking place around this province."

Mr. Speaker, after eight weeks, what is the urgency of these last three

hours, other than straight politics. from the government's point of

view? Surely to goodness another three hours, after eight weeks, isn't

that crucial — except that it's crucial politically. It's crucial

politically because the government has decided that it will make a

decision before ordinary citizens of this province have a chance to

make the decision based on the threat that was given them on Friday.

There's a minister who admits publicly that it was used as a threat

— what brought them together. Fair enough. If that's the course the

government wishes to take, fair enough. I appreciate the frank

admission that you didn't call the bill on Friday. You hoped they'd get

their act together. That's fair enough. Three hours to go and now you

call the bill. It's illogical, unless you're playing politics. And I

think you're playing politics. If those men and women are meeting in

every corner of this province to vote now, what is it...?

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Let them speak in a free society and say what they feel before you bring in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I find it really interesting that the minister is saying: "Vote

on what?" Does he mean to say that he hasn't met with both sides

over the weekend to clarify this? Has he made an effort to find out what

they intend to do? Instead, he came into this House and said: "Vote

on what?" He's the one who said in this House that

90 percent had voted to go back to work. If he's asking me what they vote

on, how come he announced the results before they've even finished voting?

"What are they voting on?" It's right there in Hansard ,

Mr. Speaker. Anxiety? Mixed feelings? It's all politics.

Let no citizen in this province misunderstand the sequence of events

and what is going on at this moment. The companies imposed a lockout.

The unions wanted to negotiate. Two months went by, the companies were

threatened with a bill, they lifted the lockout, the unions are meeting

today to discuss the bill, and before the rank-and-file union members

can have a vote to decide in the same way that the companies voted, the

minister is attacking the trade union leaders and not even giving the

members the right to vote in their communities. Think about that. You

would think about it if you were a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher or an

old-age pensioner. This is 1984, and this is the first Orwellian bill

that we're going to deal with — and it happens here in Victoria,

British Columbia. It's 12 minutes to 3, the meetings are going on out

there in those communities, and you still want this bill debated now

without working men and women having the right to make up their own

minds first.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: "What about the soup lines?" The first time you

mention the soup line is because you missed lunch. That's exactly what

they're voting on. Mr. Speaker, I will not call any back-bencher a

dumbbell, but if I could, it would be appropriate to point out to a

certain member that that's exactly

[ Page 4156 ]

what they're voting on now. Let free people vote the way they want to vote out there in the community.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The minister himself announced it — that's how I

know. Are you saying that the minister is a liar? Shame on you! You're

in enough trouble as it is. Don't go around calling the minister a liar

on top of it. You should have your hand spanked, if not anything else,

but don't you call the minister a liar. I won't stand for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Nor will the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try speaking on the bill.

MR. BARRETT: I am speaking on the bill. In this bill there's

no cooling-off period, which I've always believed in and spoken for.

Mr. Member, I believe people should have the right to vote — right when

they're meeting now — and not have something rammed down their throats.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What did the Liberal Party tell you before you

joined the Socreds, or do you remember? When I get interruptions from

people who have principles that change on the basis of polls, that

doesn't bother me too much. But one principle that is immutable in

democracy is that people have the right to vote in face of the law. Why

isn't that taking place now? Sure, they've got a majority....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I don't mind the interruptions; I don't mind

the pettiness. You're a Dynatek supporter, aren't you? Did you buy

shares in it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to believe that when the

minister said that he had mixed feelings about this, that they had

agonized about this, he'd give an explanation why he couldn't wait

until 6 o'clock tonight to hear what the vote was. What are you afraid

of? Are you afraid that the men and women involved will vote to go back

to work and to the bargaining table? I believe that is exactly what

this government is afraid of, and that is why they're trying to ram

this bill through this afternoon. This government doesn't want the

problem solved this afternoon; as a matter of fact, the problem may be

solved before they get this vote through, and that will be very

embarrassing to them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Call the vote and see, then.

MR. BARRETT: They're very anxious to call the vote, aren't

they? Their biggest concern over there is that the men and women

involved may go back to work before this bill is passed.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Where was I for the last eight weeks? I've been

on television and radio asking what the government was stalling for? If

this were a strike, there'd be inflammatory statements from the

government the length and breadth of this province. This was lockout.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we will continue with orderly debate in this chamber.

MR. BARRETT: I've never seen such aroused passion at such a

high level of intelligence from the government in a long time. Their

overwhelming interjections lead one to believe that they have an

impassioned commitment to get this through before 6 o'clock, before the

problem resolves itself. That would ruin the whole public relations

gambit of last week if the workers went back to work on their own. The

problem would be solved. They'd be going back to voluntary negotiation

under the threat of this bill. That's not what they want. They want to

be in a position to say that politics overwhelmed the free vote of

working men and working women. That's what they want. Absolutely. Why

else won't you wait another three hours?

I ask you, Mr. Minister: are another three hours going to make all

that difference to you, except for politics? Is there a crucial three

hours that this government is going to stand or fall on, that you can't

wait for that vote? If you have really agonized.... If you really have

mixed feelings, then get up and say: "We'll wait until the vote is

over." Get up and say that.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if I may interrupt the meeting that

is going on down there.... All I can do is advise the members to watch

out from being clipped.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: If you think this is such a funny matter, then

get out of the chamber. If you're not prepared to sit in silence, then

you should be ashamed of yourself. If you think this kind of

legislation is some kind of joke, you simply don't understand what

we're dealing with here. What you're saying in this legislation is

Orwellian. What you're saying is: "We will tell you what to say or do

or think, even though you're in the midst of a vote." Three hours

doesn't make a tinker's damn of difference in terms of what's already

been lost. But as a matter of principle, three hours makes the

difference as to whether or not people are going to obey the law and

behave themselves in an orderly, rational fashion because they believe

due process has taken place. But when you come in and deny due process,

you create hypocrisy and cynicism about the very system that we govern

ourselves by, and that does more damage in the long run than even this

labour-management dispute. If you create an atmosphere out there where

people as free citizens are irrelevant, if you deliberately create an

atmosphere that somehow how they feel or how they

[ Page 4157 ]

vote or what they want doesn't matter, then you

destroy the very system that we hope will bring law and order to the

rest of society. This is a very serious issue. There is no imperative

that this government has that they shouldn't wait another three hours.

I believe that some members of this chamber simply do not understand

the history, the logic and the reason for the parliamentary democracy

we have. It stems back to the vote. People are voting now in face of

the threat of this law that the minister said was there. Certainly it's

threatened them into the vote. Let them vote, and let's see the results

before we go ahead with that.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Do I believe what I say? Is it a fact that those

members are now meeting all over this province taking a vote? Is it a

fact that the minister left the impression in this House that they were

voting 90 percent to go back to work? Is it a fact that the minister

left the impression with this House in his opening remarks that they

were voting to go back to work? That's what he said. If he knows that,

then why is he ramming the bill through? Because he's in a hurry. For

political purposes.

What is the import of this bill if we're still debating it at 6

o'clock and they decide to go back to work? Then what? Then are you

going to go ahead with it? That's a good question. If they vote to go

back to work, and they go back to the bargaining table under the

mediator and this bill is still rammed through, then the purpose is to

threaten the negotiating situation that they set up in the first place.

That can be a terrible misinterpretation, but if this haste is pursued,

that will be the

interpretation by many citizens in this province.

Three hours until the 6 o'clock adjournment to prove whether or not

your statement of having anxiety or mixed feelings about it is actually

a fact. Three hours after eight weeks is hardly the end of the world,

but three hours makes the difference between whether or not a

significant number of men and women in this province believe in this

parliamentary system or will end up believing they've been used

politically by a government that is cynical, and who announced today

that they were already voting to go back to work, even in your opening

remarks. Mr. Speaker, has any effort been made to find out when those

results will be made available? Does the minister have a network

available and waiting at the end of the telephone to get him the

information so that he knows whether to proceed with the bill?

I have seen people go back and forth on the floor of this chamber on

the basis of political principles that have wavered, day by day,

according to the political party they intend to belong to. A

significant number of those members used to belong to the Liberal and

Conservative Parties, but even when they were Liberals and

Conservatives they still believed that free citizens had the right to

make the choice. They believed in the principle of subsidiarity: least

government as possible at the bottom level; let democracy function. But

today for three hours they are playing politics for their own unknown

purposes, pushing this bill before the vote is taken.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are they doing that?

MR. BARRETT: I don't know why they're doing it, but three hours is not going to make the end of the world.

I'd like to test the government's sincerity. I'd like to test

whether or not you really have mixed feelings, and whether or not you

really agonized over this. I move adjournment of this debate until the

next sitting of the House so that free men and women can vote before

this goes through.

[3:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Mitchell

Wallace

Lockstead

Hanson

D'Arcy

Skelly

NAYS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

Campbell

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was hoping the Leader of the Opposition would remain,

because I have some remarks to address to his statement, which I consider to

be one which is not only wrong but evasive, hardly in keeping with their own

history in government, and hardly one which will help ease the industrial relations

climate in this province or get our people back to work.

The Leader of the Opposition would persuade you that somehow there

is a vote going on amongst the pulp and paper workers which relates to

this bill or to their industrial dispute. He also would suggest that

somehow it would be conventional practice when government, after not

weeks but months, steps in to help resolve a dispute in which both

parties appear unable to come to any contractual agreement for the

benefit of the employees, the companies, the province or the country. I

look back to when I was in opposition. The Leader of the Opposition was

then Premier. He had also been Minister of Finance for most of that

period, and as Minister of Finance was used to bringing in bills that

were retrospective in nature and had a fixed date. Tax measures that he

introduced — and that any Finance minister introduces — carried such

wording. The bill introduced last Friday has as its commencement that

"this act shall be deemed to have come into force on March 30. 1984,"

which is no different than many other bills that have been introduced

in this House, and that were supported by the members opposite from

time to time.

Let me go back to a bill that was introduced by Bill King on October

7, 1975, called the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act. In Journals for that date we find: "The Hon.

[ Page 4158 ]

W.S. King presented to Mr. Speaker a message from

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, which read as follows: The

Lieutenant-Governor...transmits herewith Bill (No. 146) intituled

Collective Bargaining Continuation Act and recommends the same to the

Legislative Assembly." In effect, it ordered an end to a dispute in the

forest industry. There was a 30-minute recess and it was then asked

that the House advance and move that bill — not after a weekend, but

that very day — through all three stages. We passed that bill, all

three stages, the very day it was introduced. It was at that time....

In introducing that bill or requesting the cooperation of the

opposition, I don't recall them suggesting that the bill that ended the

dispute must be voted on by the companies or unions in the forest

industry, and such was not the case. There was no vote dealing with

this bill. The bill ended the dispute. This Legislature, by

an act of

this Legislature, ended the dispute.

MR. SKELLY: It did not end the dispute.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're right, it didn't end it. It only

suspended the dispute for the term of the election, which you lost

anyhow. I can remember the resolution being effectively handled after

there was a new government in this province.

This bill was introduced because these members in the pulp industry

have been negotiating — or not negotiating on both sides or at least

negotiating where there is some chance of a success — since last year.

During that period the IWA and the forest companies representing that

side of the forest industry came to an agreement without disruption,

concluded that agreement to the satisfaction of both management and

labour, and yes, when there was an agreement to vote on, the members

voted and they voted in favour of that agreement. All during that

period and through the winter and now into spring an agreement could

not be achieved with this side of the forest industry. A number of

weeks ago, after a long time, the employers locked out. I do not

support them in their lockout, as I don't support people when I think

that there is a better way rather than an industrial disruption.

Strikes and lockouts hurt everyone. Strikes and lockouts are nothing

more than self-interest. They are not in the public interest. They're

not in society's interest. They are part of the collective bargaining

process and part of the hammer, but see them for what they are. A

penalty is paid by more than those involved in the dispute. Today we

see society, our province, all of our people, communities hurting as a

result of this lockout and this lack of resolution after many, many

months and plenty of opportunity to settle it. The other side of the

forest industry was able to come to terms. This bill ends the lockout.

It ends the shutdown. This bill must be passed, whether votes taken

within the union membership — on whether they're going to obey this law

or not — are yes or no.

The Leader of the Opposition in his statements clearly shows two

things: he either doesn't understand the bill or the situation or his

caucus is so completely divided in having to deal with this matter that

they'll seek the slimmest of threads in order to prevent this

legislation from being discussed and being voted on in this Legislature.

This legislation is to be passed whether or not the employers have

lifted their lockout. This legislation must and will be passed whether

or not there is a vote to obey it. This legislation provides that the

people and the plants in those communities will be working again. They

will stop penalizing themselves, the companies to the tune of $8

million a day, earnings into this province that don't stick just with

them but get spread around this province to suppliers, to government —

local, provincial and federal — and into the retail and service

industries. They can stop denying themselves $2 million in wages and

benefits a day. They can stop, and this bill will stop, the penalties

being suffered by the communities in which the forest industry is

perhaps the only economic base they have. The Minister of Labour made a

partial list of some of them. Everybody in British Columbia is impacted

in some way by this industrial dispute — strike or lockout, it's a

shutdown.

[3:15]

That shutdown not only affects us now but has the ability to affect

our economic recovery or how we grow in the future. Customers for

British Columbia pulp are interested in reliability of supply and

long-term contracts. The international market is competitive, not just

from pulp suppliers within Canada and the United States but from around

the world, in which there is plenty of competition and in which British

Columbia and Canada have to earn the right to maintain the market share

we already have, let alone try to increase that market share as we must

in the future if we are to increase employment in this province, as we

wish to do. All of that is important. That's why it's important that

this dispute be resolved.

The Minister of Labour said that reluctantly the government brought

in this bill. It was with reluctance. In all the years since we've been

government we have not brought in a bill of this manner. That's getting

on to the completion of nine years.

I heard a snort from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). In

the three and a half years that they were government — or 1,200 days,

whatever it works out to — they introduced a number of bills that they

say brought resolution or ended disputes. To suggest that we've used it

lightly once in nine years, when they used it many times in three and a

half, is a little bit ridiculous when one considers that the Leader of

the Opposition is the person making that suggestion. It is used lightly

because the Legislature and parliament should not become the tool or

the final resolution to industrial disputes.

But quite frankly, as much as we couldn't, the economy has

difficulty dealing with industrial shutdowns of our most basic resource

in good times or moderate times. In these times — these tough times —

when the market is more competitive, when people have hurt and have

been hurting enough, it becomes absolutely necessary that the

government step in when the parties have clearly demonstrated that they

do not have the ability to end the dispute themselves. Both management

of the companies and the labour union leaders almost publicly confessed

that they could not come to resolution. Certainly they demonstrated it

by their actions or lack of an agreement. But obviously, as I said the

other day, tactics had become more important than matters of substance.

The unwilling victims of all of this dispute or lack of resolution were

the people of British Columbia, now and perhaps well into the future.

[ Page 4159 ]

This bill ends the dispute. It says that within 72 hours of March

30, 1984, the companies must have ended their lockout and the workers

gone back to work, and that the government will introduce a mediator —

our chief of mediation services — to assist them in that resolution.

The bill provides that that mediator shall work with those parties to

end that dispute by agreement, and at the same time end the punitive

actions that this industrial dispute — a lockout; now perhaps, at least

for today, a strike — has inflicted on members and communities in this

province. It ends that and sets the stage and the mechanism for a

resolution. It doesn't wait on any vote of members out there now. It is

this bill that forced the companies to end their lockout. The same

ruling applies to the members, that they must go to work. Any vote they

may be conducting today is not on a settlement. It's not on an offer

and a settlement that will end the dispute, or settle the matter; it's

only whether they will obey this law. The factories are open for them

to go to work because the companies have obeyed the law. They should be

advised that they are only penalizing themselves by taking bad advice

not to go to work today. They penalize themselves another day's pay.

They penalize their communities a little bit more. You ask if they set

out to bloody the nose of the companies and say that $8 million today

is going to teach them. That $8 million is important to every British

Columbian, because it spreads out across this province and touches

everyone.

The Leader of the Opposition was quite wrong. I was disappointed. I

had thought that in his leaving he could be straightforward and use the

same rationale he used when he was Premier of this province and tried

to end industrial disputes which in his judgment had got out of hand

and could not be resolved by the parties and were becoming unacceptable

to British Columbia. He could have done that. He isn't on the horns of

a dilemma, as the leadership candidates in that party are now. He isn't

the one, such as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who is saying

that that party has been held captive too long by organized labour and

a few union leaders and they should divorce themselves. It will be

interesting to hear what he has to say. He doesn't have that problem.

He doesn't have the problem of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who

is taking a different line but will have to justify anything he says to

a community that's been very hard-hit because of the shutdown and the

lack of jobs that affects that whole community. It will be interesting

to hear his remarks and those of a number of other opposition members —

but not the Leader of the Opposition, who is leaving.

When he was Premier I listened to the Leader of the Opposition as he

made arguments to end a dispute. As Leader of the Opposition I could

have squirmed like the members on the other side are doing, and I could

have opposed for opposition's sake; but we chose to support the

government of that day, because it was just as unacceptable to us to

see those people hurting and to see what was happening in the

communities. If it was important and desirable then, today it is a

necessity. The recession has hurt enough. It hurt in 1982 and in 1983.

Do we want to make that hurt a permanent condition in this province? If

we do, then all we have to do is get a reputation as unreliable

international suppliers, and people won't buy our products. If we get a

reputation for being industrially unstable, they won't do business with

us. They don't need to. We've got to earn our position. If we get a

reputation for instability and radicalism....and you can help with your

self-fulfilling prophecy over there. You might think it's your one way

back to power if things will continue to be tough in British Columbia,

and you're darned right. If you agree with that as a strategy, then in

fact you're right. We can have a permanent recession in this province.

And if you support that, then I've got to say there are more than

philosophical differences between you and me.

Make no mistake about the issue, Mr. Speaker. It is not a matter of delaying

the vote or the bill; the bill must pass. The bill is what has brought the promise

of an end to the dispute. The bill is what has ended the lockout and given the

opportunity for those communities to get going again, to start selling our product,

in what may be a short space of time. We see once again that the failure of

the U.S. and Canadian federal governments to end their deficits is causing interest

rates to rise again. The housing boom may end in the U.S., and we may have a

very short respite indeed for our workers in the forest industry in all its

aspects.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to support this bill. I urge all

members — who may have been led a little astray by the Leader of the

Opposition saying what he thinks the bill says — to now take the time

to read and understand what the bill is all about. If that bill isn't

enough for members opposite, I will send them the Collective Bargaining

Continuance Act of 1975 to give them some of the similarities, and the

type of mood in the Legislature that day when they wanted to push the

bill through all three stages in just a few hours on the day of

introduction. I would say to all members on both sides of this House

that British Columbia is watching to see if you are going to vote for

people to be able to go to work, for companies to be able to produce,

and for prosperity to start edging upwards again in our province. They

will be watching to see whether or not you are in favour of that. Mr.

Speaker, I support this bill.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Perhaps if I speak quietly, people might

listen. In my comments today I want to outline in some detail what the

official opposition thinks about this bill. I also want to respond to a

number of the comments made by both the Minister of Labour and the

Premier. I will begin by saying to the Legislature that the official

opposition finds unacceptable three matters of principle that are

contained in this bill, and as a result of the provision of those three

principles in this legislation the official opposition will be voting

against Bill 18.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The first of those principles is the imposition by legislation of

the termination of, in this case, a lockout — it could have been a

strike; the principle is the same — when clearly all other remedies

that might have been available, short of legislative interference, had

not been attempted. Later in my comments I want to discuss at least

four specific initiatives that the government failed to take, which, in

mv view, any government must take prior to the imposition of

legislation to end a work stoppage when there is no threat, as in this

case, to life.

[3:30]

The second principle that the official opposition finds

reprehensible is contained in

section 9 of the bill, which we'll deal

with in some detail when we go to committee. That principle is that the

cabinet is permitted, in fact authorized, to

[ Page 4160 ]

agreement. That, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in this province. It is

unprecedented to have contained in legislation a provision whereby the

cabinet could, if it chose — I'm not suggesting it will — impose a

20-year agreement on the pulp industry, with a zero percent increase in

each of those 20 years.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't say the government would do it; but

the legislation allows it. When we debate legislation in this House,

Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), we have to understand

what the legislation can allow a government to do, or any other agency

that might be empowered to do something as a result of the legislation.

I'm going to go into more detail later on those specific issues.

The third principle in this bill that is unacceptable to the

official opposition is contained in

section 14, in the retroactivity

component of the bill. In effect, the government is saying that because

they introduced a bill and it passed first reading on Friday, therefore

it is the law of the land. Parliaments in the British parliamentary

system have always accepted the principle that when it comes to tax

measures — some, not all — there needs to be a retroactivity clause in

order to prevent people's ability to profit from decisions ahead of

time. In that respect no parliamentarian that I know of in the British

parliamentary system disagrees with retroactivity for those specific

tax measures. This is not a tax measure. There is no cause whatsoever

for retroactive legislation of this kind, except in the narrow scope of

those tax measures.

Later in my comments I intend to expand on each of those three

components of the legislation, not in the detail that we'll do in

committee when we go through each section, but in some detail about the

principle involved in each of those issues.

Before going into that, I want to react to some of the comments made

by both the Premier and the Minister of Labour. I will not do it in its

logical order, because I haven't had time to prepare it in logical

order; rather, I'll do it in the order in which they presented it,

which, in both cases, was not logical.

The Premier talked about retroactivity in terms of tax measures.

I've already mentioned that. He talked about a comparison with Bill

146. Everyone in this House and in this province who follows these

matters closely knows that in 1975 I took a different position from my

colleagues in the New Democratic Party on the introduction of Bill 146.

Nevertheless, whatever my views are or were on Bill 146, there are no

comparisons to be made between Bill 146 and Bill 18. Whatever one

thinks of Bill 146 in 1975 — I'm not going to get into that discussion

— it was legislation to impose a cooling-off period during which time

bargaining could presumably take place and settlements could be

reached. There was no imposition of a collective agreement by the

Legislature in that case. The Premier talked about the fact that we

introduced that bill on October 7, and while not naming the date, he

said that they were elected on December 11 and were in power, I guess,

by about December 22, and then they solved the problem. Mr. Speaker,

under parliamentary rules I'm not allowed to say what that statement

is, but it's certainly not factual. What solved the problem in each of

the four different areas under the legislation — it was not just the

forest industry as the Premier seems to think; it was much broader than

that — was that in one industry they almost had an agreement anyway. In

another industry.... In one industry the negotiations were within a few

weeks of a settlement, and they achieved it. A settlement was reached

in the pulp industry as a result of the introduction of the AIB by the

federal government. In fact, the pulp workers had to go — the Premier

forgets this — and make a special presentation to the AIB to be asked

to be exempted from the guidelines that were imposed by those rules,

because if they were to be included in the AIB, they would not then

have had a settlement comparable to what was agreed to in the rest of

the woods industry. For the Premier to say that it was his government,

following their election in December 1975, which solved that dispute

is, as I say, a word that I can't use in this House.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It was highly inaccurate.

The Premier spent some time talking about the necessity for this

kind of legislation because of the economy. He tried to set up a false

dichotomy between the government and the opposition, implying that if

you weren't in favour of this legislation, you were therefore

axiomatically in favour of having further bad economic times in British

Columbia. One of the things — I'll get into this in some detail a bit

later — that the Premier doesn't understand is that while it's possible

there may be some short-term economic good as a result of the pulp

mills being forced to go back, he doesn't seem to understand that there

will undoubtedly, unfortunately, be some long-term economic troubles

and bad economic times. When I say "long-term," I'm talking about the

next 10 or 15 years. Negotiations between the pulp industry and the

pulp unions in this province have been poisoned for a variety of

reasons — some to do with government, some to do with internal problems

and many to do with other factors, which I don't intend to go into.

Those relations have been difficult, to put it mildly, in recent years.

I predict, with immense sorrow, that this bill will entrench that

situation. It will create more strikes and lockouts in future years,

which may well have been prevented without this kind of action. It's

the kind of comment I made in 1975. I believed it then, I think my

predictions were borne out subsequently and I make the same prediction

today. For the Premier to try to establish that this debate is about

whether we want to repair the economy of this province — if you are in

favour of repairing the economy you vote for the bill; if you aren't

you vote against it — is a false issue, not from any political

rhetoric, but simply from a careful analysis of what happens in

collective bargaining. When one party or the other comes to expect that

they can have their interests protected, or they can have their

position bailed out by expecting government interference, then you

never have true collective bargaining.

I believe that's what has happened this time. The companies imposed

their lockout on February 2. The price of pulp was low. While I don't

assume that it was an unanimous vote among the Pulp and Paper Bureau,

nevertheless it became unanimous because it was a majority. Some

companies benefited greatly initially, because of some competitive

factors between those companies in terms of the ability to market

certain of their products, which in some cases were being produced

outside of British Columbia during the lockout. So there were a lot of

politics being played inside the pulp bureau over this issue, but they

all had one common interest: to drive up the price of pulp, which

they've succeeded in doing. I am

[ Page 4161 ]

not suggesting that the price of pulp has gone up

simply because there has been a lack of supply. There are other

factors. But it's a major component. And now, when the price has gone

up effective April 1, and the companies know a few days or weeks before

that it is going to go up, what do they do? They send their lobbyists

to the government, and say: "Please bail us out of this situation, will

you?" We all saw the lobbyists around the buildings. I talked to some

of them, and they were honest enough to tell me what they wanted. They

wanted an end to the lockout because there was $1 million a day in

additional revenue starting April 1 that they were not going to receive

— on top of their normal revenue. Now that's what happened, but the

problem in this case is that the pulp bureau knew that they could

initiate a lockout and wouldn't have to go through the embarrassing or

difficult procedure of lifting that lockout when the time was

appropriate. They could count on the government. That has become the

tradition in this industry, and now that it's been done again it will

become even more entrenched and even more the tradition in the industry.

I'm not suggesting that it is one-sided. I suggest to you that the

unions will feel the same way: they will expect government

intervention. What motivation then exists for bargaining through to a

conclusion of the collective agreement? Not very much, particularly

when the issues are difficult, as they are at the moment. So I make

those comments in response to the Premier's attempts to make this

debate over an issue which it really isn't. If he wants to engage in

that kind of debate, I would argue that not introducing this

legislation is better for the economy — not in April 1984, maybe; maybe

not even for the rest of 1984; but unquestionably for the long-term

economic interests of that industry and this province. Unquestionably

the introduction of this legislation will have long-term impacts

detrimental to the economy of this province, and I don't think the

Premier understands that.

The Premier talked about the fact that in 1975 the NDP government

introduced and passed the legislation all in one day under

section 81,

I think it was, of the rules of order. I'm not very happy about

legislation being passed all in one day. I agreed to it in 1975, and so

did the opposition of the day; we all agreed and it was done by leave.

But debating a bill in three stages in one day is a lot preferable to

debating legislation after it is deemed to become law. I would choose

the one day debate any time over any issue before I would choose the

route whereby this Legislature, on Monday afternoon, is debating a bill

which is presumed to have been in place on Friday, March 30, and

presumed to have gone into effect in terms of its specific application

at midnight, Sunday, April 1.

What happens if the Legislature doesn't agree to this bill or

changes the dates? I thought legislatures made laws, not cabinets. I

thought legislatures made them.

MRS. WALLACE: Not any more in B.C.

MR. GABELMANN: Then the Premier said — this is the last of

the comments that I want to pick up from the Premier — with feigned

seriousness.... I have forgotten his exact words, but using my words:

"We do this with a heavy heart. We don't do it happily. We don't like

to do this kind of thing. We have only done it once in nine years. The

opposition did it many times in their three and a half years." The

opposition did it twice in their three and a half years, and on both

occasions the Premier voted for those bills. If he thought what the NDP

was doing when it sent the firefighters back to work in 1974 or what

the NDP did in 1975 was so wrong, why did he vote for those bills?

[3:45]

Those are my reactions to what the Premier said. Now to the Minister of Labour's statements. This won't take so long.

My first comment is that I was absolutely astounded that the

minister did not present a rationalization for the bill. He gave no

history of the dispute; he gave no history of his involvements in

efforts to resolve the dispute. He took ten minutes — the first five

minutes to say, in effect, "I don't like doing this kind of thing, but

we have to," and the last five minutes to attack the unions. That was

not a reasonable presentation of a bill, especially a bill of such

import as this one. There's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) were still Minister of

Labour, he would at least have spent 20 or 25 minutes giving a

rationalization for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You understand the rationalization; it's pretty straightforward.

MR. GABELMANN: I do, but people in the province have a right

to expect an explanation from the Minister of Labour as to why he found

it necessary to resort to the final and ultimate weapon in labour

relations, and he did not give that.

I must say that I was not at all pleased, and I don't think any

member of this House should be pleased, by the references to the two

unions and 26 locals involved having voted — in some cases by 90

percent — to go back to work. There are still votes being taken. There

are some meetings; the last of them may now be in progress, at ten

minutes to four. The results of the vote will likely be known at around

five o'clock. Not one of us has any crystal ball. I'm sure we can all

make guesses, but none of us know what the result of that vote will be.

It will be announced when it's counted. I know the government would

prefer to have the announcement before they count. To go into that kind

of diatribe and attack against the trade union movement, which is

involved in what is, I think, a responsible activity — having its

membership vote on their reaction to this legislation — does nothing

whatsoever to improve labour relations in this province.

I've always thought that one of the primary and most fundamental

responsibilities that the Minister of Labour has is to attempt to

improve labour relations, not to set himself up as a guy who clearly

chooses one side over the other. We saw no ringing attacks on the

boards of directors or the Pulp and Paper Bureau, but we saw an attack

against trade unionists who are involved in the democratic process of

having meetings.

His final rhetorical statements in his conclusion urged both sides

to think of their responsibilities and appealed to the parties to get

back to the table: "Go back to work; go back to the table." I think one

needs to ask the minister: short of that kind of ringing declaration,

what did he do?

At this point I leave the subject of my reaction to the minister's

comments and deal with the principles in the bill that I outlined at

the beginning of my comments. In beginning his debate, the minister

said that he introduced the bill with "mixed feelings, saddened by

labour relations which rely on strikes or lockouts." I'm not quoting

precisely, but I'm quoting my notes on what I heard him say. It's not

policy, he said, to legislate an end to strikes and lockouts — the

implication being that the government has violated its policy

[ Page 4162 ]

— but he was proud nevertheless. I found that

curious, because legislative intervention to end a strike or lockout is

not a principle so high that you can take a position on it which is

your position in every situation. It's not that kind of issue. I

personally find legislative intervention most objectionable, but I

voted for it once in this House, in August 1974. So I'm not standing up

here trying to proclaim some high and mighty principles from which I

will not deviate, because I understand, as does everyone in this House,

that parliament is supreme, that legislators have a responsibility to

govern, and that that can on occasion lead to a requirement for

legislative intervention in a strike or lockout or in a collective

bargaining process. So I want to make it clear that I'm not coming at

this from some unbending, mindlessly principled position.

MR. REID: Oh, you've changed.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Surrey should listen, Mr.

Speaker. I just finished saying to him that I voted in favour of

back-to-work legislation in 1974; I voted against it in 1975. Let me

say why I voted for it in 1974. I voted for it because there was a

threat, in my view, of the possibility of the loss of life in a couple

of suburban municipalities in the greater Vancouver area, where a

firefighters' strike was in progress. I voted against it in 1975

because I didn't believe that in all instances every remedy had been

taken advantage of. That's where I make the distinction on this

legislation.

The minister did not at any stage take advantage of

section 69 of

the Labour Code and appoint a mediator in this dispute. He gave an

answer which anticipated that kind of criticism, and the implication

was that the parties didn't want a mediator. And for most stages of the

dispute, that's true. Interestingly, though, there were various stages

when each of them would have. Maybe they didn't coincide exactly, but

there were times when each of them would have. If the minister reads

the Code, he will learn that the minister can introduce into that

process a mediator. Often that's not a good idea, because a mediator

can't accomplish something if there's no will for something to be

accomplished. But clearly, two or three weeks ago in this dispute,

there was a mood for something to be accomplished. It might have been

possible — I'm not saying it would have — that at that time the

assistance of a mediator, whether from within the ministry or without,

could have possibly assisted the parties in achieving a resolution. The

minister failed to take that option.

Under the Labour Code there is another

section he could have chosen,

which is the industrial inquiry commission

section —

section 122. In my

view that's a

section that has to be used rarely and at a very late

stage in the game. To my knowledge the minister never proposed the use

of that

section of the Labour Code.

So there were two built-in opportunities in the Code for possible

resolution of the dispute that weren't taken. I'm not saying that those

would necessarily have worked. If they hadn't, there were other things

the minister could have done. When did the minister have the parties

bargaining in one of the committee rooms here with the minister and his

deputy present? There is a lot of moral authority in the office of the

Minister of Labour. As a previous Minister of Labour, the now Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) will remember that he took advantage

of that kind of procedure at least once, in my memory, and no doubt

other times. That is a valid and appropriate response for the Minister

of Labour to take. Call the parties into a committee room over in

Victoria and say, "Okay, my

schedule is such that I'm not going to sit

in here all the time, but I'm going to be in and out when it's

appropriate, and my deputy's going to be here all the time. Now get to

it." If that hadn't worked, there is still the authority of the office

of the Premier, an authority which was used on many occasions by W.A.C.

Bennett — successfully, I might say, more often than not — in the

resolution of labour disputes. I remember many an occasion before 1972

when W.A.C. Bennett would call the parties into his office and knock

heads. People didn't like it, but more often than not it resulted in a

settlement. The Premier's office, no matter who occupies it, has some

moral authority. When a bargaining committee on either side of the

table is summoned to come to meet with the Premier, having failed

perhaps earlier in their meetings with the Minister of Labour, they

treat that seriously. I've been around a little bit; I've talked to

bargaining committees and people in that situation. I know how they

respond. They treat it as being very serious indeed. Why didn't those

things happen?

If they had all happened, and we still had no resolution of this

dispute and we still had the parties steadfastly clinging to their

respective positions, there might then be — might then be; I'm not

saying there would be — some moral authority for the government to

collective agreement, like this bill does, but to put an end to the

dispute while bargaining continues in some other form— and possibly,

again, using an IIC.

There are a variety of possibilities. There is the possibility of

asking the parties to voluntarily accept compulsory arbitration, with

the parties themselves jointly choosing an arbitrator. In labour

relations there are innumerable alternatives for dispute resolution. I

promised myself I wouldn't speak long, and I feel I am already

beginning to break that promise. I don't intend to go through the whole

variety of mechanisms that exist for dispute resolution. The point I

want to make is that the government did not take advantage of any

number of the options and alternatives it had. Instead, it chose to

introduce into this Legislature a bill ending the lockout, preventing a

strike, imposing a collective agreement and doing it retroactively. In

terms of the first issue — the question of when does a Legislature

intervene — the Minister of Labour did not, in his introduction,

satisfy me or, I assume, other members on this side of the House that

he had exhausted every other possible remedy that might exist. Worse

than that, it appears as if he didn't even try to use any of them, much

less all of them. Between the time of the dropping of the secondary

picketing on, I believe, March 19 — I'm doing this by memory — and the

announcement of the Premier's television address, the minister didn't

meet with the parties, with one exception — to mildly correct the

Leader of the Opposition — and that was on the night of the television

address, Thursday, March 29, an hour or two before. That wasn't an

attempt to find a resolution to the dispute; it was simply to advise

the parties that at 7 o'clock that evening the Premier would be going

on television to announce that the legislation would be introduced. In

the preceding days and weeks the minister made no effort to use any of

the many options open to him. He certainly didn't use any of the four

that I've suggested, two of which are in the Code and two of which are

in practice in this province.

[4:00]

The most odious feature of the legislation is contained in

section 9, the principle that a cabinet can impose a collective

[ Page 4163 ]

agreement. On this one there is a matter of

principle that I doubt could ever find an occasion when you'd find a

reason to take a different position. This is not to argue against

compulsory arbitration, although I have argued over the years in

opposition to compulsory arbitration; I've even argued against

voluntary arbitration, but I admit to losing that argument with time.

While I wouldn't like it, the next step down for the government would

be to appoint someone to arbitrate a particular dispute. I wouldn't

have been happy with that unless every effort had been made and unless

the parties had made it clear that they would not voluntarily take that

course. That, at least, is preferable to having the cabinet set the

job at Elk Falls and the impact of that collective agreement on that

pipefitter or on the papermaker at number 5 machine? What does the

cabinet know about the implications of the contract to that particular

worker? On the other hand, what does the cabinet know about the

personnel manager's particular problems in relation to various aspects

of a collective agreement? That's why we have collective bargaining.

The parties involved do know. They sit with the knowledge of the

industry, the workplace and the specific problems faced both by the

manager and the worker. More often than not they arrive at a collective

agreement through that process of bargaining fully knowledgeable about

the workplace.

One of the problems with arbitration itself is that quite often an

arbitrator will establish a term or a condition in the contract that

neither party likes; it's not workable. Sometimes they don't like it

because they just don't like it. But often they don't like it because

it doesn't work. Sometimes, if you get a particularly good arbitrator,

you can avoid that because the arbitrator will spend enough time with

the parties to make certain he or she understands what the issues are,

and will attempt, through discussions with the parties, to arrive at

the appropriate language. The cabinet does not have time for that.

Obviously the cabinet will take advice, but from whom? It then becomes

a private process — private to the parties, because the parties aren't

upon. It may be that the recommendation to cabinet is being made by

someone the parties have a lot of confidence in, but the parties will

never know whether the full report and the full recommendations of that

particular person were included.

The parties will never know whether or not cabinet accepted in full

the proposals put to them by their advisers. They won't even

necessarily know who those advisers are. I say "necessarily, " because

in this case the obvious implication is that that would be Clark

Gilmour. It's an implication and nothing more, because that has never

been said.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've said it a thousand times.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister has never said who will come to

cabinet with the words and conditions of the collective agreement.

That's what I said. If the minister would listen.... The minister has

said that Clark Gilmour, the head of mediation services, will be a

mediator....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I will. I will.

MR. GABELMANN: Then my argument is sound, Mr. Speaker. If the

Minister of Labour is going to be the one who recommends to cabinet,

without advice....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say that.

MR. GABELMANN: I said who will your advisers be, and the minister said: "I will."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I didn't. You said: "Who will bring it to cabinet?"

MR. GABELMANN: Thirty seconds ago....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me go through this again, Mr. Speaker,

perhaps a little slower. I thought speaking in a normal voice would

enable the minister to understand, but clearly he is too thick.

What I'm trying to point out to this House, Mr. Speaker, is that to

take into account the workplace. Unless the parties are involved in

determining what those collective agreement wordings will be, they can

often be inappropriate. Then I said the cabinet is obviously going to

collective agreement will be, because if they don't take any advice,

then all of my comments are doubly true. They will have to take some

advice. Will the parties know from whom that advice is sought and

taken? Will they know that they have had full input into it? All I'm

suggesting is that they won't, because nobody knows what goes on in the

cabinet room.

I suggested that voluntary arbitration is an alternative. I don't

believe the minister asked the parties to consider voluntary

arbitration. If all of the steps that I've been outlining in my

comments and the appeal for voluntary arbitration have been rejected,

and everything has failed, then there might be some cause for

compulsory arbitration, although I would argue against it. But at least

I think the minister could make a justifiable argument. Why wasn't

that, or any of those other alternatives. chosen? Why give the

agreement to cabinet?

In my introduction I mentioned an obviously wild and unlikely

scenario, but one that's possible within and not prevented by the

agreement could include absolutely anything. It is not likely to

happen, because the government would find it had a revolution on its

hands, but the fact that cabinet would be authorized by legislation of

this kind to do that is morally, politically and ethically

reprehensible. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The minister did not explain in his introduction why it was

necessary for the legislation to contain a provision giving cabinet the

never been done in this province in the private sector. It has been

done in the public sector, prior to public service bargaining, and done

regularly. Until 1973 it was always done in the public sector, but it

has never been done in the private sector. What are private sector

unions and employers to think from here on in? That if their strike or

lockout reaches 60 days they can expect to have the terms and

conditions of their collective agreement imposed by cabinet? If that's

what they think as a result of this legislation, we are

[ Page 4164 ]

going to have so many strikes and lockouts in this

province that no one will believe it. There will always be one party

which says to itself: "Aha, if we just wait this one out, the

government will come in and bail us out, and they'll give us the terms

and conditions we like." That's what the pulp companies think in this

case. They are pretty confident they will get the kind of collective

agreement they want. Don't you think that's going to encourage other

people in the private sector to say to themselves: "Why bargain? We'll

go through the pretence, get to a certain point.... We won't give up as

much." The gulf between the parties being broad, the government would

either come in on one side or down the middle.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

All this kind of legislation will do is add to the industrial

turmoil in this province, add to the number of strikes and lockouts and

detract from the economy of this province. If the government can't see

that, then I think perhaps they should enrol in a course in industrial

relations. Anybody — on either side of the table — with a fair amount

of experience in private sector bargaining will tell them that.

The final thing I want to talk about is retroactivity. In a sense,

this is a different issue, a different debate, that I hope, quite

frankly, is taken to the courts. The paramountcy of the Legislature is,

in my view, an important principle. While the cabinet may be the

government — and it is — the cabinet does not make law. That, Mr.

Speaker, is an important distinction that should be remembered, not

only by all of us in this House but by all people in this province.

Cabinets — or the government, if you will — governs. It does not make

law; the Legislature makes the law. Friday afternoon, this morning, and

again this afternoon in his comments on this bill the Minister of

Labour talked about people violating the law. In this matter there is

no law, because the Lieutenant-Governor has not yet walked down to this

Legislature to give royal assent. It's not a proclamation bill, so

until he does that it is not law. It is law when he does that and not

before. So for the minister to talk about any violation of the "law" is

wrong. He may think that because he is the Hon. Minister of Labour — a

member of cabinet — that therefore enables him to make a law. It does

not. The mere introduction and receipt of first reading does not make a

law.

[4:15]

Earlier I talked about the principle of retroactivity. As I said

before, no one disagrees that there needs to be retroactivity on

certain tax measures. We all understand why, and nobody quarrels with

that. But in this parliament we have seen an increasing use of what I

would simply call "retroactivity" — the principle that once a bill is

introduced, it becomes the law. It can contain a provision that says

that some days ago — March 30 in this case — this bill came into force.

That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. If we parliamentarians cannot remember the

history and traditions of the British parliamentary system, which don't

allow for that kind of activity, I hope some private citizen or some

group in the community or some organization will consider having that

question pursued at the supreme court level. I think that while we may

be paramount as legislators, we do not give to a minister or his

cabinet the right to make a law. In effect, that is what the Minister

of Labour takes from this bill, because in

section 14 it contains the

date March 30. He is wrong legally and morally, and in every other way,

to tell anybody that they're in violation of the law, because it is not

the law and will not be the law until the Lieutenant-Governor comes to

this Legislature to give his consent.

Mr. Speaker, I've said enough. Just to repeat, the official

opposition is opposed to this legislation not only because of the three

principles contained in it that we find to be wrong but also on

economic grounds, because we believe that this kind of legislative

interference — when all remedies haven't been pursued — will poison the

relationships between labour and management in that industry and also

encourage other industries in the private sector in this province to

hold out, hoping that the government will bail them out.

HON. MR. McGEER: There are not too many occasions in the

lifetime of a parliament where the issues are so outstanding that the

fitness of every member to serve the public is revealed by the stand

that that member takes. That those very rare occasions come when the

public interest stands so far above whatever special interest may have

led to a crisis might dictate that there is no doubt as to where every

member should stand on that particular debate and occasion. We're in

that circumstance today, where as people representing the public there

is absolutely no doubt where our duty lies: that is, to serve the

public.

I find it rather tragic that this afternoon we heard the Leader of

the Opposition abdicating his responsibility to the public of British

Columbia, squirming through a half-hour of debate and then begging that

the Legislature postpone the vote. Then we moved on to the official

spokesman for the opposition, supported in his debate by only two

members of that party, the rest running from the chamber, as did the

Leader of the Opposition when his begging of the Legislature to

postpone the vote had failed. It says that we have an opposition so

captured by the special interests of British Columbia that when the

moment demands it, they cannot stand up for the public.

MR. HOWARD: That's a lie. An outright falsehood.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Don't ask him to withdraw. Merely place that comment on the record, because I'm going to come back to that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask all hon. members to maintain parliamentary dignity.

HON. MR. McGEER: I want to take the members back to a former

parliament, nearly ten years ago now, when the Legislature met to

consider a situation that had many parallels to what we face in British

Columbia today. I'm going to quote from one of the members of that

Legislature, because I wish to associate myself with the remarks he

made.

MR. SKELLY: Were you a Liberal then?

MR. HOWARD: He still is.

HON. MR. McGEER: What I am this afternoon is an elected representative of the public, here to serve the public.

This former member of the assembly said that no rights are absolute,

that no one has the absolute right to indulge in economic warfare that

in many cases jeopardizes the safety,

[ Page 4165 ]

health, comfort and welfare of the people of the

province. Do the members opposite disagree with those sentiments? Not a

peep out of them. They're silent. But those words were uttered by one

of their former members, Mr. Bill King, a former Minister of Labour.

We can't say what happened after those words were uttered, but we do

know this: when the test of public responsibility came and the

government of that day introduced legislation for the health, comfort,

safety and welfare of the people of the province, the then opposition,

made up of Social Credit, Liberal and Conservative members, to a member

supported that legislation. They saw that legislation pass in a single

day. Yes, there was some dissent in that time of crisis, Mr. Speaker.

That dissent came from the member who has just spoken, the member for

North Island. That member is now the designated critic of the Labour

portfolio and presumably wishes — and I take it the caucus would

endorse this — to be the Minister of Labour for the province of British

Columbia one day. You heard him this afternoon declare his unfitness

for that job, because he cannot serve the public of British Columbia;

he can only serve his union masters. That's the problem with the loyal

opposition opposite. They're not loyal to the public of British

Columbia; they're loyal to the trade union movement in British

Columbia. That's the dilemma.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment. The member for

Skeena has interjected quite inappropriately a couple of times now, and

I'll ask the hon. member to....

MR. HOWARD: Every time the minister tells a lie it needs to be brought to the attention of this House, and that's a lie.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I will now ask the hon. member

to withdraw that remark made to another hon. member of the House. The

member for Skeena will withdraw the remark, please.

MR. HOWARD: Certainly. And every time the minister stands up and says the same kind of hogwash, he'll get the same kind of answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Thank you. The minister continues.

HON. MR. McGEER: I presume, from what the member for Skeena

says, that he does not think the welfare of the people of the province

has been affected by this dispute. I would suggest that if the member

believes that, he must be in that small minority that includes the two

union leaders in British Columbia who are calling the tune for the

opposition in this province.

MR. HOWARD: You're wrong again.

HON. MR. McGEER: Why else would we have a situation where,

when the public welfare is as evident as it is today and the

Legislature is compelled to take a step which all legislators feel to

be an odious one, these people on the opposite side cannot speak for

the public of British Columbia? What kind of hold do the union leaders

of this province have over the New Democratic Party?

MR. HOWARD: None.

HON. MR. McGEER: This is a time for courage and

responsibility. Anybody who has served in high office in British

Columbia, now or in the past, recognizes that there are uncomfortable

moments. It is impossible to govern in a democracy and please all of

the people all of the time. But when the moment comes that the public

interest must be served, and those who have responsibility do not have

the backbone to serve the public, that's when they must be unmasked as

unfit to serve as legislators in British Columbia. It isn't here a

question of the leadership of the opposition. The leader's leaving.

He's leaving because on three occasions the public of British Columbia

considered him unfit to be the Premier of our province.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

HON. MR. McGEER: In 1983, 1979 and 1974. That's when he was

considered unfit to be the Premier of the province. His predecessor was

considered unfit in 1969, and his predecessor was considered unfit in

1953, 1956, 1960, 1963 and 1966. Why did the public of British Columbia

find that leader unfit on five occasions, another leader unfit on one

occasion, and yet another leader unfit on three occasions? Always, Mr.

Speaker, for the same reason: when the time comes, when the chips are

down and the public interest must be served, they were there to serve

the special interests. Mr. Speaker, as far as the New Democratic Party

is concerned, we can see it today. The union bosses are dictating how

that party should vote.

MR. HOWARD: That's another lie.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. I've already cautioned

the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) not to use that type of

language. It is quite unparliamentary. I will now ask the member for

Skeena to withdraw that last comment.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. This minister persists in saying the same thing, and he deserves the same answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we may be of contrary opinions

in this House, which is to be expected. But we cannot at any time use

language which is offensive or unparliamentary. The minister continues.

The member for Skeena is advised that any further interjections of that

unparliamentary nature will be dealt with forcefully.

[4:30]

MR. HOWARD: Well, tell McGeer to keep it true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Tell McGeer to tell it the way it is, too.

HON. MR. McGEER: You see, Mr. Speaker, what the problem is.

We recognize the dilemma of the members opposite all seeking support —

those who would be leader — from the union bosses in British Columbia.

It is a difficult time for those people who later will seek support to

say: now we must stand up for the public and not for you. That's a

[ Page 4166 ]

difficult thing to do. It does require a little bit

of courage, but that's a quality, I would submit, that is essential for

those who would lead and those who would be government. There are those

difficult decisions. There are those days when things must be done

which will not receive universal praise. That's when the test of

leadership is here. The reason this party is government today is that

the Premier meets that test of leadership. When the moment comes to

take strong action, to tell it like it is to the public of British

Columbia, there is no shirking at all. That is leadership. That's what

we had on Thursday evening, when the Premier said that we must come to

our senses in British Columbia. In effect, the damage is so extensive

that now, however much it may be against the wishes of the elected

members, is the time to take action and to bring an end to something

which has so conspicuously damaged the welfare of the people of British

Columbia. The problem is that the members opposite, while they can see

it just as clearly as any other British Columbian, are paralyzed. They

are paralyzed because of the affiliation that party has with the union

bosses in British Columbia. They are not free MLAs; they're captive.

That's the problem.

May I quote for a second time, in the hope that the members just

might reconsider and say: "If it comes to this situation or the

dictates of the union, what should I do?" This is what one of your

former MLAs said: "No rights are absolute." Do you agree with that?

MR. REID: Sure, they agree.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, they don't agree with that. They believe

some rights are absolute. I suppose the rights enshrined in the Labour

Code of British Columbia would be the ones that were absolute. No one

has the absolute right to indulge in economic warfare that in many

cases jeopardizes the safety, health, comfort and welfare of the people

of the province. Do you agree or disagree?.

MR. COCKE: It has nothing to do with this bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: Nothing to do with it? Let me give some

further quotes, then you tell me if you agree with this. This is a

quotation from a well-known British Columbian: "Morally, the pulp

pickets should not be there." Do you agree with that?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) agrees with that. "Morally, the pulp pickets shouldn't be there."

MR. SKELLY: Do you agree with it?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I agree with that. Do you?

MR. SKELLY: You're on your feet.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: He doesn't want to answer that question. Good for the member for New Westminster.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps if the minister will address the Chair, the other members will not interject.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm going to give another quote, Mr.

Speaker, to you. "Secondary picketing should be dispersed with some

common sense." Do you agree with that?

MRS. JOHNSTON: Who said that?

HON. MR. McGEER: Who said that? Jack Munro said that on the

Jack Webster program. In effect what was he saying? He was saying

common sense has gone when one union turns on another, having been out

of work, as the Premier said, in some cases for two years, and forces

those people out of work again. Their families are without income. They

are ignoring the situation of their own families, ignoring the wealth

and welfare of the people of British Columbia. What purpose did those

secondary pickets serve?

We'll never recover the lost economic opportunities, not just for

the workers who were denied their opportunity to work by this insane

move....

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the communities?

HON. MR. McGEER: The communities will never recover. The

general welfare of the province will never recover, and it's one more

bruise on the reputation of British Columbia.

We've heard this afternoon from the man who would be Labour minister

in this province — a former director of research for the B.C.

Federation of Labour, no doubt providing them with the ideas that they

have about the economy of British Columbia — telling us that it's going

to do damage to settle this dispute. I don't know how much damage needs

to be done before that member would say, "Enough." But the people of

British Columbia long ago said, "Enough." It's only enormous patience

and good will that has prevented action being taken long before it was.

The members opposite said: "Why doesn't somebody say something

against management for locking out the trade unions?" I will. I think

it was a very foolish thing to do, and I suspect there isn't a single

person on the management side who doesn't agree with that. But here the

Legislature of British Columbia is prepared to give everybody an

opportunity to end this self-inflicted wound, and what happens? The

people who were locked out said: "No, we'll go on strike." Immediately

the intention was brought forward to settle this once and for all, the

ones who are supposed to be abused immediately moved to go on strike.

Who turned not on management but on their own union members with

secondary pickets? So whatever one might say about the foolishness of

management, we've certainly seen that matched on the other side.

It's not for the members of this Legislature to try to pass judgment

on the rights or wrongs, whatever mistakes may have been made, but

instead to provide a solution — an opportunity to end the economic

haemorrhage, which does no one any good. There is absolutely no way

that the workers giving up $3,000 a month can hope to recover their

lost wages, probably in a lifetime of work. There's no way that

management can recover, in the eyes of its customers, the degree of

reliability that it may have enjoyed before this lockout took place.

But what we can do is to say that there are saner heads in British

Columbia, and those saner heads are the legislators who are elected by

the voters. They're the ones who, when common sense has departed the

people who are directly involved, must step forward and supply the

common

[ Page 4167 ]

sense and I suppose the salve to the province, so

we won't have this kind of thing happening again in the future. The

situation has not been helped by the members opposite. I would have

thought that the opposition would have been immediately responsive to

the initiative the government had taken. Perhaps the opposition might

have criticized the government and achieved some measure of respect

from the public at large if they had said: "Why did you wait so long?"

Maybe the opposition could have gained some respect, but when the

moment of truth came, what did the opposition say? The Leader of the

Opposition said: "Please adjourn the House; we're afraid to vote." What

did the Labour critic, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann),

say? He said: "You're wrong; we're against this legislation." Then he

left. You see, Mr. Speaker, when the moment of responsibility is there,

when the time comes to vote, the New Democratic Party is the same as

they have always been — unable to serve the interests of the public at

large.

It started in 1933, because the party never came to serve the

public; they came to serve the special interests. It continued in 1937,

1941, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956 and in 1960. On all those occasions

they were not there to serve the public at large, and the public knew

it. It continued in 1963, 1966 and 1969; the public knew that the NDP

was not there to serve the public at large. And then came 1972, and

they proved it. And that's why in 1975, 1979 and 1983 the public

decided that the NDP was not there to serve the public at large, but

only to serve the vested interests.

Now another opportunity has come to cast aside this history of

failure, an opportunity, with a new leader being picked, to say: "Yes,

we will for once put the public interest ahead of the vested interest

of the people we represent. We're going to represent everybody."

They've had that opportunity, and again this afternoon six leadership

candidates on the line all said: "No, we won't serve the public at

large." We know what's going to happen in 1988, 1992, 1996 and in 2000.

The people will say the same thing: "We want to stick with members who

will serve us when times of crisis come." That's why I'll be supporting

this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal first with a few

of the remarks from the previous speaker, the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications. It was with some concern that I saw him

rise in his place, because I recalled that in several decades he's the

first one ever to have introduced closure to this Legislature, and I

wondered if once again he was doing the bidding of the people to whom

he sold his soul some eight years ago.

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications....

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That

member opposite said that I was the first member ever to introduce

closure into this House, and that is incorrect. The first person ever

to do so was the leader of the CCF....

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. That is not a point of order. A member may speak....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nevertheless, a member may rise under

standing order 42 to explain a part of his own speech which may have

been misquoted by a following speaker, but that was not the case in

this instance. It is not a point of order.

MR. STUPICH: Not only is it not a point of order, but it's

not the truth. That wasn't what I said, and the minister may want to

look it up in Hansard . I was very careful about how I phrased that remark.

The second point I'd like to make with respect to his remarks is

that he said that the opposition, when we introduced the

cooling-off-period legislation, supported the NDP legislation. I'd like

to ask that particular minister whether he would have supported the NDP

legislation had that legislation included a clause to the effect that

cabinet was taking unto itself the authority to draft a settlement. I

challenge him to say he would have supported that kind of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: He would today.

MR. STUPICH: He would today, yes. It's the price of being a

cabinet minister in a Social Credit government. He'd do anything for

that. But he would not have done it when we introduced that legislation

in 1975.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Unfortunately that member has a very jaundiced opinion of political

leaders and people aspiring to political leadership, perhaps because of

his own experience. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that he sought the

leadership of a once glorious party in this province. When he talks

about the way people are prepared to sell themselves to attain

leadership, is he telling us about his own experiences, without the

details? Is he telling us that he approached many people and offered

anything for their support in his campaign for the leadership? Indeed,

he became the leader of that party. He talks about the leader of the

NDP. Did that member, as leader of the Liberal Party, offer to sell his

soul to organization after organization in the province of British

Columbia, to anyone, to buy it — for more than it was worth — if they

would give him the support he thought he needed to attain the position

of Premier in the province of British Columbia? It would seem to me

that he has a very jaundiced idea of leaders and potential leaders, and

I suggest that he has that because of his own experience as a candidate

and as leader rather than because of anything he knows about us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. You're not implying anything

untoward as far as the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) is concerned, are you?

MR. STUPICH: I'm asking questions. I'm waiting for him to answer me.

Mr. Speaker, 1984 has arrived with a vengeance in the province of

British Columbia. Big Brother is certainly on the scene. This isn't the

first example. Ever since the May 5 election, after which we were

called into session at the end of June, the budget came in on July 7,

and 26 pieces of legislation.... I've used this remark with respect to

other bills, but it is the truth. Almost every bill introduced since

the May 5 election concentrates more power in the hands of cabinet and

takes authority from the Legislature. One wonders, if this goes on

further and further, whether one day, just as was done in Hitler's Nazi

Germany, legislation will come in saying we don't need the Legislature

any more.

[ Page 4168 ]

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, help!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Each member will have his

opportunity to stand in his place and debate on this bill. Would you

please allow the member to carry on in, I hope, a responsible manner.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have been responsible. With

respect to that last remark, may I remind you that this government is

led by a man who stood up on TV calling us national socialists — by

inference, Nazis — and when he was invited by several members of the

media to say that he didn't mean to suggest that we were Nazis,

declined every invitation that was so offered to him, thereby

attempting to leave the implication that he considered us Nazis. When I

suggested in the Legislature that anyone who would do that to a

socialist party.... The socialists were the first to fight Hitler and

Mussolini. Anyone who would suggest that socialists would be a part of

that, as I said in 1976 in the Legislature, could walk upright under

the belly of a snake without any problem at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: This party and this government is led by such an

individual, so it's not going too far to suggest that he might bring in

legislation to wipe out the Legislature. We've been moving in that

direction for eight months now. We've been moving in the direction of

taking more and more power away from the Legislature and giving it to

cabinet. Of course, that's what this bill is all about. It's not about

resolving a dispute; it's about concentrating power in the hands of

cabinet.

The Minister of Labour expressed concern about labour relations in

the province of British Columbia. To the extent that they're bad, we

all have to be concerned. But I can recall, up until two years ago,

this government taking the credit for the several days lost through

disputes between labour and management, and saying that it was because

of their administration that things were going along so well in the

province. What has happened in the last two years? One of the things

that has happened is that the Socreds got re-elected. One of the things

that happened before that is that the Premier went on television and

said he was going to take more control of the situation. From then on,

labour-management relations deteriorated.

What did the Premier have to say? He said that this was the first

time the Social Credit administration has had to use such legislation

to put people back to work. I'm not going to suggest that he was

misleading the House. I don't mean that for one moment, Mr. Speaker,

but he did forget the first time. The first time was when he put the

CUPE workers back to work in the Kootenay School District dispute. I'm

sure he just forgot about that time. The thing I remember about that,

Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Labour, less than 24 hours before

bringing the legislation into the House, said that he as Minister of

Labour never would bring in that kind of legislation putting those

workers back. You'll have to look in the records, but I can remember

him assuring the public that he as Minister of Labour would not bring

in legislation forcing those workers back to work.

What changed the situation? The present Leader of the Opposition

contacted the school districts and the employees concerned. He got them

to agree to go back to work and to try to negotiate an end to the

dispute. The government had to show that it was in control, and it

brought that legislation in in a hurry.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Not me.

MR. STUPICH: Not you. No, he used to be the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

They had to politically. They wanted to show that they were in

control, that the Leader of the Opposition wasn't bringing us out of an

impossible situation. So they brought in legislation in spite of the

assurance from the then Minister of Labour that he would never do that

kind of thing. It's politics, just as this bill is politics. It's not

to deal with a situation.

The Premier made much of the argument that the legislation we

introduced went through three readings in one day, and it was dealt

with. Yes, leave was granted by the opposition all the way through.

Yes, closure was not required at any stage. There was cooperation from

the opposition, because they recognized that it was good legislation

for that particular point in time, and they supported it. I suggest

that the opposition would not have supported the kind of legislation

that we have before us today.

The Minister of Labour expressed concern that workers have chosen to

ignore the law. The argument has already been made that it isn't law

yet. It is a bill before the House. It does have an effective date. Mr.

Speaker, you will recall that several bills were introduced in last

year's session that were left to die on the order paper. It's not

beyond the realms of possibility that this one will be left to die on

the order paper. At this point in time the government is determined to

proceed with it, but that doesn't mean that even this government might

not change its mind in the next hour, the next 24 hours or whatever and

let the legislation die on the order paper. It's quite possible. It

isn't law yet, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that it does have an

effective time.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, should I listen to him or...?

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) himself has said that

this bill may never become law, that there is a possibility that it

will not become law. I welcome his support for that part of my argument.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not going to sign anything, but I am saying

that the Provincial Secretary himself is suggesting conditions which

might lead to this bill being dropped. He has suggested one, and there

may be others as well. If the Provincial Secretary and I sat down

together, between us we might come up with one or two more. In any

case, the bill is not law yet. In spite of the fact that it has an

effective date, it may never become law. We just don't know at this

point.

Workers are voting on whether or not to obey the law. I find the

timing that the government has adopted to be something more than

curious. I see the minister is frowning. The bill was introduced on

Friday for first reading. There was no time for any discussion in the

Legislature before the point in

[ Page 4169 ]

time that was designated as it being effective.

There was time, however, for the legislation to be considered by the

employers, and they did get together. I saw the chief negotiator on TV

saying that they had met and had agreed to reopen the mills. There was

time for them to meet, Mr. Speaker. They are so few in number, they

could meet in a Jacuzzi bathtub. There's no problem in getting that

kind of a group together for a meeting. But to say to 12,000 workers in

the province: "You've got 72 hours to call a meeting," they need

something bigger than a bathtub. Some of them need very large halls in

which to hold their meetings. Those halls are not sitting idly by

waiting for the government to do something so that they can call a

meeting. We didn't know it was going to be a nice day; they could have

met in the open today. But it needn't necessarily be that way. There

was time for the government to do what it wanted to do. It deliberately

wanted the time to pass before the Legislature could discuss this

legislation. It deliberately arranged it so that the employers could

sit down and talk about it and agree. And it deliberately arranged it,

I suggest, so that the employees would have no opportunity at all to

have their meetings in advance of the cutoff date, the date at which

this was going to become effective. I would welcome the minister's

response to that point.

Most of all.... Not most of all; there's one other point, which I

believe I took down the way he said it. I sincerely hope not, but

perhaps he can comment. I believe he said that he has been saying for

weeks to get back to work. If indeed that was his message, he could

have been talking only to the employers. There was never a strike. The

employees never said they wouldn't work. The ones who said there shall

be no work were the employers. Was the minister indeed saying that for

weeks he has been trying to get the employers to reopen those mills and

they decided not to, they declined, until he paid the price by bringing

in legislation that the employers themselves wanted, legislation that

would give the government — the cabinet — the authority to impose a

settlement? Is that really what he was telling us, Mr. Speaker? The

employers insisted that the government be responsible for drafting a

settlement — the contract terms — before they would reopen the mills,

and only after he agreed to draft the legislation that way did he bring

it in. There was no discussion in the House, no discussion among the

union members, only time for the employers to review the legislation

and ensure that it gave them everything they wanted.

Is that what he meant, Mr. Speaker, by saying that for weeks he's

been trying to get the employers to reopen the mills and he's finally

found a way to do it? I welcome your comment.

[5:00]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's not what I said. I said let's get back to the table.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying that he

urged them to get back to the table. I think he and I will both be very

interested in seeing Hansard when it's ready, because I'm positive that I took that down correctly. If not, I'll certainly apologize to the minister.

There is one other thing. I'm particularly impressed — or depressed

— with the crocodile tears expressed by the Minister of Labour and the

Premier about 12,000 employees who have been out of work for some eight

weeks, and about the effect on those communities. That's important. The

effect on the 12,000 employees is extremely important. Many of those

employees are in my own riding. They have been coming to my

constituency office, hoping that the government would do something to

get the mills reopened. It is a serious problem, one that I appreciate.

I appreciate all of those things. I appreciate also the loss in

government revenue. The shareholders of the company are losing as well.

There are a lot of losers and no winners in this situation. I

appreciate all of this. But those have to be crocodile tears from the

Premier who, on July 7 last year, said: "We are going to lay off 25

percent of 300,000 people working in the public sector, " That's 75,000

people, six times as many as are affected by this legislation.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: It was in the budget. The Provincial Secretary

said there are 300,000 employees working in the public sector, and the

Premier and his government, in their budget speech and in legislation,

said they were going to lay off 25 percent of them. To compound it, Mr.

Speaker, they said in the budget in February that in some branches 25

percent wasn't enough: they were going to go as high as 50 percent. Mr.

Speak