1978 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1978

Night Sitting

[ Page

2861 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

West Kootenay Schools Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 46) Second reading.

Mr. Nicolson I –– 2861

Mr. Stupich –– 2863

Mrs. Dailly –– 2867

Mr. Skelly –– 2869

Mr. Lockstead –– 2872

Mr. Kerster –– 2873

Ms. Brown –– 2873

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2881

Mr. Levi –– 2882

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2887

Mr. Barber –– 2889

W - Kahl 2893

Mr. Barnes –– 2894

Mrs. Wallace –– 2896

Mr. King –– 2898

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2907

Division on second reading –– 2910

West Kootenay Schools Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 46) Committee stage.

section 4.

Mr. King 6. 2910

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2911

Ms. Sanford 6 –– 2912

Division –– 2913

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Williams (amendment) 6 –– 2913

section 9.

Mr. Stephens –– 2913

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2913

section 11 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2914

W King –– 2914

section 11 as amended.

Ms. Sanford –– 2914

Mrs. Dailly –– 2915

Mr. King –– 2915

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2916

Division –– 2916

Report and third reading –– 2917

Royal Assent –– 2917

Presenting reports.

Protection of Privacy Act, 1974,1975,1976,1977. Hon. Mr. Gardom ––

The House met at 7 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 46.

WEST KOOTENAY SCHOOLS

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. NICOLSON : Before adjournment I had pointed out that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) had made several statements and, in fact, the Minister of Education's whole attitude toward the collective bargaining process is such that even today charges are pending against him before the Labour Relations Board for unfair labour practices. That one should even get himself into a position where he would be accused when he is in a responsible position, I think, tells us something of the hidden agenda of some of the members over on that side of the House.

We heard in this debate today not just de bate about the legislation before us, but what we were really hearing was debate concerning amendments to the Public Schools Act, which really wasn't even before us. We were hearing debate about bringing CUPE employees under the same legislation as teachers.

I should think that at a time like this, if we had any sensitivity toward the very delicate nature of things which are not going to be completely solved by any kind of legislation in this House, we would realize that to discuss things such as this at this time is inappropriate, dangerous, and it precludes the restoration of a co-operative spirit between management and labour in the school districts in the West Kootenay.

Mr. Speaker, as both a teacher and a parent in the West Kootenay, I regard

the work and the service performed by the Canadian Union of Public Employees

as a very valuable service and as a service which is very often not appreciated.

But as a teacher, I have had opportunity to realize that some children, perhaps,

through whatever circumstances in the home, perhaps our philosophy toward education,

perhaps the example that is set for them by adults and by the media, are not

the best behaved. School bus drivers are expected to safely transport 70 or

maybe more children from one place to another, to maintain discipline while

driving and to be responsible for the safety of those children. School employees

are often left the very thankless task of cleaning intentionally clogged toilets

which are fouled in the most scatological manner. Well, you perhaps haven't

been in a school.

I am saying that they have performed very dutifully many thankless tasks. In the future, by the very nature of the type of legislation by which we compel them back to work, if they are at all familiar with the circumstances under which people have to work, I cannot be confident and I cannot be optimistic that the level of service will be restored to that which existed prior to this dispute arising. It is for that reason also that I say that this legislation goes too far, that extraneous elements are being introduced which I do not believe were there at the insistence of, but rather over the objections of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) .

Mr. Speaker, boards, as I said, serve an often thankless role, an often unappreciated role. They give a great deal of their time and service, but they have been gradually worked into a more and more untenable position. Here, too, are press releases which I think outline the effect and the ultimate outcome of the minister's remarks of December 15 1976, and his more recent remarks to the UBCM convention. Here is a response from a newly elected trustee here in Victoria: "The Provincial $1 Million Added To Local Tax Bill -- Copout By B.C." This is attributed to Mr. Mott:

"'The provincial government will-11 probably point with pride to its savings in education while taxpayers make up the difference, I a newly elected greater Victoria school trustee said Tuesday. Winfield Mott told members of the Torquay Elementary Parents Association that the provincial government's latest changes to the education finance formula will probably add $1 million to the load borne by greater Victoria property owners next year. 'While I believe that local taxpayers should shoulder some of the costs for education, the present direction can only be described as a copout by the provincial government.

The provincial government is continuing to unload the cost of education onto the backs of property taxpayers of B.C. Perhaps it's time to let the province get off our backs."'

I thoroughly commend this newly elected trustee for speaking out.

I also would commend the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association who pointed out that:

"Recently B.C. school boards have become upset with criticism from McGeer and municipal councils that their budgets are increasing unnecessarily while student

[ Page 2862 ]

enrolment is dropping. They are angry with the charges...."

MR. SPEAKER : I trust the hon. member will soon show how this relates to the bill before us.

MR. NICOLSON : Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will very shortly.

"They are angry with the charges because the provincial

government has decreased its share of education costs, placing a greater burden

on the taxpayers."

Here are two trustee spokesmen pointing out their sense of frustration

for being unfairly maligned in terms of their fiscal integrity and fiscal responsibility.

This government, and that Minister of Education in particular, have made no

effort to take responsibility for a major thrust of education finance from provincial

government coffers and consolidated revenue to local property taxation. As I

outlined in the situation in Nelson, the provincial government in 1975 was taking

57.7 per cent share of that tax load and now only takes 34 per cent.

That is in a district which has lower than the average school budget per pupil, in spite of the fact that it has a higher than average assessment. It is a responsible school board, Mr. Speaker, but they have seen fit.... In order to try to respond as they think this provincial government wants then to respond, they have seen fit to take upon themselves the suggestion of the BCSTA, and, no doubt, the suggestion emanating from the Minister of Education, to use a labour relations association and form a certified bargaining agency. Certified bargaining has been a problem in the two disputes in the East and West Kootenays. There is no remedy for that in this legislation.

The minister has brought the essential services Act into this legislation. He said outside of the House, but not inside the House -he was silent, really, on that

section of the legislation -- that they were going to do a study on it and if they found that the Essential Services Disputes Act should apply, they would then proclaim it, but they would not necessarily proclaim

section 11. 1 think that is totally unacceptable. But following that minister's logic, there should certainly be something in this legislation which is totally one-sided and which does not recognize that there were two parties to this impasse. There is nothing in this legislation that raps the wrists of school boards or the B.C. School Trustees Association, inasmuch as they have employed one of the legitimate rights of employers in this province, namely certified bargaining.

There is nothing in this legislation that seem.- to fix blame. This legislation fixes blame only on the side of the employees and not on the side of the employer. As I say, and as the minister said at the outset of his remarks, blame should be apportioned fairly between both parties. But it is not reflected in this legislation. I am convinced that the legislation was added to in the eleventh hour at the insistence of the Premier, after the Minister of Education won the day.

Once again the Minister of Labour has eroded the base upon which he first assumed his office, and he is allowing, by degrees, his integrity and his usefulness as a Minister of Labour to be stripped away. It is time, I say, that that minister stood up to the Premier, stood up to the Minister of Education, and did something in this legislation which he knows full well could be done.

We could serve the interests of the children, which have been overemphasized, because my children are in the school system and are suffering, but not suffering nearly so much as those at Selkirk College, the vocational school, the Kootenay School of Art and those other areas where the withdrawal of services is almost total.

My children are receiving four hours out of five of instruction per day. They are getting assignments that are being marked, corrected and supervised by their teachers. I would say that the teachers are taking on that heavier marking load and, in terms of the actual imparting of information to my children, I would, as a teacher, find it difficult to assess whether they have suffered or not. There is no doubt in my mind that scholarship students are placed in a very difficult position, and there is also no doubt in my mind that students at Selkirk College have been placed in an unbearable and untenable position.

If the minister wanted to protect the interests of these people, to ensure that after we take legislative action the full educational climate will be restored to normal, and the full relationship which had formerly existed, certainly in School District 7, between employer and employee -- which I feel has been a good one -- will be totally restored, then.... This compulsive type of legislation, with

section 11, the sword of Damocles, will ham that situation. I feel that this piece of legislation, with all of the additions, is really political hostage-taking of the children of my school district in order to fulfil the very reactionary wishes of members in the mainstream of the Social Credit back bench. That is why I will be forced to vote against this. But let there be no mistake: I am not against

[ Page 2863 ]

the restoration of ....

AN HON. MEMBER : Copout!

MR. NICOLSON : Mr. Speaker, I have made no bones about this in public meetings. I made no bones the day I boarded a plane to come down for this debate, as to where I would stand on this legislation. I said that I would not vote for something that was compulsive, that went beyond the scope of the present dispute, but that I would vote for a lifting of the lockout, lifting of the strike, and restoration of an opportunity for free and collective bargaining. That is why I will be voting against this. Mr. Speaker, my conscience will certainly be clear. I hope the Minister of Labour can say the same.

MR. STUPICH : Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues in welcoming to the cabinet the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Shelford) . Certainly their lot will improve as a result of that change. I wish I could feel as optimistic about the lot of the people of British Columbia. I doubt there will be any improvement for them as a result of the total cabinet changes. As a matter of fact, there will be no improvement as long as the same person occupies the Premier's chair.

Some of my colleagues take some encouragement from the fact that the Premier has moved one seat farther down the row, but from where he sits, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, he has simply moved one more seat to the right. I don't think that's good.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) quoted from Hansard of a couple of years ago some remarks of mine when I was asking the unions to take some cognizance of the plight of the students in the Nanaimo school district, and asking them to consider returning to work. Mr. Speaker, I make no apology at all for doing that. I think the Minister of Education did well in referring to that particular dispute, and there are some other parallels that might be drawn between that dispute of some two and a half years ago and the one that currently exists in the West Kootenay area.

With respect to the duration of the two disputes, the one in Nanaimo lasted 64 days -- just over nine weeks. The one in West Kootenay, I believe, is in its forty-third day. So from that point of view, at least, the one in the Nanaimo area was 50 per cent worse than the current situation in the West Kootenay district.

The Minister of Education at the time was asked to comment on the situation in Nanaimo.

I have a report from The Province of June 4,1976, and it would seem as though he hadn't given any thought at all to the fact that the students had been denied access to a greater or lesser degree for a period of some nine weeks. "Earlier in the day, when asked about the situation during question period McGeer had said the government might review its policy regarding the importance placed on the education of students." That, Mr.

Speaker, was after a dispute that had lasted some nine weeks; now we're dealing with legislation responding to what is an Emergency when the time in which the schools have been in some sort of disarray, if you like, is just two thirds the length of time that the situation existed in Nanaimo.

What has the Minister of Education to say about the current situation? Does he view that as seriously, or more seriously or less seriously than he did the situation in Nanaimo? I remind you again that it is a much shorter dispute. I'm not trying to say it isn't serious because it's shorter, I'm simply saying that there is a parallel but there is a difference in the length of the disputes.

"McGeer said he will ask cabinet" -- this is a quotation from the Express, November 29 -- "to have the Essential Services Disputes Act amended to include school workers if the strike lockout involving 250 non-teaching employees does not end within two weeks." That was less than two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Education, looking at the Nanaimo situation that had gone on for nine weeks, thought it wasn't even important enough to think about until- he was asked by myself - As far as the Kootenay situation -- a shorter dispute -- is concerned, he thinks it's important enough to amend the essential services legislation. That was his opinion of that situation.

I did intervene in the Nanaimo situation. I intervened initially by writing to the chairman of the school board and by writing to the union president involved, asking if there was any way at all in which I could help bring the two parties together and try to get the schools reopened.

Intervention in the situation here in the Kootenay district. The Leader of the Opposition was asked -- and I saw the TV broadcast -- on a news broadcast what he would do about that situation if he were asked to intervene. His response was to the effect that the Minister of Labour should call the two parties together to a meeting in his office and try to get negotiations going. The very next item on that news broadcast was the Minister of Labour being interviewed and saying that he was calling the two parties together to a meeting

[ Page 2864 ]

in his office. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Labour had any intention at all of doing anything until the Leader of the Opposition suggested that that kind of meeting should take place. But I can only wonder.

With respect to the situation in Nanaimo, at my request such a meeting did take place. The Minister of Labour responded. He did invite the parties to a meeting in his office and the Minister of Labour responded to the suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition and had a meeting in his office of the parties in the West Kootenay dispute. So the situations are running quite parallel.

What about the union? Mr. Speaker, I wrote the two parties, as I said. To this day the school board has not acknowledged receipt of that letter. I think they weren't able to for reasons that I'm going to come to later on. But the union did respond. The union contacted me almost immediately, set up two separate meetings in my office when I met with members of their negotiating team, and they tried to bring me up to date to the extent that they were able to on negotiations. They had further meetings. They had one meeting of the strike committee and of executives of the three union locals involved. They invited me to attend that meeting. They invited me to take

part in the discussions that went on at that meeting. That was the kind of response that I got from the union side of the bargaining table. There was no response from the employer's side at all.

What was the union's response to the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition? The Minister of Labour called them to his office, had a meeting, and the meeting failed. The Leader of the Opposition saw the Premier suggesting that it still wasn't too late to get something moving. The Leader of the Opposition asked the unions for a meeting, met with them at some length and got them to agree to certain conditions. He did get some movement. The union was responsible.

The Minister of Labour told us today that his office received a phone call from a representative of the unions saying that in the event three conditions were met, and he listed the conditions, the union was prepared to resume work. The Minister of Labour did not tell us that he tried to get the union to budge from that position at all. He told us there were preconditions on both sides of the bargaining table. He told us what the preconditions were from the employer's side of the bargaining table. I have a copy here of the Blues from today. I did take notes, but this is right from the Blues. "The employer is represented by the British Columbia School

Trustees Association, which is accredited under the laws of this province for the five employer groups. It took the- position that in the resolution of contract differences affecting the college and the four school districts, not until a memorandum of settlement was reached with respect to all five units would there be any contract signed, nor would the lockout be lifted." The Minister of Labour said that that was a precondition as early as Monday -- Monday or Tuesday, depending on which day he met with which side.

As far as the union in Nanaimo is concerned, when the union in Nanaimo was faced with the invitation on the part of the Minister of Labour to accept binding arbitration, to accept an industrial inquiry commissioner, the union responded positively. They invited me to their meetings when they discussed this. It wasn't an easy decision for them to make, but they met, they discussed it, and they invited me to meet with them and to take

part in the negotiations so that I would know what was happening. These are a couple of quotations from leaders of two of the union locals involved. Mr. Mieras said he believes "every member of our union wanted to vote no to binding arbitration. This is no solution to our problems in Nanaimo, but we all know the children of Nanaimo have paid a high price, as have our members and the citizens of Nanaimo."

Stan Boshier, president of Local 401, said: "We are showing Nanaimo again that we are responsible. We have tried to tell the public what has been happening in this year's negotiations with the Mid-Island Public Employers Association. Now Allan Williams, the Labour minister, is telling you the association's attitude is so destructive to collective bargaining, it has to be taken out of its hands."

The union, Mr. Speaker, was responsible. The union responded positively to the request for binding arbitration in the Nanaimo situation. The union in the Kootenay situation, when they met with Mr. Barrett, when the importance of doing something about the situation there was put to them, again responded positively. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the employers in the Nanaimo situation.

As far as the employers were concerned, Nanaimo school board chairman Joe Keller, president of the MIPE association, said following the meeting his association had reaffirmed its willingness to accept as binding the decisions of the industrial inquiry commissioner. The CUPE representatives, however, would not agree to lift the pickets and return to work unless the employers' association satisfied a series of demands -- note the language, Mr. Speaker. This is the MIPE association saying that the

[ Page 2865 ]

workers had a series of demands, including some which had been repeatedly been presented in the course of negotiation. Because the workers were backing down on their agreement, were putting in new demands, there could be no agreement to go to binding arbitration. But, Mr. Speaker, this is the way that the Minister of Labour described those same demands.

This is a quotation from him, as reported in the Free Press of June 8,1976: "1 feel progress was being made, but an impasse was reached when the employers refused to agree to a union request that its former contract be extended until such time as a new contract was signed" -- surely, Mr.

Speaker, that's reasonable enough -- "and that there be no reprisals against the union by the employers or by the union against its own members or the staff of the employers for the conduct during the strike." That was the series of demands that the employers' organization was going to use as an excuse for not accepting binding arbitration. In my mind, Mr. Speaker, the employers' association was being quite irresponsible in that situation.

Now what about the Kootenay situation? We've seen that the employees were responsible. The employees did approach the Minister of Labour with preconditions. When it was further discussed with them, they did agree to go to work with only one condition, and that is that the lockout be lifted, and did, indeed, show up for work only to be met by the lockout situation. The employees were responsible. The employees did have concern for the children in those school districts involved. But what about the employers' organization?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour told us what the employer's precondition was. We found out later that maybe that wasn't a precondition at the time, but this is what he said during debate today, what the employer's precondition was. The Minister of Labour, during the course of his remarks, said that the union didn't offer enough. This, Mr. Speaker, is a quotation that I hope the Minister of Labour will explain when he's winding up second reading, and I hope he will say that he really should not have said it. I've taken it down from the Blues.

I admit I'm not quoting the whole paragraph, but certainly the words in themselves are damning enough in my eyes: "this simple act on the part of the union, for which they are to be commended, of lifting their strike."

Mr. Speaker, for you or I to say that lifting a strike is a simple act for a union might be understandable, but for the Minister of Labour to say that workers giving up their right to strike is a simple act is something that in itself should call for the resignation of this Minister of Labour. Workers have fought, have bled and have died for the right to strike, yet this minister has the gall to stand up and say it's a simple act to give up their right to strike. Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't say that; I wouldn't say that; I don't think anyone else in this House would say that.

I don't think even the most anti-union person in the province would say that, in the eyes of a trade unionist, giving up the right to strike is a simple act. Yet this Minister of Labour stood up and said it's a simple act. All they were doing was giving up their right to strike. What else did they have? There's no other weapon that workers have. They can sit, they can talk, but when it comes right down to it their last weapon is the right to strike, yet they were prepared to give this up, and they did give it up by reporting for work this morning. Yet the Minister of Labour said it was a simple act.

When the workers in Nanaimo gave up their right to strike and accepted compulsory arbitration, they knew it wasn't a simple act.

I read from the press quotations to show how important those union leaders felt ums their right to strike, how much they knew they were throwing into the pot when they gave up their right to strike. The workers in the West Kootenay situation knew how important it was when they said they would give up their right to strike. For the Minister of Labour or for the Premier to suggest that they weren't really giving up anything, because they could start it all over later on, is simply ridiculous.

Who in their right mind would ever say that a union would take their workers out in a second strike after a relatively short period of renegotiation? Once they've agreed to go back to the bargaining table the strike is over. It takes a lot of provocation to get them out the first time. After they've been out for six or seven weeks, and back at work, to try to get them to go out again with no progress being shown would be almost impossible. The workers didn't offer a simple act. They gave up everything they had when they gave up the right to strike.

MR. BARRETT : Only to find that the school board and the government were playing games.

MR. STUPICH : To follow the parallels, public opinion worked in the Nanaimo situation. When the employers' association said that school work wasn't going to resume because they wanted more conditions or because the union was wanting too much when the union was asking

[ Page 2866 ]

for nothing, really, public opinion worked and the employers' association was obliged to go to the bargaining table and to take

part in that negotiation.

Mr. Speaker, public opinion would have worked in the Kootenay situation. We

know that the unions are ready to go to work. They told the Minister of Labour

that they were ready to go to work, with only one condition: that the lockout

be lifted. The Minister of Labour knew that, and everyone here know., Mr. Speaker,

that the employers' association in West

Kootenay could not have kept those doors locked. Public opinion in that area would have insisted that the workers be allowed to return to work.

Mr. Speaker, there was only one person in the whole province who could keep those doors locked for one more day or two more days, and that was the Premier of the province. He was the only one who could have done it; he was the only one that did it. The workers were ready to go to work, the employers' group said that they were ready to go to work, and then a new condition was imposed by the Premier and work did not resume.

The only one who wanted it not to be resumed was the Premier, because he wanted an excuse to call the Legislature together to tack on one more group of workers under the Essential Services Disputes Act. This was the excuse he needed, and this was the way he used us. This is the way he used the children of the West Kootenay school area.

The Minister of Labour didn't want to do this. The Minister of Labour is quoted in the Colonist of December 1. He said he would not request an emergency session of the Legislature under the Essential Services Act if agreement could not be reached. Asked how long he hoped to keep the representatives in Victoria: "For as long as it takes." Mr. Speaker, two days, and that was all there was to it. But here: "As long as it takes." He would keep them here as long as it takes to get agreement. "If the parties involved in the dispute do not listen, an industrial inquiry commissioner could be appointed, or a special mediator named. There are all kinds of solutions possible."

Mr. Speaker, this is what makes me think, as I suggested earlier, that the Minister of Labour never intended to do anything at all, that he reacted only when the Leader of the Opposition said that he should do something. He then did it, but there was no intention on the part of this government of that effort being successful. They didn't want this dispute to be settled. They wanted to have a special session of the Legislature so that they could amend the legislation.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair-]

The Premier said, during his speech, that the children of the Kootenay region need the attention of this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, that's not what they need. They need the schools reopened. The unions expressed their willingness to report for work this morning, and that information was given to the Minister of Labour. The school boards indicated their willingness to reopen the schools. This morning's Colonist quoted Mr.

Gary Cleave: "Until this morning we were prepared to lift the lockout if CUPE lifted the strike"' -- the unions were prepared, and that was in this morning's Colonist -- "said BCSTA staff representative Gary Cleave. 'But the lifting of the lockout or the strike would be irrelevant now because Premier Bennett plans to call the Legislature into session'." Mr. Speaker, I suggest he planned it long ago. "He said the Labour minister had already made it clear the ending of the lockout and strike on the proposal relayed through Barrett by CUPE would not meet with conditions set down by the Premier." What conditions, Mr.

Speaker? The one man who could and who did keep those schools closed today, and goodness know how much longer he'll keep them closed, is the one man who set the conditions that made sure those schools did not reopen. The Minister of Education asks: "Is it right to punish the children?" It is not right to punish the children, Mr. Speaker, and it is the Premier who is punishing the children in that area.

The Premier, in an aside, when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, on hearing the Leader of the Opposition say that he started his intervention because he heard the Premier in a news broadcast at 10 o'clock in the morning, in a tone of incredulity said he was still at home at that time in the morning. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, by being at home at that time in the morning and by taking the action that he did, made it possible for the schools to be reopened within 22 hours of hearing that news broadcast.

The Premier, with his PR flacks, is a great jogger. He's a workaholic. He arrives early in the morning. Mr. Speaker, how much better off the children in the Kootenay school district would have been had the Premier gone on holiday after that news broadcast and left it to the Leader of the Opposition to get the schools reopened.

Mr. Speaker, it isn't right to punish the children. It is not right to punish the children of the West Kootenay area simply because the government wants to change the essential services legislation. It is not right for the

[ Page 2867 ]

Premier to use those children as pawns in a political game. We don't know what the end of the game is yet. We don't know where the game is going to end. Today it's to bring these groups in under this legislation. What will it be tomorrow? The legislation is intituled West Kootenay Schools Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, and then there's an afterthought,

section 11, tacked on the end. We don't need the legislation to reopen the schools; all we need is for the Premier to take a few hours off and let the Leader of the Opposition get the situation resolved. We don't need

section 11. It's waving a flag -- that's all it's doing, Mr. Speaker. It's warning the labour movement that if they sit back and take this from this government, from this Minister of Labour, from this Premier, then they deserve what they're going to get next.

Mr. Speaker, this is bad legislation. It's bad that it's being dealt with at this time; had it not been dealt with at this time the schools would have been reopened and the children would have been back where the Premier says he wants them and where the Minister of Education says he wants them. It's bad politics, Mr. Speaker, because surely the people of this province will see that this Premier will stoop to nothing in his effort to retain political power in this province.

MRS. DAILLY : Mr. Speaker, first I would like to offer my congratulations to my colleague from Burnaby (Hon. Mr. Veitch) who is now an hon. minister, and also my friend -- we argue all the time about wolves -- the new Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Shelford) . I'm sorry he's not here at this time, but anyway, our best wishes to both of them.

Mr. Speaker, I understand we're going to be here a considerable length of Lime yet -perhaps, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , through midnight, anyway - and when I heard that news I couldn't help thinking that if we are going to burn the midnight oil in this Legislature, we should be dealing with something that is really important in this province, and something that could be handled by proper discussion in this House. That is the state of the economy, and the unemployment statistics in this province. I'm bringing this point up, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's quite relevant to the discussion on this bill....

Interjections

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members. if other members wish to speak in the debate, and I see many names on our division list that haven't been crossed off yet, they will be offered the standard opportunity to rise and be recognized. However, at this time the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has the floor. Would the members please allow her to continue without interruptions.

MRS. DAILLY : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the minister -- of what now, I've forgotten, but it used to be Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) -doesn't want to hear about ' unemployment in this province, because he's ashamed of it. He knows that neither he nor his government have any policies to do anything about it, so the point, Mr. Speaker, is that instead we are confronted today with a bill that should never be placed before the members of this Legislature.

If this problem which has been confronting the people and the citizens of West Kootenay had been handled properly by the Minister of Education, by the Minister of Labour and by the Premier, we wouldn't have to be here tonight. I recall similar situations when the New Democratic Party was in government, and I recall my former colleague, when he was Minister of Labour, and myself having to sit down and meet with people together for a number of hours to try and bring a solution to similar problems. I think the thing that bothers most of us over on this side is that there seems to have been almost a contrived move here on behalf of the government not to settle this situation, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that the Premier of this province is looking for a major confrontation with labour in this province. He's looking for this confrontation, Mr. Speaker, because he believes that he can go to the people on this and make an issue out of it. Who, then, is making the children the pawns of politicians if not this Premier, who could have taken action with his ministers to have settled this before bringing it to the Legislature?

So I accuse the Premier of looking for an issue where he can create a confrontation with labour in an attempt to convince the public that only he and his party alone can handle that situation. But the people of this province will not be fooled by this smokescreen which has been brought forward in this bill at this time.

More than half the cabinet is not here, Mr. Speaker, and yet they stood up this morning and we were informed that this is an emergency. Where are they? Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to see that the real villain of the piece in this matter is sitting across from me tonight -- the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . The Minister of Education of this

[ Page 2868 ]

province, by his policies and his actions since he became minister, has helped bring about this situation today in the West Kootenays.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just political rhetoric when I say that, because I have clippings in front of me which back up what I an saying when I accuse that minister of bringing about a situation where he actually puts the school boards of this province and the unions in a confrontation scene.

This minister and his government -- and he alone cannot take the blame, because obviously the rest of his colleagues have gone along with him -- have purposely since they came in made a concerted attempt to let the public think and believe that the school boards of this province are responsible for ever-increasing school costs, and that he and his government have nothing to do with the problems there; it is entirely the fault of the school boards.

Yet we just have to look at what has happened in the past three years since this government came in with this Minister of Education to realize that since they came in they have been building up a labour-management confrontation between school boards and their employees, because they have put more and more taxation on the local taxpayer, with the result that the school boards of this province have become almost frozen in making any positive moves in their districts.

Then we are in this situation in the West Kootenays where the school boards were in such a state over the accusations made by this minister that "school boards are wasteful" and "that only the school boards that behave themselves like good little children will be treated well by this government." They are in a situation, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to bargaining with their employees that they know that if they give any extra money the minister will immediately turn around and blame them for being wasteful.

Since the Social Credit government came in they have transferred $160 million in school costs to local districts. Since they came in they have transferred $160 million onto the backs of the local taxpayer.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY : Someone is asking again why and whether I can relate this to the bill. I'm trying to make clear -- and I notice you have not called me out of order, Mr. Speaker -that this Minister of Education and his government, because of their fiscal policies, have placed boards such as the ones in the West Kootenays in a situation where they have to sit back and they are afraid to move and even discuss with their employees any possible increases.

This minister has not only done this fiscally, Mr. Speaker, but he has interfered in the bargaining process by making slanted statements referring, in his opinion, to the fact that it is the workers who are responsible for the strike in the Kootenays. It's unbelievable from a Minister of Education to interfere in the collective bargaining process. No wonder there are tensions in that district. Who are the citizens to believe? They not only are listening to the side of the school board and the side of the employees, but in comes the Minister of Education to inflame the situation.

Yet that minister got up before supper and made his usual platitudes to this House: children must get back to school. If he is interested in the children of this province having good schooling, then I say he should resign and let someone take over the ministry who can understand the needs of the children in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I notice people are chuckling across there, but I can tell you that the handicapped children of this province who are suffering under this minister, and the local taxpayers in your own district, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , are not happy with the Ministry of Education and with the fiscal policies of your government, which you espouse.

It is interesting to note that there is going to be another 2 mill increase on the local taxpayer by that minister and by his government. It's interesting to note, as the minister happened to bring up this subject of private schools before supper, that a chairman of a Vancouver Island board, when she heard that the mill rate is going to be increased another 2 mills, said: "Well, after all, the Minister of Education, Dr. McGeer, must get his money for private schools somewhere."

MR. SKELLY : That's where he sends his own kids.

MRS. DAILLY : After all, if he sends his own children and has sent them to private schools and continually tells us how much better they are than the public schools, what else can you expect? Yet that same minister goes out and actually accuses the workers in the West Kootenay region of being at fault, and he's letting the school boards take the flak also for this whole situation which has developed in the West Kootenay. I think that minister should absolutely say nothing in a debate like this when he is one of the prime movers behind the scene that we're all faced with in the

[ Page 2869 ]

Kootenays today and this situation we're faced with tonight.

There is no question that the policies of the Minister of Education and the government have also pushed a situation in the West Kootenays which has not helped in this whole situation, and that is the whole matter of school boards gathering together and abrogating their responsibility to bargain locally. I suppose there is nothing wrong with boards. They have the right to attempt to do this. But if they want to avoid confrontation in their area, if they want to meet the needs of their local area, surely they can see that in many situations this simply will not work to the benefit of the district.

We have a very positive example of what happened, again in the West Kootenay area, where one of the school boards, I understand, was ready to settle. However, they could not, because they were tied in to the B.C. School Trustees central office bargaining agency. In other words, those boards have abrogated their right to local bargaining and given away their right to a central body, meaning that there are no longer elected people handling the negotiations, but staff people.

These situations come about when boards become nervous; when they wash their hands of the whole bargaining process because they are afraid -- and that's quite natural -- to face the local taxpayer with increased costs. How much better to be able to put the blame in another area. This Minister of Education has helped create that scene.

So when we hear the Premier on his feet accusing the NDP of not being concerned about children, what about the situation where a board is willing to settle, and yet because they have caught themselves up in a larger group, they cannot settle? That means that those children in that particular area could have been back to school but for this somewhat misdirected effort on the part of the trustees to abrogate their rights to local bargaining. In a situation that becomes quite clear every day, it probably could have been settled if there had been more face-to-face contact.

I think the thing which concerns me primarily about this piece of legislation, and why I could not in all sincerity support it, is that by presenting this legislation to the House today, this government has tilted the scales of collective bargaining. They have tilted in favour of the employer, and that is inherent in this bill and in this legislation. Surely if we are ever going to have labour-management peace in this province -- and I know this was advocated so strongly by the former Minister of Labour -- we must keep those scales balanced evenly.

I know that the Social Credit government is moving on this legislation tonight because they believe that out there they will gain voter approval, and perhaps they will. Let's face it, the whole matter of labour-management negotiations is very complicated. Most parents say, "Just get our kids back to school, " and you can understand that.

The tragedy of what this government is doing is that in an attempt to gain some short-term advantages and, hopefully, votes from the public, what they are really doing is setting in place the seeds for some very long-term, bad effects in the whole area of labour-management relationships. In this legislation they are prepared for a short-term gain to sell the whole province on an inevitable confrontation which could be far longer and far worse than anything we have seen in the West Kootenays this last few months. For the future of British Columbia it is short-sighted. It is the sort of thing that the public of B.C. in time will judge.

MR. SKELLY : I'd like to join with my colleagues on this side in also congratulating the new ministers who are appointed to cabinet. With respect to the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Shelford) , I know that he's had some personal experience from the farming point of view, and I know that he will be more acceptable to the agricultural community than the previous minister. I hope that he does as well as the former NDP minister, because if that's the case he'll be much more acceptable to the farm community.

Also I wish to congratulate the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) , who is now responsible for small business. This has been a continuing problem in our area of Vancouver Island over the last little while. Hopefully he'll be much more approachable than his predecessor in that area. I look forward to co-operating with him to the benefit of my constituents.

I rise, of course, to object to this legislation, and also to object to the way that it was brought about. The Premier stood up in this House earlier today and said he couldn't understand, he found it incredible, that NDP members in this House would believe that the Socreds were involved in some kind of a conspiracy to cause problems with labour management relations in this province in order to precipitate the kind of legislation that we're dealing with now. To tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker, I came down to this special session of the Legislature with an open mind. We didn't know what type of legislation was Lo be presented, and we were prepared to deal with

[ Page 2870 ]

any legislation that was presented in an open-minded way, considering the problems that were being faced by these students and the educational institutions in the Kootenay area.

Also, that positive attitude was reinforced when the Leader of the Opposition took the initiative to bring the parties together and persuaded the unions involved in this dispute to take the courageous action of lifting their strike, in the hope that the employers in this case would lift the lockout and some progress would be made towards resolving this dispute and alleviating the emergency that existed, and possibly putting off the need to bring down emergency legislation like this. Because members on both sides of the House have stated that none of us likes to bring down this type of legislation.

None of us likes to call the Legislature together in order to impose a solution in an area that really benefits more from free collective bargaining and a resolution of the issues freely between the parties involved.

So I felt very positive about the fact that the dispute may have been solved because of the progress made as a result of the activities by the Leader of the Opposition and the unions involved. Unfortunately it appears that something took place between last night, or yesterday morning, and this morning to harden up the employer's stance on this issue. As a result, we're dealing with a bill here that I really feel the government wanted to present anyway. There is no other reason for us being here.

Progress has been made in the last 24 hours that any reasonable government would have taken as a step towards solution, would have called off the session of the Legislature and maximized the positive feelings that had been developed in the last 24 hours. Unfortunately the government didn't act that way. They hardened up their position in support of the employers and, we feel, in support of their attitude toward public sector organization and collective bargaining as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, we do believe -- and it has been made clearly evident to us -- that the Social Credit government and the Social Credit Party have precipitated disputes and hardened up disputes throughout the province in order to bring down this legislation which, piece by piece, has eliminated the right to collective bargaining in the public sector and is moving towards the elimination of the right to strike in the public sector.

It started in opposition, Mr. Speaker. You weren't here at the time. It

was before your time. But there were some difficulties in the field of labour-management

relations back in 1975 and those difficulties came out of a number of economic

and social problems that were being experienced throughout the world. But the

opposition of that day became involved in labour disputes happening throughout

this province not, as the Leader of the Opposition has done recently, by trying

to mediate between the parties involved in order to resolve those issues. I

ask you, Mr. Speaker, what political benefit could possible accrue to the opposition

by making it easier for the government by resolving labour-management disputes?

'What political benefit could possibly accrue to the opposition from doing

that?

Those people, when they were in opposition, stirred up labour disputes in this province. I can recall when the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was involved in a long strike situation. The Leader of the Opposition of the time, the present Premier, came down and headed a big car cavalcade in Port Alberni and hardened up issues on both sides to try to destroy any possibility for good feeling that would have moved in the direction of resolving that dispute.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, one moment, please. We have allowed extremely wide-ranging debate on second reading of Bill 46, but the current line of your debate is so far off the scope that I would ask you to....

MR. SKELLY : Mr. Speaker, please let me try to relate to you how this relates to the Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : That's what I would appreciate. That would make it in order then.

MR. SKELLY : I'm saying that this is a party line and a government line which they have used time after time to further political ends and also to further their legislative ends, which are to bring in legislation such as we see in the sections after

section 3 of this Act. They did it time after time. This type of extra parliamentary activity, getting involved in sabotaging activities outside of this Legislature.... When we were in government they were involved in extra parliamentary sabotage, and it showed their contempt for the kind of parliamentary, democratic proceedings that we have enjoyed in this province for a long time.

In the ferry strike, for example, Mr. Speaker, after the election, we were told by the people involved in that dispute that every time the corporation and its employees came close to an agreement, came close to resolving some of the issues that faced them and some of the difficult issues that they had trouble obtaining a meeting of minds on.... Whenever

[ Page 2871 ]

they came close to resolving those issues, the government stepped in and hardened up the corporation's line, hardened up the employer's line. "We will not settle." Statements made by ministers destroyed the possibility of a settlement being reached by free collective bargaining in the ferry dispute. It's what this government and this party has done time after time, whether in government or in opposition. I contrast that to what the present Leader of the Opposition has committed himself to and has been doing throughout this province. Even former Premier W.A.C.

Bennett, in a bus drivers' dispute, offered to step in and help bring those two groups together in order to resolve the issues between them when the strike had gone on for weeks and weeks.

The same with the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , when he pointed out in this House his activities in assisting to resolve the dispute between CUPE and the school districts in the Nanaimo area. His attitude was to step in and help to mediate the issues, not to try to create a situation of confrontation where the political result would be damaging to the government and damaging to society as a whole. It's been this government's position time after time to create confrontation to achieve their own political ends.

MR. SMITH : On a point of order, may I suggest to the hon. Speaker, and to the member who is presently occupying the floor, except for the fact that I interrupted him by a point of order, that we are on a bill called the West Kootenay Schools Collective Bargaining Assistance Act. The Leader of the Opposition can whine and howl all he likes, as he usually does, but, Mr. Speaker, the point of order is simply this: in second reading, the debate should be relevant to the bill. If the hon. member who wishes to continue the debate can keep his debate relevant, then I think we'll all listen to it.

But it seems to me that there is a requirement in this House to keep the debate relevant to this bill that's before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member. Perhaps I could read from the

section on relevancy in your standing orders. However, you I ve all suffered through many re-readings of that from the Chair in the past. I would caution members that we have strayed quite far away. It does seem that there was a slight recess between the last time I was in this chair and this time, and yet so little has charged, if anything at all. Perhaps it's deja vu and awfully repetitious, but we are getting an awfully long way off the scope of the debate, although both sides of the House have varied from the scope of the debate. I would appreciate it if the member would bring his remarks into relevance in the debate. Thank you for bringing, this matter to my attention.

MR. SKELLY : Mr. Speaker, as I'm trying to point out 4a response to a long speech made by the Premier on this issue, where he was stating how incredible it seemed that we believed this, I was just giving him some examples to make it more credible to him, although I'm sure he knows of his activities, and that rests on his conscience.

But, Mr. Speaker, the situation we're dealing with is a perfect example of how the present government is operating to create confrontation in order to bring down legislation like this. They had any number of opportunities between April of this year and the present time to resolve this issue. They had an opportunity within the last 24 hours, when one of the parties to this dispute decided they would give up their hard and fast position, and sacrifice the last argument which they as unions had left, the last bargaining strength they had left. They were willing to sacrifice that if the other side would make some concession as they had promised to do.

The government had an opportunity to take advantage of that concession and that movement on the part of the trade unions involved and talk to the school districts involved to try to bring them to the position where the dispute could be resolved outside of this

Legislative Assembly, which is where we would like to see these disputes resolved. In fact, they squelched that opportunity. They didn't want that opportunity. They were embarrassed, in fact, by that opportunity to resolve this dispute outside the Legislature because it would have deprived them of the opportunity to present sections 10, 11 and 12 of this Act, which is what they wanted to do in the first place. Their objective has been, every time, to bring in compulsory arbitration, which has never been brought in before, even under an emergency statute, and also to bring in a

section which is totally unrelated to the West

Kootenay schools dispute --

section 11, which the Premier talks about as being

a permanent and the Minister of Labour talks about as being a final solution

to disputes of this type. It has nothing whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, to do with

the West Kootenays dispute. What does an improvement district under the Water

Act have to do with protecting the education of children in the West Kootenays?

What does that have to do ... ?

[ Page 2872 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps clause-by-clause study would better be proceeded with in committee stage.

MR. SKELLY : Mr. Speaker, we were told by the Premier, by the Minister of Education, by any number of speakers on the government side who got up tonight, that if we vote against this statute we're depriving children of their right to education, we're causing health problems, stress problems, and all sorts of problems for handicapped kids who, because they have lost three or four weeks of school, are going to never recover from this [illegible]. Then, after they say that, they bring in

section 11, where they bring improvement districts under the Essential Services Act. What does that have to do with the stress and the health problems of students in West Kootenay schools?

It only reconfirms our opinion that this bill and this dispute were precipitated by the government, that attitudes on both sides were hardened up by the government in order to bring down and slip in legislation which destroys the right of free collective bargaining in the public sector and deprives those public sector Employees of the right to strike, which they've enjoyed and which has been enjoyed in the private sector, as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) stated, at the cost of lives and injury to many members in the trade union movement. We are depriving public sector employees of that right.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, because of this, because I represent an area where municipal employees are now at work and are now negotiating collective agreements with municipalities, regional districts and other local government bodies, because this

section will be used as a club over their heads.... It will make it possible for the local governments to refuse to bargain in good faith, knowing that the minister has the power at any time to cane to their rescue, to club those unions into submission, to deprive them of their right to strike for a long period of time, and to remove that last strength which they have in bargaining with public sector employers.

The reason this bill was brought in was not to defend the children in the Kootenays, not to preserve their right to an education in the Kootenays. The reason this bill was brought in was to impose compulsory arbitration on public sector unions and to impose the Essential Services Disputes Act on all local governments. I have to oppose the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say just a few words on this bill. A lot has been said already, and most of what has been said on this side of the House I concur with. But first of all, I would like to take this opportunity as well to congratulate the two new ministers who were appointed to the cabinet, as well as all the other ministers who have changed portfolios, some whom have added responsibilities and some who have had diminished responsibilities. I have known Mr. Veitch and the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Shelford) for some time, and I know that they will do a good job and they're going to need lots of luck. Believe me, they're going to need lots of luck.

Mr. Speaker, here we are debating a non-Emergency -- at least a situation in this province should be a non-emergency -- for if the government had been doing its homework, the children would have been back to school this morning. I think, by the mere process last night, late yesterday afternoon, the minister or the Premier could probably have made one telephone call into the Kootenay area and talked with the officials and the employers in this dispute, and the children would have been back to school under normal circumstances this morning.

But that didn't happen, and here we are debating a nonemergency, when in fact we should be debating the economy of this province, because I think that's what people in this province want to hear about. We should be discussing job creation, we should be talking about the plight of the 120,000 people who are currently unemployed in this province -- not 105,000, but 120,000. Those are the issues we should be discussing. Instead, we're discussing what appears to be a political issue brought about by this present government.

What could the reasons be? Certainly it wasn't the Kootenay school district situation. That situation could have been resolved due to the good auspices and the work done by the leader of our party yesterday morning, and certainly by the co-operation of the unions involved. No, I think the reasons for this debate today are strictly political, and the reasons are that this government is prepared to take on labour. It's politically expedient at this time for governments to attack labour on all fronts. I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that this government is taking a deliberate tack of attacking labour in British Columbia, and I would like to remind that Premier and that government that there are at least 1.2 million working people in this province and every one of those working people are jeopardized by this legislation that we

[ Page 2873 ]

have before us today. And most of those working people, by the way, are voters.

There's no question in my mind that one of the reasons that the government wished to proceed with this legislation was to add this

section 11, which covers municipalities, regional districts, improvement districts, water districts, et cetera, in spite of the fact that there are no major strikes of confrontations in the municipal sector at this time. I would not be a bit surprised, Mr. Speaker, to see us one of these days debating legislation curtailing free collective bargaining in the private sector as well. I think this government is capable of doing that, bringing in legislation of that nature. A government that can discuss openly and advocate so-called right-to-work laws will bring in legislation like that the first opportunity they get. There's no question about that.

I just want to close by suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that this government does not believe in free collective bargaining. They believe in collective bludgeoning. That's this government's attitude -- collective bludgeoning.

MR. KERSTER : Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly to support Bill 46 -- not to lay blame on either party in the dispute, not to attack either labour or management, but to, say that both are to blame. It's really that plain and simple. It's too bad that it has carried on as long as it has. It's a matter of fact that the collective bargaining procedures have had the opportunity to perform, and because of the parties involved in the dispute, 50-50.... Say 60-40 on management if you want to blame somebody. Say 60-40 on labour if you want to blame somebody.

But the fact of the matter is that both parties in that dispute have failed to use what a lot of people say is a very definite right. I agree with that, but they've failed to utilize it to anyone's benefit -only to the detriment of the school children in the West Kootenays.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that an awful lot of attention is being spent deriding

section 11 of this bill, because, again, as the opposition has done so many times in the past, they recognize a problem and then they want to become part of it. They don't want to become part of a permanent solution to a problem. Now the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) in his remarks -- and I was really somewhat interested by his misinformation -- seemed to feel that the people in Rossland-Trail weren't really concerned about this type of a situation happening again and again and again, something that we here as responsible legislators should be here to try to prevent, and as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, . the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Stephens) , when I suggest he's a responsible legislator, tells me to watch my language, so I'll withdraw that. But I just want to bring to the attention of this House the fact that I do think that there's considerable confusion in the mind of the member for Rossland-Trail. I'd like to try to correct it. I have in my hand over 2,000 signatures from people in Trail. These 2,000 people are not saying: "Hey, fellows, don't interfere in this thing." They're saying: "Let's get it on and get it settled and let's make sure that we don't allow this type of thing to happen again." And that's what

section 11 of this bill does. That's what it does.

I want to read a portion of one of the letters here, just one line. It says: "But in the view of the present situation, we feel that something should be done to make sure that the education of our children is not interrupted again." That is the meat of

section 11; that's what we're here to do. If we're going to be responsible as legislators in this House, we have to take a stand. We have to stand up and appreciate that fine, we're going to have big labour maybe awfully upset at us for this. We may have big business awfully upset at us for this. But no one single sector of our community is going to create this kind of a problem for children in this province, Mr. Speaker. That's really all I have to say, other than the fact that I think this thing has gone on long enough. We're really here to do a job. If we don't get on to it pretty quick, those young people aren't going to be back in school on Monday.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with leave, I'd like to table this petition.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN : I would also like to associate myself with the congratulations to the two new members of the cabinet, and also to add.... The Premier is gone, but I wanted to thank him personally for removing the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) from Human Resources. It's a request which I have made for a long time on behalf of everyone in receipt of his services in this province. I'm glad that the Premier finally came to understand the damage that that minister was doing, and took steps to move him into another portfolio, which I'm sure he will wreck in no time at all.

I don't know what to say about the new Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . We are probably going from the fire into

[ Page 2874 ]

the fat, or the fat into the fire. I don't know, but I am certainly going to wait and give her a chance -- this is a congratulation that I'm giving -- before making any comment, except to say that I hope she realizes that she has to do more than smile in this particular portfolio.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who has to take full responsibility for the dilemma that we find ourselves in at this time, stood on the floor of the House this afternoon and assured us that this piece of legislation was introduced on behalf of the children of the province. I think that we should take a look at this government's record as far as it affects children. If they are planning on going to the voters, to the electorate, on the basis that they are doing something for children, introducing legislation to help children in this province, I think they are making a very serious mistake.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and other members of the opposition have talked about the Ministry of Education and its lack of services to handicapped children in this province. I would like to add to that some comments about the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the kind of absence of decent health services to children in this province.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN : I am in order. I'm talking about this piece of legislation which we have been told was introduced on behalf of the children.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, if the member wishes to make a speech on how children have or have not been helped through Bill 46, it would be entirely in order, but we cannot accept an analysis of what the Minister of Health has done for children under this bill.

MS. BROWN : I an going to talk about the hypocrisy of the Minister of Education, the member from Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) , the Premier and other members standing up and saying that this bill was introduced to assist the children of this province. This government has a record of ruthlessness as far as children are concerned. I'm simply trying to put it into its perspective and into its context that this government has never done anything for the children of this province.

To say now that they are introducing this piece of legislation to assist the children of this province is not just hypocritical; it's just not so. I'm not accusing them of lying. I'm simply saying that it's just not so.

I'm not going to talk about the record of the Minister of Human Resources, because that would call for another filibuster, and I'm not prepared to go through that again. Certainly the record of this government, as demonstrated by the ex-Minister of Human Resources and his ministry, shows that we should look very carefully at any piece of legislation which we have been told has been introduced in order to assist the children of this province. The reality of the situation is that this government will use the children of this province, as it always has, for its own devices. This piece of legislation was simply introduced in order to get

section 11 through. The whole thing was stage-managed. The exploitation of the children of this province continues. It continues as it has continued for the past three years, whether it is through the report which was just introduced by the United Way, which shows that most of the children of this province -- 50 per cent of the welfare roll is made up of children in the province -- are living way below the poverty line.

This bill is another instance of this government using the children of this province. The Minister of Education, when he talked about the psychological damage that was being done to the children of this province, said that the bill was introduced because of his concern and the government's concern for them. As mentioned earlier, he didn't talk about the concern for the handicapped children who are thrown into the public school system, at the same time that he is cutting off the kind of funding that is needed to ensure that they get the kind of care that they need within the public school system.

He's not talking about the funding to assist the autistic children in the school system, which is needed and which is being cut off by him. He's not talking about the cutoff in funding for special needs in his department.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN : I an discussing the Minister of Education.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Hon. member, I think that the reason why so many interjections are taking place is that there is doubt in the House as to whether or not the remarks are relevant. Perhaps the hon. member would limit herself to what the bill does say rather than to what it does not say.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, the bill does not say anything whatsoever about being introduced on behalf of children. The Minister of Educa-

[ Page 2875 ]

tion who, because of his cutback in funding to the school boards, started the kind of vicious cycle which resulted in the dispute which is now before us and which we have been called back to deal with through this piece of legislation, told us that this bill was being introduced in order to assist children.

I'm merely trying to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the other members of the House, that the Minister of Education has, through his own department and through his own policies, deliberately used and abused and misused the children of this province. Now he is trying to get us to believe that he is concerned about them. His only concern, as demonstrated through this bill, was to escalate and design a situation that would make it possible for his government to introduce an amendment to the Essential Services Disputes Act which is, in fact, anti-labour legislation.

In order to demonstrate that, Mr. Speaker, I'm just giving you some other examples of where the concern of the Ministry of Education for children has resulted in the cutback of services to children in the school system, the reduction of budgets, the starving of the school districts, the cutback of child-care services. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we find that the children of this province really are the victims of a ruthless and uncaring government. This piece of legislation is additional evidence of that fact because this piece of legislation was introduced for one purpose and for one purpose only.

This piece of legislation is further exploitation of the children of this province. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) have demonstrated clearly that the only concern they ever had for children in this province is to exploit them. Bill 46 is a further example of the exploitation of the children of this province by that government over there.

The 15,000 children who are out of school in the Kootenays today need not be out of school. The workers returned to work. It was possible for those children to be in school today. They are not in school today because that government, Mr. Speaker, has decided once again, as it always has, to exploit the children of this province in its own interests. It has decided, as it has decided with every other vulnerable group in this community, that the way in which to get on with this job is to attack the most vulnerable ones among us.

Certainly by using this piece of legislation, by standing in this House and shedding crocodile tears on behalf of the 15,000 children in the Kootenays who are not in school, by talking about the psychological damage being done to those children, Mr.

Speaker, as the Minister of Education did in speaking on this piece of legislation, he is only demonstrating that he is prepared to go to any length, as his government is prepared to go to any length to introduce the kind of anti-labour legislation which their convention demands of them but which they have not had the guts to implement and to introduce in this House in a straightforward way.

The only thing in this piece of legislation which necessitated our being called to the Legislature today is

section 11. That is the only thing in this piece of legislation. It has been said by various members of the- opposition, by the leaders of the opposition, by the Liberal member and by the member of the Conservative Party, that it was possible to settle this dispute. It was possible to get those 15,000 children back to school without calling this Legislature into session. What was not possible was to introduce an amendment to the Essential Services Disputes Act and ran it through this Legislature without using the children in this way.

So even though the settlement was imminent, even though it was possible, that government -- and I'm not blaming the Minister of Labour, because he only does what he is told to do; I am speaking about the Premier and that government, with the support of the Minister of Education who is the real power behind that throne -- introduced this piece of legislation for one reason and for one reason only.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister.of Education told us that if we Vote against this piece of legislation, we are voting against the children of this province. I want to tell you that there are many ways of voting against the children of this province and this government has explored and exploited every single one of those ways. Speaker, when you exploit parents, forcing them to work for substandard wages, making it impossible for them to meet the basic financial needs of their children, you are voting against the children of this province.

There is evidence from this report recently submitted by the United Way that that is precisely what that government has been doing since it came into power on December 11,1975. They have been voting against the children of this province, and Bill 46 is further evidence of their vote and their action against the children of this province.

Mr. Speaker, we tend to lose sight sometimes when we talk about labour disputes that we are talking about people, not just about inanimate

[ Page 2876 ]

objects. So I want to deal specifically with one group of people who have been caught up in this particular dispute. I am not now speaking about the children; I'll go back and speak about the children again.

I want to talk about the Selkirk staff, and here I am quoting the Castlegar

News, Mr.Speaker, of November 30,1978. There was a letter published in the Castlegar

News written to the editor. It talked about the clerical and service workers

on the Selkirk staff and why they were a part of this dispute. The fact of the

matter, Mr. Speaker, is that it pointed out that for the past 10 years 70 per

cent of all of the clerical workers at that institution have been female workers

and that they have been working for below average salaries -- that their salaries

have not been keeping up with the salaries of other people in the community

at large. What they are struggling for in that dispute is a living wage. They

are saying that they are in favour of this struggle because they are in the

unenviable position of being the lowest-paid college staff in the entire province:

"The clerical staff at Selkirk College are in the unenviable position of

being the lowest-paid college staff in the entire province and the BCSTA"

that is the school trustees association "obviously wishes them to remain

in this position." They are saying that they are agitating for a living

wage.

These people are parents too. Some of these women on the clerical staff have children in the school system too. When we vote against them, we are also voting against the children in that system. It says that "a number of them are sole supporters of their families. They are single parents, and on the current wage offered by BCSTA they live below the national poverty line even though they are working." These are not people who are in receipt of welfare. These are not people who the previous Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) could refer to as welfare bums. They are employed, Mr. Speaker.

They are on the staff of Selkirk College, and despite the fact that they are working, they are below the national poverty line. When we vote against them -- if I can quote the words of the Minister of Education -- we are voting against the children of the province too. That is what we are doing. We often tend to forget when we talk about labour disputes that we are talking about people. We are not just talking about inanimate objects. So from time to time it is necessary for us to remind ourselves about some of the people who are under discussion.

They are saying.that they do not want 74 per cent of the workers at below the poverty line to remain there for yet another year. I know that the new Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , who believes that parks are there for mining and that he has now got the opportunity to do all the mining in the parks that he's ever wanted to do and legitimately so because he has now been given that authority, is not interested in hearing about people who are living below the poverty line.

He would like to be able to think that what we are talking about is big union and big management in some kind of confrontation with each other. I an quoting from a Castlegar paper, so apparently the information was made in that area and the person who wrote it was not run out of town, which is one reason, I guess, that we are lucky not to have that minister as Minister of Labour, although I think we are unfortunate to have him responsible for parks since we certainly value our parks.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is anti-union motivation by the government. It is motivated by a government that is prepared to sacrifice 15,000 school children and keep them out of schools in order to get its anti-union legislation through. It is introduced by a government which is prepared to continue exploiting those single-parent mothers at Selkirk College in order to get its anti-labour legislation through.

Mr. Speaker, the bill attacks the lowest paid people in our society who are lurking in the public sector. The majority of them are women, and thousands and thousands of them working in clerical jobs. By introducing

section 11, what it is saying is that it is now extending the coverage of the Essential Services Disputes Act to cover every single affiliate union that has anything whatsoever to do either with municipalities, regional districts, improvement district corporations, as well as universities, colleges and provincial institutions. It has nothing to do with the West Kootenay Schools Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Section 11 has nothing to do with it. In fact, what the bill should have been called is an amendment. The real title of the bill is An Amendment to the Essential Services Disputes Act. That is the real title of the bill, but in its own cunning, Mr. Speaker, the government thought that by pretending it was dealing with the West Kootenays dispute, it could just sneak this in and get it through, and no one would be any the wiser for it.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also calls for compulsory arbitration. We're not surprised by that, of course, because this government has always made its position absolutely clear on that issue, that it believes in compulsory

[ Page 2877 ]

arbitration. And as we heard, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) mentioned earlier this afternoon that this bill still doesn't go far enough. He says it's too little, Mr. Speaker. He believes that all workers, workers in the private sector as well as in the public sector, should be designated as essential services, and that he would certainly like to see the bill go even further than it is now. He speaks for a large segment of his party. He speaks for a large segment of his government. In fact, he is probably the only one over there who tells the truth about what they're seriously thinking about,

whereas the Minister of Labour and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) will make statements saying: "The time is not right. Let us wait until we are in government once more before we introduce this destructive legislation." The member for Omineca is not afraid to stand up and say that he is totally opposed to the collective bargaining process, that he is completely in support of compulsory arbitration.

MR. MUSSALLEM : On a point of order.

MS. BROWN : No, it's a point of privilege. He's interrupting.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Hon. member, if it's a correction in the hon. member's speech, the customary time is to make that correction at the completion of the speech.

MR. MUSSALLEM : I understand that, Mr. Speaker. She impugned what I had said, which I did not say. That's a point of privilege that I rise at this time to correct.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. Member, it's apparent to the Chair that it is a correction in a statement that the hon. member made in her speech, and the customary time is at the end of the speech. I trust the hon. member will respect that.

MR. MUSSALLEM : Is the Speaker saying that when things are quoted that I have not said, I should wait till after the speech is made?

MR. SPEAKER : That's the customary method in this House.

MR. MUSSALLEM : Well, it's a brand new custom, Mr. Speaker, but I trust it.

MR. SPEAKER : With great respect, customs have trouble being brand new.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, I accept the member for Dewdney's statement that I impugned what he said that he didn't say, and I'm not quite sure what that means. But in any event, I must confess that I too saw the televised convention and saw the member at the mike asking the delegates not to deal with right-to-work legislation at this time because it was not the correct time to do so, that they should wait. However, if that's not what the member meant, that's fine. I can understand that he has difficulty explaining himself sometimes. Anyway, "politically unwise" was his statement.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, there isn't any question whatsoever that if it is possible for that government through this legislation and succeeding legislation to wipe out collective bargaining, then it won't be necessary for them to introduce right-to-work legislation. They will in fact have achieved their ends without actually having to go through the whole process of introducing right-to-work legislation. In that regard, they would have carried out the wish of their convention without actually doing it in a straightforward and honest manner.

Mr. Speaker,

section 11, as it extends, covers, as I've said before, a number of other unions aside from CUPE, and even though we are supposed to be dealing with CUPE, we find that by adding

section 11 onto it, we are covering the carpenters' union, we're covering the Office and Technical Employees' Union, we're covering the operating engineers, we're covering things like the BCIT staff association. The IWA, the College Faculties Association and the Teamsters are covered. The minister has been very, very careful to just about pull everyone in that he can with this mess and that's what the legislation is all about.

It is hypocritical for the Premier and for the Minister of Education and the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) to stand up on the floor of this House and to pretend that they're introducing legislation which has anything to do with children at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with the children at all. This is anti-labour legislation. It is anti-collective bargaining legislation. It is softening up the public and preparing them for right-to-work legislation.

That's what it is, and the minister should have had the intestinal fortitude to make that fact absolutely clear, and not to call us back here, Mr. Speaker, under false pretences, and I'm not impugning the minister's motives when I say that.

I'm just saying that the government called us back here under false pretences. It was not necessary for us to come back here to settle

[ Page 2878 ]

that dispute, because the workers are back on the job. The employers wanted to lift their lockout, and again they were discouraged from doing so. At 7:30 or 8 o'clock this morning they were back on the job.

AN HON. MEMBER : Where?

MS. BROWN : Nelson, Grand Forks, you name it. In any event, the minister is asking us to name the places. It seems that he still hasn't at this point found out himself. Earlier, I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who quoted from the Premier's statement that he thought that public sector employees should be the lowest paid workers, that he certainly was in support of public sector employees not being as well paid as workers in the private sector. Of course, that state of affairs exists today.

There are all kinds of figures which I can make available to the Minister of Labour, if he does not yet have these figures, to show that in the school districts in Saanich, as well as in Victoria and in Vancouver, the clerk-typists' wages do not compare with that of the private sector in these areas. In School District 63, for example, in Saanich they are paid $5.18 an hour; in School District 61 of Victoria, they are paid $5.13 an hour; in School District 85, Vancouver Island North, they are paid $4.98 an hour.

You compare that with the private sector: in a contract for Local 1405 of Can-Cel, for example, the same clerk-typist is paid $8.66 an hour; or at MacMillan and Bloedel, the same clerk-typist is paid $6.73 an hour.

So the situation that the Premier is agitating for already exists. All that he is doing by introducing

section 11 of this piece of legislation is to ensure that every single person, every single worker who works for any part of the public sector whatsoever is going to be forced to find themselves in the situation where they are going to be paid by the Premier's criteria of the lowest wage possible. They are going to have their right to collective bargaining taken away from them, and they are going to find that their income will begin to go down. In fact, the difference between the income of the public sector and the private sector is very real and certainly exists at this point.

In comparing the way in which this government treats disputes with that of

the way in which the New Democratic Party did when it was government, when legislation

was introduced it dealt with people in one dispute and tried to resolve that.

There was never an instance where legislation was introduced which would have

the kind of blanket effect that

section 11 is having as it is attached to this

bill.

With each exercise of government wage setting, the case for government's intervention as regards prices, rents, interest, salaries and professional fees, and so on, becomes more compelling. In this case, despite the workers' willingness to return voluntarily to work, and despite commitments made by the Minister of Labour, the Premier and the employers, we have another example of society saying to people that we will intervene in your private income-setting process, but we will not intervene in terms of prices and income, and in terms of creating some kind of a match.

I'm not sure how long governments, and this government in particular, will be able to get away with that kind of cynical interference, especially when they try to do it under the guise of working on behalf of the children of this province. I can't say too often that anyone whatsoever who could delude themselves into thinking that this government has ever cared for the children of this province need only take a close look at the Ministry of Human Resources as it was under the ex-Minister of Human Resources. They need only take a look at the cutoff in services to children.

They need only take a look at the kinds of scapegoating statements made by that minister about people on welfare, despite the fact that more than 50 per cent of the people on welfare are children. They need only read the report....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. member. I call the first member for Vancouver-Burrard to order. It is apparent that whenever the member wanders from the parameters of the bill, she has a tendency to incite almost a riot in the House. Therefore I would ask the hon. member please to limit the remarks to Bill 46. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, I hope you are not going to hold me responsible for the fact that the ex-Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has no control over his behaviour. Anyone who would dare to delude themselves into thinking that this government would introduce a piece of legislation to assist even one child in this province need only look at the record of the Ministry of Human Resources under the ex-Minister of Human Resources.

MR. SPEAKER : 1b the bill, please.

MS. BROWN : Destructive decisions, cut-off of services, legislation, scapegoating, Mr. Spea-

[ Page 2879 ]

ker -- that is the reason why that minister had to be removed. That is the reason why he has been put in charge of adults, because he was so destructive to the children of this province.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I would ask the member for the final time to restrict her remarks to the parameters of Bill 46; otherwise we'll have to take the measures provided for under standing orders. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, your threat has been well taken. In this particular bill I'm talking about the cynicism of the government far transcends that of the conventional variety, because when the working people involved said "We accept the commitment, " as they did, when they said that they would return to work, and when they actually did return to work, an agent of the employer said to them: "That is not what the Premier wants-" That was the result of it.

The Premier and his government intervened to ensure that that strike was not settled, despite the fact that we've been told, with crocodile tears, that it's the 15,000 children in the Kootenays for whom the government is concerned while this piece of legislation was being introduced.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not want a peaceful, voluntary end to this dispute. That fact, anyway, is absolutely clear. No one over there is contradicting it, so it seems that certainly the government benches accept that too, despite all the declarations of concern for students that we've heard from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , from the Premier himself, and from the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) .

The Premier did not want those students to return to school, he does not care about their educational loss, and he does not care about the so-called psychological damage that the Minister of Education was telling us about. The Premier let it be known that he did not want that, he prevented the solution being arrived at, and in fact he insisted that the Minister of Labour go ahead with the drafting of this piece of legislation and that you, Mr. Speaker, continue in the process of calling the members of the Legislature back to the House today.

Mr. speaker, the Minister of Labour this morning said that he advised the union at 11 p.m. yesterday that the employers had refused to honour their commitment, and their decision to return to work, and that of the Premier. He went on to say that he continued his lonely vigil in his office waiting for word from the employers, hoping that they would give some kind of response to the employees' offer. The implication of those remarks was that despite the union's move, for which the minister congratulated them, it was too late for anything to be done.

The implication was that even if the employers had recanted, and had contacted the minister sitting alone and lonely in his office after 11 o'clock last night, the government would still not have withdrawn its decision to introduce this piece of legislation which has in its

section 11, which its main and primary process is, the destruction of the trade union movement.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government, and this Premier in particular, had decided long before -- long before he issued his ultimatum on TV, long before he made his gratuitous statement to the effect that it was not too late -- to go ahead with this bill, because he has decided to make this his issue in the upcoming election. I suggest that by mid-afternoon yesterday, at the very latest, this government and this Premier had decided to prolong this dispute.

The reason for his overwhelming desire to prolong the dispute, the reason the Premier was absolutely determined not to allow a peaceful and voluntary settlement, the reason why those students had to continue in those circumstances, and the reason why the Kootenays are thus compelled, along with those 15,000 children, to inherit a legacy of bitterness is that this Premier and his government are determined at all costs and any cost to put on this public display of union bashing.

He has reckoned that therein lies the votes, and he does not care one iota, as he has never cared one iota for the students in the Kootenays or for any children anywhere in this province. I'm not going to repeat what I've said about taking a look at the record of that government as it affects children and as it is always affecting children.

If that is wrong, it will be very easy for the Premier to dispute this. All he has to do is to stand up before this House and affirm what his Minister of Labour has already implied. All he has to do is to contradict what the spokesperson for the employer said last night. She said that the Premier did not want the voluntary settlement offered yesterday by the Union. The Premier merely has to affirm to this House that his government did not make it known by mid-afternoon yesterday at the latest that he was proceeding on course come what may.

[ Page 2880 ]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his Minister of Labour were until yesterday at noon enjoying what they thought was a situation in which they could win. They could embarrass the unions. They could blame them for keeping the children out of school and they could introduce their anti-labour legislation at the same time. They were foiled in this by the very astute move on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. It is not a dilemma of cabinet ministers or of corporate lawyers or of land speculators. This dilemma that we are dealing with is a dilemma of wage earners and the poor.

In this regard, I mentioned earlier that particular group of clerical workers at Selkirk College who, despite the fact that they are employed, are still earning less and are living below the national.poverty line.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : They're not back to work yet.

MS. BROWN : Those women, while they were working -- as the sole support of their family -- were earning wages as clerical workers at Selkirk College, which placed them below the national poverty line. That's the reason that they went into dispute with the BCSTA. They were the lowest-paid workers, Mr. Speaker, in any educational institution in British Columbia.

- Speaker, caught on the one hand by price eases like the 5 per cent to 12 per cent which we have been told to expect next year on a loaf of bread, and on the other hand by a ruthless government that slices away at their earnings, their real earnings have declined to the 1976 level. If you notice, I was very, very careful not to introduce any extraneous material such as increases in ICBC rates and increases in hydro rates. I didn't talk about the fact that the rent ceilings have been taken off.

There is an emergency before this House and before this society and that is it: the fact that inflation, over which these people have no control, is way ahead of their income and that they are locked in dispute at this time for a living wage. That's all that they are in dispute over.

Instead of grabbing an opportunity to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his government have used their dilemma, their untenable situation that they are in, to introduce anti-labour legislation and anticollective bargaining legislation. The government that lacks both inclination and courage to do anything about prices, rents and interest rates, to do anything at all about the costs that people have to bear, becomes instantly pious at any opportunity to slash at people's only capacity to fight back against those increases. The collective bargaining process is the only process that these workers have, Mr.

Speaker, to try to get for themselves a decent wage so that they can deal with the inflationary spiral, most of which is created by this government itself in terms of its own increases.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today from the Minister of Education and from the Premier about the interests of children. I think we should hear some more. Are not the interests of these same children injured when private selfish decisions to greatly increase costs, Mr. Speaker, are introduced? What emergency legislation does the government have in mind to deal with those arbitrary increases in the cost of living?

When interest rates for home purchases reach over 12 per cent and higher, depriving these children of a right to live in their own homes, what emergency legislation will the government be bringing down to deal with that?

But even if this Premier's machinations of yesterday had not been exposed, the worm would sooner or later have turned, because despite this union's willingness to end their strike on the terms previously offered by the employer and the Premier, we are today adding to the already large group of people in this society who have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a massive extension of this state's capacity to intervene in the private economic decision-making process.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier may be right in his decision that there are votes to be had from union bashing. He may be right to take advantage of the general anti-union sentiment rampant in society today. Heaven knows, he needs every vote that he can get. I'm not talking about the polls because I do not know anything about them, Mr. Speaker, but this is what you will have to consider in the morning, after the night of gluttony. The case that the Minister of Labour made this morning was for public intervention against private decisionmaking. His words will be far more compelling, Mr. Speaker, in other contexts.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Your time has expired, hon. member.

MS. BROWN : I was just winding up, Mr. Speaker. I am totally opposed to this piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. Minister of Highways. I would remind the hon. minister of the rule of relevancy. Please proceed.

[ Page 2881 ]

HON. MR. FRASER, : Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of thank yous going out, and I would like to thank all the members of the House for sending me condolences when I was ill. I haven't had the opportunity to be in the House since the end of May, so I thought I would take this opportunity now and tell you first of all that I feel fine and look forward to many years here yet.

I would like to publicly congratulate my colleagues, the Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Shelford) , and welcome these very capable people. We can certainly give them lots of work.

The other reason that I took the opportunity to say a very few words tonight is that the press gallery is absolutely packed full and I knew we would get good coverage. I realize they've had hard work all fall and they have to have time off, but I'm pleased to see the big turnout with the press tonight.

Dealing with Bill 46, first of all I want to say that there has been a lot said about the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education. I want to assure you that we on this side all have great confidence in the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education. They're dedicated public servants, they certainly have had a lot of the load to pack on this legislation and they've done an excellent job, as far as I am concerned.

I would just like to say a thing or two about the Leader of the Opposition (Hr. Barrett) . That was a pretty weak excuse for opposition to legislation that I heard from him today. It amazed me because all fall, every chance he got on any public media, he was saying he wanted the House called. Well, the House was called, and he fell flat on his face. He's not even in his seat. Really he's arranging not to be here when the vote is taken, it appears to me.

There has been a lot said, Mr. Speaker, from the opposition that the government interfered, and this labour dispute was settled. Well, of course, Mr. Speaker, the facts of the matter are it wasn't settled. They have already had six and a half weeks to settle it, and they weren't even bargaining. Mr. Speaker, in the case of the union offering to go back to work, I understand they didn't go back to work because of the other side. But in any case, if it had happened, how long would that continue? They didn't have any agreement and therefore they could go back out again whenever they felt like it.

This government wasn't going to stand for any more of that nonsense, because they've had lots of time to get an agreement and get on and get the schools back.

This bill says that, with its passage, the schools will open in 48 hours. It is the wish of this government that they get back and they are given their old agreement and they are under an agreement to keep on negotiating until they settle the dispute, but it ensures that the schools will stay open. So there is quite a difference, Mr. Speaker, between the government's attitude here and the statements that are being made on the other side of the House. It ensures continuing education for the victims of this dispute, which are the students.

Regardless of what they say on the other side, they are definitely the victims. This government isn't going to allow that to continue any longer, even if the opposition, as they are saying, would certainly let it go on for I don't know how long.

The conditions for learning up there are impossible. I myself, and I an sure the members of the opposition, saw children in their classrooms with gloves on and heavy clothes on. How could you live and learn in an environment like that? Even the opposition must agree that that's an impossible and intolerable situation, and again this government is not going to allow that to go on any longer.

I would like at this point -- and it was touched on by somebody in the debate today -to congratulate the teachers that are carrying on under extreme circumstances there. They are under tough working conditions, and I think we should all give them full marks for what they have tried to do under very difficult conditions.

This hasn't been said today probably because the House doesn't know it, but I would like to relate an experience or a fact that I know from this dispute. There is a class of nurses in the Selkirk College and along with their other education they have to have practical nursing experience as well. I am advised that they can't do that. The hospital management, where they take their practical training, have said that they are not welcome there while this dispute is on for the simple reason they are afraid it will create labour difficulties in the hospitals where they take their training.

You know, nobody has said this but this dispute has a lot of implications and complications and this is just another one that hasn't been mentioned today. It is a shameful condition and this bill is going to clear up this disgraceful situation.

I will just close now, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to address my remarks to the MIA for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and the MLA for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and say to them that as public servants they have sure

[ Page 2882 ]

let their people down. I'm sure that their views have been distorted by other things than it should have been, and I am quite amazed that public people would take that stand over a serious issue. I'm sure that the citizens of Nelson-Creston and Rossland-Trail will let them know when the time comes.

I would urge all MLAs to vote for this bill when it cones to a vote.

MR. LEVI : I'd like to welcome the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) ; I don't know what he is now -- Highways. I'd like to welcome him because he is looking pretty good now, and I'd also like to take the opportunity to welcome the former Minister of Public Works, Bill Hartley, and his wife, who are sitting up in the gallery. He's just over your head there, Bill, so be careful.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair-]

I'd like to congratulate the two people that were promoted from the backbench to the cabinet, to commiserate with those that remained in the cabinet that were demoted, fired, rehired and replaced. It's always amazing to me the way premiers pick cabinets. I think what he did this time was to take all the pictures and throw them up in the air, and those that came down with the picture up stayed where they were and the rest, well, he just kind of picked it any old way.

I'd like to take the opportunity, now that the Minister of Labour has left, to .... Somebody must be taking notes for him. I would like him when he closes debate to be very specific about what he knows about what took place up in the Kootenays today as a result of people from the union going back to work. I think it is important, because he said this morning when he introduced the debate:

"It is true, or at least it is reported to me as being true, that this morning the union saw fit to lift its strike at Selkirk College and at Nelson. That being the case, the lockout nonetheless continues in the school districts of Castlegar, Grand Forks and Trail, and was imposed at Selkirk College."

I think it is important that the minister be up to date. I'm only up to date as to what took place during the dinner hour, and I'm informed by my colleague from Trail that people went back to work at Nelson. They were asked to stay off for a while but then went back to work. The picket was lifted at Selkirk and they did not go back to work. At Castlegar, Trail and Grand Forks- they reported for work. They were told to go home and then later on were phoned to say that they should cane in to work. It hasn't been confirmed how many people actually went in.

But that was the situation as reported to me at the dinner hour. I think it important that the Minister of Labour be up to date. I would be surprised, frankly, if he's not up to date. Or has he forgotten everything about the strike and all he wants to do now is to concern himself with pushing the bill through?

I don't agree with the people across the way that the only victims in this particular dispute were children. There are many, many victims in disputes when there are labour disputes. Not everybody is a student. Income is reduced, people in families suffer, businessmen suffer, everybody suffers. So I don't accept that the government somehow has to single out children as the only victim in this particular situation. It is never that way, and they are only doing this simply because it fits their own purpose. I am much more concerned about what the legislation means. I an thinking specifically now of

section 11 and not the rest. Because in

section 11 we get some indication of what the planning has been by this government for some time.

Last year when the Minister of Labour was introducing the Essential Services Disputes Act he went to some trouble to explain why he was doing it. In part of his speech he said: "It is the view of the government, and the intention is clearly expressed in this bill, to move to establish on a permanent basis an agency that will undertake a number of major tasks directed to the resolution of those basic root causes." He was talking about what was going on in the public sector.

He went on to say: "More importantly, the agency will be in a position to consider, examine and recommend with respect to the root causes of the seeming inability of some elements in the public service to conclude a resolution of their differences. I'm not speaking only of the employees in those public services." In his speech he made reference to the way Ontario deals with legislation in respect to disputes in the education system. So exactly what they were going to do has been in the back of their minds for some time.

What are the implications of all this? At no time have any of the members on the other side stood up and talked with any real feeling about what the difficulties have been over the past 60 or 70 years in this province in establishing the trade union movement and in establishing the right to collective bargaining. We've come full circle in respect to Social Credit governments. In the '60s and early '70s we had nothing but confrontation around the

[ Page 2883 ]

issues of collective bargaining, the whole trade union movement and whether it was to exist or not. Here we are going into the '80s with the same kind of feeling by a Social Credit government that it's beginning to talk about the dismantling of the trade union movement. We talked about this last year. We talked about it when they amended the Labour Code. Who are we to believe? When we look at their convention we find that for three successive years in their convention there has been debate about introducing the right to work. This year, only because the Minister of Labour finally got to the mike and was able to cool them out, they lost it by a slim vote.

MR. DAVIDSON : Oh, nonsense!

MR. LEVI : Oh, nonsense! it was lost by a slim vote. That's a grass roots party that pays attention to its membership.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. I have some difficulty in relating your debate.

MR. LEVI : You do? I started out with

section 11.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : However, when you are discussing the relative merits of discussions at political party conventions I have some difficulty with the West Kootenay Schools Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

MR. LEVI : Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you that a

section of this Act amends the Emergency Services Act? This Act does not deal.... Let's not kid ourselves. I hope the public doesn't make the same mistake, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that you just made. You are suggesting ....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. When you, hon. member, get into a discussion as to the finite details of political conventions, I have to question whether or not that is in order in our second reading. If you will relate this to the second reading -- which you normally do, I might add -- I would appreciate it.

MR. LEVI : You've raised an interesting point, and I'd like to go back on it. If the public believe that all that's in this bill is simply an order sending people back to work, then they are very sadly mistaken. There is a

section in here which amends the legislation that was introduced last year, the Essential Services Disputes Act, and that is the very important part of this.

We know that with the numbers that the government has, they are going to pass the business of sending people back to work. What concerns us more is what they've got on the agenda in the future.

Section 11 will only be brought in on proclamation. Then they are going to do some research to find out whether they need it. It's very difficult sometimes to believe what the minister says. Last year when he introduced the bill he made a great play about setting up an agency that was going to concern itself with doing research and looking into the problems that various unions and employers have in respect to how they can better improve the collective bargaining process.

I understand that three weeks ago they started to put this thing together. We passed the earlier bill in October, 1977. Here we are, 14 months later, with the minister telling us that they have just appointed the advisory board. hat are we looking forward to now? It took them 14 months to came to grips with the problem that last year he told us was so crucial we had to come into the House and have a special session, post facto, after the business of the ferry strike. Here we are with the same kind of thing going on in respect to what's going on in the Kootenays.

It is important that people understand what the implications are. Last year when the minister was introducing that part of the bill in

section 11, he said that the attempt was Lo achieve a balance. He talked about balance last year in terms of the collective bargaining field. Now he's brought in something that's completely tipping the scales in the favour of the employer. If that minister is going to stand up and tell us that he believes in the collective bargaining process and that he's in favour of seeing unions continue, how is he going to explain that? That's not maintaining a balance. That's pursuing a course which people on that side have been bound that they were going to pursue since they've been in government, and even before they were in government.

The interesting thing to me is that surely they must have got some clues out there a month or six weeks ago that all was not well with their party, that their welfare bashing and their attempt at union bashing was not working and people were not supporting it. We had a kind of mini-election that didn't happen. We know why it didn't happen.

Why is it they're feeling so confident now, Mr. Speaker, that somehow they can come in and use this big stick? Why? Is this the last opportunity that they're going to have to try this out? Is this the last opportunity they're

[ Page 2884 ]

going to have to garner all those right-wing votes that are going over to the Conservatives? Is that why you're doing it? Has that got anything to do with the question of maintaining balance in the collective bargaining field? It doesn't.

The other issue that's implicit in what you're doing in this bill is that you're completely endorsing accreditation. You're the one that's said that you're prepared to take a look at it and evaluate it, but now you've come in with endorsement. Accreditation is there; that's what's happening. We've seen the kind of mess that can happen up in the Kootenays with accreditation. We have three or four school boards sitting down and voting on this school board's contract and that school board's contract, and a complete erosion of the rights of voters who elect trustees.

As somebody so eloquently put it last night when we met with some of the people from up there, "People in Nelson did not elect trustees to make decisions in Trail, " and he's quite right.

This is the government that campaigned that they wanted freedom and decentralization, and here we have the essence of centralization: accreditation in the public sector, without any analysis to whether it can work. We know that it works in the private sector, but in the public sector, they've yet to produce the information, the data, the research as to how this thing has been working in the past.

In spite of what took place in the lower mainland three or four weeks ago when the members of the unions, particularly from CUPE, went before the various municipal councils and argued their points against the people who were proposing accreditation and won the day, this minister is prepared to go forward in the face of all that reality and to bring in this.

Now he's not foolish, Mr. Speaker. He's not a foolish man. He is capable of evaluating situations. He's sat in the House for more than 12 years. One can only suggest that the reason that we're in this particular pickle is because for the third time that minister has had the ball taken out of his hands. The person who's calling the plays an this is the Premier, and he's doing it purely for political purposes. That minister's got more sense, and knows that to introduce this kind of legislation is going to develop the kind of confrontation that everybody talks about.

Because if you think that the trade union movement is going to sit and lay back because of this, then you're all a bunch of idiots, and it's incredible that you could even think that way. Why the confrontation? One man somehow wants to make an effort to recoup, because six weeks ago he was told not only by the people, but by the pollsters and by his friends: "Go to the election and Barrett will be the Premier."

We're keen to make this an election issue if you want. I guess that's what you want to do.

You want to build support out there with the right wing, and somehow you think that that will carry you over the top. Well, it won't.

It won't because if any of you had attended the B.C. Federation of Labour,

you'd have seen what was happening there. I've been go