1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4843 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 4843

Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 4843

Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 34) — Second reading. (Hon.

Mr. McClelland)

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4844

Mr. Skelly –– 4846

Mr. Lea –– 4849

Mr. Parks –– 4850

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4852

Tabling Documents –– 4852

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1984

The House met at 10:10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we're all saddened to return to this

assembly without the presence and very good company of our colleague and fine

friend, the former hon. member for Okanagan North. The Hon. Mr. Campbell was with

us, in the elected service of his riding and this province, regretfully for

only a little over a year. However, during that short period of time he made

lasting impressions by his candour and his abundant capacity for powerful, understandable

and fair-minded expression. He was never shy with his views. He was generous

of heart, and extremely well liked and well regarded by all members of this

House. We will all miss him, but we're all richer for our experience with

him.

It would be greatly appreciated, Mr. Speaker, if you would extend to

Mrs. Campbell, his family and his many friends our most sincere

sympathy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The appropriate message will be sent.

The leader of the official opposition.... Pardon me, the House Leader.

MR. HOWARD: Thank you for the elevation.

Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition wants to join with the

government House Leader and the government in formally expressing here

in the chamber our regrets at the passing of Mr. Campbell. We got to

know him, in the short period of time he was here, as a very generous,

very friendly and helpful human being. We have already expressed our

regrets to the family, but want to join with the government in saying

to Mrs. Campbell and members of the family how much we enjoyed the

brief moments that we had with him here. We will remember him and

honour him as the days go by.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, since last we met, the New

Democratic Party has had an election for a new leader. They've chosen

the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), and I know all members wish to

join me in congratulating the new leader of the official opposition on

taking his place in that capacity for the first time during a sitting.

I might say on a personal note that I wish the Leader of the Opposition

well in his deliberations and in those many times that we will meet,

and not always agree, for the capacity and wisdom that he may show in

assisting the public debate that must take place in this province,

through this Legislature. He has my every best wish for every event,

except elections.

MR, SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you very much to the Premier.

As an experienced back-bencher, I can recall the first day that the Premier

came into this House and the butterflies he felt when he first came in as Leader

of the Opposition. So I hope the House will extend me a bit of leeway as I

suffer through those first few hours myself. I very much appreciate the Premier's

kind words and his offer of best wishes on my limited success. I also convey

to him my best wishes. He was only able to spend a short time as Leader of the

Opposition before he managed to get the Premier's job, and I think, Mr.

Speaker, that it's time he had a refresher course.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of introductions that I

would like to make this morning. First of all, in the public galleries are a

number of members of the Independent Canadian Transit Union. I would like to

welcome them and identify them by name: Colin Kelly, Gerry Krantz, John Wright,

Bill Evans, Doug Newman, Eric Scott, Terry Knight, Bob Jones, Gale Jones, Brian

Swanson and Patricia Lane. While I'm at it, ML Speaker, I would like to

introduce to them members of management that they now have an opportunity to

meet on that side of the House and, in particular. back in this corner of the

House.

I also have other introductions, Mr. Speaker. In the gallery today —

and I won't name the individuals — are a number of representatives of

various groups in British Columbia representing Seniors Without Any

Transit, the Lower Mainland Solidarity Coalition, unemployment action

centres, tenants' rights groups, the Canadian Federation of Students,

the First United Church and the College-Institute Educators'

Association. They are here today to watch this debate.

[10:15]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the introductions

this morning should pass without appropriate recognition being given to

another change in status in our House, in which we have an independent

member for the first time since the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and I sat as independent members. We two,

if not others in the House, appreciate the circumstance of the member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). We wish him well and, of course, we should

remind him of the precedent which has been set in recent years by

independent members in this House.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the financial statement for the B.C. Railway for

the fiscal year ended December 30, 1983, and the tenth annual report of the

B.C. Development Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the statement of assets and liabilities of the B.C.

Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority as at March 31, 1984; the

statement of assets and liabilities for the B.C. Housing and Employment Development

Financing Authority as at March 31, 1984; the statement of Crown proceeding

payments pursuant to the provisions of the Crown Proceeding Act,

chapter 86,

for 1983-84; and the annual report for the B.C. Systems Corporation for 1983-84.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the annual report for the B.C. Buildings Corporation

for 1984, and the fifteenth annual report of the business done in pursuance

of the Pension (College) Act for the year ended August 31, 1983.

Introduction of Bills

METRO TRANSIT COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

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

a bill intituled Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

Bill 34

introduced and read a first time.

[ Page

4844 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in order that all members

may have the opportunity to have a look at the bill and study it before

debate continues, I would ask if you would accept a recommendation for

a one-hour recess.

The House took recess at 10:20 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:34 a.m.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, before going into the

regular order of business, I wish to rise under standing order 81 to

request a ruling from you that the legislation about which this House

was called back into session is urgent and extraordinary and should

proceed through all the stages of legislative procedure this day. I

would like briefly to set out some of the reasons why I believe that

that ruling should be made.

As you know, it was decided to recall members of the House in order

to deal with a situation that has seen our major urban areas deprived

of bus service for three months. This decision was made only because

every avenue and procedure which was available under the normal

bargaining process, including the use of a skilled mediator and an

industrial inquiry commissioner — both individuals of unquestioned

skill and repute — was explored and tried without success. All members

are aware that the parties had available to them the expertise of Mr.

Clark Gilmour, our chief mediation officer, and later that of Mr. Joe

Morris, a distinguished labour statesman, who served as the industrial

inquiry commission. Both of these individuals applied their years of

experience and knowledge to the dispute without avail.

This legislation is designed to bring about a speedy resumption of

transit service to the general public and those who, through no fault

of their own, have undergone an uncomfortable and very difficult

situation over the past three months. It is imperative at this point

that service to the public be restored.

The legislation which I have tabled does not alter the normal

bargaining rights of the parties. It does contain a way to resolve the

dispute while normal service is provided. It does, however, contain a

provision that will allow the government to act in a settlement in the

event the parties again fail to reach agreement on their own. In this

respect the legislation closely resembles legislation introduced and

passed earlier this year to deal with the pulp dispute. The bill will

require that the buses be back on the streets by Monday, and there will

be no strike or lockout action while this bill is in place.

This special session of the House to deal with the labour dispute

breaks no new ground; nor does the request to you, Mr. Speaker, that

I'm making now: that this legislation undergo an expedited

debate-and-approval process by members of the House.

Our government reconvened the House to resolve a strike-lockout involving non-teaching

school employees in the West Kootenays. In 1974, the then NDP government had

a special session to resolve a dispute involving greater Vancouver firefighters.

The following year, again under the NDP administration, members of the opposition,

of which some of us in this House were a part, agreed and complied with a request

from the government for a one-day sitting to pass legislation which sent forest

workers back to the job, along with propane gas delivery workers, and which

prevented a shutdown of B.C. Rail. Those particular instances were of an urgent

and extraordinary nature, and so, too, is this dispute and this proposed method

of solution.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you for a positive ruling on my request to exercise your discretion under standing order 81.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, standing order 81 is that standing

order which permits a variance from the normal course of giving

separate readings to bills on separate days, and permits a bill to

receive, if necessary, all three readings on one day if the situation

is, as the minister pointed out, urgent or extraordinary. There is no

question in our minds that it is an urgent and an extraordinary

situation. The recitation by the minister of the events this summer

since the dispute started shows that the urgency is one created by the

laziness of the government in dealing with this situation. It's that

kind of aloofness and disinterest and casual approach by that minister

and this government that has got the people in Vancouver and the lower

mainland and here into the situation that they are in. That doesn't

obviate the fact that it is urgent and extraordinary; it's just

regretful that it's an urgency created by the person who is now

claiming that it's urgent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Standing order 81 will apply for this session.

METRO TRANSIT COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to take my place

and move second reading of Bill 34, and I would like to make a few comments

again on second reading. One quick remark. The Leader of the Opposition talked

about aloofness and laziness. It's just one more recognition by the NDP

that that party does not believe, as was mentioned once in this House by the

member for Vancouver Centre, in the collective bargaining process. I thank the

member for Skeena and House Leader for once again reassuring this side of the

House that the NDP does not and never has believed in the true collective bargaining

process.

I want to again emphasize that the priority issue here, of course,

is to get the buses rolling again in our major urban areas and to

provide the kind of service in terms of transportation that the public

has come to expect and to which it is entitled. That is the key thrust

of the legislation, and why we're here today.

There is no doubt that we recognize that the past three months have

been difficult for the hundreds of thousands of bus users who depend on

public transport to get to work, to go shopping, to make visits, to

keep doctors' appointments or to simply get around for a whole variety

of other reasons. As with every labour dispute, people suffer. In the

public sector it is perhaps too often the person who has no direct

stake in the dispute itself who bears the major brunt of the dispute,

and somehow that's unfair.

I want to stress again that the collective bargaining process has

been allowed to take its full course under the laws of this province.

Mediation was employed, as was the most unusual step of appointing an

industrial inquiry commission. All of the steps which have evolved and

developed through the labour relations system here in British Columbia

were tried and explored, and in this instance, for a variety of

reasons, were found wanting. The opportunities for a labour

[ Page

4845 ]

relations solution were simply exhausted, and the government has now had no choice but to act.

During committee stage of this bill, of course, the House will have

an opportunity to debate the bill in detail, but I would first just

like to list the main points of the legislation and what it is designed

to do. I believe it is fair and evenhanded. It will solve the most

pressing and urgent problem, that of getting our public transit systems

on the lower mainland and here in the Victoria area up and running

again.

The bill will require, as I said earlier, that the buses be back on the streets

by Monday. There can be no strike or lockout action while this bill is in effect.

It will extend the last collective agreement until a new agreement comes into

force through direct bargaining, with a special mediator to be assigned by the

government to help resolve the dispute, or, if a voluntary settlement cannot

be reached, to have the government determine the terms. It will require the

resumption of collective bargaining within 72 hours of enactment with the assistance

of our special mediator, Mr. Clark Gilmour, the executive director of the government's

mediation services branch, who has been involved in previous efforts to resolve

the dispute. This dispute will be resolved with a collective agreement reached

either by the parties themselves, with the aid of the special mediator, or,

if necessary, by government action. Obviously the former is the preferable route

to go.

The best and most enduring settlements are the ones which the union and employer

negotiate themselves in responsible and meaningful face-to-face sessions across

the bargaining table. I suppose it could he said that this dispute has had no

beneficial effects for anyone either directly or indirectly involved. The company

has lost revenue; the drivers have lost three months of pay, and of course the

public has been the biggest loser of all. Their interests and rights as innocent

third parties were consigned, without consultation or consideration, to the

back burner, In the end, the procedures we relied on in our labour relations

process just didn't work. Perhaps the time is overdue for a re-evaluation

of the bargaining process and how it works or fails when we talk about the public

sector as opposed to the private sector. Certainly the two systems are different.

The pressures and the impetus to resolve differences to reach settlements also

differ. In general, strikes and lockouts in the private sector tend to have

their most direct and telling impact on the union membership and the company

involved. Of course, there are spinoff side effects in terms of other unions,

other employees, and sometimes on the public as well. But the bleeding is usually

done by the employer and union members. The loss of revenue and wages can often,

if a dispute drags on long enough, force the parties to reach an accommodation

in their own vested interests. On the other hand, public sector disputes always

affect and hurt the public at large.

[11:45]

So I think the time is right, Mr. Speaker, to focus on labour relations in

the public sector and try and determine whether we can answer a number of questions

related to collective bargaining for people paid from the public purse at all

levels of government. It has become clear during the term of this dispute that

the public is asking us a lot of questions. Strong views have been expressed

on both sides of this issue. Should stoppages be avoided through some other

kind of system of binding arbitration or a formula be developed of finding ways

to index public sector wage levels to productivity or other factors? I don't

know the answers to those questions, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think any

individual or group right now has all of the answers to the questions, but I

believe we are at a point in time where we should start finding them,

I want to inform the House that it is my intention to establish a

public-hearing process with sessions to be held all over British

Columbia just as soon as terms of reference can be established, through

which we can hear from a broad

section of society on the whole range of

issues inherent in public sector labour relations. It isn't my

intention merely to ask for opinions and submissions from labour and

manage merit groups. I want to hear from individual citizens about

their feelings and their views, and I want full-scale public input into

the issues surrounding public sector labour relations.

1 believe that if we simply pass this legislation today to bring

this particular dispute to an end, without taking a broader look at

labour relations in the public sector, we leave ourselves and the

general public — our citizens — open to future situations where again

their interests will be most damaged and we will find ourselves

crippled in protecting those interests. There has to be — there must be

— a better way. If, through these public meetings which will be

established, we can develop an acceptable consensus, we will have gone

a long way toward ensuring that the public interest will be protected

further down the road. I don't believe that we can leave this issue

alone any longer and merely hope that in the next public sector dispute

the traditional methods of settlement will work and that a stoppage of

services will not occur. The community demands that we do something and

will condemn us all as legislators if we do nothing.

Public sector services are paid for from the public's purse, and there

is an expectation among the people whose tax dollars fund those services that

they will continue without interruption. To my mind that's not such an unreasonable

expectation.

At the same time, there must be a strong commitment to fairness for

those who work in the public service. The scales cannot be tipped only

one way. That would simply create a new set of problems and inevitably

lead to situations involving public sector employees where intervention

would probably become the norm rather than the exception.

I want to say again, as I have said on many occasions, that I, as

Minister of Labour, and this government are committed to a free

collective bargaining system. That commitment is unshaken and the

challenge before us is to seek out and foster new approaches and new

alternatives for the public sector.

I do regret that this legislation had to be introduced, but unfortunately there

was no alternative. All of the avenues available to us were used without success.

I am hopeful, however, that with the transit system back in operation and with

the immediate pressures lifted from them, the parties can reach a settlement

which avoids the necessity of our government becoming involved in establishing

the terms of an agreement.

In closing, our philosophy of non-intervention — save in the most essential

and urgent cases — remains intact. Equally intact is our determination that

when all else fails we will take whatever measures are necessary to protect

the public interest now and in the future. Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading

of the bill.

Before taking my seat I would like to ask the House for leave to

file two documents pertinent to the legislation which is before the

House.

Leave granted.

[ Page 4846 ]

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the report and recommendations of the industrial inquiry commissioner, Mr. Joe Morris.

HON- MR. McCLELLAND: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, mention is made

in the legislation of the minister being able to vary the terms of the

collective agreement in place in order to ensure that transit

operations are resumed, and that will be done by ministerial order, So

that members of the opposition will know the way in which that will be

achieved, I would like to file a copy of the proposed order which will

be going to the parties following passage of the legislation.

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled a copy of the proposed ministerial order.

MR. GABELMANN: Give us the Cameron report too.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You file it.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's with some regret that I rise in

the Legislature this first time as the Leader of the Opposition, and

with some regret and disappointment that it has to be around this type

of issue. I first of all regret that we have been called here into a

session of the Legislature after a long absence in order to deal with

only one single bill, when there are serious problems facing this

province that relate to many issues which this Legislature should be

meeting full-time to deal with.

We hear that there are 194,000 people out of work in this province

because of the economic policies of this government. There are

thousands of people seeking work; hundreds of thousands of people on

welfare, a greater number than at any time in the past; a shrinking

workforce and an increasing number of people unemployed. There is

demoralization throughout the province, Mr Speaker, among teachers who

are facing increased class sizes. I talked to one yesterday facing a

grade 4-5 split with 39 kids in the class. Students are concerned

because they don't have the money to go back to school; they're unable

to work, and the government has cut off their student grants. Social

workers and financial assistance workers are dealing with caseloads of

up to 400 people per worker.

The Premier, when he was expressing his concern about the 12- and

13-week bus strike, was saying that he was concerned about these

students, concerned about elderly people, concerned about the

handicapped. What a hollow statement! If the Premier were concerned

about those people, he would have taken action to make sure that those

people have a decent standard and quality of life in this province, and

that services aren't continually being cut back from those people — We

should be sitting here in the Legislature continuously and developing

programs that assist those people to have a decent standard and quality

of life in this province.

I feel disappointment also to be called here to use the power of government

as a force for compulsion rather than for conciliation and to consider legislation

which can only further poison the labour relations climate both in the transit

industry and in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, what we're dealing with here is not an emergency that arose

as a result of the failure of certain procedures along the way. What we're

dealing with here is an emergency that results from the failure of the government

to get involved in a dispute and to use the many facilities available through

the Ministry of Labour and the cabinet to assist in the resolution of this dispute.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government has delayed as long as

possible and has refused to provide the full range of services available to

the government in a timely way in order to avoid the disruption that we've

had in transit service in this province. Where was the government 18 months

ago? Where was the government when MTOC and its drivers were unable to arrive

at a settlement of their contract when it expired in March 1983? What assistance

was the government providing at that time to make sure that we weren't in

a situation which would have required a strike or lockout? It appears that the,

government was doing nothing. What happened when the bus drivers themselves

got involved in an "unstrike," when they did everything they possibly

could, short of shutting down the service, to demonstrate to the public that

there was no contract in effect, that they were having some difficulty in dealing

with Metro Transit Operating Company in order to obtain a contract, and that

it appeared to them that bargaining was not taking place successfully?

The minister talks about allowing the collective bargaining process

to proceed. Yet it was not proceeding satisfactorily, Mr. Speaker.

Otherwise we wouldn't have seen these long delays between March 1983,

when that contract expired, and today, when we are back in the

Legislature forcing another group of people back to work in British

Columbia, after depriving hundreds of thousands of people in this

province from the transit service that they have a right to because

they've paid for it. The Premier expressed his concern. when he said he

had to call the Legislature back. Where was his concern six months ago?

Where was his concern a year ago? Where was his concern 18 months ago

when these problems began to address themselves to us? The Premier

obviously didn't have concerns, or his wits about him, at that point,

and that's why we've reached a crisis stage now. We haven't reached a

crisis in collective bargaining. What we have reached, Mr. Speaker, is

a crisis in the government's failure to act in a timely way and

competently in order to resolve this dispute. That's the problem we're

dealing with here right now.

It's interesting; as the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) says,

what we're here dealing with is the problem of the government's delay.

There is probably some other government agenda behind this, because we know

the government's approach to organized labour, and their approach to the

whole concern they have about working people in this province. Why did the government

not strike an independent, impartial inquiry commission at the time when it

was first requested by the drivers — or by the drivers in association with the

company, although that apparently fell through? The minister has the power.

Around June or July 1984 — I wrote to the minister on July 10, 1984 — I wrote

to the Premier, to the minister, and to the minister responsible for transit,

and asked that they appoint an impartial inquiry commission under, I believe,

section 122 of the Labour Code. On the strength of the appointment of that inquiry

commission at that time the drivers had agreed to resume their duties and to

get the transit system going again. The minister refused to act; he refused

to appoint an inquiry commission. That was before the summer, before people

were coming to Vancouver as tourists, before the PNE was started.

When people needed that transit service during the summer, where was

the Premier? Where was the Premier taking action in order to facilitate

collective bargaining in this dispute? The Premier wasn't there. The

Premier failed to act, the

[ Page

4847 ]

Minister of Labour failed to act, and the minister

responsible for transit failed to act. Why wasn't collective bargaining

taking place? After all, this contract had expired in March 1983. The

bus drivers had bent over backwards to keep that service operating in

spite of the fact that they didn't have a contract. They put on the

unstrike, they got fake tokens, and they dressed up in funny uniforms

to try to draw people's attention to the fact that a collective

agreement had not been arrived at. Why did the government not act then?

Why did they not consult with the drivers? Why did they not consult

with the company to find out how this thing could be resolved?

[12:00]

In May of this year, when I was talking to the Victoria Chamber of

Commerce, I suggested that the way the NDP did these things when they

were in government was that they used the offices and services of the

Ministry of Labour to bring these people together, often in the

minister's office, to identify the points at issue and in dispute, to

get people focused on those issues and to make sure that collective

bargaining took place in a manner that focused that bargaining on the

outstanding issues. I don't believe the minister or the government took

the issues seriously enough to do that.

I wonder what the government's response was to the Ross Cameron

report. Surely the government had access to it. Needless to say, the

Labour Relations Board issued an order suppressing it so that the

drivers and the company could not release it or make it available to

the public. Anybody who had access to this report was enjoined from

disclosing it to anybody. But reports like that get out occasionally.

The report was damning to the way the Metro Transit Operating Company

was being managed — absolutely damning. From the excerpts from the

Cameron report that we've seen, we know that the management of that

company had severe problems, interfering at the lowest levels of the

company. We know that the management's interference was resulting in

problems with labour relations. We know that Mr. Cameron himself blamed

the problems of labour relations on a number of issues.

I'd like to read some of the excerpts from the Cameron report that

are important to this debate today and for the reasons we're debating

this legislation in the House today. I'll readjust three excerpts,

because those are what I have before me. Quoting Mr. Cameron: "A review

of B.C. Transit's sphere of influence shows the lack of a provincial

plan. There are therefore no policies and procedures in place necessary

to carry out an effective industrial relations function." Here we have

a transit authority in the province that has no policies in place,

according to Mr. Cameron, to carry out an effective industrial

relations function, The government should have identified that problem

immediately. The bargaining had been going on for a year at this point.

The government should have identified that problem, seen it as an

impediment to collective bargaining and taken steps to correct it as

soon as possible so that bargaining could have proceeded normally.

The report also dealt with the chief executive officer or the

chairman of Metro Transit Operating Company, I'd like to read a few

selections from the Cameron report that describe his activities.

"The level of involvement of the chairman in the day-to-day

operation of MTOC has a very clear industrial relations impact, and I would

be remiss if I did not make the principals aware of my thoughts on this matter."

On page 6 Mr. Cameron says:

"My comments with reference to the chairman of the

board's unusual involvement in the day-to-day operations are generally

valid with reference to the present practices of the CEO. The reason

for the CEO's involvement outside of normally accepted practice may

have been originally valid, but his present understanding of the

function of MTOC and the transit industry voids that reason. I suggest

that the CEO review his present practices with the idea of removing

himself from detailed involvement at all levels of the corporation."

To go back to the original quotation, the involvement of the chairman has a

very clear industrial relations impact, according to Mr. Cameron. What was the

chairman of the Metro Transit Operating Company doing within that corporation

that interfered with the effective pursuit of its industrial relations policy?

It appears from the Cameron report that one of the executive officers of that

corporation had been interfering with the effective conduct of employee relations

within Metro Transit Operating Company.

One final quote from page 9 of the Cameron report, Mr. Speaker "I am

not uncomfortable with the pure technical skills of the labour

relations personnel. Certain of the interviews lead me to believe that

the communications and attitudinal skills of these individuals have

been compromised through either interference, specific instruction or

individual

interpretation of a mandate that is not specific in its

intent." Clearly, according to Mr. Cameron's report, the problem in

collective bargaining between the ICTU and the MTOC is not one that

relates to the ordinary problems of collective bargaining. There

appears to have been some interference by appointed political

management of this company — interference at the lowest levels of the

company, interference at the level of the company that has to do with

collective bargaining and industrial relations. It appears that the

ability of MTCC to operate and to bargain collectively with its

employees has been interfered with by a government representative who

answers to the cabinet of this government and who answers to people in

this Legislature,

We should have an explanation from the people in this Legislature as

to what interference was taking place, what lines of communication

existed between this government and its chief executive officer on the

Metro Transit Operating Company, and how that individual interfered

with or impacted on industrial relations within Metro Transit Operating

Company to delay a settlement of this dispute for an unconscionably

long period of time, causing a tremendous amount of suffering for those

very people that the Premier, at this very late date, expressed some

concern about: those students, those senior citizens, those handicapped

individuals. The Premier expresses his concern about them but obviously

had no concern for them through all of that period of time that this

transit dispute was going on.

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the delays that took place. We

are concerned about the interference of this government in the labour

relations policy of a Crown corporation. What type of agenda did this

government have when it interfered with the industrial relations

functions of Metro Transit Operating Company? What was it trying to

achieve?

Over the months that this dispute has been going on this government

has been directly and intimately involved. They like to come to the

Legislature here and suggest that they are kind of impartial referees

in this game. They're not impartial

[ Page 4848 ]

referees, Mr. Speaker. This government appointed

the chief executive officer of Metro Transit Operating Company, who is

in fact a member of this Legislature. This government has a minister

who sits in this Legislature as the person who is responsible for Metro

Transit Operating Company and for B.C. Transit. Are they denying that

they knew what was in the Cameron report? Are they denying that they

were aware that interference was taking place with the industrial

relations function of that corporation? Were they unaware that it was

taking place within a corporation that has responsibility to this

Legislature through a minister of the Crown?

Mr. Speaker, there is much more in this issue than the Minister of

Labour has been willing to tell us. There is much more information than

the Minister of Labour has been willing to release to this assembly. We

will have difficulty accepting the minister's concerns about those who

have suffered as a result of the transit stoppage when the Minister of

Labour refuses to table in this House a copy of the Cameron report,

which shows what kind of interference took place between government

members and the Metro Transit Operating Company to prevent an agreement

from being arrived at in the first place in a timely way and in a way

that wouldn't have interfered with the services in Vancouver and

Victoria. This government has a lot to answer for because of their

interference with labour negotiations in that area, and this government

has a lot to answer for to the people of the province of British

Columbia, who were denied their transit service because of government

interference in labour negotiations.

I challenge those responsible for transit and those responsible for

labour relations administration to stand up and explain those

statements made in the Cameron report and explain why the Cameron

report was suppressed and not made public so the people of British

Columbia could find out who is truly at fault in this dispute. The

people who are at fault here are MTOC's executive officers and the

government of British Columbia, which has the sole authority to direct

what MTOC does.

We realize here that there is a serious problem, that there is a

crisis in transit in Vancouver and Victoria. But we want the people of

this province to know that the government brought that crisis to this

point. It is the government, and the government only, that must bear

responsibility for the crisis we're now facing. They generated this

crisis in order to serve their own particular agenda with respect to

labour management relations in this province.

We as a political party would like to see the transit services in

this province restored as quickly as possible, but in a way that

represents fairness to both sides. When I talk about both sides, I'm

not talking about both sides as the Premier does, as if MTOC was some

company operating at arm's length in the private sector. You are the

company. You are responsible for the company and for the way that

company has been bargaining with its employees. It's your attitudes,

your prejudices and your failure to bargain in good faith with your

employees that has brought us to the situation we face right now. It's

your incompetence.

Here you are in the Legislature expressing regret that it has come to this.

You've planned it to come to this. As the minister suggested, he has some

other more long-term agenda in view, something he's going to have to look

at because of the way this situation in collective bargaining has failed — has

been promoted to failure by his ministry and by his cabinet. He has this long-term

agenda in view as to whether public employees should have the right to bargain

collectively at all. This is his agenda. This is what he wants to be looking

at. This is what he suggested in his opening comments: that he's going to

be holding public hearings around the province to determine whether public employees

should have the right to strike at all. This is his long-term agenda.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Now he's against public hearings.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not against public hearings, Mr. Speaker. I

have indicated to the members of my party and to the public that I

would be willing to see more public hearings in this province. This is

a government that has failed to listen over the last several years. Try

to get to a minister's office, and you'll find the door closed. I'm

just wondering who is going to conduct this public inquiry. Is it the

minister who is going to receive all of these documents? Who will be

approached to submit documents and submissions to this commission?

I would be very pleased to see a royal commission struck into labour relations in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, Mr, Speaker, the suggestion of a royal

commission seems to have hit a sour chord on the government side. When

we're talking about public hearings we should be talking about public

hearings impartially conducted, where every citizen has, a right to

present evidence and to cross-examine the evidence submitted by other

citizens. If we're talking about public hearings, you're right: I

challenge the Minister of Labour to do a complete public inquiry — a

royal commission — into the conduct of labour relations in the province

of British Columbia. I challenge the minister to do that very thing and

to announce today an impartial inquiry into the Social Credit

performance in years past and into the current situation with respect

to the administration of labour relations in this province.

[12:15]

Interjections.

MR, SKELLY: Now he's a little less reluctant to talk about public inquiries.

What we're dealing with here is the product of the government's

attitude toward people who work for a living. We're also dealing here

with the government's approach to the economics of the labour market.

They believe that everybody should go into the labour market as

individuals and offer their labour for whatever they can get for it,

for whatever people are willing to pay. They're willing to go back —

and I think this is the basis of the part-time-operator proposal.... My

father was a bus driver, so I can remember how part-time operators

worked when he first came into the system. They used to have drivers

who would come down to the bus depot and hang around there all day

waiting to see if there was any work. Some of them would spend 10 or 12

hours a day waiting at the bus depot to see if there was work for them.

If there wasn't, they went home. If one was hired, he may have a job

that week, but he may not have another job for three weeks. He had to

wait there for nine or ten hours a day without any pay whatsoever. Now

they want to turn the whole system around to part-time drivers. That

shows that this government has absolutely no respect and concern for the

[ Page

4849 ]

needs of those working people. It is treating them

as if they were some type of spare part that can be kept in a box on a

shelf somewhere and then brought on when they're needed and discarded

when they're no longer needed. These are human beings that we're

talking about, Mr. Speaker, but this government does not look at

participants in the labour force as human beings; they look at them as

spare parts — things to be used and thrown away when they're no longer

usable. That's the attitude they have toward the labour market.

They believe that everybody should go into the market and bid to

employers for whatever price the employers are willing to pay. We can

go back in history and see how that system worked before trade unions

were formed. I can remember construction workers telling me that they'd

go down on a job where someone was working at their trade, and after

offering the foreman 20 cents an hour less than that guy was getting,

he would be thrown off the job and the new guy hired because he was

able to underbid the labourer by 20 cents an hour. Nobody's job was

secure. Nobody was treated like a human being.

I was told on several occasions of another way to get a guy's job,

and it even applied to some Social Credit highway contracts a few years

ago. If you went in and offered the supervisor a few bucks, you got the

job simply by doing that. That's why clauses were enclosed in trade

union agreements which protected people's jobs and made sure that

somebody who had either given a kickback to the foreman or supervisor,

or who was willing to offer his services at 20 cents an hour less than

the worker on the site.... That's why we developed those protective

clauses in union contracts, and that's the main concern of part-time

workers.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: But you have that attitude toward the labour

force, and this is one of the reasons why this government cannot arrive

at a collective agreement with its workers, whether in the bus dispute

or other disputes that are currently going on around the province.

Mr. Speaker, I've talked to the people involved in the ICTU and

others, and I can recall my own father's involvement in the transit

industry. These were people who were intensely loyal to their fellow

workers and to the companies they worked for. They were able to arrive

at collective agreements because the companies weren't entering into

those agreements with some preconceived economic notion — blinkers that

prevented them from seeing workers as human beings. For years and years

they were successful in maintaining a continuous transit service with

very few stoppages. It has only been in the last few years in this

province, when we now have a government that is economically,

philosophically and ideologically blinkered, that we are getting

involved in serious problems with trade unions and individual workers.

What we are dealing with now is the incompetence of government to

resolve problems with its own trade unions and workers. What we are

dealing with now is unconscionable delay on the part of the government

in resolving this dispute in the public interest, because of all those

people who haven't been served over the last 13 or 14 weeks by the

shutdown in transit. We are dealing here with a question of ideological

blinkering of this government.

What is happening is that as a result of that incompetence and the failure

of that company to account to this government and this Legislature for its many

deficiencies and inefficiencies, especially in the field of labour relations,

those failures in reporting their inefficiencies are failures of the Premier

to make certain that that company is operating properly and negotiating in good

faith with its members, and that failure is documented in the Cameron report.

What we have, and why we're here today after such a long delay, is a failure

of the government to demonstrate its competence. We have a failure of the government

to treat workers as individual human beings who have a right to some certainty

and security of employment and who have a right to be respected and consulted

when changes are taking place. This government doesn't recognize those rights

on the part of workers and on the part of the public, and that's why we're

faced with this problem today.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but we intend to vote against this

legislation, in part because of the legislation and in part because of

this government's failure to act quickly and competently over the last

18 months.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I should inform all members of the Legislature

that I had a meeting with my caucus this morning, and they are absolutely united

behind me on my approach to this legislation. [Laughter.]

We are here to talk about the principle of the legislation, and the

details will come up in the next reading. There are a number of

principles involved with this bill in this reading. One principle is

the resumption of transit services for the lower mainland and Victoria;

the clauses in the bill make it mandatory that that service resume. On

that principle I will be voting for the legislation. But as in all

readings, it is very difficult because there are other principles

involved. The other principle involved is: how does the legislation lay

out the resolution to the dispute itself? I am not in agreement with

the method the government has chosen to resolve the dispute.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Once again the government is taking the powers into cabinet of how

to resolve the dispute. There are other more creative ways that a

dispute such as this can be resolved. In talking to the principle, I

would like to talk about some of the other ways that it could be done.

The government could possibly amend the bill, although you'd almost

have to amend the entire bill in order to come around to a different

principle in that area. I believe that government, as much as possible,

should not be the final and deciding factor in these disputes, that it

should be at arm's length. The government must always not only appear

to be but in fact be the mediator between all groups in society. I

don't think that has taken place in this case, because the government

has put itself in a position not to appear and in fact not to be at

arm's length from the dispute.

It seems to me that a much better way, or one other way, to have dealt with

this problem would have been to appoint a mediator, after the resumption of

work, to act for a specific period of time, be it 30 days, where the mediator

appointed by government would go in and help both parts of the dispute to try

to resolve the issues still not resolved. Only in one case would the mediator

be an arbitrator: that would be deciding the sheets and how they would be used

to get the workers back on the job, because there is dispute around that area.

As I understand it, it's part of the old collective agreement that the sheets

were done on a seniority basis and filled out by the

[ Page 4850 ]

drivers. If we go back to the system that was in

place when this dispute broke into a lockout, then we're going by

company sheets and not union sheets as described by the collective

agreement. So I would have appointed an arbitrator to deal with that

particular issue and to resolve that, but in all other areas that

person would be a mediator for a period of 30 days. At the end of 30

days, if there were any outstanding issues that had not been resolved,

then those issues would go to the mediator who turns into an

arbitrator. There are many methods that can be used at that point. One

that I would like to throw out for the government's consideration is

the last-offer arbitration, where the arbitrator will ask for and

receive, laid out by legislation, the final position after the

mediation, if it does fail to resolve the dispute and there are

outstanding issues, where those outstanding issues would be required by

both of the people in the dispute to lay out their final offer. Then

the arbitrator would choose one or the other — either the union's

position or management's position in terms of what they are putting

forward as their final position. In effect that would force both

management and union to be very thoughtful when putting forward their

final position for arbitration that would be binding. The arbitrator in

this case must have binding powers.

But the government hasn't done that, Mr. Speaker. The minister and

the cabinet have taken that power unto themselves. I think that over a

period of time that makes people very suspicious that they're not being

treated fairly, that they're being treated politically instead of in an

industrial relations sense. So as much as possible get it out of

government and put it over to someone who does not have a stake in the

outcome.

I'd like to deal with a few remarks that the minister made about

looking at collective bargaining within the public sector. I think this

legislation points out the need for a creative approach. There is no

doubt in my mind that bargaining in the private sector has different

variants than in the private sector. In the private sector, if there is

a lockout or a strike, then there is a very good reason for both of

those parties wanting to get back to. the table to resolve that

dispute. In the one case the company is losing profits, in the other

the union members are losing wages, and both would like to end that

situation. So the forces that keep taking them back to the collective

bargaining table to try to find a solution are to maintain profits and

to maintain wages. In the public sector those same forces are not

always in play. On management's side there is money to be saved in

continuing a dispute. I would suspect that in this dispute the company

has saved $25 million to $30 million in wages.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Not a penny? I'd like to hear them explain that. I'm sure that the company is saving money in wages during the lockout.

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayers.

[12:30]

MR. LEA: I'm sure glad they drew that fine point to my attention, Mr. Speaker. I'd have missed that.

In this case the company is owned by the taxpayers, so when we're talking

about the company, I don't think we have to go into who the shareholders

are. The fact is that there is good reason for the company not to want to settle

a strike or a lockout, because they can save budgetary money in the end. So

there is no great desire on their part, like there always is in the private

sector, to end the dispute, On the other hand, in the public sector the employees,

whether they like to admit it or not, always have in the back of their minds

the fact that.... In the private sector the trade union does have to take

into account the profitability of the company, the viability of the company,

and make their demands around that, but always in the back of the mind in public

sector disputes is the thought that all we have to do is raise taxes or borrow,

and there will be enough money.

So there are problems in collective bargaining in the public sector,

but rather than do away with the right to strike, rather than do away

with collective bargaining, a more creative approach should be taken.

You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. What you do is try to

find a creative approach that will make collective bargaining work

better in the public sector. That's what you have to strive for. So

when the minister says he's going to set up a commission, an inquiry,

to go out into the community to ask for more ideas, you can't be

against that. because that's what we should be doing. We should, as

legislators, travel a great deal more than we do. There wouldn't be

very much wrong in having a legislative committee go out and do some

travelling around the province, because we may learn something too, as

legislators.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: But you're just going to do it for the expense money. I'm only kidding.

As well as possibly a public inquiry or a royal commission looking

at the issue, I think it would be a good idea for legislators and a

legislative committee, either in conjunction with or separately, to go

out and listen to what the public has to say. There should be an

educational process both for us and for the kind of education that we

can help to give to the public on the kind of job we have to do.

I'll be voting for this bill in principle on this reading, Mr.

Speaker. I do it with misgivings. I do it because the service has to be

put back in place in the community, but I am not in agreement with the

method that the government is using to resolve the dispute. When the

time comes to vote on individual clauses in the next reading, I will be

voting against those on principle. I don't think it's the way to go. I

think there are better ways to resolve the dispute itself than is laid

out in this legislation. For the government to take these powers into

the cabinet room, as opposed to an appointed arbitrator that both the

union and management see as fair, is the wrong way to go, Down the road

this kind of resolve to a dispute will only lead to more problems in

industrial relations, not only within this company and this union, but

in all companies and all unions. This is not the way to do it. I'd like

to see another resolve to the dispute. I want to see services rendered

back to the publi,c and I'll be voting for that in this bill, but we'll

deal with the areas that I disagree with, the manner of resolving the

dispute, when we get to the next reading of this bill.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker. I rise to take my place in this

debate on this extraordinary legislation with mixed emotions. Clearly

I'm very pleased to have seen the leadership exhibited by our Premier

and the Minister of Labour in taking the necessary action to bring the

hardship that has been experienced in B.C.'s two major metropolitan

areas to an end,

[ Page

4851 ]

to see that disruption brought to a halt. However,

I am greatly disappointed that this legislation has been necessitated

because the parties could not resolve their dispute through the

unfettered collective bargaining process. I think it's fair to conclude

that our government has agreed with the NDP — the loyal opposition —

that free collective bargaining is the way for the parties in labour

matters to govern themselves. However, there are moments when the

rights of the individual or when the rights of a small group have to

give way to the rights of the entire community — in this case the

rights of, as I say, the two major metropolitan areas of our province.

This government did not wildly rush in and take away the rights of

either party. In fact, it has clearly shown extreme patience and

allowed the collective bargaining process to run its course. Initially,

when it became clear that the collective bargaining process was making

no headway, the minister, through his mediation services, offered

counsel. But that got nowhere.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The minister then moved on to the next step and offered up, to

assist the parties, the province's most senior, most experienced

mediator. Where did that get us? Nowhere — both parties still meshed in

total deadlock.

Recognizing that impasse, the Minister of Labour called upon a

former president of the CLC, a very well-respected former labour leader

— not a "Socred axeman, " not "a friend of government" or "a friend of

management," but a former labour leader. And what happened when that

industrial inquiry commission brought down its report? It was summarily

— almost totally — rejected by the union.

All the steps that reasonably could be taken have been taken. The

necessity has culminated in today's action, and I think the government

is to be applauded. I'm surprised when I hear that the opposition is

not prepared to support this legislation — surely in principle. They

may have some concerns as to the manner in which the back-to-work

legislation is coming, but the two main concepts in that piece of

legislation are, I think, unassailable.

First, we have a bill that says: "Enough of the hardship to the

community. Resume operations; go back to work." Who can criticize that?

Why should it be criticized? We want the transit system back up and

running.

The second main tenet of this legislation is that collective

bargaining will continue. A contract is not being imposed on the union

or on the company. The parties are being directed to go back and

negotiate within 72 hours. Surely every member of this House should be

supporting that in principle.

1 represent a suburb of metropolitan Vancouver and I have many

constituents who have truly felt the hardship of this dispute. It's not

that they just expect the public transit system to serve them on a

convenience basis — and really they are entitled to expect that — but

much more importantly, my constituents rely on our system of public

transportation to get them to and from work, to get them to and from

shopping, to get them to and from the doctor and other needs that we

all have. Why are they being held to ransom in this dispute?

I understand that back-to-work legislation, emergency labour legislation, is

not a new occurrence in this House. I thought it would be wise to research Hansard

and look to the experience of this House when other similar pieces of

legislation have been introduced in the House. I refer to a former

Minister of Labour and his introductory remarks in bringing

back-to-work legislation before this House. He set out what, in my

opinion, is an unassailable rationale when he stated:

"We have never stated…that there is an absolute right

to indulge in economic warfare which, in many cases, threatens and

jeopardizes the basic safety, comfort and health of citizens of this

province."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. PARKS: That was stated by the former Minister of Labour,

Bill King, in one NDP government. He then went on — and I think it's

very important to remember these words:

"Government is elected to represent the interests of

all citizens of this province. We must make day-to-day judgments on the

effectiveness of the collective bargaining system and on the

effectiveness of any other device that governs and regulates the

conduct of society. We are not prepared to stand idly by and watch

disputes of this nature wreak unjustified hardship on those directly

involved as well as those indirectly involved."

Clearly, those who are not directly involved are experiencing

tremendous hardship. What about those who are directly involved? What

about the workers, the bus drivers? I read in this morning's newspaper

some very disturbing comments attributed to our bus drivers. I think

one in particular illustrates what must be a degree of frustration that

I guess is understandable. Mr. Mike Crocker, apparently a bus driver,

is reported as saying: "Slaves are legislated back to work. This is

supposed to be a free society, and you just don't legislate free people

in that way." As I stated before reading that passage, I can understand

the frustration. The system has been shut down for 90 days, and there

has been no perceivable progress in the negotiations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. PARKS: Well, that's not an issue. With all due respect,

why there has not been progress is not the issue. The issue today is

the fact that for 90 days the system of public transit has been down

and the citizens of those two major communities have suffered hardship,

and that hardship has got to stop. That is the issue today.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: You're right, offering up the chief mediation

officer of this province is not assisting. You're right, offering up an

industrial inquiry commission headed by a former CLC president is not

doing anything to expedite and assist. This government has lent every

bit of assistance that any two parties could hope for, but the time has

now come, this morning and this afternoon, that the hardship must be

terminated and the parties must be compelled to go back to the table

and negotiate in good faith.

As I was stating, the frustration of that particular bus driver, and

surely of all the bus drivers involved in this dispute, is very

understandable. I'm wondering if — again referring to our history, to Hansard

— the words of a senior member of this House might well serve as

counsel for these bus drivers. It was only nine years ago, when we had,

I would suggest, a similar degree of frustration with a number of

workers in this province, that the hon. member for Vancouver East, at

that time sitting in government and at that time supporting

back-to-work legislation, made these comments:

"We have to remember that our rights are founded upon

duties; that the exercise of power without responsibility is tyranny;

that the cost we must pay for our freedom in a social democracy is a

[ Page 4852 ]

certain measure of social discipline and respect for the rights of the other person.

"We have to remember that the provincial wealth of the

province is like an apple that can only be divided in so many ways.

There are obligations toward the old, the infirm, the people without

bargaining power, those in hospitals and those who require roads for

access. All these many other demands are upon one source of total

provincial wealth, and that can only be divvied up in so many ways. We

can grow a bigger apple through cooperative endeavour, but there is

only so much to divide up."

[12:45]

It so happens that the hardship this bill is aimed at alleviating

has affected the old, the infirm and certainly the people without the

bargaining powers. They're the ones who are being irreparably harmed by

this dispute.

I understand the hesitancy with respect to a labour-oriented party

in not wishing to support back-to-work legislation, but as I said

earlier, with the two basic tenets of this legislation, I cannot

appreciate why the opposition is already stating that they're opposed

to the bill in principle. We have just seen another province have to

take extraordinary, exceptional legislative steps to put transit

workers back to work — in fact, not back to work; they had to prevent a

transit strike from materializing. In that province — it was Ontario,

of course — the only party to vote against that preventive action was

the NDP. The Liberals didn't vote against it, except Mr. Sweeney. In

any event, the NDP voted against it. I was looking for some indication

of what I could expect our opposition to do by way of taking a posture

on this bill, so I reviewed Hansard

on the debate on that legislation. I found a rationale for why the

opposition in Ontario would not support the legislation in principle,

but I don't think it applies here. In Ontario you had preventive

legislation, if you will, preventing them from exercising their rights,

rights that have long been associated with workers. They'd been given

the right to withdraw their services in order to enhance their ability

to bring about a good collective agreement from their particular point

of view. However, in Ontario it was somewhat different. I think their

position was well summarized in a statement by one Mr. McClellan. I'm

sure he's not a relative of our Minister of Labour. During this recent

debate Mr. McClellan of the NDP in Ontario stated:

"We should be ashamed that this is happening in our community

We should have done everything possible to make sure that a settlement was achieved

as a result of collective bargaining, rather than through this kind of draconian,

arbitrary, unfair and undemocratic imposition of a sanction of the state against

the workers. Let us not kid ourselves. If we look at the penalty sections of

Bill 125, all the coercive powers of state are employed against the TTC workers,

including daily fines of $1,000 per individual and daily fines of $ 10,000

against the corporation and trade union if they violate the law."

We don't have any of that in this legislation. This isn't draconian

legislation. This isn't unfair legislation. This legislation is saying:

"Stop the hardship, reinstate the service, go back to the bargaining

table." There are no threats of wild penalties. There is no big club

being brought out of the closet. Yes, this House has the same powers as

the Ontario House had. We could have taken that route, but we haven't.

This is a fair, even-handed, essential piece of legislation for this

moment in time. I trust the NDP opposition will recognize that fact.

Trusting that this legislation will be proclaimed in short order, I

trust both parties to this dispute will recognize the even-handedness

with which this legislation is entered.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment on the minister's

remarks with respect to looking for a better way of resolving public

sector disputes. When discussing the principle of this bill I do not

think it's appropriate to discuss various alternatives. But I welcome

the minister's comment that it's time to look for an alternate way of

resolving these disputes. I encourage that action, and I'm looking

forward to the input which I'm sure will be forthcoming from all

citizens of this province.

I believe this legislation has been necessary because of the totally

unequivocal frustration of the collective bargaining process. Both

parties are to blame. Both parties deserve to be chastised. The public

need not, should not, will not suffer any longer. I, of course, will be

voting in support of this reading.

MR. GABELMANN: I understand from a nod from the government

House Leader that a motion to adjourn this debate until the next

sitting would be received with some support. I so move.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of B.C. Ferries for the

year ending March 1984, and the annual report of the B.C. Steamship

Company for the year ending December 31, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Gardo. moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada