1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2481 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act (Bill

46) Hon. Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 2481

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 55) Hon. Mr. McGeer

Introduction and first reading — 2481

Automobile Insurance Act Amendment Act, 197 6 (Bill 6 1) . Hon. Mr. McGeer

Introduction and first reading — 2481

Companies Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 76) Hon. Mr. Gardom

Introduction and first reading — 2481

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 62) Hon. Mr. Gardom

Introduction and first reading — 2481

Dentistry Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 70) Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading — 2481

Pharmacy Amendment Act, 197 6 (Bill 7 1) Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading — 2481

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 63) .

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading — 2481

Oral questions

Lie detector tests for ICBC claimants. Mr. Macdonald — 2482

PWA head office move to Alberta. Mr. Gibson — 2482

Delays in ICBC refunds. Mr. Wallace — 2482

Appointment of Brian Palmer. Mr. Wallace — 2483

Education minister's trip to England. Mr. Lea — 2483

Transfer of BCR management or ownership. Mr. Gibson — 2484

Hospital Services Collective Agreement Act (Bill 75) .

Second reading

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2486

Mr. Lea — 2489

Mr. Gibson — 2490

Mr. Wallace — 2492

Statement

Investigation of Kitimat law enforcement situation. Hon. Mr. Gardom —

Mr. Macdonald — 2495

Mr. Gibson — 2495

Mr. Wallace — 2495

Routine proceedings

Hospital Services Collective Agreement Act (Bill 75) .

Second reading

Mr. Wallace — 2495

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2496

Ms. Brown — 2497

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2499

Division on second reading — 2501

Committee stage

section 3.

Mr. Wallace — 2501

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2502

Hon

section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 2502

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2502

section 6.

Mr. Wallace — 2502

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2502

Mr. Gibson — 2503

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2503

Report and third reading — 2503

Mineral Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 30) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2503

Mr. Lauk — 2504

Mr. Gibson — 2505

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2505

Division on second reading — 2507

Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 58) . Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading — 2507

Mineral Resource Tax Act (Bill 57) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2507

Mr. Barnes — 2509

Public Service Benefits Plans Act (Bill 64) .

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Introduction and first reading — 2510

Public Service Act (Bill 81) Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Introduction and first reading — 2510

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 82) .

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 2) (Bill 66) Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading — 2511

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 1) (Bill 68) Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading — 2511,

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 3) (Bill 80) Hon. Mrs. McCarthy —

Royal assent to bills — 2511

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring

to the attention of the House a major achievement by a young B.C.

athlete, Lars Hanson from Coquitlam. His hard work and determination to

aspire in the sport of basketball has been recognized by the Chicago

Bulls of the National Basketball Association. Yesterday they selected

him as their third-round draft choice of U.S. college basketball

players. I would ask the House to join me in congratulating Lars

Hanson, who leaves his Coquitlam home on Monday to join the Canadian

national Olympic team just prior to taking up his professional job with

the Chicago Bulls.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, once again

it is my pleasure to ask the House to welcome another contingent of

students from the Moscrop Junior Secondary School, accompanied by their

teachers.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today are Myron Olsen and Jesse Edwards from the constituency

of Langley. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education) Mr. Speaker, today we have

special guests of the Legislature who are representatives of the Federation

of Independent Schools: Messrs. Ensing, Waller, Kaleb, Friesen and Brown. I

would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to have my wife, Donnie, in the Speaker's

gallery today. I ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

Introduction of bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA EDUCATIONAL

INSTITUTIONS CAPITAL FINANCING

AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. Mr. McGeer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing

Authority Act.

Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. McGeer, Bill 55, Public Schools Amendment

Act, 1976, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. McGeer, Bill 6 1, Automobile Insurance Act

Amendment Act, 1976, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Companies Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 76 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 62, Legal Professions Amendment

Act, 1976, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

DENTISTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Dentistry Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

PHARMACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1976'

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Pharmacy Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 71 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His

[ Page 2482 ]

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to a be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at s the next sitting of the House

after today.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, as a small contribution with this torrent of legislation, I would

move, with leave, that Bill 40 standing in my name under second reading be discharged.

Leave granted.

Oral questions

LIE-DETECTOR TESTS

FOR ICBC CLAIMANTS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to ask the Minister of Education if he's aware that ICBC — and I'm

referring particularly to Surrey claims centre and one claimant, but

I'm asking the question generally — submits insured people making

claims against that corporation to a lie-detector test in connection

with their claim, which is stated to be voluntary, but then there is

added to that that if the claimant does not take the lie-detector test,

ICBC will sit and wait on the claim.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, I'm not aware of that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary: will the the minister find out, then,

what is happening in that corporation?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be delighted to make to inquiries, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You might not be so delighted with the answer.

MOVE OF PWA HEAD OFFICE TO ALBERTA

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Attorney-General. Now

that the Canadian Transportation Commission has, unfortunately, turned down

British Columbia's bid to restrain transfer of the headquarters of PWA to

Alberta until the supreme court rules on ownership, thereby effectively leaving

Alberta free to make irreversible moves detrimental to this province, is the

government now prepared to seek an injunction from the supreme court maintaining

the status quo until that court rules on the ownership issue?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'd like to thank the

member for his question on the point, and also for the one that he

earlier directed to me. I'd like to inform the hon. member that new

initiatives are underway by the government, and a full statement will

be made by the end of the week by the hon. Premier.

DELAYS IN ICBC REFUNDS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Education

responsible for ICBC, Mr. Speaker. With regard to automobile owners who

have taken the minister's advice and sold their cars and have sought

refund of the unused portion of the premium, is the minister aware

that, for example, such an owner in Oak Bay applied for a refund on May

4 and was told, on phoning the ICBC office in Vancouver yesterday, June

8, that it would be a further eight to nine weeks before he could

receive the refund, and that the office refused further discussion on

the matter? Is the minister aware of these long delays?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has repeatedly

stated that the government will greatly increase the efficiency of

ICBC, can the minister tell he House what specific initiatives he has

taken to reduce the delay in refunding car owners who sell their

vehicles?

HON. MR. McGEER: As I explained, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't aware

of the long delay, but I'll take the question as notice and inquire

into it and determine exactly what the delay is and why.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is looking into

the question of delays which I assure him do occur, and I'm not just

quoting one incident, can the minister take into consideration the fact

that since the federal income tax department pays a citizen interest on

money outstanding, ICBC will look at the possibility of paying interest

on money for which the car owner might wait many months?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, we have to determine whether the car owners are waiting many months, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): As a supplementary, my

question involved a three-month wait and $400 in one instance. But as a

further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister f

Education can explain to me why I received these two notices in the

mail this weekend from ICBC. They are sent out as an inspection notice

from ICBC indicating that I'm required to have my vehicle

[ Page 2483 ]

checked within 10 days of receipt, and yet one

vehicle expires December 15,1976, the other January 16,1977. Why am I

getting this sort of notice? Is there a change in policy?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there's no change in the policy

that all car owners should have regular inspection of their cars for

safety purposes.

APPOINTMENT OF MR. BRIAN PALMER

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary a

question with regard to order-in-council 1531 which appointed Mr. Brian

Palmer as administrative assistant to the Speaker's office at $19,000

per annum retroactive to April 1. Can the minister tell the House if

this is a new position in the Speaker's office and whether Mr. Palmer

will be working out of the Speaker's office or out of an office in the

North Peace River constituency?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

EDUCATION MINISTER'S TRIP TO ENGLAND

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

hon. Minister of Education. Has the minister, since assuming his office

as a cabinet minister, been to London, England?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Could the minister tell me whether or not that trip

was on government business, and, if so, was he accompanied by anyone —

specifically directors of ICBC?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was accompanied by the general manager, the senior vice-president and one member of the board.

MR. LEA: Supplementary: could the minister tell us the purpose of the trip?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was to attempt to clean

up the mess that was left behind by the New Democratic Party in their

insurance programme. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it isn't an easy

job.

MR. LEA: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would again like to

ask the minister: what was the purpose of the trip to England on

government funds that was cloaked in secrecy? No one knew that that

minister had gone....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your question?

MR. LEA: He didn't answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question?

MR. LEA: I would like him to answer the question: what was the purpose of the trip to England?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat for the

member: the purpose of the trip was to try and clean up the many

problems that have been left behind in the reinsurance programme of

ICBC which involves millions of dollars each year which is done

primarily through Lloyds brokers in London, and which was left in a

dreadful mess by the New Democratic Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, as a supplemental I would like to ask

the minister: what was the purpose of the trip to London, England? In

fact, he has not answered that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You may not agree with the hon. minister's answer, but he did answer the question that was asked him.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a supplementary to the

same minister, could the minister indicate what officials of Lloyds of

London he met with and how long was the trip? How many days in London?

HON. MR. McGEER: I was in London....

MR. WALLACE: Did you meet the Queen?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, but I did meet the president of the

Lloyds group. I met the chief underwriters for all of the ICBC

reinsurance programmes and I met with the underwriting brokers, which

are Payne and Company and Bowring and Company. So we saw the brokers to

whom we underwrite, we saw the underwriting syndicates and we saw the

chief executive officers of Lloyds.

MR. LAUK: Supplemental to the same minister. It was indicated

to the previous administration — this is back-up to the question — from

the Lloyds board and from officials of ICBC, one of whom, according to

your answer, evidently was with you, that the reinsurance programme

with Lloyds was in good shape and was in excellent form. Is the

minister now

[ Page 2484 ]

indicating that Lloyds have indicated otherwise to him?

HON. MR. McGEER: At the time that the reinsurance contracts

were under negotiation we lost one of the reinsurance programmes,

namely the school reinsurance. All of the other reinsurance programmes

have been subjected to enormous increases as a result of the improper

information that was made available to Lloyds at the time the insurance

corporation was commenced. It was suggested to the reinsurance people

that the automobile premiums would be sufficient to cover the costs. A

two-and-a-half-year contract was signed and then it turns out that the

premiums were deliberately underestimated, resulting in losses to the

corporation of $181 million. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, it was indicated

to the reinsurers that the general insurance programme....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: I would ask Mr. Speaker to follow carefully the

answers of the minister. I asked him: did Lloyds indicate that the

reinsurance programme was not in proper form or adequate? He did not

answer the question. I have a further question for the minister.

Lloyds of London was....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, Hon. Member. You interrupted the minister in his answer by rising on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: He did not answer my question.

MR. SPEAKER: That's your opinion. The minister was answering the question when he yielded the floor to you.

MR. LAUK: That's absolutely incorrect. I asked him what did Lloyds of London indicate to him and he did not answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please take his seat?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, dealing with your point of order,

the minister was answering your question. You may not agree with how he

was answering it. You interrupted him by a point of order and in

courtesy I now have to recognize the minister because he had the floor

at the time you interrupted his answer by a point of order.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, to continue on, there has been

a great deal of concern about the losses experienced by the insurance

corporation by the incorrect information that was given to the

underwriters and to the brokers regarding the adequacy of the premiums

being charged by the corporation. I have been under extreme pressure to

make this visit to our reinsurers since early in January. Until my

estimates were passed by the House I didn't feel it appropriate for me

to take any time at all to undertake this journey, important as it was.

The principal objective was to attempt, however we could, to restore

confidence in the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia by letting people

know it was in competent management hands.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the minister whether while in

London the minister took any time off for a vacation, and, secondly, I

would ask the minister whether he would agree with me that the press,

before accepting any statement in this House on this, should phone and

get information from Lloyds of London.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be delighted, Mr. Speaker, if they did

and I would be happy to table the correspondence regarding the

necessity of the trip and my itinerary while I was gone.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: Final supplemental. I would like to ascertain from

the minister whether while in London he took any vacation time —

whether it was half an hour, an hour? Did you take any vacation time?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I'm not American; I'm Canadian.

HON. MR. McGEER: The closest thing that I took to any vacation time was to visit the agent-general in London, Mr. Strachan. (Laughter.)

TRANSFER OF BCR

MANAGEMENT OR OWNERSHIP

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

of Economic Development. Does he know of any talks within the

government or elsewhere with respect to the possibility of selling or

leasing or transferring management of the BCR to

[ Page 2485 ]

Canadian National or the Canadian government?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, in answer to the member's question, no direct talks are

presently going on but there are always possibilities. This government

will take a look at any opportunity which would be good for the people

of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Hon. Member. The question period was terminated by the bell.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, during question period the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), in answering questions of the opposition,

made several false statements. I wish to ask leave of the House to

clarify them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You better withdraw, because it's unparliamentary!

MR. LAUK: Did Dowding tell you that?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not granted, hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): On a point of order, I did not hear you ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, just to make it perfectly clear, Hon. Member, shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER: There are a number of noes, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during this

question period and during other question periods, in my opinion, as a

member of this assembly, I believe that you are running interference

for government. I believe that is not your job. You are running

interference every opportunity you get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. LEA: The sooner they take you out of there and put you into.... No, let's not wish any portfolio on you.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the job of the Speaker is quite

clear in question period. It is quite clear to all members of the

House, if they wish to operate within the confines of the limits that

are laid out for the Speaker in question period.

I ask you to unequivocally withdraw that castigation against the Chair — unequivocally, Hon. Member!

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I said it is in my opinion that you are running interference for the government.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask you to unequivocally withdraw that statement.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): You are not protecting the rights of the opposition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Unequivocally, Hon. Member!

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): You're being coached by the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Are you following your own dictates or are you listening to the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Member, I now order you unequivocally to withdraw that statement.

MR. LEA: No.

MRS. WALLACE: You're an embarrassment to the British parliamentary system.

MR. BARNES: It's about time we had some democracy.

MR. NICOLSON: It's going to be a republic after you pass that bill.

MR. LEA: Because you have ordered me to withdraw, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw unequivocally.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. Before the Clerk

proceeds with the business of the day, I would say to the hon. member

and all members of the House that attacks such as that are not attacks

on the Speaker personally but are attacks on the Chair, on the office

and on all members of this House. That is why, Hon. Member, I asked for

an unequivocal withdrawal.

Orders of the day

[ Page 2486 ]

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Who said no? The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The committee will come to order.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

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

rise to debate in second reading Bill 75, I would like to say that I

again apologize to the members for not having the bill in printed form

and all of the material fully available. I trust that in the time since

the bill was introduced last evening, the members have had an

opportunity to acquaint themselves with the report of Mr. Justice

McTaggart. I think, Mr. Speaker, that if the members have attended

carefully to what His Honour Judge McTaggart said in his report as

special mediator, the purpose of this legislation and its need at this

time is clearly evidenced.

I would like to refer specifically to the words of the judge on page 6 of his report. In his recommendations he says:

"In my view, there is no doubt that the hospital industry

is an essential industry. Normal collective bargaining procedures should apply

whenever possible. The Labour Code of British Columbia provides a cooling-off

period in situations where the public welfare must override the rights of the

parties to the dispute. Circumstances may, however, arise which create problems

beyond those contemplated by the Legislature." And that was certainly the

case here. "In my opinion, special circumstances exist in the present dispute."

When one considers the extent to which the government over the years

has committed itself to responsibility for hospital services in this

province, and in particular the extent to which this government and

previous governments have devoted themselves to the problems of

resolving the difficulties which from time to time arise between the

hospital employers and their employees, I think it is worthwhile to

note some of the recent history applicable to this particular dispute.

I cast no blame on any member of this House, or any member of any

former government, for the actions which were taken, because they were

taken in good faith and in the discharge of responsibilities which rest

upon government under our laws.

But it is noteworthy that back in August of 1973 the then Minister

of Health (Mr. Cocke), after consultation with the union, the

particular union which is involved in this legislation, agreed to the

establishment of an administrative committee to concern itself with the

planning and guidance of a programme of job evaluation — August, 1973.

Since that time successive actions have been taken by government and

by that committee dealing with this particular problem of job

evaluation, together with a number of other matters which have from

time to time arisen in dispute between these parties. I must say that

at that time the Health Labour Relations Association did not exist, but

arising out of all of the actions of government, and appointees of

government, the Health Labour Relations Association, one of the parties

in the current dispute, did come into existence.

It is, I think, noteworthy, and a matter which government will have

to take under very careful consideration, that one of the principal

causes for the difference, which this bill will correct, was that same

problem of job evaluation. It was an appropriate matter for the parties

to concern themselves with during their negotiations, and negotiations

did go on for many, many months.

Negotiations commenced between these parties last fall. They

culminated in the appointment by the Minister of Labour — the Hon. W.S.

King, as he then was — of Mr. Blair as industrial inquiry commissioner

on December 9, 1975.

Mr. Blair addressed himself to the issues then remaining unresolved.

And I should say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of

negotiations there had been several issues resolved by agreement, but

those remaining unresolved were placed before Mr. Blair for

consideration. Mr. Blair conducted hearings on 36 separate days and

finally, on April 5, produced his report.

That report made certain recommendations, and

[ Page 2487 ]

while there was reluctant acceptance by the union

and a rejection by the employers' association, there was no real

criticism of Mr. Blair's report. There was, however, a very serious

difference of opinion as to the application of restraint guidelines

imposed by the national government and not then affecting anything in

the public sector in British Columbia to this particular settlement.

The history since that time is well known to all members in this

House — a strike ensued, essential-service designations were made in

six lower mainland hospitals through the office of the Minister of

Labour and the Department of Labour and discussions continued with the

parties in an attempt to resolve the differences between them. Then the

21-day cooling off period commenced and the appointment of Judge

McTaggart as a special mediator began.

I think, however, one must recognize from what Judge McTaggart said

in his report that throughout it all the continuing problem of the

job-evaluation study was one of the main problems in bringing about a

resolution of the dispute. I think I should also quote what the judge

says about the conduct of the parties in one respect, because I think

it is these remarks that bring this matter home particularly to the

government and to the members of this Legislature. The judge says:

"I am also concerned about the attitude and conduct of

the parties. In the past they have agreed to the following clause and

they have agreed to place it in any new collective agreement."

He quotes the clause:

"Whereas the right of the sick person to

uninterrupted, skilful and efficient care cannot be questioned, and it

is obligatory upon the hospital and its employees that efficient

operation of the hospital be maintained, and to effect this it is

important that harmonious relations be continued between the hospital

and its employees."

That specific premise has always been in agreements between these parties, and yet the judge has to go on and say:

"In my opinion, the point has been reached where the

parties must pay more than lip service to the above paragraph. They

must place the public welfare above their own legitimate objectives. No

one is here to speak for the sick. I regret at this point both parties

do not appear to agree with m6."

I think it is for that simple reason the matter is here before us in

the Legislature today: hospital service in our society is an essential

service. Governments over the years in the province of British Columbia

have recognized this and millions upon millions of dollars of the

taxpayers' moneys, provided by this Legislature and by taxpayers at the

local level as well, have been devoted to ensuring that the facilities

for hospital care are available in all of the communities in our

province.

Therefore it becomes incumbent upon the government also to ensure

that when the parties to a dispute such as this are unable to achieve

by collective agreement, or by the laws which we have in place in this

province of ours, the resolution to their dispute, then this

government, any government, and this Legislature is obliged to exercise

that supreme authority which in our society is invested in parliaments

such as this. Bill 75 does just that.

Judge McTaggart, in the course of his report, specified the terms of

a collective agreement which he deemed to be appropriate for the

parties. It was, in almost every case, the agreement which Mr. Blair

also recommended as industrial inquiry commissioner. There were two or

three significant changes: in McTaggart's recommended collective

agreement he suggested that the contract be not for one year, ending

December 31, 1976, but rather, a two-year contract, ending in December

of 1977. He also recommended, with respect to the job-evaluation study,

that it be implemented as soon as practicable. And he went on as well:

"Because of certain outstanding grievance matters

which have been a sore point between the employer and employees in the

various hospitals, that a special board be established for the

resolution of those matters at the earliest possible moment to ensure

that matters which are grievances are not allowed to erupt, to fester

and create real issues which might affect the quality of service

available in our hospitals."

In Bill 75 the government has taken the step of imposing the form of

collective agreement recommended by Judge McTaggart upon both these

parties. I assure the House that such a step is not easily taken, but

in essential services disputes — those involving the public sector, as

this one does — this action must, from time to time, be taken. We saw

instances over the past three or four years when the former government

in British Columbia had to avail themselves of this same opportunity

and to discharge the obligation in a similar way. We do so with the

benefit of an individual in our province who has a long history of

association with the hospital industry and therefore a large degree of

experience and skill in such matters.

We have also had the opportunity of having that individual report

examined by a judge in this province who is recognized for his

independence to such an extent that he has been selected unanimously by

both employer and employee groups in the resolution of other disputes.

So when we've presented Bill 75 to you, imposing upon these parties

this recommended

[ Page 2488 ]

form of collective agreement, it comes with very careful consideration by persons

of skill and experience.

During the time that this collective agreement has n been imposed,

the Act prohibits any strike or lockout. This is to ensure that there

will be full performance with the collective agreement, but I hasten to

say that perhaps the

section is redundant. Under our laws, the conclusion of a

collective agreement makes it illegal for parties to strike or lock

out. It is imposed in this way so there is absolute certainty that

during the period specified in the collective agreement there will be

no resumption of work stoppages for whatever reason and therefore the

disruption of hospital service. Specific provision is made in that

regard.

The other matter which I think I must comment upon is the subject of job evaluation.

Judge McTaggart, in his recommended form of agreement, I suggested that the

job-evaluation programme should be implemented as soon as practicable. As one

looks back over the successive actions in job evaluation since it was first

undertaken in 1973, we find that there have been other promises on the part

of government to undertake such an evaluation as soon as practicable, or with

similar words, without any definite assurance that it was taking place. But

there certainly has been a commitment on the part of government, made by the

former Minister of Health (Mr.

Cocke), that such would be done. Therefore, to ensure that there can be

no doubt about the good faith of government in this respect, there is a

provision in the Act which provides for the establishment of a fund of

$6 million in this fiscal year for the purpose of implementing the

job-evaluation programme. That fund will be paid out upon the

requisition of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland).

It is appropriate to note in this regard that there is doubt at the

moment as to what the aggregate costs of the job evaluation will be.

While the report is in existence and has now been made available to the

parties, the assessment of the total cost will take a some time, and

the practicalities of implementation will require the earnest active

participation of both the employer and the union.

I trust that with this indication of fulfilment of commitment by

this government the parties, as soon as this bill becomes law, and

therefore as soon as the collective agreement is in force between them,

will move to discharge their responsibilities in job evaluation in this

element of hospital service.

I must point out as well that there is specific provision in this

legislation that, once enacted, the agreement will be subject, as soon

as it is practicable, to the review by the Anti-Inflation Board under

theAnti-Inflation Act of Canada and the regulations made thereunder.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that last evening this house gave third

reading to Bill 16, which paves the way for the government to conclude

with the national government the appropriate agreement provided under

the federal legislation. Action is now being taken by the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in that regard, and it is to be hoped that

within the next few days British Columbia will, by agreement with the

national government, place its public sector in a position where

collective agreements entered into since last Thanksgiving Day will be

subject to the review of the Anti-Inflation Board.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): How far retroactive?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I said last Thanksgiving day.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's what the law provides, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The terms of the agreement, as I say, are

being settled by the Minister of Finance of British Columbia with the

Minister of Finance of Canada (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), and I'm sure that

agreement will be available to review by the members as soon as it has

been concluded.

There is specific provision in the legislation dealing with this

matter, because arising out of decisions which have been made by the

Anti-Inflation Board on review of agreements from British Columbia,

there have been instances when the so-called rollback has required

careful examination by the parties to the agreement. Therefore specific

provision has been made on this matter to ensure that any variation in

the collective agreement which might arise from the actions of the

Anti-Inflation Board will be incorporated in the collective agreement

without any hiatus. To ensure that this is the case, if the parties

themselves have difficulty in applying any variation of the

Anti-Inflation Board to this collective agreement, the special mediator

will continue to be available to the parties to assist in those

matters. If there is a dispute, the special mediator's decision in his

regard will be final and binding.

There is great concern about the cost of compensation increases such

as are incorporated in his agreement, and I wish the members to know

that the government is seriously concerned about the growing cost of

health-care services in all of our communities. Nonetheless, at this

moment the only restraint, aside from the restraint by actions of the

[ Page 2489 ]

parties themselves in respect of compensation matters, is that which is exercisable under the Anti-Inflation Act of Canada.

I would like to think that in our essential services, in our public

sector, on the part of government and its employees, appropriate

restraints could be practised at all times, recognizing that the

consequences of unrestrained demands and a willingness to accede to

those demands have the most serious consequences, not only upon

government but upon our whole community and the economy of this

province.

The ability of this province to pay for the services of government

which are demanded by our citizens depends in no small measure to the

extent to which restraints are exercised in public-sector settlements.

In this case, this agreement goes to the Anti-Inflation Board.

If, however, such restraints as presently are in existence should

appear to be inappropriate, then I suppose the members of this House

will need to consider, at some future time, other actions which we may

have available to us in the province of British Columbia to achieve the

goals of restraint which we deem to be appropriate for this province.

I trust that this method of resolving public-sector disputes in

essential services does not become the standard practice. As Minister

of Labour, I find with increasing regret that there is a growing

tendency to expect that government somehow or other will solve all the

problems. If employers and employees, their organizations and their

unions, truly believe that collective bargaining is the way, then I

think they must take into very careful account some of the actions

which they practise during the course of negotiations.

Bargaining is bargaining — a willingness to shift and move to

achieve a settlement. Rigidity is not collective bargaining, and in the

public sector and essential services those parties who are not involved

directly but who are the innocent victims of the failure to agree are

entitled to look to government and eventually to this assembly for

their relief.

Government is available to act and government will act when the need

is there. But the decision as to whether government must act rests upon

the shoulders of the parties who are directly involved in the process

of bargaining. I think that is why we are dealing with Bill 75 today —

some lack of recognition of the value of the collective bargaining

process and a tendency to look to government to show the way out.

Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 75.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic

Party supports this legislation. We also support this legislation with

regret but possibly from a different viewpoint than that of government.

As the minister pointed out, I believe twice when speaking, there is a

growing tendency within the community between negotiating parties to

rely in the final analysis on government to solve disputes that they

should be solving themselves through negotiation.

There may be some tendency on the part of some unions and some

management groups to do just that, but I don't feel that it's possibly

asking too much for government to solve problems that they themselves

have created through inaction. I'm afraid that that is somewhat the

case in this particular dispute.

I think we should go back to look at the Blair report. The minister

has said, Mr. Speaker, that the union — or the employees — accepted the

Blair report with some reluctance. Whether or not there was reluctance

or not, I don't know. Possibly there was, but at least they accepted

the report.

The management group may have felt that the Blair report was a fair

and equitable report and the recommendations they may have felt should

have been followed. But there was no way that the management group

could accept any report for the simple fact that the funds come from

provincial government, and the government had made it clear to the

management group that only 8.5 per cent would be allotted, and so the

HLRA had no choice but to turn down the Blair report.

When we look back over some of the history of this dispute,

especially the government's involvement, we can see that what has

happened here is that the government said to the management group:

"You're only going to get, no matter what the final negotiated terms

are between yourself and the employee, 8.5 per cent," and then expected

that there could be a negotiated agreement. So what we have in this

case is the management group having by necessity to turn down the Blair

report, no matter what they thought of that report — consequently a

strike in the province of British Columbia within the hospital industry.

A strike in the hospital industry, Mr. Speaker, is something that no

one wants — the public, the employees of those hospitals or management

of those hospitals. No one wants a strike and we feel that a strike

could have been avoided, especially with the legislative machinery,

both federal and provincial, that is available to government.

Government has said that even this agreement that is being imposed

will be reviewable by the federal AIB and by certain sections of Bill

16, the anti-inflation Act, through this Legislature. So it seems

redundant to do that once government has imposed a collective

agreement. So it is with regret, real regret, that we support this

legislation, although at the same time it should be pointed out that the

[ Page 2490 ]

action government is taking at this point is action that we approve of.

Mr. McTaggart's report says that the point had come where an impasse

was there and neither side was moving, neither union nor management,

and at that point government has no choice.

So we regret the need for the legislation in this case, but even

more we regret the inaction of government to ward off the strike itself

by making money available, through government, to meet the negotiated

terms that could have been arrived at through negotiation between the

management/employee group. It would still have been up for review, both

through federal legislation and through provincial legislation. So

there was no harm in allowing a freely negotiated contract to be

negotiated or allowing the management group to accept the Blair report,

because it was all going to be reviewed at a later date anyway under

federal and provincial legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there's only one group of people which is going to

really suffer because of the inaction of government. In the hospital

industry I think everyone would agree, because of the sensitive nature

of looking after sick people, that there probably does have to be more

harmony between the employees and management than probably in other

form of industry within any province or within any jurisdiction. Any

labour dispute, no matter who's at fault or who isn't at fault, leaves

behind it some feeling of bitterness.Bitterness should not be experienced in labour relations within the hospital

industry if it can at all be avoided.

I believe there is going to be some bitterness left behind as a residue from

this dispute — unavoidably. So, Mr. Speaker, we support the action of government at this point in coming

to this Legislature to take the action it's taking in Bill 75, but we truly

regret that the government did not follow a better course of action leading

up to the necessity of bringing in this legislation.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would first

of all wish to congratulate the minister on his opening remarks, first of

all in terms of the substance on this particular bill, which he canvassed

well, but beyond that, his philosophical remarks which related to the whole

question of settlements in the public sector and how they're to be arrived

at and the impact on the economy. If I heard the minister rightly we might

expect some further general initiatives along that line later on. We will await them with interest.

He spoke also of the philosophy of hoping that the Legislature

should not as a matter of routine have to enter into the settlement of

disputes. I think that everyone in this chamber would share that hope

and go on to say that to do that requires improvement in the underlying

labour/management relation system we've developed in this province.

I support this bill in principle, Mr. Speaker. It's a very important

bill, first of all because the principle of legislating the end to a

work stoppage or dispute is always important and always to be

approached reluctantly, and, secondly, purely in financial terms. We're

talking about a minimum of $6 million in a job evaluation account, an

amount which I suspect will prove to be insufficient in the end, and

we're also talking about the imposition of a particular settlement, the

variation of each percentage point of which costs about $2 million to

the public purse. So we're talking about a bill which in both moral and

financial terms is important.

This dispute, I suspect, has had a difficult history for the

Minister of Labour, because it arises out of some basically incorrect

relationships that perhaps needed some work stoppage in order to sort

them out. The parameters were wrong from the beginning. HEU local 180

was really bargaining with the government for the implementation of the

Blair report, through the intermediary of HLR. But, as the hon. member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) just suggested, HLR has no money of its

own; it has only government's money to dispose of. So the true

bargaining party, as far as HEU was concerned, was he government. The

HLR, on the other hand, was also really, in the end, bargaining with

the government. They were bargaining with the government for higher

funding in terms of operational costs, they were bargaining with the

government for job evaluation funding, and they were also, in my

opinion, bargaining with the government in an implicit way in order to

get some new essential services legislation passed in this province.

The outcome will, in all probability, be that all parties will be

reasonably satisfied, because the legislation imposes the terms of the

Blair report, subject to the AIB, and on the other hand gives HLR its

job evaluation funding. It may or may not give them higher operational

funding, but in my view it simply has to. I want to question the

minister about that.

The underlying situation might have been avoided had the genuine

parties to the dispute been talking face to face. I don't know. That's

a matter of speculation, and it's also a matter of speculation whether,

in the long run, the work stoppage — which, thank God, gave rise to no

specifically serious incident as far as we know — may in the end have

brought some good results.

I hope that either the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Health

might tell us at some time during his debate whether or not funds will

be available to the hospitals of this province to achieve the

settlements which this Legislature is imposing.

The special mediator mentions in page 2 of his

[ Page 2491 ]

report, "The employer has been advised by the

Minister of Health that any budget increase for the year 1976 will be

limited to 8.5 per cent." This is a figure which has been mentioned

often. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) during debate on

his estimates indicated that it didn't quite reflect the realities of

the world, but on the other hand I have here a clipping from The Daily Colonist

of this morning, saying of the minister: "He indicated at that time

that he wasn't ready to guarantee his department would be willing to

foot the bill for a recommended settlement."

Now that was, I gather, early on last evening, and I would assume

that the fact that the bill was finally introduced strongly implies

that the government will make the funds available to achieve the

payment of those salaries, but it would be good to hear that

specifically from the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams).

The stand of HLR during the currency of the dispute raises some

questions that were raised as well by the minister. They took large ads

in the newspaper talking about hospital costs in this province, the

rapid escalation, and inferentially raising the question of how in the

public sector you allocate resources. In the private sector we have a

market mechanism. In the public sector is it to be achieved entirely

through the use of political pressure, bargaining power of one kind or

another, or is there some more rational way we can arrive at the

resolution of these disputes?

The minister touched on these questions. I'm glad he's thinking

about them. I know he is. This raises as well the question of who is

really to manage the hospitals, because to the extent that we admit it

— I think we have to — the Department of Health is strictly responsible

for their funding, almost on a 100 per cent basis.

I wonder to what extent a local hospital authority has any real

autonomy. I say that not wishing to remove any such autonomy but in

hoping in some way to strengthen it, because I think that local

management is an important thing to the extent we can arrange it.

Whether in this debate or at some later time, I think it's important

that the Minister of Health give us his thoughts on this question.

The settlement which is imposed by this bill as outlined in appendix

1 is a very complicated one. Something which was not clear to me from

the remarks of the Minister of Labour is to what extent appendix 1 is —

with the exception of some of the controversial questions such as job

evaluation and wage settlement — essentially a continuation of previous

contract language, or else contract language which had essentially been

agreed to by the parties during the negotiations. I would assume that

this is the case but would be grateful for that reassurance.

The amendments brought in by the special mediator in the contract I think are generally good. The

two-year time period with a reopener and a COLA clause at the end of

the first year, a job-evaluation clause and a special grievance

committee — all of these I believe are productive advances.

I think we have to remember that we are in a sense passing an

uncertain bill because of the Anti-Inflation Board reference which the

bill provides. The AIB could come down either way. HEU is confident

that there is ample precedent to support the so-called Blair award by

the AIB. HLR disagrees. The special mediator was unable to come to a

conclusion either way. But one thing is certain. This Legislature must

rule, and both sides must agree, that whatever the AIB says they will

abide by.

It is conceivable that in the end some good things may come out of

all of this. The situation has been one of sufficient drama that has

heightened an appreciation of some of the anomalies in the situation.

It has, in my mind, revealed an inadequacy or an incompleteness in our

existing law relating to essential services because, while I have no

question that the LRB was following the Labour Code in designating the

services that they named essential, it is at least my opinion, and I

think the general opinion of the public, that insufficient employee

support in the hospitals was designated to maintain what most people

thought to be genuinely essential services. While, by the report of the

Minister of Health, medical standards within hospitals were not

prejudiced, there is no question that many persons out in the community

who otherwise would, have been in hospital for good and sufficient

reason were excluded from that by the operation of the strike.

One of the other interesting things that we could see during the

currency of the strike was the general respect of the public, as far as

I could see, for the union position. There was not any wish to say that

they were absolutely wrong because they had walked out of an important

health service, no particular inclination to take a simplistic

position, but rather a sympathy for the problem. I think that bodes

well for the future of labour relations in this province.

There is unquestionably an increased public concern with

labour-management relations and there is going to be a lot of public

sympathy required in improving the situation, because it must, in the

end, be improved by cooperation and not by confrontation. A lack of

confrontation in the short term may be necessary to lead to cooperation

in the long term, may take a good deal of public sympathy to be

sustained. This sort of thing must be sustained because even legislated

solutions, which are currently our last resort in these circumstances,

must have moral authority and public support, and the support of both

of the parties to the dispute.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government has produced a necessary bill, a bill that I

[ Page 2492 ]

can support. Once again, I congratulate the minister on the manner in which

he brought it in.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I am impressed as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) was by

the minister's introduction of this bill which I would certainly

support. There are one or two general points, I think, that should be

made based on the fact that we have to be debating this bill today

under the circumstances which the minister outlined.

In the first place, it contradicts some of the statements that were made during

the strike that somehow hospitals can muddle through and people will not lose

their lives, simply because not all hospital employees are directly involved

in treating sick people but are, in fact, providing support services of one

kind or another, such as cleaning facilities and supply of other similar services.

One of the elements in the various discussions that went on during the strike,

and some of the answers which were given in question, period during the strike,

left me personally very uneasy that society was losing sight of the fact that

because persons were not dying in hospitals because of the strike, somehow

or other there was little or no suffering involved by sick people. I think

the minister has recognized that of the three options mentioned by Judge McTaggart

in his report, the No. 1 option is totally unacceptable.

In introducing the bill the minister quoted from the Blair report. I think

it would be interesting to place on the record, from page 7 of the report,

Judge McTaggart's statement that there are three options in light of his

failure to bring about an agreement between the parties. He says:

"The first option is to do nothing and leave the parties

to proceed as they wish on the expiration of the 21-day cooling-off period.

The union has made it clear it will resume the strike; this option is clearly

out of the question."

I think the minister, by bringing in this bill, clearly agrees with

the special mediator. This, in action and fact, confirms and I hope

places on the record once and for all that the strike weapon in the

field of essential services is archaic and wasteful of a great deal of

time of many people in all the convoluted manoeuvrings of negotiations,

such as we have seen, when the first prerequisite, as the minister

himself has said, is providing proper service to the sick. Every other

consideration of employer, employee and taxpayer has to come secondary

to that overriding primary concern.

I very much appreciate the minister's quoting that very significant

section from Judge McTaggart's report. I won't repeat it, but it, in

effect, states that both parties had previously guaranteed in their

agreement that their primary responsibility was to ensure the

continuation of service to the sick. The judge in his report says that

the parties have reached he point where they are merely paying

lip-service to that prior commitment in writing in a previous agreement.

I would like to align myself with the minister's other comment that

in this debate I am not picking sides and I am not seeking to lay blame

on either of the two parties involved in this dispute. The first

essential point we must recognize is that strikes in such essential

services in a supposedly enlightened era of 1976 are completely

unacceptable.

On that basis, it emphasizes a point that has already been made by

this government not only in relation to the hospital strike, but in

relation to the situation on the B.C. Railway, that there is need for

ongoing legislation which will, in the fairest possible way, deal with

this kind of problem before it ever gets to the stage that has been

reached at this particular time.

This fragmented, crisis-by-crisis approach to labour disputes in

essential services just cannot continue. We hear a great deal nowadays

about the gutlessness of politicians and the fact that they're hesitant

or afraid to deal with this kind of issue, and to show leadership.

While I welcome this bill as one of these ad hoc, crisis bills to deal

with an immediate situation, I can give the government notice that if

they bring in a much more significant type of legislation which

recognizes these lessons of the recent years and incorporates in

permanent legislation some of the safeguards — and the safeguards will

work both ways; safeguard the public and also safeguard the rights of

employers and employees in essential services — then they will

certainly receive my strong support on that kind of legislation.

One of the fundamental reasons that any group is very nervous about

either giving up the right to strike or losing the right to strike, is

the feeling that it will fall behind comparable forms of employment in

elation to wage benefits and fringe benefits. I would just say in

passing that I hope the government, in the kind of legislation I

anticipate, will incorporate some measure of safeguard that will give

essential-service employees the assurance that they will not, in fact,

fall behind simply because they don't have what appears to be the

ultimate weapon, namely the right to strike.

The McTaggart report, I think, is excellent in various ways, not the

least of which is its brevity and clarity. The McTaggart report spells

out the reason for it having to be issued in the first place and I

think, in a very clear and brief manner, sums up the issues on which

Judge McTaggart had to make a decision.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are many lessons to be learned from this

very serious dispute, one of which is the very legitimate position by

the union, as I see it, that they adhered to good faith and all the

techniques of negotiation available to them and finally agreed to

[ Page 2493 ]

an industrial inquiry commissioner, namely Mr.

Blair, and the reason they persisted in striking was that they felt, in

good faith, they were entitled, even with reluctance, to accept such a

commissioner's report and assume that the other side would be equally

willing to accept such a report.

The problem, as we have mentioned in other debates in this House, is

that these reports are not binding. We discussed the other night in

this House briefly the problems in Nanaimo relating to the school board

and its dispute with employees, and I think we should all try to learn

from these experiences and encourage this government to look at the

possibility of ongoing legislation being amended to make this kind of

commissioner's report binding.

The minister made many general comments about the whole problem of

serious public disputes, and, either in this House or in public

statements, it is quite clear that this government is moving towards

some form of binding arbitration in various areas. Without intruding on

another bill in the House, there is an example that that is a concept

the government wishes to implement. I would say that if the government

is thinking that far ahead toward forms of binding arbitration, it

would make a great deal of sense to have industrial inquiry

commissioner findings made binding by an appropriate amendment to the

Labour Code.

As I mentioned a moment ago, even in the very best of good faith by

both sides to a dispute there is an immense amount of time and money

and effort spent trying to reach an agreement, and to anyone who has

discussed this with both sides in this dispute — and I appreciate the

minister's personal effort in this dispute to keep me informed — it's

clear that we finished up with the Blair report, or most of the Blair

report, being imposed rather than accepted. That is why I feel that if

we're not to learn something from these disputes then, indeed, we would

all feel rather pessimistic about the future when, no doubt, this

similar kind of situation occurs.

But on trying to look at the, employers' side of this problem, Mr.

Speaker, I also completely agree with the concern and hesitancy which

they showed about accepting the Blair report.

The valid point has been stressed that the employers, the hospital

trustees, have no money of their own — they are provided, in a very

large measure, with money from the government only — so this makes it

very difficult for the employer in hospital disputes to know exactly

how or when they might have the funding available to even listen to the

kind of wage increase and fringe benefits which have been requested by

the other side. Any employer in his right mind would surely not agree

to accept something which was as nebulous as the job-evaluation

programme and its undecided cost.

The minister, in his introductory remarks — and I think I have it

correctly; I wrote down his statement — said that assessment of the

costs of the job-evaluation programme will take some time. I think it's

fair in trying to learn lessons from this strike, that the employers,

in my view, are absolutely justified in being very apprehensive at

accepting the Blair report when the central issue, which could not be

measured in terms of dollars, was the job-evaluation programme and the

fact that they really did not know whether more money might be

forthcoming from the government. I would like to make this point

abundantly clear.

Again, I am not laying blame. I am just trying to think how I would

have responded had I been negotiating for the employers, because the

hospitals received a letter from Mr. J.G. Glenwright, the Associate

Deputy Minister of Hospital Programmes, dated May 13, 1976, which

stated, as has been mentioned in the House already, that a general

increase of 8.5 per cent can be provided in the 1976-77 budget of

hospitals. But what has not yet been stated in this debate, or on

previous occasions in the House, was a very significant paragraph in

that letter to the hospitals. On the second page of the letter to the

hospitals it states as follows: "Your attention is drawn to the fact

that funds provided to your hospital on the above basis must cover any

increased costs that will be incurred by your hospital as a result of

1976 collective bargaining agreements, including any additional costs

that may result from the job-evaluation study."

Now nothing could be more shattering, I would think, to the

employers than to be trying to consider the Blair report, which

basically was 8 per cent plus COLA, plus fringe benefits and including

the job-evaluation programme, the cost of which has very much in debate.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is

shaking his head, and I am sorry about that because if he had been

listening he would have just heard the paragraph from Mr. Glenwright's

letter. I'll read it again.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just wish the Minister of Health would open his ears instead of his mouth.

I'll read the paragraph again: "Your attention is drawn to the fact

that funds provided to your hospital on the above basis must cover any

increased costs that will be incurred by your hospital as a result of

1976 collective bargaining agreements, including any additional costs

that may result from the job-evaluation study." Now what could be

clearer

[ Page 2494 ]

than that?

Now I was not meaning to become partisan or angry in this debate,

Mr. Speaker, because it is supposed to cross party lines. But if

employers were told that anything they accepted at the bargaining

table, the 8.5 per cent promised promised by the hospital, would have

to include the increased costs of the job-evaluation study.... That's

been the whole obstacle to this particular dispute, as the minister

well knows.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Complete irresponsibility.

MR. WALLACE: I am not criticizing or blaming anybody at this

point in time. I am just saying that because of the stated facts and

figures there was very little hope that the parties themselves, or with

the help of special mediator, could realistically and intelligently

work out a settlement when this letter had gone to the hospitals on May

13 stating that no increase in budgets above 8.5 per cent would be

permitted and that the increase would have to include the cost of the

job-evaluation programme.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

So again trying to stress a theme that we must learn from the past,

and without quoting the famous historian or somebody who said that

those who fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it — a very

pithy little bit of philosophy in the middle of an angry speech, Mr.

Attorney-General....

But in an attempt to learn from our experience, I do feel that

government will have to wonder how valid or realistic it is for

hospital trustees or their representatives to sit around a negotiating

table and give any serious consideration to the wage demands of

employees when there is this precondition set by the source of funding,

telling the employers that before they go any further with any kind of

negotiation, they will be limited to X per cent increase in available

funds.

During the strike, Mr. Speaker, I was able to meet with Mr. Geron

who's the manager of the union — I'm not sure that's his precise title,

manager-secretary — who stated that this was one very essential

obstructive reason to fruitful negotiations. The union knows very well

that in the general context of negotiations they are not in this

instance really negotiating with the people who matter, because the

employer sitting across the other side of the table is hamstrung right

off the bat before they get into negotiations by a ceiling set upon the

amount of money that will be available.

Now if the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) means that this

statement in the letter to the hospitals is flexible, it certainly

doesn't read that way in the paragraph. Again let me stress that I'm

not trying to nail Mr. Glenwright or the minister, or anybody else, but

I'm saying that if I were an employer and a hospital trustee, having

read this letter and then sitting down at a table to negotiate, and the

request from the other side of the table far exceeds the amount which

the government is committed to making available.... What kind of

realistic negotiations can you have from that point on particularly

when one of the fringe benefits that is being debated is a

job-evaluation study in which the employers.... The minister today has

acknowledged that that is very much an unknown quantity which will take

time to measure.

Now we are frequently and quite correctly being asked by political

leaders at all levels to understand the need for financial restraint

and to try and exercise that restraint. It would seem to me that all

the employers were trying to do in this case was heed those national,

provincial, municipal and regional warnings from every politician in

Canada. I think it's very obvious that this dispute was unlikely ever

to be settled by the two parties in negotiations, even with a special

mediator for some of these basic preconditions, which made bargaining

almost certain to fail, no matter how much good faith was brought to

the table.

MR. LAUK: Who set these preconditions? Why are you beating around the bush?

MR. WALLACE: Well, somebody — and the member for Vancouver

Centre says: "Who set these preconditions?" One of the parties who set

the preconditions was the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) who

entered into an agreement with the employees — since you asked, Mr.

Member.

MR. LAUK: It's not my day!

MR. WALLACE: He was the previous Minister of Health.

MR. LAUK: All right! All right! Next point.

MR. WALLACE: And I didn't make that response either to

criticize or to blame the former Minister of Health. He did so in good

faith on August 3, 1972, when he agreed to the setting up of an

administrative committee as provided in the agreement under

article 12,

entitled "Job Evaluation." If we can just interject again a general

note dealing with the whole field of labour-management problems, it is

very much this question of job evaluation and individuals being paid a

certain rate of pay which they feel is inadequate in relation to other

persons in other occupations with perhaps less skill, or less training,

or less experience.

[ Page 2495 ]

We needn't kid ourselves that this job-evaluation

aspect is just a problem in the hospital field. It is the kind of issue

that's been discussed in this House during the estimates of the

Minister of Labour for the last several years that I've been here. One

of the fundamental reasons for unrest in some forms of employment is

the fact that the employee feels that he or she is getting a great deal

less for their training and effort and responsibility than some other

group less well trained, with less experience and perhaps better hours

of work.

So we would again be failing to learn from the past if we didn't

recognize that the whole issue of job evaluation is extremely important

in this debate. Because of that, I'm very glad that the discussions and

Judge McTaggart's report have emphasized how important it will be, if

there is to be any long-term peace in the hospital field, regarding

labour-management problems, that the job-evaluation part of the

agreement is taken very seriously and dealt with as soon as possible.

The difficulty in deciding the cost of the job evaluation has

already been mentioned, and on that point, I wonder if the minister in

winding up second reading would tell us: was the $6 million figure just

pulled out of a hat, or, despite all the difficulties in assessing the

cost, how did the minister and his advisers come up with the $6 million

figure? We've heard about the $6 million-dollar-man, but this is a $6

million job evaluation we're talking about.

I'm also interested in

article 12(7) of the agreement which says

that the job-evaluation programme will be shared equally by the

employer and the union. I wonder if the minister could confirm that

that is the course that will be taken and whether that is a new

addition, or was that part of the agreement that was reached by the

former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) when the administrative committee

was set up?

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the minister, it's on page 45 of appendix 1 and it's under

article 12(7) .

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Attorney General would like to

make a statement so I would ask leave of the House that I might permit

him to do that and I can resume my place in debate later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

INVESTIGATION OF KITIMAT

LAW ENFORCEMENT SITUATION

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Recent events in

Kitimat, Mr. Speaker, have caused concern in the community with respect

to law enforcement, and as a result of these concerns, I have asked

officials of my department to proceed to Kitimat this afternoon and to

furnish me with full particulars of the matters as they now exist there.

We're interested, as I'm sure are all members of the House, in the

peace, order and security of all of our citizens, and hence this step

is being taken. The concerns in question have been expressed to the

government by members of local government and by the MLA for the area

(Mr. Shelford), and we wish a first-hand report.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

Attorney-General taking the House into his confidence, and I appreciate

his not taking precipitate action in what is a dangerous situation.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Vancouver

East says, the situation is a very sensitive one, and from what the

Attorney-General has just said, and from other talks, he has handled it

in a very sensitive way. I wish him well on it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, very briefly, in response to the

Attorney-General's statement, I just want to say that despite the

sensitivity that the other two opposition members have referred to,

what we're really concerned about is obeying the law of this province.

It's a little bit like the essential services in the hospitals. The

overriding concern is the public good and the preservation of law and

order, and the rights and advantages or otherwise within labour

management negotiations come very much secondary to that.

If I may continue, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 75. The hon. member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I would just appreciate some information from

the minister about why $6 million was considered to be an appropriate

preliminary amount of money for job evaluation and whether this was

determined in consultation with the hospital employers. I have referred

article 12(7) which states that the job-evaluation programme would

be shared equally by the employer and the unions, and that leads to the

third question: does the minister's allocation of $6 million for the

job evaluation mean that the initial costs are to be $12 million and

the other $6 million will be provided by the union, according to the

subsection I have quoted?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the minister has referred in his comments to a

tendency for the public to look to governments to solve their problems.

It seems that in areas like this where essential services are concerned

they have every right to look to government to solve their problems.

Inasmuch as where the desirable procedure of collective bargaining

repetitively fails to

[ Page 2496 ]

solve the problem and we deal with it finally on

this kind of emergency crisis basis, it's not surprising to me that

citizens generally in this province look upon government very much as

the last resort to solve their problems. And thank God they're doing

it, otherwise we would be back into a hospital strike the day after

tomorrow.

So while the minister may wish and sincerely believe that there are

other ways or better ways to solve these disputes other than by the

method we are now having to employ, with the greatest of respect, I

feel that the citizens in British Columbia are very often left with

little other choice. I'm sure all the people who are going broke along

the B.C. Railway line feel that the citizens in British Columbia are

very often left with little other choice. I'm sure all the people who

are going broke along the B.C. Railway line feel very much the same way.

So the basic premise we all seem to be agreed upon is that at times

when the third party concerned, being the public, are being severely

penalized, or perhaps having their life or health endangered, there's

absolutely no other solution to the problem other than to have the

government invoke legislation which overrides existing legislation in

the Labour Code.

So, Mr. Speaker, if I could try to sum up quickly: the bill is

necessary; I support it. I think that the work of Judge McTaggart is to

be congratulated for its clarity and brevity. But even more important

than solving the immediate problem, I hope that we'll learn some

lessons from the way in which these problems have developed this time

around and that we can confidently look to the government for more

permanent, ongoing legislation which will include safeguards to all

parties — not just the third party but the employers, the employees and

the public.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'll

be very brief in supporting this bill. I do want to respond, though, to

a couple of comments that were made, and which relate directly to the

Department of Health, by all the three members who've spoken in this

debate.

I find it difficult to understand why an essentially labour party

would look to the provincial government to step in and abrogate the

rights of two sides in a labour dispute to get together and solve their

own differences, which is essentially what the NDP has asked us to do.

The same thing is true, to a large degree, in what the member for

Oak Bay has said and what the Liberal leader has said as well. All of

them have asked, or have suggested, that the Department of Health,

through my office, should have given an open-ended guarantee in a

labour dispute to two parties legally constituted.

The member for Oak Bay talked about the rule of law. The labour law

in this province at the present time provides for the hospitals to

bargain with the unions. We attempted to allow that to happen just as

long as possible. Because it didn't happen is the reason we're standing

in this House today debating a bill.

As a responsible government there is no way I could recommend that

we guarantee the costs, particularly of the job-evaluation report,

since estimates for the cost of that report varied from $6 million to

$20 million. It would have been completely irresponsible for me to say:

"Here, here are the keys to the vault. Don't bother bargaining; the

money is there, so settle in any way you think is right." It just

couldn't possibly be done, Mr. Speaker.

Now if the Liberal leader's suggestions were followed, in which he

says that the real parties to this dispute should have been face to

face in bargaining — and I assume he's talking about the union and the

Department of Health — then, okay, if that's what the Liberal leader

wants, if that's what the member for Oak Bay wants, and if that's what

the NDP wants, then stand up and say eliminate hospital boards, and we

shall run the hospitals from Victoria with no local input. We can do

that. I don't want to do it....

MR. WALLACE: It doesn't have to be one or the other, Bob.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, yes it does live to be one or the other. The financial responsibility is there.

The Liberal member particulary said in this House today to let the parties bargain face to face. He also said that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, you said that, in effect. And, Mr.

Speaker, the NDP has also said that in effect by saying that the

provincial government should have said that we'll accept any settlement

made with the job evaluation and with the collective bargaining

process. That's easy. Anybody can do that and the door's open. That's

not responsible government, though, Mr. Speaker, and there was no

possible way that we could have done that at that time.

Yes, we said to two hospitals that there was an 8.5 per cent limit

on their increase in expenditures this year, because that's what was

included in the budget. We had already given the hospitals 8.5 per cent

in terms of their annualization in COLA clauses and job-evaluation

payments, of which we've already paid, from the Department of Health,

over $3 million — which is, in effect, an acceptance of the

job-evaluation report. So really what the hospitals

[ Page 2497 ]

have been given in terms of increased cash — and I

said this before; I don't want to belabour it — was a 17 per cent

increase, which again is a pretty hefty increase in one year.

So we're saying, let's stick within some kind of recognized budget

for the hospitals. Just look what's happening in other parts of Canada

and you'll see that it's a dilemma we're not facing by ourselves.

Saskatchewan is forcing bed closing, staff layoffs, and health-care

agencies have been instructed to stay within their announced budgets.

That's exactly what we've said: stay within your budget.

Saskatchewan is also saying that funding is being cut for capital

grants to hospitals, equipment grants to hospitals, staffing of the

Saskatchewan dental plan, research of the Saskatchewan cancer

commission, activities of the alcohol commission. Non-hospital x-ray

facilities are being cut and funding for the regional hospital councils

is being stopped in Saskatchewan.

That's like saying that no more will the greater Vancouver Regional

Hospital District get any more funding from government. I'm only

pointing out that this is a problem that we face and we have to somehow

say to the hospitals: "Stay within your budget."

Unfortunately the HLRA, who were the bargaining agents for the

hospitals long before that May memorandum went out to the hospitals,

said: "We will not accept the Blair Report. We will accept 8 per cent

and no more." There was no bargaining from that position.

We recognized that there was no bargaining on either side. That's

why the government finally had to step in. I don't think the Labour

minister (Hon. Mr. Williams) could have done anything else, Mr.

Speaker; nor could the Department of Health as a responsible

representative of government have done anything more than it did.

MR. LAUK: You could have done this 40 days ago.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that party over there wrote

the Labour Code under which we are operating now. We attempted to

operate under that Labour Code — under the rule of law in this province.

MR. LAUK: Nothing's changed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're right. Nothing has changed; we're still operating under the rule of law, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: No, nothing's changed in the dispute, and you know it. You dragged it out.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Unfortunately we found that neither side

was able to come to the kind of conclusion that was necessary to settle

the dispute in their own way between themselves. If that member or the

Liberal member (Mr. Gibson) or any other member in this House wants to

stand up and say — "Eliminate hospital boards. Let Victoria run the

hospitals without any local input. Let Victoria bargain directly with

all of the hospital unions." — then let them stand up and accept that

responsibility, Mr. Speaker. It is one that I reject.

Now that we are in this position, we have accepted the

responsibility of government to legislate an end to a strike which in

all conscience we couldn't let happen again. Everybody in this House

agrees that a further strike in the hospital services would have been

reprehensible.

I have gone to government and I have asked government if it will,

first of all, guarantee the cost of a wage settlement, whatever that

settlement might be as approved by the Anti-Inflation Board above 8.5

per cent, which is the approved budget that we have now. Government has

agreed, so we will guarantee any increase approved by the AIB above 8.5

per cent. As far as the $6 million goes for the job evaluation report

that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised, I am sure that the

member has to realize that we are talking about 16,000 employees who

will have to be readjusted in one way or another. It could be very

expensive, depending on the manner in which those employees are

readjusted and slotted. We don't know how much it is going to cost. The

$6 million was sort of picked out of the air. We've paid $3 million

already — better than $3 million — in terms of the anti-discrimination

agreement to bring the female employees up to the level of the male

employees. That has already been paid; that's a large part of the job

evaluation report, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The silly little man.

Mr. Speaker, the upper estimate by the union is something like $20

million. We don't think it will cost anywhere near that to implement.

We don't think we can get by for $5 million; we've said $6 million in

this fiscal year. It is an indication in good faith by the government

that we will implement the job evaluation report as quickly as we

possibly can. Government will pick up the cost of that implementation.

MR. WALLACE: All of it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: All of it.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, the minister really has answered my

[ Page 2498 ]

question before I got a chance to ask it, but in any event there are a couple of things I want to say.

The job-evaluation

section of the dispute was one with which I was

very concerned. I am very grateful, Mr. Minister, that you have said

that the government is prepared to pick up the full tab — I am

repeating it to be sure that I heard what you said — to pick up the

full tab for the cost, whatever it may be, for the job evaluation

report.

I recognize, as you do, that one of the components of the job

evaluation report had to do with the struggle on the part of women to

get equal pay for work of equal value. What the previous government

tried to do, dealing specifically with the orderlies and with the women

with a different title but doing basically the same kind of work, was

to close the gap which had grown over the years between the incomes of

these two groups. As happens in most instances of traditional

injustices, it was a very expensive job. It cost $3 million just to

deal with that one specific group.

But that was just the beginning. It was not intended that that was

where it was supposed to end; that was just the beginning. I hope that

the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in

section 6 of this bill

towards putting out $6 million to an assessment of the entire job

evaluation field is also, and must be, accompanied by the Minister of

Health's commitment to pick up the whole tab for that job evaluation

when it is completed.

The other component with the job evaluation's trouble has to do with

part-time employment, and in fact the right of people who cannot work

full time to secure part-time employment in the health sector in the

hospitals. You know what Vancouver General Hospital did when it had to

cut back for financial reasons. The first people it started to lay off

were its part-time employees. A number of these employees had been

working up to 30 years as part-time employees because that was the only

amount of time they could put in on the job.

I earlier cited a case about a woman who had an invalid husband and

could only work in the evenings when he was asleep. There is never ever

going to be a time, as long as he's alive, that she will be able to

hold down a full-time job. She was one of the people that Vancouver

General Hospital decided, in terms of its cutback, should be removed

from her job.

So I certainly hope that the job-evaluation study and assessment

takes into account the rights of part-time employees to some kind of

job security too, that they shouldn't always be the first ones to lose

their jobs. I accept the minister's statement that the discriminatory

factor involved in salaries is going to be dealt with.

What I'm not clear on is how this is going to fit into the AIB

guidelines because, as you know, they are on a percentage thing. So

maybe when the minister is responding...are you going to close the gap

first and then apply the AIB guidelines? Because if you apply the

guidelines first, what the guidelines do is freeze us into disparities,

which is really my major contention with the guidelines — they keep the

people at the bottom of the ladder at the bottom of the ladder and

never, ever deal with the business of redistribution of income. So when

the minister closes the debate maybe he could respond as to whether the

gap is going to be closed first and then the guidelines applied after.

What I found very disconcerting with the Minister of Health's

statement was the implication he left with the House that the HLRA is

not a responsible group, that in fact the reason why he was unable to

make a commitment to back up any kind of collective agreement they made

with the union was because he had no idea what this commitment would be.

Now here we have people duly elected to the board who, hopefully,

are responsible individuals. We would have hoped that the minister

would have had some respect for their competence and their

responsibility in terms of negotiating a sensible collective agreement

with the trade union movement, with the employees on the job. That is

what I think was being said by the New Democratic Party, the Liberals

and the Conservatives when we said that this strike need never have

been. It was a totally useless confrontation between the employees and

the employer which was triggered by the reluctance on the part of that

minister to treat with some kind of respect the Labour Relations Board

— which was bargaining on behalf of the government, quite frankly.

That's what the board was doing. To assume that to say to them that we

will honour any negotiations or any collective agreement which you

bargain will open the door to irresponsible behaviour on their part, I

think, is really an indictment of that board, and possibly they deserve

some kind of an apology from the minister for that.

I'm glad the strike is going to be over, quite frankly. From the

very beginning I never dealt with the Minister of Labour; I always

dealt with the Minister of Health, specifically as it applied to

Vancouver General Hospital, because the agreement which the employees

accepted — the Blair report — many, many days ago is in fact not as

beneficial to them as this agreement which has been brought down by

Judge McTaggart.

The whole extension of the strike was unnecessary and could have

been avoided if the Minister of Health in the beginning had had some

kind of respect for the negotiating powers of the HLRA and had said to

them: "Negotiate a good collective agreement and we will honour the

contract." This entire thing could have been avoided. This entire

dispute, this confrontation between the employees and the hospital

could have been avoided. It really was a very

[ Page 2499 ]

tragic confrontation because people who have to

work in a medical setting with people who are ill...the kind of

hostility generated as a result of this strike not only was totally

unnecessary, but it's going to take a very long time to subside. That

is really very tragic.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Health is not in the room, Mr.

Speaker, because he's the person to whom my remarks are being

addressed, not to the Minister of Labour because, certainly, I

recognize that this is a piece of labour legislation and that is the

reason why he is introducing it.

But the person responsible, and who must be held responsible for

that unnecessary and useless labour confrontation, has to be, first of

all, the Premier of this province, who made the decision that the

Minister of Health should not honour any collective agreement

negotiated between the Hospital Labour Relations Association and the

Hospital Employees Union.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the members

for their contributions in this debate and I will do my best to answer

some of the questions which they have raised.

I think I can answer the principal argument put forward by the

member for Prince Rupert and, to some extent, by the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano and by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard if I

respond directly to what she said about this being a useless strike.

I guess in essential services all strikes are useless strikes,

because they are eventually resolved. I think that if one considers the

loss to the employees during the period of the strike and the burden on

those who have services denied to them, the benefits that may be

achieved by anyone as a consequence of this kind of action must surely

weigh on the side of uselessness.

I think it is wrong for the members to suggest that it was because

of a reluctance on the part of the government to make its commitment

financially that brought about this dispute. Let me remind the members

that Mr. Blair, the industrial inquiry commissioner, was appointed on

December 9, 1975, by the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) . That

means that by that time negotiations had already broken down. The

parties had not been able to achieve a collective agreement through the

normal processes of collective bargaining. Let me advise the members

that the union gave up its right to compulsory binding arbitration at

that time in order to encourage HLRA to accept and agree to Mr. Blair

being appointed.

I'm not sure, as I look at the matter in retrospect, that I consider

that that action of HLRA was responsible. They wouldn't agree until

they got something from the union, and that was before I became

minister and while the former government was in place. Why didn't the

former government say to the HLRA, "Don't worry about the costs. We'll

pay it"? Obviously the former government and the former Minister of

Health (Mr. Cocke) didn't think that was an appropriate way to resolve

collective bargaining issues in hospital services in this province, and

we don't either. It was a very good reason, because if you simply say

to the employer's negotiators, "Don't worry what the cost is, " then

there is little incentive for them to negotiate.

I would also like to remind the members that, as the member for

North Vancouver-Capilano said, HLRA spent some of its money — public

moneys, but still paid for by the hospitals. Their budget is $500,000 a

year, but some of it went to pay this ad. They didn't blame the

Minister of Health. Their clear statement was:

"HLRA firmly believes, in the light of accelerating

hospital costs" — this is the maximum of 8 per cent — "that can be

economically justified, a great many people support this stand and

support it strongly. If the hospital employees were underpaid or lacked

benefits by others in the community, HLRA could perhaps consider a

greater settlement. Such, however, is not the case. B.C. hospital

employee wages are currently equal to or better than most other wages

in the, community and at wage scales higher than hospitals in most

other provinces."

That's the position of the management negotiating team. Nowhere in

this ad do they say: "If the Minister of Health would just give us a

blank cheque then we could accept the Blair report without difficulty."

They had to be bargained into Blair, and they've had to be bargained

out of him as well.

There's no point in criticizing HLRA. We have to look for some

better mechanism, and I think the member for Oak Bay touched on a very

important point as to the resolution of this matter of public sector

dispute. The essential service concept is a difficult one, and I just

wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the member for Oak Bay that the

most careful consideration is presently being given to just that

legislative programme. I'm not promising it soon. It's difficult. It

has been attempted in other jurisdictions without much success. But

because of what we recognize in this dispute, and the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano put it, I thought, very well if I noted his remarks

correctly: "The union was bargaining with the government and HLRA was

bargaining with the government."

When you have that kind of involvement of the government.... It

applies in education and it applies in human resources. All the public

sector depends upon the funds that are made available through

government. When you have this situation developing in essential

services disputes — we have it in the

[ Page 2500 ]

ferries — you know, it all comes back to

government. When you have that three-way negotiation, with the

government as the taxpayers' representative in the middle, then some

new technique has to be found. I wish to hasten to assure the member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that when I say we're seeking a better way it

is one which will ensure that it's fair to the employer, the employee

and those who desire the service.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was absent, I

think, when the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) dealt

with the question of autonomy. I, too, believe that autonomy should be

maintained at the local hospital districts because so often they are in

a better position to make accurate decisions as to the kind of service

that is required in particular communities, be it large or small. I

would hate to see the situation arise when suddenly the whole hospital

system was suddenly administered from some place in this city. I think

that would be a wrong move.

At the same time, though, when government makes the funds available,

I think those hospital boards must consider very carefully the

decisions they make and the demands that are reflected by those

decisions on a taxpayer. This is what I meant to indicate when I said

that there had to be some differing attitudes adopted. Those hospital

boards have got to be careful on what they plan, and when they

negotiate with their employees they must negotiate fairly but rigidly

to make certain that the services that they supply don't escalate

beyond the ability of the taxpayers to provide them.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano raised the question about

the appendix 1 agreement. The appendix 1 agreement is essentially the

agreement that was appended by Mr. Blair to his industrial inquiry

commission report, with the three changes that I mentioned. I think it

is significant, however, when talking about this agreement, to

recognize the extent of the involvement of the negotiations before Mr.

Blair ever even got into the matter last December.

When they went into the round of negotiations, the union presented

60 demands and clarity proposals on their agenda and the employers'

association presented 38 demands and clarity proposals on their agenda.

Practically all of them were resolved before Blair even came onto the

scene. This is something which must be borne in mind when we consider

the cost of this settlement that's involved in this agreement. Except

for vacations, wages and COLA, almost every one of the cost items in

this contract was agreed to by the parties before they even got to

Blair. The dental programme and other intangible expense items were

already agreed to.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This brings me back to the whole question of the way bargaining

takes place. It's not good enough for the employer and the union to sit

down and bargain all the fringes and then come along and say they can't

agree on the wages. In some instances the wages are the lesser part of

the package, and indeed that's almost the case here. Wages, under the

Blair report and under the McTaggart report, are 8 per cent plus COLA.

The COLA kicks in about halfway through the year so it's only about

one-half of one per cent.

The total package is about 16, if you take the calculations used by

the Anti-Inflation Board. So almost half of the whole package was in

fringes already negotiated before the industrial inquiry commissioner

came onto the scene. That really limits the ability of the industrial

inquiry commissioner or any other third party to come in and make any

impact upon negotiations.

I think one has to be very careful in these negotiations to

recognize the situation which exists when the third party enters and

tries to achieve some settlement. What usually happens is that the

lines are hard-drawn and the issues are very few so there's not much

room for the third party to move the parties, unless there is a real

willingness to settle. That's what I meant about the attitudes that

must be brought, particularly public sector-essential service disputes,

throughout the whole of the process. It is in that area, I should say

to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), that we are giving particular

concern to the methodology and the attitudes that can be brought in the

final resolution of those remaining issues in dispute.

I might also point out, on this question of this being an ad hoc

bill in a crisis situation, that I'm not sure that ad hockery is always

bad. Every individual case may require some slightly different

treatment. For example, in this case the inclusion of the job

evaluation fund is a special wrinkle which you apply to this particular

settlement and might not apply to this particular settlement and might

not apply to any others. Sometimes you have to tailor legislation in

the resolution of these disputes very specifically and that makes the

job of general legislation exceedingly complicated.

The member for Oak Bay raised the question of binding awards. It

sounds like an easy way out, but all it means, particularly in a

public-sector dispute, is that the government then passes on to some

third party the decision as to how the money is going to be spent and

how much, or in the private sector the employer does it. And that

raises a very, very serious question for the employer in the private

sector and for the government: do we delegate this most important

responsibility? If you get someone who is too lenient, who fails to

recognize the consequences of the lack of restraint, does the

government have to accept that?

[ Page 2501 ]

I think there has to be some better way, and perhaps the techniques

that we will be discussing with this House over the coming weeks will

make clear that there are methods by which government, and indeed this

Legislature, can make some better decisions with the facts before it

than has been the case in the past. That may be the way out of the

binding arbitration concept because, as well, binding arbitration is

not readily accepted by trade unions, although I must say, in my brief

experience as Minister of Labour, that in the majority of cases where

binding arbitration has been requested in my office it's been the

unions who have asked for it and not management.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I understand what the member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) is saying, but what she doesn't recognize

is that the growing trend in labour negotiations in North America is

for the unions to ask for binding arbitration and for the employers to

refuse it. The employers refuse it because they know that they lose and

the unions always win with third parties. As a matter of fact, there's

a classic work being written on this matter in which they reviewed the

settlements in education in the province of British Columbia. It's a

classic case where for years compulsory binding arbitration has been

the way in which those disputes have been settled, and it can now be

examined. It shows that year after year after year it is the employee

who wins, not the employer. But it isn't a question of winning or

losing. That's the wrong approach to it.

The $6 million, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I think the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has answered that particular

aspect. Now in the agreement.... Let's talk about the cost of

implementation of the job-evaluation programme. That's not what it

costs in the sense of what increases there will be in compensation to

employees. As he pointed out, there are some 16,000 employees in the

hospital industry who are involved in this problem. It will, as I said

in my opening remarks, take much time and much effort on the part of

both the union and the employer to go into each hospital in this

province and work out the job evaluation, the stratification of the

employees in their proper relationship one with the other, and between

hospitals as well.

You know, the union is obviously going to be faced with some

expense, as will be the employer. Well, that's their responsibility.

But the funding of it, the three plus six plus whatever additional

amount is required, will be the responsibility of the government, as

the Minister of Health pointed out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the administrative costs involved.

Now if I may respond to the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) with regard to the anti-inflation and job evaluation, job

evaluation under the anti-inflation programme is not taken into the

calculations, so whatever the percentage increases are they will be

provided separate and apart from whatever adjustments result from job

evaluation. I think that your remarks are very well taken about

part-time personnel and, unfortunately, I don't find that in this

agreement. I suggest that this is something that the union might want

to consider; there's seniority provisions and layoff provisions, but

they don't seem to have addressed themselves quite directly to the

part-time problem, as you have.

Mr. Speaker, as I close second reading, may I say to the members

that there is a concern about time. Twenty-one days is expiring, and

this union would like to be assured that it has an agreement, and so

would the employer. So I move second reading now.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move that Bill 75 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House now.

Leave granted.

Bill 75, Hospital Services Collective Agreement Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

The House in committee; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would just seek some

clarification from the minister on the understanding with which the

parties will go to the Anti-Inflation Board. He may already have

answered this question and I may have missed the point. I'm not sure

how the impact of the job-evaluation study is to be looked upon by the

Anti-Inflation Board, or whether the two parties have an understanding

as to how that will be reviewed by the board — or will it be part of

the review?

In other words, I know we are talking about an

[ Page 2502 ]

agreement which provides 8 per cent plus COLA clause and fringe

benefits, and since the job-evaluation element in this whole dispute

has been of such large significance, and since we don't knowwhat it

will cost, I assume that it is not to be any part of the consideration

by the Anti-inflation Board.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member

for Oak Bay: under the calculations made by the Anti-inflation Board,

they do not take adjustments arising from job evaluation into

account.So in addressing themselves to the wage increase, the COLA and

the fringe benefits they will look at that and determine whether or not

that percentage increase is within the guidelines and their rules. Any

changes which arise from the job evaluation are ignored.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, at the commencement of this

section

it notes that it applies "notwithstanding the Labour Code of British

Columbia," so we can only look to this

section for the matters it

covers. I am concerned as to whether, under the language of this

section, an employee has permission to quit, or an employer has

permission to lay off or discharge for cause during the term of the

contract instituted by this bill. I am sure that would be the intent of

the minister, that the ordinary processes of these kinds should be able

to continue. Could he assure the House that this is legally possible?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Member, I'm sorry, but I was

discussing a matter with the Clerk and I missed the first part. Could

you repeat your question?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, with pleasure. I noted, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, that this

section excludes the impact of the

Labour Code of British Columbia; it has to be given effect simply

within its own terminology. It notes here that "every employee shall

continue or resume their ordinary duties." So I asked: does this remove

from employees, during the currency of the contract imposed by this

bill, any permission to quit, or to the employer to lay off — if

necessary, or to discharge for cause? I wouldn't think that would be

the intent, but I don't see any escape route in this section. I wonder

if the minister could clarify this.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: To the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano: it's notwithstanding the Code, and the Code makes

certain provisions. The employee is not exempted. But the normal

provisions with respect to the rights of an employee to leave his

position or to take some other position, or indeed to be disciplined

for just and reasonable cause — those still continue to exist. So the

normal relationships of the employer-employee continue to function,

notwithstanding these specific words.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. WALLACE: Regarding

section 6, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

ask the minister just for clarification of the language used at the end

of the first paragraph. It's outlining, first of all, that there is $6

million in a fund until March 31, 1977, and then states: "...and any

further money required for that purpose shall be paid out of money

authorized by the Legislature."

Does that mean that such money required will simply then be

incorporated as a part of the estimates of the Minister of Health, who

provides the hospitals with the money to pay the reallocated staff, or

does it mean that this particular bill will come back before the

Legislature if another $6 million is required?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The funds required beyond the end of this

fiscal year will be required to be voted by this House, and the vote

can either appear in the estimates, or if some other legislative

enactment is required in which it could be incorporated, then that

would be done. But it does not require this bill to come back again

before this House. This was in order to ensure that the additional

expenditure will be something voted upon by this Legislature in the

next fiscal year.

MR. WALLACE: Well, perhaps I didn't phrase the question very

well. I just want to know how the House will be assured in specific

terms what additional sum of money we might one day be discussing, and

under what vote or under what piece of legislation, or in what manner

will we be fully aware that the money for example, if it were an

additional $5 million is specified as being for the specific

consequence of this piece of legislation, and it will not just be

hidden within some other collective term — let's say, under the

Minister of Health's vote.

I think it is important, since we've given so much time in

consideration to this bill — and we all acknowledge the uncertainty of

what the job-evaluation provisions will be. I want to be assured that

when the final bill does come home to roost — if that's the appropriate

word; I don't suppose it is.... But when we finally find out what the

total cost of the bill for job evaluation is, I would like to be

assured that the House will know exactly what we are

[ Page 2503 ]

talking about and that it will be designated or clearly defined as being that item for that purpose.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have discussed this matter with the

Minister of Health in drafting this legislation, and it was his

intention to put it in his estimates as a vote. The reason we didn't

specify specifically that it would be handled in that way is that there

is a possibility that when the estimates are being prepared and the

budget is being established we still may not know the total cost, in

which case the minister would then be obliged to bring in a bill for

separate consideration and then you would know.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, still on that point, I want to

bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour a contingency. Let us

assume, for the purposes of the job evaluation study, that a sum of

greater than $6 million is required before next March 31. The provision

in this

section that it can be paid only out of money authorized by the

Legislature would, I assume, prohibit the payment of any coverage out

of a special warrant. Would I be correct in that? It's quite specific

here that any extra money must be authorized by the Legislature, which

would seem to rule out the possibility of a warrant.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The warrants are authorized by the Legislature, perhaps not in advance, but certainly at some point.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. MACDONALD: Before third reading I'd like to just say one

word and that is of appreciation to people like His Honour Judge

McTaggart who undertook this kind of task. These jobs require very

intensive work over a short period of time, and there are few people in

the province of B.C. with a background in industrial relations to

undertake these important community projects. There are some others,

and they should all be appreciated.

Bill 75, Hospital Services Collective Agreement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I think I should point out to

the members of this Legislature that there was an agreement between

Whips that we were going to Bill 28 at this point. It's no criticism of

the government Whip (Mr. Mussallem). We have no intention of punishing

or criticizing the messenger. I just want that to go on record.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon.

member for Prince Rupert, we should also point out on this side of the

House that an agreement was made to have unanimous leave of the House

to debate the bill, which they did not give graciously earlier today.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I didn't suspect that the House Leader

of government was going to use her position in a revengeful way. We're

not trying to do that; we're trying to cooperate. I say again, we did

have an agreement, Mr. Speaker, and I just want it to go on record that

we had an agreement. The agreement has been broken not by the

government Whip, but by the hon. House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Could I just point out that

agreements between Whips are just that: agreements between Whips. The

Chair has no knowledge of those agreements, and the Chair, at this

point, has been directed to second reading of Bill 30. In the process

of the orderly operation of the House that is what I must call: second

reading of Bill 30.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Mr. Speaker, the Mineral Amendment Act, 1976, is

an Act which will play

some

part in restoring the mining industry in British Columbia to its

rightful place in our economy.

There are a number of factors in the mining industry which make it

very unpredictable and therefore very high-risk: such things as the

high cost of exploration for mineral properties and the unpredictable

results of this exploration cost; the unpredictable nature of the metal

prices which are mined in British Columbia; the unpredictable cost of

putting a property into production; and the unpredictable cost, with

any degree of limits, that is acceptable in the actual cost of

producing from the mine.

Mr. Speaker, amendments brought in to the Mineral Act during the

last government's regime placed additional unpredictable things in the

way of the mining industry, adding already to the high-cost, high-risk

nature of that industry. The intent of this

[ Page 2504 ]

bill is to take some of these uncertainties away.

We want the mining industry to stay in British Columbia; we need their

investment to provide jobs and opportunities in this province.

Amendments to the Mineral Act are intended to clarify the conditions

under which mineral claim-owners can bring mines into production. The

amendments remove the uncertainty surrounding the issuance of a

production lease while, at the same time, they retain the requirement

for a submission and approval of operating plans and data by the

Department of Mines. These changes will restore confidence to the

industry by producing a greater security of title to minerals and by

enabling the obtaining of financing for mine development.

I might point out that under the present Act introduced in 1973,

investors are reluctant to commit the large sums of money necessary to

bring new mines into production in this province and even to continue

the mines which are already in production. The rights of the Minister

of Mines and the discretions held by him are also a deterrent to mine

production in this province. These are being removed, where possible,

in this legislation.

The principal amendments in this regard are as follows: the right of

the free miner to mine his mineral claim is given by amending

section

12. For major production, a mining lease is required which must be

certified into production. It is certified into production after

compliance with existing laws and regulations. Limited production may

take place on a mineral claim, provided certain technical reports are

submitted, without going to a lease being certified into production.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the government's right to acquire interests in

mining properties is removed. The government spending of tax money in

the mining industry, in my view, is irresponsible. Suspension of a

lease at the discretion of