1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 15

[ Page 4627 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AND O'CONNOR CASE

G. Wilson: My question today is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. The minister acknowledges that he communicated with the Attorney General with respect to action in the O'Connor case and asked that the Attorney General take appropriate action. Could the minister tell us specifically what the appropriate action was that he requested the Attorney General to take?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have no comment on this issue, which is before the courts.

G. Wilson: Supplementary, then, to the Attorney General. With respect to the communication that the Attorney General had with the minister, would the Attorney General, first of all, acknowledge that he had such communication, and tell this House specifically what appropriate action he was requested to take by the minister?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Ordinarily I would be inclined to not make much comment about a matter which is presently before the courts. I am, however, going to attempt to answer this question, because there is a fair amount of public comment around the issue, and I think it's important that as much as possible, as much as we can say be in the public domain.

The Minister of Economic Development, in his capacity as MLA for the Cariboo-Chilcotin area, had a meeting earlier this year with many of the people involved indirectly in this particular issue. I think it was drawn to his attention that a letter had been written to me requesting that certain considerations be looked at with respect to the case.

Whenever a letter is written to me on a matter that's before the courts or under investigation, the letter is immediately, without my knowledge, referred -- I'm going to take a moment on this, hon. Speaker; I think it's important -- to the criminal justice branch. I don't see the letter; it goes directly to the criminal justice branch of the ministry. No letter was sent by the Minister of Economic Development. The only letter that exists in respect of this is the letter that came from -- and I'm not sure of the precise name of the group -- a native group in the Williams Lake area. Let me repeat again: no letter or communication came from the minister.

G. Wilson: A final supplementary, then, to the Minister of Economic Development. Will the minister tell us if he has had subsequent communication with the members of his constituency who initiated this letter? If he has, would he tell us what was communicated to them?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member.

Unfortunately, hon. member, the Chair cannot determine that that question does fall within the area of administrative responsibility of the minister.

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR

O'CONNOR CASE

A. Warnke: The question I want to put is to the Attorney General. Since his announcement, the terms of reference given to Malcolm Macaulay, the special prosecutor looking into an appeal in the O'Connor case, have been reduced, resulting from a perceived conflict of interest. Will the Attorney General consider replacing Mr. Macaulay with someone who has no perceived conflict of interest, who could look at the prospects for an appeal and who could get to the bottom of the whole Crown counsel handling of the O'Connor case?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's important for members of the House to be reminded, as I have reminded them on previous occasions on this issue, that appointments of special prosecutors are made by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the criminal justice branch. Those appointments are not made by the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General, but rather by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Macaulay to consider our position in respect of an appeal. That consideration is now underway, and I want to make no further comment about it at this time.

On the question that is an inference about what further activity may occur following the consideration of an appeal, I will have something to say about that when the appeal question is decided.

A. Warnke: A supplementary, again to the Attorney General. It's a question that the public is certainly asking. And since there seems to be some perception of the ministry being impaired in its ability to process this case, is the Attorney General satisfied that his assistant deputy ministers and Deputy Attorney General and so forth...? It seems they kept him out of the picture on the progress, or lack of it, of the O'Connor case. I'm wondering whether the Attorney General is satisfied that he has been kept abreast of the O'Connor case?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would encourage the official opposition critic to read the Crown Counsel Act. In doing so, he would recognize that the conduct of prosecutions in this province is the exclusive responsibility of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. In fact, the act goes so far as to make reference to media communications around matters relating to prosecutions being also the responsibility of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General.

[ Page 4628 ]

PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The doctors in this province have been asked to accept a package which would include a two-year freeze on their rates, then to be followed by a series of increases consistent with the growth in the economy. The doctors might be more receptive to this kind of proposition if they understood that the government was also serious about controlling public sector salary increases. Will the Premier immediately impose a two-year wage freeze on public sector salaries, and institute a compensation fairness program which would limit future increases to the average increases in the private sector?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: On the issue of the negotiations with the doctors, I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Health; I'm sure the leader of the third party understands that that is under her jurisdiction.

On the issue of the Compensation Fairness Act, I think the member is still fighting the last election, which he lost.

J. Weisgerber: Yes, an election that all British Columbians lost as well.

A supplementary, hon. Speaker. First of all, I would have expected the Premier to acknowledge that he was responsible for all of the activities of his government. It's disappointing that he chose that action. Nevertheless, this government has done absolutely nothing to control increases in government spending and in the deficit. The cuts announced by the Minister of Finance recently are nothing but a sham. Will the Premier stand up to his Minister of Finance and Minister of Labour and make his own decisions and follow through on his commitment to freeze public sector wages?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government is carrying out the election commitment we made to deal with the huge increase in expenditures that occurred during the leader of the third party's previous time in government. It seems that the leader of the third party has what's called wilful blindness. He has wiped his mind clear of the 12 and 13 percent increases the previous Social Credit government was introducing into this province every year, which were fiscally reckless and which caused the province to spend at an increase of 12 to 13 percent a year when the economy was growing at 2, 3 or 4 percent a year. Clearly we're going to make sure that those kinds of reckless days are behind us forever.

J. Weisgerber: The confusion in this House appears to be on the part of the Premier. The years of 2 and 3 percent growth in the economy didn't start until his government was elected. Will the Premier take some action to deal with the growing deficit in this province? Will he make a commitment, as he did at the B.C. Federation of Labour convention, to cap public sector wages?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Not only does the leader of the third party question the wisdom of the voters in the last election.... The voters make that decision. It's up to the voters to decide who will be in this Legislature. It's not up to the leader of the third party to second-guess the citizens of British Columbia.

I can tell you that we are going to carry out our commitment, which is to make sure that jobs are the major focus of this government. People have to understand that there's only so much money -- unlike the previous government, which threw money around recklessly in trying to get re-elected -- that our taxpayers can afford. I sent the message loud and clear not just to the doctors, but to the B.C. Federation of Labour and the business leaders of this province, that our citizens want us to spend smarter -- not more, as under Social Credit.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

J. Tyabji: My question is for the Minister of Women's Equality. Today we saw that she is planning to bring in new quotas with regard to hiring practices for civil servants.

Hon. Speaker, the top NDP political appointments are Marc Eliesen at $195,000; Wilson Parasiuk at $155,000; Stan Lanyon, Bob Williams, Tom Gunton, Richard Gathercole, John Pollard, John Walsh, Evan Lloyd and Ron Johnson. There's a startling similarity in the top-money political patronage appointments of the NDP.

My question to the Minister of Women's Equality is: why is there a double standard? Why does the civil service have to stick to quotas, when the NDP political pork-barrel doesn't? All these top appointments are the same.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think that this government's commitment to employment equity has been stated clearly and consistently. It's a priority that we identified in opposition, and it has been there from the beginning of our term. I would suggest that the hon. member has not been correctly tracking the number of appointments in government, because there is an increase. If you look at women in upper management positions in government, there is an increase in all but one of the senior management levels. So I think that the hon. member ought to do more thorough research in that respect.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, again, the question I have to the Minister of Women's Equality is with regard to the quotas that are going to be introduced in the civil service. We have reports that over 37,000 people could be affected by this. Would the minister please state for the House whether this is going to be a move for equality of opportunity or an introduction of a new form of discrimination?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think that for people who have researched and read the experiences of employment equity across North America -- across the United States and Canada -- employment equity is about ending discrimination; it is not about discrimination. We have a

[ Page 4629 ]

committee with representation from government and unions for our government, because we have a public service initiative to have unions and government working together towards producing a workable policy and practice for this government. It's important that we have included unions in developing employment equity practices, and we've got the foundation of this government's commitment and the unions' commitment to do that. It is about hiring qualified people to do the job, and it's about ending the discrimination and barriers that people have historically faced in this province in working with government.

Ministerial Statement

LABOUR DISPUTES IN COAL INDUSTRY

Hon. M. Sihota: For some time now the government has been concerned about developments in and the plight of the coal industry here in British Columbia. Significant structural changes have occurred in the industry at Quintette, at Byron Creek and at Line Creek. More recently, major efforts have been made by government in conjunction with the private sector to stabilize the ownership of the Balmer and Greenhills mines.

These changes are largely completed, and my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has completed a trade mission to Japan and Korea to promote our coal and to assure our customers of our reliability as a supplier in the years ahead. With markets secured and production revived, the economy of the province will be improved and our attention can be focused on specific problems within the industry.

However, two labour relations issues demand our attention. The first is in Elkford where the dispute between Fording Coal and the United Steelworkers of America has now entered its eighth month. Last week I met with the parties involved in that dispute and advised them of our concern over their inability to resolve their differences. I wish to advise the House today that both parties have agreed to put final positions before Mr. Vince Ready, a mediator skilled in these areas. I've asked Mr. Ready to provide the parties with his recommendations for resolution of the dispute within the next two weeks.

This government expects that both parties will give Mr. Ready's recommendations serious and positive consideration. I therefore urge the employer and the trade union to examine Mr. Ready's proposals completely and comprehensively, with a view to resolving a dispute that has gone on for far too long.

Hon. Speaker, the second issue concerns the Greenhills mine, recently purchased by Fording Coal Ltd. Since the acquisition of the mine, Fording Coal Ltd. has commenced advertising for jobs formerly held by members of the Greenhills Workers' Association. Because Fording has advertised vacancies in Alberta and British Columbia, workers who were formerly employed by Greenhills fear that they will not be provided employment at the mine when it reopens. Many of those workers have considerable seniority. Those workers and their families have invested their lives in the mine and in the communities in which they live.

Fording is well aware of the provisions of Bill 19. Bill 19 allows a collective agreement to lapse once an operation is bankrupt. Under Bill 19, therefore, Fording is not obliged to respect the seniority of those previously employed at Greenhills and is not obliged to offer employment to those workers. Because of Fording's decision to advertise vacancies in Alberta, and because of the provisions of Bill 19, former employees and their families are properly concerned that they may not be rehired. This government is deeply concerned over the tensions that are evident in the Elk Valley today and the potential for violence should Bill 19 be used to avoid collective bargaining responsibilities.

Bill 84 prevents an employer from using bankruptcy as a method to avoid obligations to workers who have a stake in the mine and its future. The current actions of Fording are therefore at odds with the intent of the new labour code, and especially its requirement that a new owner honour seniority rights and conduct its hiring to give preference to those workers who have served the mine the longest. The best way to minimize potential violence is for Fording to respect the contribution of those employees and their families.

As this government has made clear on many occasions, business must pay its fair share of taxes, maintain a clean environment and treat its employees with respect and fairness. The proposed bypassing of the employees' representative shows neither fairness nor respect. We have therefore expressed to Fording management that they should now deal with former employees in a fashion that is consistent with the intent of the new labour code.

Today I am asking Mr. Brian Foley, chair of the disputes resolution division of the Industrial Relations Council, to convene a meeting with the Greenhills Workers' Association and Fording Coal Ltd. as soon as possible. This vital dialogue is necessary for labour relations to be developed in a harmonious way and to allow for the mine to reopen in a speedy and positive fashion.

G. Farrell-Collins: In response to the ministerial statement by the Minister of Labour, I have a few fairly basic comments. The first is that I am relieved that the minister has finally taken some action in this area. Given that the opposition has been asking these questions for some months, and given that this dispute has gone on for seven months, I think it is well beyond the time that the minister should have become involved in trying to settle this dispute. It's good that it's finally happening.

My only question with regard to timing is that perhaps the minister wanted to see his labour legislation through before he took action in the Greenhills area, rather than have the labour legislation that is already in place. I am a little skeptical. I am curious as to the intent of the timing -- the length of time it has taken the minister to finally come to some intervention in this dispute. Seven months is far too long for the people of Elk Valley. If they look at it carefully and see what the minister has and has not done for the past

[ Page 4630 ]

seven months, perhaps they will also be a little skeptical of these new announcements today.

With regard to the provisions of successorship, which the minister brought up in the second part of his ministerial statement, it's also important for the minister to take note that Bill 84 has not passed, despite the minister's wishes to the contrary. I would advise him not to anticipate the legislation by imposing limits on what's taking place at Greenhills. Once this bill has passed, he can act on that.

[2:30]

J. Weisgerber: The Minister of Labour deliberately overlooks the issue that is most important in this case. Had it not been for Bill 84, the Jim Pattison Group and, later, Luscar would already have resolved this issue. If there is a problem -- and perhaps there is at Greenhills -- it's because of Bill 84, not in spite of it. The minister cleverly tries to portray Bill 19 as the villain here, but the reality is that the problem is with his own legislation. We saw and heard, on the tabling of Bill 84, the Jim Pattison Group announce that they were no longer interested in Greenhills.

We know also that, had Bill 84 passed, there is every likelihood that the union in place at Fording's other operations would have been imposed on the workers at Greenhills, rather than their association continuing to function. What we have here is a little bit of rather transparent damage control by the minister, because I believe, first of all, that Fording is here now only because the government has already scared away two buyers. I also have confidence that Fording will look at the issues at Greenhills, deal with them in a responsible way and consider the interests of the employees.

Hopefully, they will not see their futures dashed because of the implementation of Bill 84, which is the villain in the Greenhills issue.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY REORGANIZATION

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A question regarding reorganization of my ministry was raised by the member for Surrey-White Rock and taken on notice last week. First, the hon. member referred to the elimination of 22 government agents. The reality is that 17 deputy government agent positions are being eliminated. These positions will be filled by regional development officers. The member suggests that the 50 FTEs now being placed in the regions are new positions. What we have done is combine the existing 16 regional staff positions with the 17 deputy government agent slots and move 17 more staff positions from Victoria, for a net total of 50 staff in the regions.

The restructuring has reduced overall salary expenditures for the ministry by $500,000, while at the same time it will inject $1.3 million in salary and office expenditures into the regions. The restructuring of the regional division will transfer resources and staff to where they're needed most -- in the regions -- and it will result in a ministry better suited to the new mandate of investment promotion, trade and economic policy development and regional community economic development.

With respect to the appointments, 75 percent of the positions in the ministry will be filled by current ministry employees. The remaining 25 percent are being filled by the traditional public service process, which the member knows does not allow patronage appointments. All positions to be filled were posted according to the government personnel services division procedures and policies, pursuant to the Public Service Act.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the report of payments made under the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, in accordance with

section 15(2) of that act.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'd ask leave to table the interim report of the Korbin Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service and Public Sector.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

(continued)

The House in committee; E. Barnes in the chair.

Sections 69 to 71 inclusive approved.

section 72.

G. Farrell-Collins: I imagine that we shall be spending some time on this section, given its contentious nature. I would say that the essential services provision, which is the

section we're dealing with, has caused a high level of concern among the public. It has certainly been one of the issues that we would call contentious.

As many people know -- and certainly the Minister knows -- there have been some changes to the old act. In fact, the minister has, particularly, removed a number of things from the bill. Where it used to say that essential services were those that included risks to health, safety, welfare and education and an economic threat to the province, the government has now removed education as an essential service and a potential economic threat as a reason to establish an essential service. Without going into too much discussion, perhaps we could invite the minister to explain the rationale for the decision to remove those two provisions and explain his reasoning for doing so.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is right: the government made some changes with regard to the bill, particularly with matters relating to public interest. My argument could be that it is in the public interest. In that regard the government simply took the advice of the panel, which was unanimous, and decided essential

[ Page 4631 ]

services should be limited to matters that threaten the health, safety and welfare of citizens. The references to education services and economic threats to the province in the Industrial Relations Act have been deleted. That was a policy decision made by government, feeling that the appropriate words -- "health, safety or welfare" -- are broad enough to capture the intent of the section.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess it's getting a little tiring to hear the same argument all the time.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I see the peanut gallery off to my left is in full force today.

The argument that the minister brings forward with regard to

section 72 is one that he has brought forward numerous times, certainly in this House in debate and in the media. Because a representative from big business, a representative from big labour and a mediator came to some conclusions, in this case a unanimous conclusion, that's the only reason he needed to change the legislation. I hate to remind the minister for about the fiftieth time that in fact his obligations go beyond that of big business and big labour, but rest with the community as a whole. I think the determination of levels of essential services is particularly the area in which the minister's concern for the public interest should come to the fore.

There are numerous cases where we have had problems in the province. We have had strikes and work disruptions where even the minimal levels of essential service that were allowed under the previous legislation were not sufficient -- as the public perceived, anyway -- to deal with people at a comfortable level.

I notice the minister is calling upon his back-bench friends to get involved in the debate, so perhaps I should take my seat and listen to the comments from the member for Mission-Kent.

Hon. M. Sihota: I wasn't doing that.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the hand signals have changed, much like they do in a baseball game, but that was certainly the same hand signal we have seen throughout this debate that calls on the member for Mission-Kent to engage in the debate so the minister can leave the room.

section 72, perhaps I can ask some practical questions of the minister which are based upon comments that I have heard by the public and that I am sure the minister has heard in the last year or so that he has been in office. As far as health care goes, which is one of the instances in here, the level of essential service in the minds of the public was not sufficient, and I know that is one instance.

Perhaps the minister can explain how it is that when the general public seems to feel that there should be a greater level of essential services, the minister is reducing the scope of essential services, contrary to public opinion.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's interesting that the hon. member would say that the scope has been reduced. Quite frankly, if you read the section, you could argue that the scope has been broadened.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that the minister will be making that argument. I will argue that it has been lessened, and the minister can argue that it has been broadened, and we'll let the public decide. If he chooses not to engage in that discussion, then I guess my job will be that much easier.

Section 72, as we know, removed the wording whereby education was included as an essential service. I know that the minister has stated in the House a number of times that the provision was never used. Perhaps the minister can explain why he feels it needs to be removed. Is it merely because it has not been used over the last several years, and that he foresees no need to utilize it in the future? Or is there some other reason that the

section has been removed?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not going to argue whether the

section has been broadened or limited. What I am going to argue is this: the Labour Relations Board will have the ability to make determinations as to how they interpret the provisions of this section. They will, on their own, decide which issues fall within the ambit of health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia, and we will leave it up to them to make that determination. Far be it from me in this House to give them some direction. For all the reasons that I am hesitant to give them that direction, the hon. member should be prepared to see how the board handles the issue.

I don't think the public interest is served by him making arguments that it has been narrowed until such time as the matter has been dealt with by the board. If he wants to come back next year in estimates and argue that this has been narrowed, he might be in a better position to make the argument.

I don't know how the board is going to look at the issue, and we will be watching with great interest. Let's not forget that access to the test has been made easier. Either party can ask the Labour Relations Board for a determination. Educational authorities can make the case that their situation is captured by 72, and the minister can direct, on his own initiative, consideration of

section 72. So, hon. member, your thesis may or may not be true, but I think that you should respect the right of the Labour Relations Board to make its own determination as to how it reads that

section and how it treats cases that come before it.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says far be it from him to provide any direction to the Labour Relations Board as to how this

section should be interpreted. I would say, by the very amendments the minister has made, that he has given direction to the Labour Relations Board. He has stated quite clearly that no longer, in his mind and in the mind of his government, is education considered an essential service in this province, and that under this government, under this minister, there should not be any provisions

[ Page 4632 ]

for a minimal level of service as it relates to essential services.

[2:45]

We have had this debate with regard to schools, and it has raged on for some time. We had in

section 68 -- well, back even further in

section 6 as far as unfair labour practices are concerned.... It extended right up into

section 68, where we talked about levels of essential services in order to ensure that students could get home safely in the event of sudden job action. The minister said that we could discuss that in

section 72. Now we're in

section 72, and the minister says: "We'll let the Labour Relations Board take responsibility for that."

My questions are: when is the Minister of Labour going to take responsibility for any of this stuff? When is the Minister of Labour going to stand up and speak in the public interest? When is the Minister of Labour finally, after going through 72 sections, going to stand up and answer to the public and to the parents in this province about levels of essential services in schools? How much longer do we have to wait? Do we have to go all the way to

section 176? Or are we going to wait until estimates, as the minister says now, or until estimates a year from now, or two or three years from now? What is the minister going to do? In this legislation, how is the minister taking the concerns of the principals and vice-principals, school trustees, superintendents and parents of this province with regard to the children and their safety and security?

The minister may say that that's included in here -- for safety and health and welfare. Perhaps, then, the minister can stand up and for once give some clear direction to the Labour Relations Board by stating that in his mind the intent behind his government -- including health, safety and welfare in this bill -- is to include under the

section on safety that it is the duty and the obligation of those professionals to deal with the students to ensure that they get home safely or that they are supervised in the classrooms. Why can't the minister make that minute, clear statement to the general public to give some direction to the Labour Relations Board as to what this actually means?

I know the minister is very leery about giving direction to the Labour Relations Board, but in this instance, after going through this type of a debate in at least three other sections, why can't the minister give some clear direction as to what he means when he's dealing with safety? Does that include the supervision of students in the event of sudden job action, and does it include getting those children home in the event of sudden job action? Is that what he is intending to be included when he uses the word "safety"?

D. Streifel: Within the framework of essential services, and indeed within the framework of labour legislation in the province of British Columbia, I think the direction since 1984 has been for continuous, ongoing and deeper involvement of the government, per se

-- or the minister or the philosophy of a particular government -- with injections into the direction and the decisions made by a labour board. It becomes increasingly difficult to have consistent and rational labour legislation and the application of labour legislation when it's done on the whim of a particular minister or, indeed, on the whim of a particular Premier of a province. That's what we saw with the continued erosion since 1984 of the labour relations atmosphere in British Columbia, and it culminated in Bill 19.

We heard earlier today from the Labour critic in response to the coal mining situation in the Kootenays, where it would appear that the opposition would feel much freer if those workers indeed lost their jobs and their seniority because of the application of unfair labour legislation under Bill 19.

In Bill 84, particularly in

section 72, essential services, we have a situation whereby the decisions are made by the labour board -- as they should be. If there are particular times when the board is having difficulties, or an area where the minister sees that there may be a problem with essential services, the minister has the ability under this

section to initiate applications of essential services. But it must be limited. We have within this

section on essential services a provision whereby if the parties have difficulties, if collective bargaining breaks down and a labour dispute or strike happens, the parties can apply for a mediator to help determine the levels and application of essential services -- and that's as it should be. It should be kept within the realm of the quasi-legal body to determine how labour law is applied in British Columbia. To constantly interject the philosophy of one or two individuals is wrong, just as it would be wrong for the Attorney General to constantly interject his own particular bias into criminal or civil law in British Columbia.

So as we see within labour legislation, it's very important that the determination of such things as essential services and how labour legislation is applied should grow within the legislation and should be adjudicated by the labour body itself, the Labour Relations Board. Without that, we end up with chaos. We end up like we did under Bill 19 where nobody wanted to work within a set of labour laws that was not workable, that clearly was not fair, as we saw earlier today in the application of one

section of that labour law in the coal-mines. It was a particular political philosophy that brought out that one

section in that old labour legislation.

section 72 of Bill 84 we have seen again where the decision-making process is left up to the Labour Relations Board when it's reformed after this legislation.

G. Farrell-Collins: I understand my hand signals weren't confused after all. In fact, the minister has left, and a backbencher is engaged in the debate. That's fine, hon. Chair, because quite often the level of debate is better when the minister is not here.

The member rose and perhaps put some words in my mouth that weren't there earlier today in response to the statement brought forward by the minister. This member was merely enlightening the minister on the fact that Bill 84 had not become law -- certainly had not become law as the minister was speaking and is not likely to become law for a little while yet -- and that the minister should be cautioned against pre-empting or

[ Page 4633 ]

planning ahead for the implementation of Bill 84 and entering into processes that are not yet allowed by law. That was the only caution that was afforded to the minister. Certainly to state that somehow the opposition was in favour of workers being treated unfairly is not the case.

The member talked a bit about his leeriness in allowing the minister to become involved in disputes, and that the opposition had been pushing numerous times for the minister to become involved in this bill and give all sorts of directions to the Labour Relations Board. My understanding of the way the process works is that the minister gives the direction to the Labour Relations Board through the legislation that he puts in place, and through comments that he makes in this House. That is the direction he intends to pass on to the Labour Relations Board.

The member who just spoke stated that in his opinion and in the opinion of his government, it's not in the best interests of the public to have the minister involved in all sorts of aspects of the labour relations code in the province, and that premiers or Labour ministers should not have their opinions or their personal involvement in the code. He used the parallel of the Attorney General. That's probably not a very good parallel, because the Attorney General is accorded a good deal of autonomy -- and, in fact, should be -- in order to ensure confidence in the judicial process in the province.

The minister should read his own bill -- especially the sections that are upcoming, if he hasn't had a chance to read that far in the legislation that we've been debating for the past seven or eight weeks. If the minister did read the bill, he would find numerous instances in Bill 84 where the powers of the minister have been made that much greater, and where the minister can become involved that much easier or to a greater extent in the running of labour relations in this province. Perhaps the member is a little uninformed about his own legislation which his government is bringing forward.

I would also ask the member, before he engages too much in a debate on essential services, to look at the provisions that were recently brought in in Ontario and the provisions that have been in place in Quebec for some time, as they relate to essential services and the levels of essential services. If he does so, I think he will find that those two governments have been much clearer to the various semi-judicial bodies that administer labour relations in those two provinces.

Given the vagueness of what he's trying to bring in with this code, we would like to hear from the minister some sense of what's included in that. Let's get a little more specific than what's already there, because there are some very specific concerns out there in the public. We certainly have heard them, and I'm sure the minister must have heard them. He has been doing talk shows and media interviews; I'm sure he has had calls from people. I'm sure he gets messages passed to him in his office -- at least, I hope so.

The minister has had similar amounts of mail that we have certainly had from the general public -- not people who own a business or who are members of trade unions, but just the general public.

I think that

section 72 is, of all the sections in the bill, the one that most importantly deals with the interests of the public. I would ask the minister to stand up and clarify for this House what exactly he intends to include in essential services. What does the government intend to include when they talk about essential services?

Hon. M. Sihota: It is the feeling of the government that essential services should be provided as services which are truly essential, and that those services should be available on an ongoing basis. Therefore we've chosen to develop the language of health, safety and welfare. A long-term dispute involving education may have an impact on the welfare of the province, but that is something the board would have to determine. The way the board would determine that is if the parties make an application, and they can make that application.

I'm not going to prejudge a situation to determine whether or not education is covered. It would be wrong for me to do that. I will simply say this: that determination will be made by the board. Therefore, given the definition here, we see no need to include education, which the hon. member should know was never a matter that triggered an essential services designation in the past.

I think that it's wrong for the hon. member to engage in unnecessary fearmongering, which is what we're seeing from the opposition as it desperately tries to undermine a very good

section in the code. I will not fetter the discretion of the board, and I would not expect the board to rely on the statements I've made in the House with regard to scope as an interpretive tool in any way. It will make its own determinations, hon. member, as it properly should; and government, as it properly should, will watch how developments occur.

I want the hon. member to know that in response to the questions where he asks me to interpret the section, I will not be interpreting the section. I will leave that job to the body with the authority to do so -- the Labour Relations Board. I will only deal with questions that fall outside the ambit of that point.

D. Streifel: I feel I must respond to a couple of comments made by the opposition Labour critic. Again, he seems to be unaware of not only labour legislation and jurisprudence, but also how the House works.

Interjection.

D. Streifel: He made comments and asked me questions. If I were to respond directly in answer to one of the opposition critic's questions, it would be a violation of the standing orders.

[3:00]

I'd like to comment from my experience within the trade union movement and jurisprudence on how labour legislation is interpreted within Canada.

Interjection.

[ Page 4634 ]

D. Streifel: If the hon. Labour critic would sit in silence and listen to my words of wisdom, he may in fact have something intelligent to say later on.

Within the labour movement and labour law in Canada, precedent for a labour board to make a decision isn't only grown and cultured within the boundaries of their own province. In fact, they often reach far beyond their province. In order to help make a decision on a clause or

section of a labour code that may have to do with strikes, essential services or collective bargaining, in some instances a labour board may go far beyond the jurisdiction of the province, even internationally when necessary. In some arbitrations I have conducted on my own, I have used decisions that came out of the Quebec labour relations atmosphere. I found them to be very good, sensible and supportive of workers' rights. I stand to share that with the hon. Labour critic so he may leave this House at one point a little more educated on labour relations matters.

G. Farrell-Collins: Last week we had the member singing "Solidarity Forever" in the House. I thought he was going to get into his little speech: "Strikes I've Known and Loved Since 1917."

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: He has started on it. Maybe he should get up and give us a little bit of a litany of them, like he has done in the past.

It's interesting that the member brought up the process by which a Labour Relations Board makes its decisions, because as any judicial or semi-judicial body, of course they have the ability to go outside their own jurisdiction and extend their probing on relevant matters, not just outside the province or the country but right around the world. They have the ability to look at other scenarios and use good decisions made elsewhere to make determinations here. Any judicial or semi-judicial body has that ability. I don't think he's enlightening anybody by providing us with that information.

Seeing as the member brought up the process of essential services and made mention of the province of Quebec, I wonder if the member, being so pleased with the Quebec legislation, would also like to have amendments introduced that would include the level of essential services, as they appear in Quebec, which deals with provisions for essential services in municipal, corporate and intermunicipal agencies.

Essential services -- here we go: "Telephone service; fixed-schedule, land-transport services, such as railways or a subway; or a transport service carried out by bus or by boat." Would the member like to see that type of legislation in this House? Maybe he would. He's speaking in favour of the process brought in in Quebec and how it relates to

section 72. If the member is going to quote outside legislation and speak highly of it, it's important that he also include portions of that legislation that may not support his argument.

We deal with other ones. For example, the undertaking engaged in the production, transmission, distribution or sale of gas, water or electricity. I had a call about an hour ago from a gentleman whose client has a gas company in British Columbia. He's concerned about a strike that may or may not occur in the near future. His client would have to shut that facility down. They wouldn't be able to continue to operate it, because the level of management would be minimal. It's not an essential service. It's not in another

section of 72 dealing with economic threats, which we'll probably be dealing with momentarily. Is the supply of gas an economic threat to the province? I suppose it could be. If you have plants, factories, heating facilities and all sorts of industries that rely on natural gas, then the lack of supply of natural gas would certainly be considered an economic threat. They made provisions for that in Quebec very clearly -- not some vague wording of "health, safety or welfare" but very specific wording.

It states that anyone engaged in the production, transmission, distribution or sale of gas, water or electricity may have a level of essential services designated. They have given some very clear directions to their parallel of our Labour Relations Board. That's the type of legislation we need -- something a little more specific than the minister brought forward.

There are a couple of other things in Quebec. Home garbage removal is considered an essential service. I wonder if the member for Mission-Kent would be able to stand up and speak in favour of that. Ambulance service, the Canadian Red Cross -- an agency that.... It goes on to mention the schools and a few other ones with regard to the Public Service Act. Essentially, if you are involved with the public service in Quebec, you stand the chance of being designated an essential service in order to establish some level of essential services in the event of work stoppages.

When the member speaks of essential services in Quebec, perhaps he should read their labour code and speak to what's in there and how it relates to Bill 84.

As we debate this

section over the next several hours or so -- certainly into this evening -- we'll deal with various provisions of essential services. The two areas of concern are going to be education and economic threat, because those are certainly the ones that the minister made changes to in this bill. Does the minister not think that it would have been in the public's best interest to have brought in amendments that state quite clearly what is and isn't included in the essential services designation, much as they've done in Quebec and other jurisdictions?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, that hasn't been the practice in B.C.

G. Farrell-Collins: The other aspect that I wish to discuss is a provision that the minister removed from the bill -- that is, the reference to an economic threat. There was the example I gave just a moment ago with regard to the gas corporation and the supply of gas. That was a concern of one person who had called.

Is it not, then, in the interests of other businesses and organizations in this province to have some provision for an economic threat? Certainly when there is an economic threat to the province, if a strike were to extend beyond the confines of a certain area -- not because of secondary picketing but just because of a

[ Page 4635 ]

work stoppage in one sector -- and cause disruption throughout the economy, would it not be prudent for the government to have a provision that would set that up as an essential service, so that there would not be widespread disruption throughout the economy because of a dispute in one area?

With that, hon. Chair, I would move the two amendments -- I can move them at the same time if you so wish -- that stand in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 72(1) If a dispute arises after collective bargaining has commenced, either of the parties to the dispute may apply to the chair to investigate or the chair on his or her own motion may investigate whether or not the dispute poses a threat to the economy of the Province or to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia and report the results of the investigation to the minister.]

[SECTION 72(2) If the minister

(

a) after receiving a report of the chair respecting a dispute, or

(

b) on the minister's own initiative

considers that a dispute poses a threat to the economy of the Province or the health, safety and welfare of the residents of British Columbia, the minister may direct the board to designate as services those facilities, productions and services that the board considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious danger to the economy of the Province or to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia.]

On the amendments.

G. Farrell-Collins: The changes to

section 72 that we are proposing with the amendments on the order paper deal with that very issue of an economic threat. Certainly the amendment to subsection (2) would allow the chair of the board and, in this case, the minister himself or herself -- in the event that this minister doesn't continue in his portfolio throughout the mandate or in future governments -- to establish levels of essential service, not only for health, safety and welfare but also as they apply to an economic threat.

It's really interesting to note that under

section 72(2)(

b) of Bill 84, the minister himself or herself -- this particular minister

-- can make those changes with regard to essential services and can suggest that a level of essential service be established. It's interesting that the minister would seek to have his involvement in this capacity under Bill 84. It's also interesting that the member for Mission-Kent didn't pick up on that when he spoke about not having the minister involved. In fact, his own government's bill puts the onus squarely on the shoulders of the minister, in some cases, to deal with whether or not there is a need for essential services.

I would say to the minister that by putting in a provision for an economic threat to the province, in fact we're broadening the scope of the level of essential services and providing for the best possible

interpretation of this

section as it relates to the public interest.

J. Tyabji: We would like to hear what the minister has to say with regard to the addition to

section 72 by way of the amendment, particularly because the people of the province are obviously very interested in the essential services section. We know that the minister has repeatedly stated in the House that he has a commitment to good labour relations. The opposition feels very strongly that one of the ways by which you maintain good labour relations is to ensure that the definition of essential services is tightened up enough so that there isn't a general anxiety among the public -- whether that be labour unrest in the public sector or private sector -- and people are properly provided for.

We have canvassed the same concept in different sections of the bill. The minister must recognize that it is very important for this bill to have the essential services section. The minister himself must have some commitment to essential services. The mechanism for designating that something be deemed an essential service, which the minister keeps referring to, is activated by the minister. So if the mechanism to designate essential services is activated by the minister, the minister's own discretion as to what constitutes an immediate and serious threat or danger obviously comes into play.

We have here "health, safety or welfare" being listed, and we know that ultimately it's going to be the nature of the chair to make a recommendation. But the fact that we've put "threat to the economy".... For example, "welfare" might in a very general sense encompass a threat to the economy of the province. The minister may wish to argue that the economy of the province is provided for by saying: "...welfare of the residents of British Columbia...." If that is the case, please share that with the House.

If the minister honestly believes that essential services with regard to the functioning of the economy or a threat to the economy of the province are provided for by the word "welfare" in this

section of the bill, I would urge him to share that with the House, because that is a very important piece of this legislation for us to have an understanding of.

If he does not believe that "welfare of the residents" adequately addresses the issue of threat to the economy, could he also share that with the House? Because if the minister doesn't believe that a threat to the economy can be deemed an essential service, I believe that it is his obligation as the Minister of Labour to share that with the province. I don't believe that this minister consistently referring to either the consensus report or the Labour Relations Board or the chair as an adequate means for determining the

definitions in the legislation is a valid argument or a valid way of dealing with it. So the two questions are: first of all, does the minister believe that "welfare of the residents" adequately addresses threat to the economy? And if he does, could he share that with us? If he does not, could he then explain to us why he does not believe that a threat to the economy constitutes an essential service?

Hon. M. Sihota: The board determines whether or not the word "welfare" goes that far. Secondly, I should advise the hon. member that the words "threat to the economy" were never relied upon in the previous legislation, and proved to be superfluous.

[3:15]

[ Page 4636 ]

J. Tyabji: This minister is well aware that there are often provisions in bills that don't get activated. It doesn't mean that they're superfluous; it just means that the situation hasn't arisen yet, but may arise in the future.

I would like to share with the minister his own bill, 72(2)(b). This is the part where we believe that the minister should be on record with regard to his

interpretation.

"If the minister

(

b) on the minister's own initiative

considers that a dispute poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia, the minister may direct the board to designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services that the board considers necessary or essential...."

So we know it's the minister, "on the minister's own initiative," making a direction to the board to designate. So it is not enough for the minister to stand up and say that it is up to the board or the chair. This is why the opposition will ask again whether the minister would share with the House: first of all, if this minister were faced with a labour unrest situation where this minister felt that a threat to the economy was on the horizon, would this minister consider that enough of an essential service to be canvassed under the welfare part of this section?

If not, would he then go to the board with a recommendation to designate that threat to the economy as an essential service? And how would he do that if it's not canvassed under welfare?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, if you just pause and read the section, you'll see that I may have the power, through 72(2)(b), to determine that something may pose "a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia," but it's up to the board to determine whether or not any essential services should be designated.

J. Tyabji: I will repeat my question, in case the minister missed the point. He is agreeing with me that if this minister considers that there is a threat to health, safety or welfare, he may direct the board. So my question to the minister is: if he saw a threat to the economy, would he direct the board? And if he did, where is it canvassed under health, safety or welfare? Does this minister believe that the welfare provisions of

section 72(2)(

b) address a threat to the economy? If he does not, does he believe that the threat to the economy does not need to be addressed? It's a simple question. It is the minister who has admitted that it's his responsibility.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's up to the minister to determine whether or not a dispute poses a threat, but it's up to the board to determine whether or not there's anything there that should be designated as essential -- if you see the distinction. It's an important one. If your question is about what situations I would deem to be appropriate to determine that they pose a threat, as opposed to which situation I would deem to designate, then if it's the first -- the threat -- I'd make those determinations based on the facts that were before me at the time they were before me.

J. Tyabji: I almost sense there might be a little bit of movement on the part of the minister to admit that he does have culpability and that his judgment does come into play in terms of determining what a threat is. That's how the bill reads.

As per the comments of the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove to the minister with regard, for example, to some kind of labour unrest that prevented something as essential to the functioning of the economy as gas -- in a scenario like that -- would this minister consider that threat to the economy to be provided for in terms of health, safety or welfare? Would he believe that that type of dispute poses a threat, as the bill is written here, because that is a direct threat to the economy?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll deal with the fact patterns as they present themselves to me. I'm not going to deal with hypotheticals. You know that, hon. member. I've said that to you repeatedly in this House. Whether it does or doesn't, whether it might or might not will be a determination we make at the time the issue is before us.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I can ask the question in simpler terms. The minister stated that he felt an economic threat to the province was a superfluous provision in the bill, and therefore he has taken it out. Does he think that that's the case because, in fact, an economic threat to the province is included under what he considers to be the word "welfare"? When he sees "welfare," does he assume that it includes an economic threat to the province? Is that, in fact, economic welfare? What does he mean when he puts the word welfare in there?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll mean what I mean when I interpret the section, when I need to interpret the section, when an issue is before me, hon. member. I'm not going to do it in advance. You know that; you know I can't, and you know I won't.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps what we should be asking ourselves, and probably what the public is asking themselves right now, is: why are the rules of this House such that they allow for committee debate on a bill when the minister has absolutely no intention of addressing the concerns or the line-by-line, clause-by-clause wording that's in the bill? Why are we even bothering to do this? What's the point?

It's quite clear that the minister has chosen three very specific words -- "health, safety and welfare" -- and in his mind they include all the necessary cases where the minister or the board may have to establish through the process some level of essential services. What we are asking the minister is: does welfare include an economic threat to the province -- period?

Hon. M. Sihota: We will make that determination when the fact pattern presents itself in front of us --

[ Page 4637 ]

wherein we may have to make that determination, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's extremely frustrating that the minister would even bother to bring this piece of legislation before the House if he's unwilling to comment on its content. We must look very carefully at this bill. We must look very carefully at this

section and at the wording that exists in this

section in order to determine whether this

section is adequate to account for all of those provisions which may occur in the day-to-day operations of the economy of this province, and to ensure a level of essential service. All we are asking the minister is that he clearly state to this House what is included in those three words. He brings forth these words, puts them down in a bill and says: "Trust me. I'll interpret them when the time comes." The duty of this House is to determine whether those words are sufficient.

Do those words, in fact, account for all possible cases that we can possibly conceive of in this House where the minister or the board may have to make a designation of level of essential services? That's the question. That's why we're going through clause by clause, line by line. And the minister knows that full well. He's been in this House long enough to know that that's the process. The minister should be able to stand up and tell us, yes or no, that in his mind an economic threat to the province is included under health or under welfare or under safety.

He should be able to say: "Well, yes, if there were a perceived economic threat to this province from some source due to a labour dispute, I would include that under the provisions that allow for welfare if that eventuality arose" -- not to state in this House what his decision would be or what level of essential services he would prescribe for each individual sector, but merely to state that in making that determination, that decision, he would include an economic threat to the province under the word "welfare."

I don't think that's too much to ask, hon. Chair. In fact, I think that's exactly what we're here to ask. I think it's exactly what the minister is here to answer, and I think it's time he did answer that type of question.

G. Wilson: Listening to this debate and to the intransigence of the minister reminds me of another debate the minister and I were having some months ago where it was: "Trust me on the language. It doesn't mean what it says, but it might say what we mean sometime down the line."

Mr. Chairman, with respect to this amendment, in what is generally accepted and what I think the minister would agree has been past practice, welfare essentially talks about the general well-being of the residents of British Columbia and does not necessarily constitute economic threat, because that general well-being may be protected in the larger measure by other forms of legislation that exist in the province.

So the line of questioning that the opposition is putting forward and the reason that this amendment is here are entirely valid, I think, because the practitioners in the field tell us that this is, in fact, an inadequate

section with respect to the economic well-being of the people of British Columbia and that this

section needs to be amended. It needs to have some reference in it to economic well-being. Otherwise, the language of "health, safety or welfare" will be interpreted as it has been in the past, where welfare talks about the general well-being of a resident and does not have any direct significance to the economic functioning survival of those people who are investing in business, especially small and mid-sized business in British Columbia.

So I think it's important that we hear more from the minister than: "I'll mean what I mean when I say what I say, because at some later point I'm going to make an

interpretation, or the board will do so on behalf of some presentation I make down the road." I think it's important for the minister to at least acknowledge that "welfare" in this context means more than general well-being and does include the functioning or maintenance of the economy of the province. If it does not, then I would expect that the minister would agree that the amendment before us now is a fairly simple one and does not in any way deter or change the intent or meaning of the bill. It simply broadens the definition to provide us the protection which the practitioners in the field tell us is required if this

section is to be as meaningful as I think the minister intends it to be. I wonder if the minister could acknowledge those questions on the word "welfare" so that we at least have a definition of that term.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know which practitioners are advising the opposition, but I do know this: either party, including those practitioners, can go to the LRB if they sense that a case poses a threat to the safety, health or welfare of the province and make the argument that their fact pattern applies. They can also put sufficient pressure on the minister to indicate that, on his initiative, he considers the dispute poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia. That is a significant improvement over the previous legislation in terms of process, access and opportunity.

It would seem to me that the opposition and their advisers ought to be congratulating the government for the changes they have brought forward with regard to this section, because it gives the directly accountable public official an opportunity to make a determination, which in the past was denied to that individual under

section 137.8(1) of the Labour Relations Code. In addition, it should give the hon. member some comfort to know that he now has the ability, in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, to put direct pressure on a minister to make a determination under

section 72(2);

whereas, previously the

section provided a minister with a shield with regard to a report from the commissioner. It has lifted the veil and placed the public interest responsibility and determination squarely where it should be with regard to the minister.

How this minister or others may interpret that

section remains to be seen, but the hon. member knows, as well as I, that one is not immune from pressure with regard to any

section in a code.

[ Page 4638 ]

G. Wilson: I acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition delights in putting pressure on the Labour minister from time to time.

Maybe I can put this question in more practical terms. With respect to the functioning of, say, the B.C. Ferry Corporation in a wildcat situation, would we recognize that it created a great deal of economic hardship? In the event of a legally constituted strike in a community such as the Sunshine Coast, where I am from, there is no other way on or off for people transporting goods to retailers. A prolonged strike would essentially roll up the road. Would that be considered a threat to the welfare of the residents of British Columbia if one community was essentially unable to get goods through to the points of retailing? Maybe the minister could answer that.

[3:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well that we do not regulate illegal strikes. The sections that we have already passed deal with the matter of illegal strikes.

With regard to legal strikes, in this kind of a situation the government will make its determination when it's faced with that kind of situation. I am not going to prejudge how I would handle a matter, such as a ferry situation, under 72(2), except to say to the hon. member that, as the Minister of Labour, I have a wide variety of options available to bring an end to a dispute, and this is one of the options available to a minister to consider.

Experience has taught me that different situations require different levels of involvement, and few situations require a high degree of intervention. It's best to make a determination on each situation as and when it arises by determining which remedy available is the best one to deploy. That's certainly what experience has taught me; that's the approach we'll take. We'll take a look at each situation as it presents itself to find the solution.

Sometimes solutions are easy to find, and then the situation can be resolved quickly. I'll just give you two examples. The Queen's Printer is an issue where I think there was a strike for a matter of days, and we were able to establish a process to put an end to the labour dispute and off we went. The ferry situation was another situation where we were able to implement a....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: It was a process which, quite frankly -- for those of you who don't seem to understand -- was triggered through the involvement of our office. Similarly, with regard to ferries, we took another action which made it possible for us to be in front of the Industrial Relations Council at 11 o'clock and have those ferries back at 3 o'clock. But we did not have to reach to a provision such as this one.

In other situations.... As we discussed in the House today, none of the parties in the Fording situation requested any intervention; both parties shunned any intervention from government. And we allowed the dispute to go on for quite some time. I guess what I'm saying is that different fact patterns require different determinations. I'm not going to prejudge an issue until I'm faced squarely with it, hon. member.

G. Wilson: Perhaps the Minister of Labour isn't aware that on August 29 there were discussions about the Fording situation, and the government, in fact, was asked to assist in trying to resolve that situation. Perhaps the Minister of Labour wasn't apprised of it, seeing that communication doesn't always happen on that side.

With respect to the amendment -- and I come back to that -- the reason we are putting in this amendment is.... I think the minister has just now outlined the broad parameters where the language -- "health, safety or welfare" -- may be used in terms of

interpretation on the question of economic threat. We understand the question of health, and we will have some comment with respect to that. We understand safety, if one is talking about the safety to the individual purpose or welfare, which generally, we are told by the practitioners in the field, means "well-being" of those people in British Columbia who are affected by a work stoppage. An economic threat to the province is something that is much broader, much wider, and may in fact not be interpreted under health, safety or welfare.

Therefore, if the minister wishes to have this bill tight, and get more than just congratulations, which I'm sure he wants, but in fact get applause from the people in the labour relations field, he will have recognized that the amendment now put forward by the opposition is sensible, and that it cleans up the bill to the extent that it gives a broader horizon that we can shoot for when the options that the minister so clearly outlines are undertaken with respect to the provisions in this section.

I would suggest that if the minister were to look at the language that is here, he would agree that it is very general in its terminology, especially in the definition of the word "welfare." The introduction of our amendment with respect to the economic threat only helps to strengthen the bill and to further improve it. I'm sure the minister would recognize that it is a worthwhile amendment to support.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, let's face facts here. I could make exactly the inverse argument. I could stand here and argue that the use of the words that you've placed in the amendment on the matter of the threat to the economy of the province could be used to limit the

interpretation of sections 72(1) and 72(2). That argument runs both ways. We're quite happy with the wording that's here, but for you to stand up in this House and argue that your wording somehow expands the scope of the section.... I could quite easily argue that it does exactly the opposite. So let's stay with the wording we've got here. It's fairly good wording, and it gives us comfort.

J. Tyabji: The opposition Labour critic, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, asked the minister very specifically, first of all, why they removed the economic threat provision, and the minister said it was

superflu-

[ Page 4639 ]

ous. So I guess the question I have is: does the minister not agree that the intent of this

section has changed with the removal of that provision, by changing the focus of what are listed as threats?

Hon. M. Sihota: The intent of the

section is to deal with essential services in a process for designation and involvement with regard to essential services.

J. Tyabji: That wasn't quite my question to the minister. We have canvassed this before in previous amendments that we've brought forward. As a lawyer, the minister understands that the inclusion or exclusion of words will have a direct impact on the

interpretation of the section. Even though this provision was not referred to specifically in his words, does he not understand that it had some bearing on the

section in the previous act?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not too sure whether it coloured the

section or not. That would be a determination of the Labour Relations Board, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: Since the minister won't say one way or the other whether it coloured the section, we would suggest that it definitely did. If he doesn't feel that it coloured the section, then why would he remove it? If he doesn't feel that it had any impact, does the minister, by removing this section, have a different focus or direction on the essential services

section than was in the previous act?

Hon. M. Sihota: I've already answered the question as to why it was removed.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps a different line of questioning for the minister, because he doesn't seem to be answering that.

We have been trying to get some answer from the minister as to what role he thinks an economic threat plays in terms of essential services. Does the minister see that there could be times when the welfare of the residents of British Columbia would be affected by economic threats?

Hon. M. Sihota: That question has been asked many times, and I've already answered it.

J. Tyabji: We differ very strongly. I don't think anyone feels that the minister has adequately answered it. If the minister wishes to review Hansard ....

D. Streifel: I do.

J. Tyabji: We've got our friend who sings "Solidarity Forever." I think he's wishing that we'd end this.

The amendment is to introduce a provision for an economic threat into this

section of the bill. The minister has not explained to the House why he is reluctant to do that or his reasons for removing it from the previous act. Would the minister please tell us how he sees his role under

section 72(2)(

b) when determining what is directed to the board for designation, in terms of the economy of the province? Does he see any role at all for the economy?

If the minister is trying to say that the answers he has provided so far should be adequate, the only thing the opposition has heard so far is that the minister is completely unwilling to take any economic considerations into account when directing the board to give essential services designation. If that's the answer the minister wants to get out, that's what we've heard. We've heard him say that he has deliberately removed it from the bill, even though he says he doesn't think it coloured the bill, and that he will not put it in by way of an amendment, because he wants to go in a different direction.

Reading between the lines.... We've heard that the minister doesn't think the economy has any role to play in terms of essential services. Is that the message the minister wants out? If not, could he please enlighten the House as to where he would be directing the board to designate, where it has any impact at all?

I see that the minister of entertainment has just entered the room. Hopefully he will get into the debate.

The Chair: Order, hon. member! That's not required.

Hon. M. Sihota: To be honest about it, the Liberal opposition has heard me say nothing, and I don't intend to say anything about this section. If an application were to be made, I would leave it up to the Labour Relations Board to make their determination. With regard to myself, as I said earlier on, in my capacity as Minister of Labour, I'll deal with situations as they present themselves.

J. Tyabji: We've had the minister just admit that he has said absolutely nothing. That is a very honest answer. We can read between the lines, though, and that means he does not believe that the economy has any role to play in terms of a designation of essential services.

What we have not heard from the minister -- and we have asked him directly.... Where it says in the

section that if the minister, on the minister's own initiative, directing the board.... I hope the hon. minister is listening, because the people of the province want an answer. To what extent does the minister feel that the economy of the province has a role to play in his directing of the board to designate essential services?

G. Wilson: Not wanting to unnecessarily prolong debate on this amendment, I think it's important to acknowledge that while the members of this House may feel there is some tedium in this debate, there are many people in the province, to the surprise of all of us, who are actually watching and following this or, if not, are reading it in Hansard . It is going to become fairly obvious that the response from the minister, when he said, "You've heard me say absolutely nothing," was perhaps the most honest response we've had to date, because even when we have had long and protracted responses from the minister, we often hear very little or nothing.

[ Page 4640 ]

This question is an important one, because the fact that words in previous legislation have been deleted has meaning. The minister has to know that if the words are taken out, there is a reason those words are removed. If, in fact, the minister is reluctant or not prepared to make comment with respect to the proposition of the word "welfare" and whether or not that word can or will be interpreted to include the broader definition of an economic threat, it seems to me that what the minister is acknowledging here by his silence....

Let me put it this way, and let the record say: the silence of this minister will be, and probably should be, interpreted as meaning that the question of an economic threat to British Columbia is no longer a viable and valid reason why any services or provision of industry should be designated as essential services in a work stoppage. If that's the intention of the minister, he had better say so.

I think that the people of British Columbia are going to judge this minister harshly on the fact that he seems ill-prepared or unwilling to come forward to provide a simple answer to the question of a definition of the word "welfare" and whether or not the amendment that we have put forward strengthens the bill. To suggest that it broadens the parameters is a positive not a negative in our judgment, and I think that the minister owes it to the people of British Columbia, especially those who will be affected by this legislation, to make his views known prior to this legislation becoming law.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to stand in my place today and introduce to the House a delegation of securities regulators visiting us from the Shenzhen district of China and, along with them, executive members of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. We're delighted to welcome them to the House today, and we look forward to a continuing fruitful relationship over the coming years. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to know what they think about our stock exchange after they leave.

It would be wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to say that my statements said what he says they said, because I'm not persuaded that they said what he says they said. In addition to that, I want him to understand what I said when I was remarking on what he had said, which is to say that the amendment he's brought forward could have the effect of limiting the section, contrary to what he has argued. I could easily make that argument, hon. member. So you're running the risk with your amendment of limiting the

interpretation of the section, and it's wrong for you to characterize my statements in the way that you've tried to.

[3:45]

L. Reid: My question to the minister is in reference to the amendment which talks about essential service and about a threat to the health, safety and well-being of the residents of British Columbia. There was an issue last spring which I believe was a significant threat to patient safety and health in this province. We were not privy to any kind of reasonable resolution at that time, and in fact, a number of the newspaper articles from April and May that refer to that time talk about a 25-day disruption of service and a government that said it was putting forward levels of essential services. The entire documentation I have with me today suggests that those service levels were never met.

What assurances can you give to the taxpaying public -- the people who fund this health care system -- that the proposal you have forwarded in the guise of Bill 84 is somehow going to provide them with reasonable health care? I speak directly to the amendment: "...a threat to the economy of the province or to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia." I'd be interested in your assurances today.

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me assure you, hon. member, that under

section 72(6), the designation of essential services must be made "before the strike or lockout has commenced." This is a significant improvement in the legislation over the kind of situation we found ourselves in in February, March and April of last year. Let me also assure you that if a designation is made through the essential services process but it is not being adhered to, there are provisions in the legislation that provide for it to be filed in court and that compel the parties to adhere to it. Finally, if they seek to not respect an order of the court, the employer will have the support of the government with regard to contempt-of-court proceedings.

L. Reid: I appreciate the comment on the designation, but that is exactly the point I'm trying to reach. Who will assure the taxpaying public that a designation under essential service levels in health is a reasonable one? This minister stated previously that the designations were in place; essential service levels were realized. The public did not agree with that notion. They were not impressed with the level of care they received during the last labour disruption. I'm not convinced that there are further assurances in this legislation because it still says that essential service levels will be maintained.

I'd be very interested in your comment as to how essential service levels are designated. The comment that they can make some kind of appeal to the court system if it's not satisfactory is completely unsatisfactory when you're talking about somebody's immediate health care needs. The court system in this province is not so efficient that they could actually have their needs met by the court system prior to having some ongoing serious health difficulty.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member has to decide whether or not she believes that there ought to be strikes in these areas. That's the first question. If she doesn't think there should be, then she should state that for the record. If she thinks there should be, then she has to recognize that levels of service are going to be less than that which is normally provided under

[ Page 4641 ]

essential services designation. Therefore there will always be complaints from the public that services aren't at the rate they should be. So you must make your determination first, hon. member, as to whether or not you support the right to strike in that field. If you do support the right to strike in that field, then you have to accept the fact that essential service designations will be below normal staffing levels. That's the way it works under our legislation.

L. Reid: I'll refer specifically to a Vancouver Sun

article of Tuesday, April 14, 1992. It looks at the aged, who are described as the silent sufferers in hospital disputes. There's a woman in here who is responsible for the care of her mother, who happens to be 77 years old. Her position is that people absolutely have the right to strike. She needs assurances, as does the official opposition today, that there will be something in place that allows for a compromise position.

I can appreciate having the minister stand up today to tell me that service levels will be less; but if you are going to stand before us today and say that under Bill 84 essential service levels will be maintained so that the health and welfare of the citizens of the province is not compromised, you need to say a little bit more than that they will be less than what they are normally.

The articles I have with me today, which I am prepared to cite in extreme detail, suggest that people have a right to expect something from their tax system, and they have a right to be assured that the legislation you are prepared to stand behind will actually deliver reasonable health care to them in British Columbia. You've not answered that concern, and I trust that you will do so.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm confident that through the process we've established and the Labour Relations Board, there will be a reasonable level of health care available to British Columbians during a work disruption.

L. Reid: I appreciate the dialogue, but at the end of the day, if you have a sick individual in your family who requires ongoing medical care, you're looking for a little more than conversation. You're looking for something a little bit more concrete. All of these individuals take no issue with the right to strike; they don't take any issue with essential service.... They need to know exactly what that means in terms of a reasonable level of care being delivered to individuals in their families.

Friday, April 10, 1992: "Hospitalized Doctor Charges Strike Left Him Without Food." We can go through example after example where the Minister of Health, as you did, stood up in this House and suggested that essential service levels were being maintained. At the end of the day, what does that mean? Were we delivering a reasonable level of care to individuals in this province? I would submit to you today that we were not.

This particular piece of legislation, which you cite as being so much better, will not deliver an increased level of service or even have the ability to maintain what was done last time, which was woefully inadequate. Again, can you address essential service levels for hospital care in the province?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should tell me what she is proposing. Is she proposing that we set the levels in legislation?

L. Reid: Each of these writers asks for a compromise. They ask for some assurance from this government that you will safeguard the health of their family member or themselves should they require medical care. If your response, as the government of British Columbia, is to set the levels in legislation, that is your choice.

I think we are looking to an open government that, hopefully, has some innovation and ingenuity at its disposal to come up with something that will compensate the taxpayers for investing the majority of their tax dollars in the health care system, which this government continues to say is one of the finest in the world. If that's the case, discussion is fine. The legislation you continue to cite as being the finest labour legislation in this country needs some backup. What are you prepared to do today to back up this particular piece of legislation?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know if the hon. member is asking these questions because she has a mail-out to do or something, but let's get serious. It's straightforward. We have legislation that provides a process for the establishment of essential service levels. It's not for us to determine what those levels should be; it's for the parties -- the hospitals and the unions -- to work out the appropriate level. The Liberal opposition will never be satisfied with the level that's there; that's their job.

They will criticize whatever levels are established, but they can't criticize the process, nor the legislation that establishes the process. They're not prepared -- nor should they be, in my view -- to take the view that there should be a prohibition on strikes. They have to recognize that legislation cannot logically define the level of service. There's a process for doing that; we've done that. On top of that, we've made sure that there's a provision in place to ensure that it occurs prior to a strike or lockout commencing.

L. Reid: Friday, April 24, 1992: "We are down to 35 percent of our normal staff, and we have a 95 percent bed occupancy." The minister said: "Let's get serious." I'm deadly serious. This is not about what the official opposition stands for today; this is about what the taxpaying public has asked this government for and was promised, frankly, by this government. Have you reassured us today? Absolutely not. Have you reassured the taxpaying public? No. Yet you continue to stand before us as the open government in this province and suggest that we somehow have the finest health care system in the world.

If you are going to leave essential service in this legislation as it applies to health care, you must deliver on that promise. What you have said today has not made any commitment toward that promise. I am looking for something that is concrete, reasonable and innovative

-- all the things the New

[ Page 4642 ]

Democratic Party promised they would deliver to the people of British Columbia. I await your response.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I know there are other members of the caucus and, indeed, other members of the House who wish to engage in this debate.

The minister should always keep in mind, when he's answering questions posed by the opposition, that very often those questions aren't created in the opposition's offices, but rather in the minds of the public, and are passed on to us to ask him directly. That is part of our job. So when the minister....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Finance minister says that we've been there. I would suggest that both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour quickly forgot what it was like to be in opposition and their role of the advocate.

The line of questioning that the member for Richmond East brought forward are questions that she's quoting. If the minister will listen, she's quoting directly from letters and comments that were made by the public during a strike that occurred under the mandate of this government. They are asking for the Minister of Labour and the New Democratic government to come up with some provisions and some changes to the legislation that would improve the level of service that their family members and they, as individuals, received during that labour dispute.

The minister can stand up and be as smug as he wants, and try to shrug off these questions as if they're irrelevant, as if they don't have anything to do with this

section or as if the minister doesn't care. But he should keep in mind who he's answering to. He's not answering to us, hon. Chair; he's answering to the public. He's answering to the individuals who are writing and asking the minister these types of questions.

That is why, when we ask questions on

section 72 or about the implementation of the wording of this section, we expect to hear an answer. It's not for our benefit necessarily, but for the benefit of the general public. The minister has certainly been in this House long enough to know that that is the intent. I would ask him to please answer the questions in that context, keeping in mind that, despite the fact that he may despise the opposition, it's pretty hard to be a minister of the Crown and despise the general public.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. I would remind all hon. members, before recognizing the minister, that questions may be put, but there are rules with respect to tediousness and repetition. Answers cannot be insisted upon.

Hon. M. Sihota: Judging from the weekend press, the opposition Liberals haven't learned what the job of the opposition is yet. But let me say this, just to prove the point: not one of the issues canvassed by the hon. member dealt with any of the amendments he's got on the floor of the House.

Hon. Chair, I agree with your comments; the hon. member should confine his comments to the amendment on the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: We've been on this amendment for some time now, hon. Chair, and if the minister wanted to call into question the order of the questions or the relevancy....

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please. I would ask the hon. the minister to come to order, so that the member who is speaking may speak uninterrupted. Please continue, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair, I appreciate your intervention.

We're on the amendment that deals with an economic threat to the province. In fact, I canvassed that at some length, the Leader of the Opposition canvassed that at some length and the member for Okanagan East canvassed that at some length. The Health critic dealt with issues that involved health. If the minister wanted to call her on her order at that time, he should have been able to do so. But....

[4:00]

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. members, the Chair is resisting referring to the standing orders. I know that all members know what is parliamentary and what is unparliamentary. I would prefer that we exercise our insights and personal discipline to the extent that the Chair can allow the reasonable latitude that I believe is necessary in order that exchanges may be fruitful and useful to all members. With that, I would ask the hon. member who was speaking to please continue.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, we are attempting to get some answers from the minister. I take the Chair's ruling and the Chair's comments to heart, because we are not trying to be tedious, nor are we trying to be repetitious. But it is important that we try, on behalf of the public, to ask the minister questions, and we hope that the minister, on behalf of the government, would answer those questions of the public in an open and honest manner without the smugness that usually accompanies them.

So, hon. Chair, seeing that the minister obviously isn't going to deal with the issue, I would yield to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: One of the interesting parts of this bill as a whole was the

definitions section, because it laid out an understanding of the meaning of the words as they arrived within the bill itself. In this

section of the bill we come to three key words: health, safety and welfare. These words are very key, and it's strange to me that when they are so important to the well-being of the province there is no definition in the bill for these particular words. I expected there would be when they

[ Page 4643 ]

have such an important place. And when we ask the minister what they mean, he simply replies, "I mean what I mean," which doesn't help me at all in understanding what any of these three words mean.

So I go to the dictionary. The unfortunate

part is that I'm not sure which dictionary the minister will use. I'm sure if I go to other dictionaries I will come up with different meanings. But in regard to the definition of "welfare," let me simply read the definition that is here in this particular Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, a Merriam-Webster publication: "Welfare. The state of doing well, especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being or prosperity."

In discussion with others in this House, the minister has indicated that perhaps the amendment is not in order, because it would limit the definition of "welfare" instead of extending it. The minister went so far as to say, "I could put up an argument that if the amendment were passed, it would limit the definition," thereby at least implying that the definition of "welfare" in his mind is broad enough at this point to include not only the economic viability of the province but any other aspect of the activities in the province that have to do with the prosperity, good fortune, happiness or well-being of people of the province.

If it's true that his definition is that broad -- and he has indicated in a number of ways that it is -- then I think he should make that very clear to us, because the same would no doubt apply when we come to a discussion of health and safety: it's the broadest possible definition available. If I've heard the minister right -- and I'd like him to confirm this -- he's saying that whatever definition the board or he, as minister, may use, this is the definition that the law implies. There are no limitations whatsoever to the meaning of this word, as long as they can find a dictionary someplace that will justify the definition they want to take.

If the minister is saying that he is taking unto himself sole discretion for defining the meaning of the word in the circumstances where it applies, which is what he has indicated, it would be the circumstances of the moment that would make the definition. Therefore the definition would be up to the

interpretation of the minister in that moment. On the other hand, if the minister does not choose to make that definition himself, then the definition can be made in whatever way and whatever framework the board so desires. So if they want to include economics or health or safety or any other aspect within that definition, they're free to do so.

I understood the minister to be saying that they wanted the broadest possible definition. If so, nothing that affects the prosperity or the well-being or the health or the happiness of people is excluded. If so, I would be interested to hear the minister's response.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have answered the question.

G. Wilson: In picking up on the comments of the member for Vancouver-Langara, may I say that the minister has indeed not answered the question. By virtue of the fact that the minister has not answered the question, I think that in itself speaks volumes as to what is intended by this bill, because as we review it, Hansard will show that in earlier sections of this bill, when we made comment with respect to the protection and well-being of people, the minister said: "We will deal with that when we get to

section 72." In other areas where we talked about the protection of young people, particularly with the question of the welfare of students in schools under a work stoppage, the minister said: "We'll deal with that in

section 72." And when we talked about issues of marine safety and about the B.C. Ferries and about the problems associated with the interruption of work, especially with the economic well-being of the province, which is exactly what this amendment is all about, the minister at that time said: "We'll deal with that in

section 72."

Well, in this debate it's become abundantly evident what the strategy of the government is. That is to simply allow us to go through an exercise of virtual frustration in the initial stages of this bill, with the promise that somehow there are going to be some kind of amendments forthcoming -- both publicly stated and privately negotiated -- because we were going to deal with them at a later date. We have an amendment here. In dealing with this amendment, we start to look at the economic well-being of the province itself. What we're now seeing is the minister saying: "I've answered the question.

We dealt with that before. There is no need for us to put in any kind of recognition of the economic well-being of the province."

The amendment on this particular issue addresses virtually every resident on Vancouver Island, because on the question of the natural extension of our highways -- the ferry service -- people on Vancouver Island want to know if the economic well-being of their communities is going to be protected in this legislation in the eventuality of a prolonged work stoppage in that industry, which we all hope there will not be. I note that the collective agreement currently being negotiated is yet to be ratified, and on the weekend I noted that, in fact, there is some considerable evidence to suggest that it may not be.

So we might find that this minister's inability or unwillingness to simply answer a simple question is as much as turning to the people of Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast, Powell River and other areas served and saying: "Trust me. Leave it up to me. I'll determine your economic well-being and your economic welfare, and I'll be the determining factor as to how hurt you will become economically before there is a need to use the powers that the minister has provided under

section 72(2)(

b) with his initiative to be able to come forward and deal with this

section on essential services."

We're not arguing necessarily that essential services should be assigned to the marine services of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. What we are asking is to what extent this language is going to provide protection for every resident on Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast, Powell River, the Gulf Islands and other areas served by the B.C. Ferry Corporation where, because of the natural extension of the highway being the marine services, they will have to have some measure of protection and safety to recognize their economic

[ Page 4644 ]

well-being in the event of a prolonged work stoppage. That's not an unreasonable thing to ask. It isn't unreasonable for us to say that the practitioners in the field -- the people who deal with the negotiation on a day-to-day basis -- tell us this language is inadequate. It doesn't provide the same level of protection that the people of British Columbia are demanding.

This is not something that the opposition is constructing or suggesting. Let it be clear that in this amendment that we are putting forward now, we are seeking a balance between the legal right to strike, which we support, and the protection and well-being -- economic well-being in particular -- of the residents of Vancouver Island, Powell River, Sunshine Coast, Gulf Islands and every other community that's served by the B.C. Ferry Corporation and any other industry in which the economic welfare of the province is at stake when we get into prolonged work stoppages.

To simply have this minister say, "I mean what I mean when I say what I say because I am what I am, I'm Popeye the Sailor Man," is a ridiculous notion in a debate such as this. I think the minister should be here to respond to that.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, sometimes when we try to look at the global picture, I think we forget the significance of the individuals who are caught up in this struggle. The people in the community are concerned not just with the overall well-being of the economy in the province, but they interpret the meaning of that economy and its overall scope as it relates to their day-to-day economy. A great many people depend on daily income, not just weekly, monthly or yearly income. When we think of people first, we need to think of all the realities that are there.

The structure that people have of their daily income being essential to them is part of what we're trying to discover -- how this can be dealt with in the legislation.

In the concern for union members and for employers, it seems that often those who depend on daily income are overlooked. They cannot get to work because a ferry, a SkyTrain or whatever is out of service, and therefore they do not earn their daily income that day. There are people who depend on medications on a regular daily basis, and they must get to the hospital or wherever it's provided to them. If they're unable to get there because there is no consideration that their need is essential, then we have missed in our understanding of the legislation.

The legislation that we should be working toward here is not legislation that makes it inconvenient for people to get the necessities of life, but it should be legislation that makes it possible and which helps people to get the security they need. Since the minister is not willing to define his meaning in a way that the ordinary person can understand, we are left up in the air. We are left with uncertainty.

The community at large is becoming more and more aware that as this bill progresses through the Legislature, they are being left out in the cold -- not just because it is becoming winter, but because they cannot understand the message that's being conveyed to them.

[4:15]

When I go home on weekends, the question is raised by individuals: what does this mean to me as an individual? I ask the hon. minister: how does the essential daily income of those who are requiring their daily income...? Some people go to work on a part-time, daily basis, receive their pay in the evening for the work they did that day, and that's for the food they have the next day. That is essential for them. What provision is the minister making in the economic welfare of the people for their needs? I would ask the minister to let us know how he is responding to those daily current needs.

Hon. M. Sihota: Any party that's involved in a dispute can make an application to the LRB to seek designation under the essential services provision.

V. Anderson: When the minister says "any party," is he saying that any citizen within the community who is affected by this dispute, whether a part of the employer's group or a specific union group, can apply to the Labour Relations Board for a response to their essential need?

Hon. M. Sihota: As has always been the case, only the parties can.

L. Reid: In our previous discussion, the minister made some comment about it being time to get serious on this issue. On April 6, 1992 -"Labour Dispute Affected Man's Care, Says Family." In fact, this individual died. The death of a 70-year-old man two days after he was released from hospital is being investigated. The position of the family is that his care was not appropriate while he was there. They made that determination; other people worthy of having that opinion -- skilled, trained individuals -- supported that. During the entire time this was going on, hon. minister, this government was hailing forth that essential service levels were in place.

I take great offence that you can, on the one hand, suggest essential services and, on the other, have people dying, with the minister saying to me: "Well, what would you have us do?" Speaking on behalf of the official opposition, I would have this government make some commitment to the health and welfare and personal safety of the taxpaying public in this province. I believe that that is the mandate of any government. I believe a government which is not bereft of ideas is going to do more than explore possible ways to ensure this doesn't happen.

I think if it were a member of the family of anyone who sits in this chamber, we would want more than the trite statement that essential service levels were in place. I come back to my earlier comment. How are those levels determined? Is there a formula for that? Is it a percentage of staff that would currently be working in a hospital? Would that allow it to be decreased over time?

The second part of the question is: is there any way to evaluate the time-line that it would take to downsize an institution? Hospitals such as St. Paul's or Children's Hospital in Vancouver are huge organizations. You cannot indicate in a matter of days, from an edict from a

[ Page 4645 ]

Victoria office, that somehow a different operation or dynamic is in place. Those things don't happen overnight. When crises arise, as with the death of this gentleman, you cannot simply say: "We have now ensured that a different essential service level is in place to improve the situation." We have very simple language that does not address the very complex problem at all.

I am still waiting for this minister to come forward with some ideas that he touched on earlier when he asked the official opposition: "Would you have us fix essential service levels?" I would ask the minister if he's willing to explore that in more detail and tell this House exactly what he intended by that comment. On Friday, April 24, we had frustrated patients speaking out as deteriorating service took its toll. Some of us lived through this last time; some of us did not.

Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order. We have an amendment before us that deals with economic threat. The questions have nothing to do with the amendment that's before us. I am quite happy to answer the questions when they're in order. I'm not going to answer them at this point, because I would take the view that they're out of order with respect to economic threat.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. The point is well taken. I would ask the member to relate her line of questioning to the amendment that is before us.

L. Reid: With direct reference to the amendment, this entire discussion has a direct economic impact on the delivery of service in this province, because the health care industry is taking a large percentage of tax dollars. For the minister to suggest that it is somehow unrelated is facetious at best. There is a direct relation among tax dollars, health care delivery and decisions reached by this government that are going to directly impact health care delivery in this province. My point is that economic impacts and hospital delivery are absolutely intertwined.

My question to the minister: is there a plan in place? I spoke earlier of having some kind of coordinated effort and the ability to increase or downsize staff to correspond to crises. I made the point earlier in debate that this

section is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. You have to recognize the unique needs of individual hospitals. That does have an economic impact, because downsizing or creating an essential service level and doing it consistently across the board is not going to meet the needs of taxpayers. That is the economic impact that I would wish this minister and this government to consider, and I await a response. Who in each hospital is responsible for the plan that's going to balance economic impacts and essential service levels?

L. Stephens: I speak in favour of this amendment to add "or major disruption to the economy" after the word "welfare." I notice that this was part of the old legislation, where it included health, safety, education or the economic welfare of the province. I know the minister spoke briefly about this, but I would like to ask him again why this particular

section was removed or omitted from the new legislation. Why were the words "economic welfare of the province" omitted?

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, I've been here for an hour, and I've heard only two questions repeated over and over again by members of the opposition. It's clearly tedious and repetitious. The minister either has to keep getting up or not answer it. The fact is that members on the opposite side are simply repeating themselves.

J. Tyabji: On this point of order, we have asked a number of questions. This question has been asked in a roundabout way. We have yet to have the minister deal with this question directly, because it has never been asked as succinctly as it has just now. We have had no answer. If the minister feels that he has provided an answer, we'd be happy to hear it again, because we didn't hear it, and we've been here for the entire debate.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I remind members of the opposition that members can ask questions, but members of the executive council have no obligation to answer questions. Whether it's tedious and repetitious is a fact with respect to your questions. The fact that the minister has not answered it to your satisfaction is of no relevance whatsoever to the rules of the House. The Opposition House Leader, by her own statements, has admitted that they have repeatedly asked these questions. I ask you to call them to order.

The Chair: The point is very well taken. Just a little while ago, I reminded hon. members that they may certainly put their questions to the ministers, but there does come a point at which the Chair has to consider whether members are insisting upon answers or becoming repetitious and tedious. Our standing orders make this very clear, and I'm sure that all members are familiar with them. I would just ask the members to keep that in mind when they're persisting in a particular line of questioning.

J. Tyabji: With regard to the point of order that the Government House Leader brought up, if he reviews Hansard , he will see that my comments were that we may have canvassed the issue in a roundabout way. We have never asked that question of the minister specifically.

Also, the minister has stood up and given us responses to the roundabout way in which we've asked him, but because we haven't asked that question specifically.... If he's not going to respond, fine, but we would like it on record that he's not going to respond.

The Chair: The matter has been reviewed for the benefit of all hon. members. In the future, I would ask hon. members to keep in mind the limitations upon debate in committee.

L. Stephens: In

section 72(2), it says:

"If the minister

(

b) on the minister's own initiative

[ Page 4646 ]

considers that a dispute poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia, the minister may direct the board to designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services that the board considers necessary or essential...."

Would the minister provide an answer as to what kinds of initiatives he would direct the board to make?

D. Streifel: I would just ask the hon. member for Langley to continue reading. The question will be answered, as it has been answered by the minister time and time again. It's a determination of the board. For the opposition to continually ask the minister to prejudge a hearing that may or may not happen in the future is completely irrelevant, and it's out of order under standing order 61.

W. Hurd: I've been following the debate on this amendment with a great deal of interest, and also the reluctance of the minister to answer questions respecting it. I think it's important to put on the record that this particular

section does narrow the parameters of essential services in the province, whether or not the board has to deal with it. It's absolutely true that the provision of the economic well-being of the province has been eliminated as a consideration by the board for designating an essential service.

You know, I was struck by the comments of the hon. Minister of Finance about tedious and repetitious questions from the opposition. This is a bill -- this particular section, as well -- brought in by this government as the sole purpose for holding this fall sitting of the legislative session, paying MLAs $7,500 a day to be here to debate and pass one specific piece of legislation. If that doesn't amount to tediousness and repetitiousness, I don't know what does. This bill could have waited until the spring.

The minister could have had all winter to answer questions from the opposition and to ponder debate on this bill. Instead, the government of the day chose to bring forward this bill, unnecessary at this particular time, and to hold a specific session of the Legislature to deal with it; then they have the audacity to call it tedious and repetitious when the opposition asks legitimate questions about essential services.

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order. In the midst of that bombast, I've yet to hear one comment that relates to the amendment that's on the floor.

The Chair: The matter before us is the amendment to

section 72. I would ask the member to address the section.

The Chair will attempt to enlighten members from time to time with respect to the rules of the committee.

W. Hurd: I welcome the opportunity to engage in debate with the minister about what I consider to be an essential service, or an essential economic consideration in the province, and that involves the forest industry. As you may recall, back in the early seventies that was a subject of intervention by a previous NDP government. As early as this spring we had an involvement by the minister in the pulp dispute, when he tried to act as a mediator or a catalyst for settlement. That particular dispute was having a tremendous impact on small communities -- not to mention the coffers of the province of British Columbia.

I think there's ample reason to argue that the amendment being debated in this House, which essentially tries to recognize the importance of the economic impact of an essential service, is badly needed. At the time of the pulp dispute this spring, the government of the day was losing millions of dollars in revenue.

[4:30]

D. Streifel: On a point of order, I would bring the House's attention to a time in history, during the pulp dispute....

The Chair: Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order; that's a matter of debate.

W. Hurd: We have to assume that since the minister took such an active role in getting that dispute settled, he considered it to be an essential service as well.

It's troubling that if we leave this

section of the bill as it is, we seem to be saying that the minister himself will have to intercede in the event of future disruptions in the pulp and paper and forest industries. As the minister may know, that still accounts for about half the economic activity in this province. It is concentrated in small-town British Columbia and has a tremendously negative impact on the lives of individual British Columbians. Instead of allowing the Labour Relations Board to do its work under the old

section of this bill, it will now be up to the minister to make under-the-table deals on strikes that may have an economic impact on people of the province. It's simply unacceptable to the opposition that the minister has decided, for whatever reason, not to answer questions with respect to this important issue before us in the House.

It's equally troubling, given the fact that the government brought forward this

section of the bill in a total package and that it was the only bill they brought forward during this legislative session, that they wouldn't welcome the opportunity, under this particular amendment and section, to engage in a discussion about why there is no longer a provision for the Labour Relations Board to be involved in a pulp and paper dispute as essential services when it has such a major economic impact. The minister will have to continue to haul the parties into this office -- as a previous Labour minister, Mr.

Bill King, did back in the seventies -- to try and settle a dispute which has a negative impact not only on the people and small communities but also on the revenues of the province of British Columbia.

We're told time and time again about the government's billion dollar deficit. Surely the millions of dollars lost during a strike by the major industry in this province.... We're now being asked to swallow the idea that there's no role for the Labour Relations Board to play in that, other than some sort of under-the-table deal by the minister. It's just unacceptable. We don't expect any answer to that, and I doubt we would get one. It certainly has to be put on the public record that in the event of a major disruption in the forest industry,

[ Page 4647 ]

there's no essential service provisions to allow for communities to survive or for the revenues lost to government not to continue indefinitely. It's a sad day indeed.

Amendments negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 17

Warnke

Reid

Wilson

Tyabji

Farrell-Collins

Gingell

Stephens

Weisgerber

Serwa

De Jong

Neufeld

Symons

Anderson

Hurd

Dalton

Jarvis

K. Jones

NAYS -- 35

Petter

Boone

Sihota

Edwards

Cashore

Charbonneau

Schreck

Lortie

Lali

Giesbrecht

Conroy

Smallwood

Hagen

Gabelmann

Clark

Zirnhelt

Blencoe

B. Jones

Copping

Lovick

Ramsey

Hammell

Farnworth

Evans

Dosanjh