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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4853 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government economic policy. Mr. Stupich –– 4853

Hydro job cuts. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4854

B.C. Ferries job cuts. Mr. Lockstead –– 4854

Highway-equivalent subsidy. Mr. Lockstead –– 4854

Vancouver Island pipeline. Mr. Lockstead –– 4854

Sale of Victoria Plywood Ltd. Mr. Mitchell –– 4854

Transfer of residents from Tranquille. Mr. Barnes –– 4855

Tabling Documents –– 4856

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

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4856

Mr. Michael –– 4861

Mr. Lauk –– 4861

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 4863

Mr. Nicolson –– 4864

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4866

Mr. Hanson –– 4867

Hon, Mr. Waterland 4869

Mrs. Dailly –– 4870

Mr. R. Fraser –– 4873

Mr. Cocke –– 4873

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4876

Mr. Mitchell –– 4878

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4880

Mr. Blencoe –– 4881

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4882

Division –– 4883

Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 34). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

section 5 –– 4884

Mr. Lea

Mr, Gabelmann

Mr. Skelly

Division

section 8 –– 4885

Mr. Gabelmann

Division

Third reading –– 4886

Royal assent to bill –– 4886

Tabling Documents –– 4887

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1984

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join me

in welcoming some visitors. I'd like to welcome Fern Hill from Kamloops.

I should point out that these people are visiting as a result of the transfer

of patients from Tranquille to Glendale. They are here in the gallery, and I

would like the House to make them welcome. Fern Hill moved into her own apartment

last May, after living in Tranquille for 15 years. She lives with a friend,

Susan Babcock, who is here with her attendant Evelyn Sikora to express support

for her friends in Tranquille who are being moved to Glendale. Michael Segeden

is from Surrey. His son Stephen has not moved to Surrey as promised, but is

also being placed in Glendale. Jessie Nichols is the mother of Billy Nichols,

who is in limbo. He was to live in a group home with Michael Chernenkoff, but

now he may be moved to an extended-care unit in Vernon or to Glendale.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the courtesy of introduction

period is to introduce guests in the gallery to the Legislative

Assembly. That is the purpose of this parliamentary courtesy to members

of the House.

MR. BARNES: Sharon Ward is the sister of Michael Chernenkoff,

who has been moved to Glendale. Pamela Swanson is Elaine Swanson's

sister. She is from Castlegar. Gerry Grunered's son Russell was moved

over a back road to the Kamloops airport while his mother was at the

front entrance of the Tranquille institution.

Mr. Speaker, I do not take great pleasure in having to read the

facts of the purpose of the visit, but I think it should be appreciated

by the House that it is unfortunate that these people have had to

travel here in order to make their case. I hope the House will welcome

them as that is the purpose of the Legislature.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome Mrs.

Ilse Wittich from Regina, Saskatchewan, the mother of my secretary

Ingrid Shillington in the office here. Also her friend, Grete Arndt

from Berlin.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome

Dale and Lillian Carlson. Mr. Carlson is a member of the esteemed

accounting fraternity from tile city of Penticton.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to make

welcome two visitors in the gallery today: my mother Mrs. Barbara

Michael and my sister Miss Gladys Michael.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC POLICY

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

of Finance. It is now 14 months since the government introduced a

program of massive austerity and tax increases. During that time,

unemployment has increased in the province from 13.2 percent to 14.7

percent. Wages and salaries have decreased while public and private

investment has plummeted. Has the government decided to reconsider its

policies in view of the poor performance....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm getting a lot of help, Mr. Speaker. Am I allowed to enter into the debate, or do I have to stay to the question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question period is for questions, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH: Has the government decided to reconsider its policies in

view of the poor performance of the B.C. economy relative to all other economics

in North America?

[2:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that was more of a

statement than a question. I had a little difficulty. Incidentally,

notwithstanding the fact that we've been in recess for a while, the

member has proven his consistency. Some of the numbers he quoted were

incorrect. I would suggest that he get back to the NDP caucus staff in

order to ensure that they're correct. As I say, it was more of a speech

than a question.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to get into

that kind of debate, I'd ask the minister to provide me with the

figures that he promised to provide some years ago in this House. Two

years ago I asked for figures and he was going to give them to me

shortly.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, shortly.

The question, Mr. Speaker, which I'm sure you've heard, is: has the

government decided to change its policies in view of the poor

performance of the economy in British Columbia — poorer than any other

economy in the whole north American continent?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, without in any way confirming the

preamble

which the member has chosen to use, I can tell you that the fiscal policies

of this government are most appropriate in this period of very dramatic change

in national and international economies. There are some bright signs, one of

which is the fact that the federal riding of Nanaimo has finally seen the light

of day, and I think that bodes well for the future of that particular part of

Vancouver Island — a great part of the province of British Columbia. I hope

that provincially the voters there will see the light as well in the not-too-distant

future.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister had a little trouble

finding a question in my first opportunity to speak, and I find a lot

of trouble finding an answer in his response. However, maybe he can't

argue with the fact that the unemployment rate in B.C. is just about

double the unemployment rate in the province of Manitoba. Has the

government decided to take a look and see what Manitoba is doing better

than we are doing here in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we carefully monitor that which

is occurring in all provinces in Canada. In fact, the most recent

unemployment numbers from Manitoba indicate an increase in that

province, and the most recent numbers in British Columbia indicate that

it is one of two provinces to show a decrease. If we're going to

examine a province such as Manitoba, at least let us do it with

up-to-date information.

[ Page 4854 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll try once more with a very easy

question: will the minister admit that Manitoba's current rate of 8.1

percent unemployment is just about half of B.C.'s current rate of 15.2

percent?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the member expresses an

opinion, and the opinion is in fact not correct. Therefore I suggest

the member check his figures, and for purposes of question period

debate in this House let him at least quote figures which are

completely accurate and up to date.

HYDRO JOB CUTS

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

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers),

but since he's not here I would redirect the question to the Minister

of Finance in his capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro. There have been

somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000 jobs already lost at B.C. Hydro

in the last three years. Will the minister advise whether the board of

directors is now considering several hundred additional job cuts

because of excessive U.S. dollar interest charges brought on by the

government's policy of foreign borrowing?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr Speaker, as is common practice in this

House, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, the minister responsible for British Columbia Hydro in

reporting to this House, I take the question as notice.

B.C. FERRIES JOB CUTS

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

Transportation and Highways: will the minister confirm that the

government will lay off a further 220 B.C. Ferries employees effective

October 1984?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, I know the Ferry

Corporation is looking at numbers around that, but I just heard the

other day that it might be less than the number you quoted.

HIGHWAY-EQUIVALENT SUBSIDY

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I would think that that answer implies further service cuts to the coast of British Columbia.

Another question to the minister: has the government decided to reinstate the

highway-equivalent subsidy, which provides the same level of support for ferry

users as drivers on the regular highway system? In other words, are you going

to bring back your subsidy formula?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the government of British

Columbia has a formula to subsidize the Ferry Corporation. This year

the Ferry Corporation received $43 million in subsidy from the treasury

of British Columbia. That, I believe, is the same as they received last

year.

VANCOUVER ISLAND PIPELINE

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of

Labour, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Following the government's decision favouring B.C. Hydro's southern

route for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, the consortium has advised that

it will not build the proposed fertilizer plant in my riding of Powell River

or in any other part of British Columbia, meaning a loss of jobs and an investment

of around $1 billion to the people of British Columbia. What steps has the government

taken to undo the damage its announcement has made and to create these new jobs

in my riding and for the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That was a really interesting question,

and I'm certainly happy that at least one member on that side of the

House is interested in creating jobs. Perhaps you could talk to the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) when you get some spare time. Mr.

Speaker, I'll take that question as notice for the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources.

SALE OF VICTORIA PLYWOOD LTD.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, now that we're talking about

jobs.... I'm sorry that the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon, Mr. Phillips) is not here, so I'm directing my

question to his stand-in, the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Workers at Victoria Plywood have negotiated an agreement with their

past employer to purchase Victoria Plywood to set it up as a plywood

co-op. Could the minister advise me if the cabinet or the minister in

charge have received an application for financial assistance from the

Victoria Plywood co-op, and has the government decided to support the

workers' efforts to provide their own jobs?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as

notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development.

MR. MITCHELL: A supplementary question to the Minister of

Human Resources. In line with that particular application, the workers

in that plant will be running out of UIC before Christmas. If they are

forced to go onto welfare, it will cost the province of British

Columbia over $1 million per year. Has the minister discussed within

cabinet or with her colleagues whether it would be better to put up

some upfront money to provide real jobs than to let another group go

down the tube and not be able to work? Has the minister discussed it

either with her colleagues or with some of her federal counterparts —

maintaining jobs in this province instead of letting them fritter away?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the member, let me say

that my responsibility as Minister of Human Resources is to assist

those people who come to us when UIC runs out. That help will be there

and has been there for everyone who has applied for that help when they

are in need. Of course we have assisted people, and we will continue to

do so. Thank goodness we have those supports in this province, and they

continue to be there. We're doing, I believe, a very good job in that

regard.

Secondly, I'd like to say that in terms of your concern as to

whether or not my colleagues and I have been concerned over that loss

of employment as well as the loss of employment in many other

industries, of course we have. So if I were

[ Page

4855 ]

to say to you that we discuss it, I'm not breaking

cabinet confidentiality in any way, because of course we discuss

employment and unemployment in this province. I would like to say, Mr.

Speaker, that I have been pleased to have been a part of many

discussions which are leading to real jobs — not jobs which are

subsidized by the taxpayer, but real jobs — in British Columbia, and we

will continue to work at that and create real opportunities for people

in the private sector.

TRANSFER OF RESIDENTS FROM TRANQUILLE

MR. BARNES: I'd like to address a question to the same

minister and ask her if she would clarify for the House the situation

at the Tranquille institution. There are people here from Kamloops and

the Okanagan area who travelled a great distance to find out what the

government is up to. People are wondering what happened to the

deinstitutionalization program. What about the promises you made in the

last session about "the community knows best"? To my knowledge we

didn't discuss "medically fragile" people. All of a sudden most of the

residents at Tranquille have become medically fragile, and they are

being shifted to Glendale. Why are they being shifted to another

institution'? Would you explain your change of philosophy? What are

your plans? Are you planning to use the institution for another

purpose'? Is this a cover for something? What's the urgency? I think

that we deserve a lot of answers, Mr. Speaker. A lot of people are very

concerned, and you can talk to them yourself. I've talked to people who

are not politicians out in front of the Legislature, and these are not

people who came over here to give the politicians a bad time.

I would like the minister to please explain what her plan is and why she has

changed her philosophy.

[2:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that the member

for Vancouver Centre has asked that question. May I say this: to set the record

straight — and it has been set straight many times, but apparently that member

and some other members in the opposition choose not to hear the answer — the

promise was made to close the Tranquille institution. The promise was made and

the promise is being kept. In 1981 the throne speech in this House made a commitment

to the mentally handicapped in this province that we would close the three mentally

handicapped institutions within a decade. In 1981 that promise was made, and

we are keeping that promise in a very dramatic way at a time when most other

governments — and certainly any governments that have anything close to the

kinds of services that we have for the mentally handicapped — are stopping those

services and moving the mentally handicapped into the community because of costs.

Because it costs more for us to do it, the fact that we are doing it in a time

of recession seems to me to be something about which he and every other member

should be getting up on their feet — in a non-partisan way, in a way to serve

the handicapped of this province — and saying: "Congratulations for moving

270 mentally handicapped young adults, who have been in that institution since

they were children, out into community resources." That's the story,

and it is also embodied in two of the individuals whom the member made note

of in today's introductions.

We have moved individuals into the community. Mr. Member, you introduced to

this House today two individuals who live in a home in this community and can

visit the parliament buildings, go shopping and so on. The story is there. The

story has been repeated thousands of times over. Only 5 percent of the mentally

handicapped of the whole province now live in an institution, and when Tranquille

is completely vacated by December 31 of this year, it will be dramatically less

than that. In 1969 in Woodlands alone there were 1,261 mentally handicapped

residents. In the whole of the three institutions today, without the closure

of Tranquille, there are 1,331 in total.

Mr, Speaker, the member asked me to explain. There are 325 residents

in Tranquille, of whom 270 will move out. You asked about the 55.

Seventeen out of the 55 already know they are planned for extended-care

beds close to their homes. As a matter of fact, I've just been reading

recent information on one of the.... I'm not going to name names in

this report to you, but I'd like to tell you that one of them who will

be moving has had a fair amount of publicity. But I don't give names

when I give reports, because I feel that the families' confidentiality

should be guarded. I just wish that all members of this House would

feel the same.

One that has had a fair amount of publicity has had assessment,

reassessment and reassessment again, May I say that all of the 55 have

had reassessments done with different people — not the same people, as

is charged by the ombudsman. When those reassessments were done, we

found that in some cases they were not able to go into the community.

That reassessment by people who are professional, people who want to

assist, confirmed it.

I would like all members of this House to assure all of the families

— parents, brothers and sisters — of those mentally handicapped that

Glendale is not a closed door. Glendale also offers the opportunity. As

a matter of fact, 17 of the 38 will be leaving Glendale very shortly,

because they are already being planned for extended care. Some of those

left out of the 38 require more service, more hospital surroundings and

more medical care to bring them to a level where they can go out into

the community. Our commitment has been to get everyone into the

community if we can.

MR. BARNES: Why would you spend $23,000 on a facility and not use it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair must intervene at

this point and ask the minister to be as brief as possible, in spite of

the fact that the question was quite broadly based.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult, with

such an emotionally charged issue as the one we have before as in this

province, to answer in one minute the broad question asked by this

member: to explain the vacating of Tranquille. I think it's really sad

that a whole lot of misconceptions have been furthered by the

opposition party's statements, and also by people who purport to

represent the mentally handicapped in this province. All kinds of

things they have said are totally untrue. Let me say this to you: the

people who have had commitment and consultation — and it has been great

and it has been frequent....

Interjection.

HON MRS — McCARTHY: Don't shake your head, Mr. Member.

Sometimes, you know, your comments in terms of this ministry have not

been correct, and this is one of those

[ Page 4856 ]

times. Out of the 55 cases, 38 will remain in

Glendale, some for a shorter time than others because of the medical

care and support they will be getting.

This member seems to be saying to me: "Fly in the face of

professional advice. Fly in the face of all of the assessments and

reassessments, overcome entirely all the advice given to you, and take

the chance." Mr. Speaker, I can't do that. I have a responsibility to

those mentally handicapped citizens whom this ministry serves. I will

not put them in jeopardy for some kind of political expediency that

that member is suggesting.

I wish I could find the example, but because of the time I will not.

But I did want to tell the member that there are examples in my

correspondence here today which show that with those people who have

had the plans made in conjunction with their families, in all but a

very few cases the families are quite content with what is happening. I

have also today — and I wouldn't mind making it available to the

member, or to the members — a letter which has been sent to British

Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People which says that the North

Shore Association for the Mentally Handicapped, which is one of the

groups that they purport to represent, is on record as being committed

to assist mentally handicapped people returning from Tranquille.

"When we made this commitment it was after

considerable discussion of the many real problems that we knew would be

involved and the likely resources, particularly staff, that would be

required. Two senior members of our staff visited Tranquille to

evaluate the specific needs of those mentally handicapped people

originally from families on the North Shore. We then measured their

needs against our estimated ability to provide an appropriate standard

of care to allow successful integration into the community. After

considerable soul-searching, we did agree to accommodate nine

individuals in new group homes, but with some misgivings. These

misgivings were not related to philosophy, but rather our lack of

experience in dealing with some of the physical limitations and

behavioural problems that some of these individuals are known to have."

Subsequently, they entered into contracts with our ministry and they

are providing homes. But it is significant to note that this same

association, in visiting Tranquille, decided that they could not take

two of those offered to them because their limitations were such that

they simply couldn't handle them in the community setting which this

organization is committed to doing and has been doing for years.

Mr. Speaker, I know time is limited. But I want to say this to you, that this

organization also says:

"We further suggest to you" — that is, the British

Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People — "that it

is...counterproductive to stage media events in an attempt to coerce

government to return all these Tranquille residents to the community

when we still experience substantial community resistance to

established group home programs. If limited resources were devoted to

ensuring the successful integration and community acceptance of these

programs rather than confrontation with the Ministry of Human

Resources, the people you profess to serve may in the end be better

served."

This was signed by the North Shore Association for the Mentally Handicapped.

I rest my case.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder why

Your Honour did not avail himself of the provisions of standing order

43 within the last 15 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the 1983 annual report of the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the report of the executive

summary of the activities of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area.

MR. SKELLY: I ask leave to table a document that I referred

to earlier in debate, entitled "Industrial Relations Audit, Ross A.

Cameron," of April 1984, which was advice to the Minister of Human

Resources as well.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the sixth annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the report of the Travel Assurance Board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1984.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, under our standing orders I think that

any matter read by the Crown should be tabled in the House. I'm

referring to the document read by the Minister of Human Resources.

HON. MRS- McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to table the report that I referred to, Mr. Speaker, with leave.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 34, Mr Speaker.

METRO TRANSIT COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, here we are again, the second

time in this calendar year, debating a legislative order sending

workers back to work as a result of a dispute — not a labour dispute in

this case, Mr. Speaker, but a management dispute.

Those of us who have been concerned over the years about legislative

intervention in collective bargaining have warned, on those prior to

now rare occasions when such action has been taken, that the more often

you do it the easier it becomes. If we are to believe the words of most

members of this Legislature, most members seem to believe that it's

wrong to use the Legislature to resolve collective bargaining disputes;

yet, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that members on the other side of this

House, in this case and in the case earlier this year relating to the

pulp and paper industry, have, in my view, used the legislative

alternative long before it should even be begun to be considered.

[ Page

4857 ]

There should be a principle in these matters that only in the most

extreme and unusual circumstances would the Legislature be asked to

intervene. There should be a principle of that. I think I should make

clear, on behalf of our party and on behalf of myself, that we do not

and I do not reject the supremacy of parliament or reject the idea that

there might well be some occasion in our lives when the Legislature

should be called upon to help resolve a dispute. I've said that before

in previous debates. I acknowledge that there can be such times when

that happens, so I'm not taking and never have taken a purist position

that the Legislature should never intervene. There are times when it

must. But when it intervenes on those rare occasions when it is

appropriate — I'm not sure there have been more than one or maybe two

in the last 15 years in this province where it's appropriate, and I'm

going to spend a little bit of time talking about what I think those

circumstances are in relation to this dispute — the Legislature should

then find some mechanism to have the dispute resolved by a mutually

agreeable process. That's what used to happen when legislatures or

parliaments called for the resumption of work in strike or lockout

situations. But we have departed from even that principle. Accepting

that there are times when the Legislature can intervene, when it does

the Legislature should intervene in a way that allows both parties to

have a continuing process that they both have some confidence in and

that will have some likelihood of leading to a conclusion, such that

whether both parties like the conclusion or not, they at least know

they had some

part in the resolution of it and, maybe grudgingly, they

might accept what took place because they played a

part in the process.

[2:45]

The principle of compulsory arbitration used to be the principle

that was under debate in these kinds of circumstances. The government

no longer brings in compulsory arbitration. At least with arbitration,

if it's done properly, both parties agree to the person who is doing

the arbitrating. They may not be particularly happy about the choice of

the chairperson in such a situation, but at least they have a mechanism

to agree to it and they do agree to it and therefore then have some

stake in the result of that arbitration.

I find the use of that kind of compulsory arbitration, when not

chosen voluntarily by both parties, to be quite repugnant. But I do

accept, as I said before, that there are some times, rare though they

may be, when that is an option that legislatures must follow. But we

don't have that in this bill. We don't have a process that both parties

can feel good about. Sure, there's mediation in the bill —

section 7,

if my memory's correct — but if that doesn't work the arbitration

process is not there. The process is the government determining the

saying to the workers that the employer can set the terms and

conditions of the collective agreement, because the government and the

employer are the same person, despite all the legal nuances of the

cabinet and the B.C. Transit and the MTOC, and all of that. In this

particular case you have the further connection of a government

back-bencher as the chairman and chief executive officer of the

management group.

So clearly, what this legislation has chosen to do, given that there needed

to be legislation, which I don't accept..... I'm going to come to that

later. If it had been necessary, it's wrong in principle for the

collective agreement. Despite all the fiction of the legal structures, make

no mistake about it: the government and its members, and some of its back-benchers

— at least one in particular — are the employer. One only needs to read the Cameron

report to see the extent of the interference in the day-to-day operations of

the Metropolitan Transit Operating Company; to see how, virtually on a daily

basis, the government through its members is running that company. Now we're

of the collective agreement. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

As I've said before, there are times when we should be called upon

to do this kind of difficult work, but when we do that, we need to make

sure that the process that flows from the legislation enables both

parties to feel they have some involvement in the mechanism, and while

they may not like the conclusions that come from that mechanism, they

will feel more obliged to accept the conclusions of that process. That

is absent from this bill, just as it was absent until now from the

latter days of the dispute, when the government was prepared, through

the Minister of Labour, to appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner

who was not acceptable to one of the parties. What kind of idiocy is

that? If you want a report to be considered and accepted, you need to

have doing it someone who has the Support, trust and confidence of the

parties involved. If it's a marital dispute that's in question and one

of the parties in that dispute is involved with another person, you

don't ask that third person to come and resolve it.

You might go to somebody who's neutral. How do you determine the

neutrality? You make sure that both parties are prepared to accept.

That's not done in the bill, and it wasn't done in the appointment of

an industrial inquiry commissioner — clearly an unsatisfactory choice.

I'm making no comment about Joe Morris in that. My views about Joe

Morris will stay my views. But let me say that what is important there

isn't that Joe Morris used to be the most senior IWA official, the most

senior labour official in the country, as president of the CLC. That

doesn't give him the ability to be an impartial, fair industrial

inquiry commissioner, because the essential ingredient is missing — the

cooperation of both parties.

AN HON. MEMBER . Are you saying he wasn't fair?

MR. GABELMANN: I'm saying he wasn't fair, yes, in answer to your direct question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say that outside the House.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll say that outside the House, sure. Anybody

who reads Joe Morris's report knows that he was — not deliberately,

perhaps — not being fair. He took the management positions and

strengthened them, from a management point of view.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what the union told you?

MR. GABELMANN: That's what I'm telling this House.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What's wrong with that?

MR. GABELMANN: One of the former Ministers of Labour is

interjecting. I hope you have read this document, Mr. Minister of

Education. You'll see, just by a quick reading of it, that there are

some major difficulties with the whole

[ Page 4858 ]

approach that was taken in this particular

industrial inquiry commission. I don't mean to be attacking Joe. Joe

did the best job he was able to do. It's a pathetic piece of work, I

might say. But that's not the point. The point is that whoever was the

industrial inquiry commissioner — whether it was the scatmate of the

member for Surrey or the president of one of the locals in the union —

it had to be someone who had the confidence of both parties. If the

minister had the slightest idea about how to conduct labour relations

in this province, he would understand that, but he doesn't. Why is it

that under this Minister of Labour we continually have to come to this

Legislature for resolution? Why is it under his term? It's the second

time in a few months.

MR. REE: How many did you put back when you were government — three, four, five?

MR. GABELMANN: You know what my position was on that.

In this respect in labour relations, and I'm going to speak on a

number of other things as well, when you expect conclusions from a

process to be acceptable — not necessarily liked, but acceptable — you

must have the assurance that both parties have some confidence in the

process. In this case, when one party sees that the employer gets to

call all the shots, it is no wonder you have some difficulties,

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal in general with the issue in a broader

way and then move to more particular issues that need to be canvassed.

Everyone in industrial relations in the western world, I guess, where

free collective bargaining has been a basic principle — one that, I

must say, is under serious threat and is even further threatened today

by the comments of the Minister of Labour about public sector

bargaining, but I'll leave that aside for the moment — everyone who is

a professional, everyone who understands, everyone who is involved in

industrial relations, knows that it is crucial that the daily

industrial relations practices of a company or an employer are the

crucial issue in what might later turn out to be a protracted and

insoluble dispute. The way in which a company or an employer operates

its labour relations program is crucial to the whole system.

We've got examples in British Columbia. We have had — not now, but

recently — serious industrial relations problems in two companies that

I can think of. One is in the private sector and one is in the public

sector: B.C. Rail and B.C. Telephone. Both, I might say, are public

sector employers, but one is private and one is public. For years there

were labour disputes of various kinds in those companies. Why? Because

in both cases the labour relations practices of those employers were

absolutely abominable. I'm not going to go into the history of those

two cases, but it wasn't until both of the employers recognized that

they had to do something about the abysmal state of their labour

relations, or they could never count on full productivity and a

productive workforce.... They recognized that they had to do something

about labour relations.

Both have done something about it in different ways. Both have taken

steps. I'm not saying that is going to end all the problems, but in

those two instances it sure has quietened down the labour relations

news items coming out of both B.C. Tel and B.C. Rail. When is the last

time we heard about a wildcat in B.C. Rail? It doesn't happen. Why?

Because the company recognized that they had to do something about it.

In a way, the transit authority also recognized that it had to do

something.

In January 1983 the B.C. Transit Authority appeared to understand that there

were some serious problems developing in their operations. As a result of that

a motion was moved and passed that what they called a labour relations audit

— a funny word, but nevertheless it's accepted — be conducted. That was

done by Ross A. Cameron in a report referred to earlier today. If the company

was prepared to order an audit, so-called, why wasn't it prepared to accept

the recommendations of the auditor? We may well have been able to resolve this

dispute long before it became a dispute or a lockout. But no, the chairman of

the board of the Metro Transit Operating Company, the Member of the Legislative

Assembly for Surrey (Mr. Reid), continued his practices that were so condemned

by this Cameron report.

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It wasn't inevitable then that industrial relations were going to be

very difficult to conduct on a harmonious basis in that company. I

suspect that the reason the Cameron report was not acted upon and the

reason the member for Surrey continued his behaviour is that the

government, operating in conjunction with the direct employers, whoever

they are, had decided that there was an agenda and that they were going

to accomplish that agenda.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. GABELMANN: I hear a voice in the background saying "not

true." There is no other reason for failing to take note of what was

said by Cameron. There was an agenda and that agenda was to break the

back of the union in the transit field. That was the agenda and it

still is, Mr. Speaker. If it wasn't the agenda, why do we have this

document filed today by the minister which says that management is

going to totally have its way in terms of how the resumption of service

might take place if this bill passes? Seniority, the most valuable

commodity in that contract, is out the window. Why would the minister

do that?

If the minister or the government — it's a collective responsibility

— wanted the buses back to work in a reasonable, quick and hassle-free

way, they would have been prepared — in fact, I think, required — to

sit down with both parties and agree to a procedure by which the

callbacks and the assignments took place.

MR. REID: We tried that for 17 months.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, is he wearing his management hat or his government hat? It's the same, isn't it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He's not wearing a hat. We're not allowed to wear hats in here.

MR. GABELMANN: It's the same hat; it confirms the point.

In my mind the two-page document that was filed this morning is designed to

give the company not only what it wants — which is obvious; the Socred government

always gives the company what it wants and that's just a given — but it

might also be designed — and I must say that I don't want to believe this,

but I can't help but believe it — to try to get the

[ Page

4859 ]

drivers, mechanics and other members of the transit

union riled up so the government can apparently have further cause to

trumpet this new direction they're on where collective bargaining in

the public sector may be a thing of the past. It's designed to

manipulate public opinion to meet their agenda.

If we in this province are going to have a productive economy and

have jobs created, we need to have an atmosphere in this province where

people work together in cooperation, where conciliation is the rule of

the day, not confrontation. And yet at every stage in every area,

whether it's public or private, we see the government deliberately

provoking confrontation. Why? Is it to meet the agenda of the Kerkhoffs

of this world? Nothing else come to my mind, and increasingly, Mr.

Speaker, nothing else comes to the minds of people who watch industrial

relations in this province. There is no other answer for it.

There is a plan and design to break the back of the trade union

movement in this province one way or another, whether it's in

construction, which we've just been going through, or in the public

sector. If they could have persuaded the ironworkers to accept that

wage package that was proposed and signed without a single member

voting, which seems to fly in the face of all democracy in the

workplace and trade unions that the government talks about with one

breath.... Why do they support that kind of thing? It's designed to

break the wage rate that's been established in this province. This

government would like everybody in this province to work for the kind

of wages and conditions that exist in the free trade zones in Taiwan,

the Philippines and Sri Lanka, and in many other parts of the world

that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) so proudly talks about. Why can't we do that here too? What

else is at stake? Why else do they deliberately attempt to drive down

the wages at Expo or elsewhere in this province? It's part of an

overall strategy.

My words today are going to be viewed as wild and radical rhetoric

that has no foundation whatsoever. Who could possibly believe it? No

doubt only 5 percent of the people will even think its credible. That's

today. Mark my words, Mr. Speaker, ten years from now people will know

that what I'm talking about today is in fact the truth — just in the

same way as the whole country and most of parliament were prepared to

vote for the War Measures Act in 1970. There are some things that are

wrong, and it doesn't matter if you stand alone; you stand and fight

those things. This kind of behaviour, this kind of plan and strategy,

is precisely that kind of activity.

Why attack the dignity of those organizations that working people

democratically choose to represent them? Why attack the very

foundations? That has not been a continuing pattern of Social Credit —

because W.A.C. Bennett always knew when to back off, always knew when

to bring the people into his office and attempt to work a deal, and

more often than not he succeeded — until a few years ago. But it

certainly is their plan and their design now. You only have to listen

to several of the cabinet members and watch the inaction by the

Minister of Labour in attempting to involve his ministry in a

productive and positive way in dispute resolution and watch this kind

of legislation to know that there is a design and a plan in place. It's

not one that British Columbians in their overwhelming majority would

accept if it were put to them fairly and clearly as the honest strategy

of Social Credit.

I want to speak more specifically about the Cameron report. The Leader of the

Opposition quoted some extracts from the report earlier today. I want also to

quote some. The fact that the government, through its agencies, has suppressed

this document — not made it public — requires that it be made public, which we

have done. When you read what is in here, it is no wonder there has been a dispute,

and it's no wonder that the parties have been unable to reach a collective

agreement.

I'll just read a couple of quotes from this report referred to now as the

Cameron report: "While management can change its performance through edict,

the employees cannot be coerced into cooperation." It seems obvious to

most of us. You can't coerce people into cooperation. That sentence wouldn't

be in this report unless the member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) and his group were

in fact trying to do just that. Here is Cameron saying that you can't coerce

employees into cooperation. In what age do they think they live? It's not

the feudal era. He says further on: "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." Why would there be no policies and procedures in place? Let's

think about that. Why would they have such an approach to it? Isn't it so

that they would cause disruption? Isn't it so they could back the union

to the wall, force them finally — after months — to take action that they didn't

want to take, so that we could get to this stage so that the employer's

items on the table could be put into place in the contract by cabinet? For what

other reason would they not have a policy and procedure to carry out effective

industrial relations?

He goes on to talk more specifically about the member for Surrey:

"...however, 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."

A damning indictment of that member, Mr. Speaker — a damning

indictment. He should have, long before now, taken the advice offered

recently by the Vancouver Sun to resign that job, if not his seat.

"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. He should be assisted...."

It goes on to explain how he should do it.

There's much else, but I don't intend to delay it. I want to read

two final comments from Cameron: "It is my opinion that the

relationship at this time" — remember, this is some time ago, last year

— "is destructive in the extreme, and any continuation...."

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: What relationship does the general manager have to the chairman? Answer that question.

[ Page 4860 ]

I'll take the advantage of the designated speaker to go a few more

minutes. I see that light, Mr. Speaker. It looks yellow to me. It's

white. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to see when your eyes are blinded by

tears of sorrow.

Cameron says: "It is my opinion that the relationship at this time

is destructive in the extreme, and any continuation of same will result

in a virtually insurmountable animosity between the parties." That's

what we have, isn't it? And where's the blame? Is the blame to the

workers? The member for Surrey says, "Yes, the blame is to the

workers." I'm reading Cameron. He blames the employer. He blames the

member for Surrey, and the others.

He goes on, and earlier I said "damning indictment." I wish I could

find stronger words that were parliamentary. "The adversarial system is

practised with a vengeance, and a strong hand is needed to turn this

unfortunate situation around." So what do we have? We have legislation

making into a contract those very positions that that organization has

taken, under

section 5(2) of the act.

[3:15]

The final comment from Cameron: "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."

What rings through this report, Mr. Speaker, is that B.C. Transit

and its operating companies do not have a labour relations plan. They

don't have personnel who could follow a plan if it existed. What they

have instead is high-level political interference in the day-to-day

operations of the company. While Cameron wasn't asked to deal with it,

and he doesn't deal with it, and no implications can be taken from his

report, I believe that those interferences and those interventions were

designed deliberately to force a dispute. Management felt, no doubt,

that were it to have to go through the normal collective bargaining

routines and achieve an agreement, or even should it get to that, a

voluntary arbitration solution, they would not get their list of items

on the table; that the only way they would get into the contract those

issues that they wanted on the table — issues, I might say, that aren't

in place in most other jurisdictions in this country — was to force a

dispute. How do you force a dispute? You harass. You intimidate. You

don't have good industrial relations. You let the politics dominate the

day-to-day running. You build up a dispute. You let it go all summer —

for 13 weeks. And then you pretend that you're coming in as the saviour

of the public. What they're doing is coming in as the saviour of those

people with the agenda who want certain items in the collective

agreement, number one; and number two, another major part of the

agenda: setting up public opinion so they can bring in legislation

denying the traditional rights of free collective bargaining in the

public sector. "Cynical" is too mild a word to describe that kind of

attitude and that kind of behaviour. It is disgusting in the extreme,

Mr. Speaker.

The bill itself is really quite unbelievable, We'll deal more specifically

with it in committee stage, obviously. But for the minister to give himself

the right to change the collective agreement that has been in force — and it

is still in force until the new one is signed — is unprecedented. That has not

happened in this jurisdiction ever before. Why do we have it in this bill when

all normal practice in contract resolution negotiations and the various kinds

They apply in every respect, unless the parties agree to vary them, which they

are able to do. Why is it that they don't apply in this particular dispute?

Why is it that the minister wants the power to change the collective agreement

under which the transit workers operate? Because he wants to intimidate them

further. He wants to give management one of its major items on the table. He

wants to destroy the concept of seniority. We're back here to the original

days of July 1983. If all those particular pieces of legislation had gone through

in 1983, seniority would have been a thing of the past, as it might well be

in this particular situation. There is nothing more important to working people,

in terms of the reasons why they join a union and are committed to the union,

than the issue of seniority. It is a fundamental principle. Yet, in effect,

that is the power the minister wants to take upon himself in varying the collective

agreement under which the transit authority would operate if it goes back to

work. Why?

The only answer to that is: to meet the demands of management who

want to be able to assign drivers in a certain way on Monday morning,

if that's when they go back to work. Why not, if not work out a

mutually agreeable new solution, stay with the old way of doing it?

They are going to be paid at the old rate until the new contract comes

into place. Other conditions are going to be the same. What's wrong

with the scheduling being done in the same way too? It doesn't suit

management's plan. Therefore the government intervenes and goes along

with management again. If the government truly played its proper role,

it would be neutral in these matters. This government is not neutral;

that particular

section of the bill is a flagrant example of that. Why,

section 8, does the government want to have themselves write the

pulp dispute? God only knows! There's no political value in it for them

in terms of the public. The only value there could be in not taking an

arbitration route but having a cabinet-directed settlement is the fear

that an arbitrator might say that both parties should have some crumbs

in the solution, both parties should get something and there should be

that they can write them the way management instructs them. And who is

management? Themselves. It is unseemly, to put it mildly, Mr. Speaker.

It takes a conservative old — old in a positive way; I mean that in

a nice way — gentleman from Poland now living in Italy to remind us

that workers, too, have some rights in this society. In Newfoundland he

said that workers....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member wish to proceed as the designated speaker?

MR. GABELMANN: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, yes, I do.

Yesterday in Newfoundland the Pope very clearly said that workers in

our societies have some rights. They have the right to be consulted

about what happens at their workplace. It seems to me to be a pretty

conservative value. It's not a radical, socialist or left-wing

attitude. It's one, I would think, that most people in our society

could recognize and accept. It's a simple proposition that workers who

spend their whole lives often in drudgery — in the case of the transit

operators in very difficult and trying circumstances on some busy

streets, particularly in Vancouver.... Some of them have worked for

years to be able to burnp themselves into a nicer route and a better

set of hours rather than, in effect, working

[ Page

4861 ]

from three or four in the morning right through

until after rush hour in the evening, despite the hours off. That's a

long working day. Those workers in that very difficult job, having to

deal with drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and all kinds of hazards,

especially in the lower mainland with rain-slicked streets.... The

government, the IIC and the management want to take away the right

they've had since 1913 — the right to be consulted about what they do

at work. Even the Roman Catholic Pope can call for that.

What is wrong with consultation? First of all, in dealing with the

human issue, what is wrong with it in terms of making someone feel a

little bit better about having to do what is often a very dirty and

difficult job? Make them feel a little bit better about it, because at

least they've had some say in how they're going to do that and when.

What's wrong with that? Why would the government want to take away that

basic bit of human dignity that a worker can enjoy. Even more important

in the broader scheme of things, why would they do it when they knew it

would inflame industrial relations? In answer to that question, I can

only come back to the point I was making earlier, and that is that

there is a plan, an agenda to break the backs of those people who

choose to band together to work cooperatively for the betterment of

their lives.

We're not talking here about the vast cost to the treasury in terms

of inflationary wage settlements. No one has even mentioned the issue

of wages. It's obviously not a major issue. But the dignity of the

worker is a major issue. If the Pope can support it, so can this

Legislature.

MR. MICHAEL: I rise today to give support to Bill 34, Metro

Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act. First, I would like to

congratulate the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), on his

patience in letting the free collective bargaining process attempt to

resolve the conflict. I would also like to congratulate him on the

skill with which he has handled previous industrial relations conflicts

in this province. I would like to congratulate him on the comprehensive

manner in which he has drafted the bill before us today. I can assure

him and the government that this bill has the support of a vast

majority in my constituency.

I would like to make some reference to the calibre of the person

appointed as the industrial inquiry commissioner, Mr. Joe Morris. I

have known Mr. Morris for some 32 years. He's certainly a very

distinguished labour statesman. He was president of IWA Local 180 in

the Duncan-Cowichan area. He was president of the western Canadian

regional council No. 1 of the IWA. As we all know, he went from there

to the presidency of the Canadian Labour Congress, and on to the

International Labour Organization and many other international posts,

which have made him perhaps one of the most distinguished labour

statesmen in the Dominion of Canada. He is trustworthy. He is of the

highest integrity. He is a member of the Order of Canada. He has

knowledge of the collective bargaining process. For the members

opposite or the trade union to make any suggestions about Joe Morris's

integrity is, in my view, a sham. To suggest that he is in any way in

the pocket of this government is, I think, a very unfortunate slander

of his character, because he is one of the most distinguished labour

people whom I've ever had the pleasure to know.

Regarding the collective bargaining process, I don't know how much more

patient the Minister of Labour and this government could have been. The collective

bargaining process had gone on for some 15 months, from April 1983 until June

1984. Since that period we have witnessed a 12-week conflict between the parties.

Obviously the free collective bargaining process in this instance is just not

working. What is the solution? Any responsible government must take action,

and the action must be taken now: legislation not only to get the buses rolling

again, but also to eventually bring about a collective agreement and long-term

stability in our vital lower mainland transportation system.

One of the items which I have difficulty in understanding, from my

history of of being involved in the trade union movement, is this issue

of overtime. To my knowledge, union policy at the provincial and

federal levels hasn't changed. Unless there has been a change in the

last little while, the policy of the trade union movement has always

been against regularly scheduled overtime.

[3:30]

It's my information that in the transit system on the lower mainland

some 260,000 hours of overtime are worked every year. This could be

replaced by hundreds of unemployed working on a part-time basis. In

these times of high unemployment surely fairness and equity would

dictate that all trade unionists and employers should be doing

everything within reason to see that these hours are shared by those

hundreds of British Columbians who so dearly need a job. I find it very

strange, in these difficult times, that this sharing process...that

these large numbers of scheduled overtime hours are not being filled by

part-time workers, to enjoy the privilege of working. I have to wonder,

when I look at that vast number of hours and the vast number of people

who could be put to work, why it is that some of the more vocal

organizations in British Columbia, such as Operation Solidarity and the

Unemployed Council and all of the other groups we beard so much about

over the last year or so, are not clamouring at the gates, petitioning,

picketing, to bring about the complete elimination of all this overtime

and get more British Columbians to work. The government must act, and

it must act in the best interests of the public. I'm talking about

seniors and handicapped, women and children, the drivers and their

families, the business community.

I do not intend to take any more time today except to restate that

this government and this Legislature have my full support and, I know,

the full support of my constituents. Even though we are not directly

affected by this dispute on the lower mainland, we recognize the

seriousness of it. I have discussed its effect on the public with a lot

of the people in the lower mainland and I suggest that we give strong

support to, and hopefully unanimous endorsation of, this Bill 34, the

Metro Transit Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am amused to hear from the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke, particularly his claim that between 10:20 a.m.

and the time that he rose to speak not some but all of the people in

his constituency had read and supported the bill. That's the kind of

claim that is made quite often by members opposite. Surely if he made

any effort at all he'd find one or two dissenting voices. Perhaps he's

going now to do some research in that regard.

This is a government that protects the powerful and the privileged,

Mr. Speaker. That's why it was elected. That's why they see their

mandate to continue policies and pass legislation that protect the

powerful and the privileged in this province. Ordinary people do not

have any consideration in

[ Page 4862 ]

the cabinet room of this government. This is a

scandalous cynicism. This whole transit labour relations issue as it

has progressed, as it has been choreographed by the minister in charge

of transit, and particularly the Minister of Labour, is a clear

cynicism. It is a clear plan to destroy any kind of free collective

bargaining in the transit system.

The bill introduced destroys collective bargaining. The kind of....

"Lack of caution" was the phrase I was going to use. That's not strong

enough. The kind of contempt for ordinary people that this government

has shown — the Minister of Labour this morning, in introducing this

bill, saying that we're not in favour of free collective bargaining but

their government steadfastly is; yet they introduce a bill with

sections 5 and 8 which give to a group that is least competent the

power to impose a collective agreement, and indeed to amend a

collective agreement that has been in force. That is an offence against

arty understanding of collective bargaining in this province, or in any

other province or any state in the union south.

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of cynicism I am getting used to from

that government, that I've been used to for 12 years from the hon.

member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland). That minister has been a

cynic throughout his career in this House, in opposition and in

government. In opposition, irresponsible and completely unresearched

statements; in government, he can make any claim he wants because he

knows he can change his mind tomorrow. When he says that his government

is committed to free collective bargaining, that is a sham. All of the

facts indicate that it's untrue. The minister has claimed their

government's commitment to the free collective bargaining process, yet

they take it away in this case; and by his own announcement this

morning he plans to take it away in the entire public sector. The

protectors of the powerful and the privileged. They can't deny that.

All of their legislation points to that end.

Speaking to some very wealthy investors in the city of Vancouver, I said that

in British Columbia we have the next-to-highest unemployment rate across the

country. It's getting even worse, and probably by Christmas it will be the

worst in North America. The worst employment rate in the country: proof positive

that their program of austerity and cutbacks and their increased taxation, disincentives

to investment and productivity at the workplace have worked in the opposite

direction than they claimed. You know, they're still standing up in this

House and out in the province claiming that their austerity package is working.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the design of this government was to

protect the powerful and the privileged with respect to transit. The

incompetence demonstrated by this government in transit generally is a

scandalous indictment in itself. The incompetence in the ALRT system,

the overruns, the huge costs that are being built up for the rapid

transit system have to be paid for somewhere.

They increased taxation and even imposed a transit levy on hydro

bills to ordinary users of hydro to pay for their transit excesses.

They cut back on bus services for ordinary people, and particularly

people in my constituency who have suffered greatly over the past four

months. I would be just as ardent a critic of the trade union that

would shut down a transit system without any consideration for the

ordinary people who use those buses and that transit system, but, you

know, they did not.

Yes, it's true, I'm not known for being one who says trade unionism

right or wrong, or that the decision of a particular trade union is always right,

no matter what. I have been open and freely critical of decisions made by trade

unions that I feel are irresponsible and against the public good. But in this

case the transit union involved did not shut down the system. They did not take

their dirty laundry in labour relations and have ordinary people suffer. They

said: "We'll deal with our negotiations with the employer without shutting

down the system, but we will make it clear to the public what our position is."

If you want to talk about a political battle, the union has won the political

battle because they have used straightforward tactics and have not shut down

the transit system, and no matter how hard the MTOC, the government's puppet,

has tried to reverse public feeling against the bus drivers in the province,

the public will not have any part of it, because they know and understand that

by the famous unstrike in the city of Vancouver they got the public to understand

their side of the issues.

I ride buses to and from work in the city of Vancouver, and during

the unstrike I talked to people who also ride buses and they were

impressed by the fact that the drivers did not shut down the system.

But the MTOC did. Why? Why was the system shut down? There was no

collective bargaining or labour relations reason to shut down the

system. The fact that collective bargaining was broken off, stalled or

going slowly was not a reason, because the union was not going on

strike. They shut down the system because in the four ensuing months we

reckon they've saved a net amount of $20 million. They've saved that

kind of money off the backs of ordinary people; not the powerful and

the privileged, but ordinary people who have to get to work, who have

hours less to spend at home each day with their families because

they're spending it travelling to and from their place of employment —

if they have a job.

Old people who are shut in cannot go shopping, to doctor's appointments

or to visit their friends and relatives, and their friends and relatives can't

visit them. This is a disastrous devastation in the social fabric in my constituency

alone, and I can cite

chapter and verse what the strike has done in four months.

Does the government care about that? No, because they're not the powerful

and the privileged. The government says the powerful and the privileged don't

ride the buses. We don't care about them. We'll pretend to care about

them; we'll come in here and say: "Tsk, tsk, what a terrible thing

this strike has been for four months, but now that we've saved $20 million

let's order them back to work, and impose an amended collective agreement

in accordance with what the MTOC has wanted all along."

I'm not going to get involved in what the issues are between the union

and the operating company and the government — which is the same thing. Those

are issues that are to be settled between the union and the employer. They have

no business being discussed on the floor of this chamber. I cannot think of

a group less competent to design a collective agreement in any labour relations

sphere than the government of the day and, indeed, the Legislature as a whole.

We are not here to devise, draft and impose collective agreements.

I am in favour of the transit system being put back to work. We have

to try and recover the devastation to the social fabric of our

community by that happening as quickly as possible. It is clear, Mr.

Speaker, that the negligence and cynicism of this government has caused

this strike, has caused the economic losses to merchants, in my

constituency, and the hardship to the people I've just mentioned. They

have little or no responsibility toward these people. The merchants

[ Page

4863 ]

are small entrepreneurs who are suffering from losses, and as the complaints

grew there was only a modest response from the government. This kind of cynicism

we've seen before. Those who find it their ideological commitment to protect

the powerful and the privileged have little time for statistics, and bus riders

are statistics. The unemployed are statistics; they're not people. They

don't think of the unemployed as people because they don't even relate

to them. They find that their ideological doctrinaire commitment to a right-wing

philosophy will guide their every move, no matter how reasonable, how even-handed,

how undemocratic. They are relentlessly committed to the destruction of our

society and our economy because of their blind, fanatical commitment to a right-wing

ideology. Their views have been cited around North America — indeed, the British

Commonwealth — as being the ultra right-wing views of any democratic jurisdiction

in the world. They are given everywhere as ail example of what not to do, and

yet they come in here as if everything's rosy. Nothing bad has happened;

they're happy. They still have their ministerial jet rides and their huge

salaries as Crown ministers. They're comfortable. They haven't tightened

up their belts; they've loosened them. They've had to. They've overindulged

themselves with power and they are comfortable protecting the powerful and the

privileged.

[3:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That suffering of ordinary people, the people who ride buses, has to

be seen. It has to be understood, and it has to be sensitively

canvassed. As I say, the record stands for itself. The particular trade

union in this instance acted responsibly; the government acted totally

irresponsibly. Today the Minister of Labour stands in his place and

talks, presumably, about the same people in my constituency I'm talking

about, and he says plaintively and innocently to the Speaker's chair:

"Somehow, that's unfair" I can well understand why he would add the

word "somehow"; he wouldn't know. He's guessing. He has no personal

experience in that regard, nor does he really care. It is

an act of

cynicism, and the bill should be opposed on that ground alone.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would be remiss if I did not take my place in this

debate for no other reason then to point out to the House that had this government

moved with legislation of this nature 30 or 60 days ago the opposition would

be all standing up there arguing and condemning us for taking away the right

to free collective bargaining. What is it you really want? Do you know? The

only one on that side of the House who seems to know what he really wants is

the one who left their party. Isn't it interesting and refreshing that here,

when we find that one member sees the light, he can really express himself as

he really believes and also as it is. He didn't stand up here and condemn

this government for taking away the rights of the workers — in this particular

case about whether they should go back to work. He's going to defend this

bill, but all of those members who have spoken so far; including the leader

in his usual radical, shrill way, have already committed themselves to voting

against this opportunity to send our drivers back to work. The drivers want

to go back to work. Their families want them to go back to work. The people

who use the service want them to come back to work. What's wrong with this?

Then, of course, we're being condemned because we wait so long. What's

wrong with waiting to let the democratic process work?

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: They sit back there and chip, chip, chip away. Why

don't you get on your feet when you have the opportunity and tell us where

you stand? I understand that you were on the radio today and indicated that

you were happy they were going back to work. Does that mean you're going

to vote for this bill, or do you really know what you're going to do? I

don't think you have a clue. It's just the usual sleazy political game

that's being played on the backs of what they call the ordinary working

people.

We must be congratulated for allowing the workers and management to

take the necessary time to make the free collective bargaining process

work. But it didn't.

If we go back many years, before the industrialization of our nation, we can

recall the days when the largest percentage of our population were either directly

involved in agriculture or associated with it. In those days most people were

motivated by the opportunity to make a good living — the work ethic. Then along

came industrialization, with progress — something that we have all benefited

from greatly but something that has not come without its real problems. Of course,

with industrialization we also have experienced some pay-packet militancy by

some. I speak from experience, having come from Britain, where I can recall

very clearly in the Dirty Thirties when the working men and women did not get

a fair shake, when there was a great attempt to get unions into the system in

order to give the worker a fair shake. I can recall those days quite vividly.

My own father was one of the victims of that particular system. Therefore it

can never be said that I would be opposed to unions, nor can it ever be said

that unions have been anything but good for this country.

Unions have brought stability to our country. They have brought

stability to the economic situation of our country, and they're

entitled to that credit. It's something that I'm very concerned about

because some of the nonsense that's taking place and some of the

rhetoric that we're hearing out of the opposition, I think, is bringing

a black eye to the union movement. You people can be held responsible

for doing more damage to the union movement than anyone else in this

province because of the way you're using them. You stand up there and

you seem to think in your own pompous way that you are the only people

for the working person. What is the working man or the working

person...?

AN HON. MEMBER: The ordinary people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I consider that we're all ordinary people of British

Columbia, What gives you a licence to speak for the people of British Columbia?

Let me tell you, my friend — and you'll learn in time — that if it weren't

for the working people of British Columbia and if it weren't for the working

people of the unions of British Columbia, you'd never have seen a Social

Credit government elected in this province as often as you did.

Mr. Speaker, it's the working people of this province who know where

their bread is buttered. They're the people who know which government

can bring them the sort of economic stability that they need. They're

the people who understand where the dollar comes from. They're the

people who understand what is needed in a home. Mr. Speaker, I want you

to know and I want them to know that this government stands for the

working people more than the NDP have ever done.

[ Page 4864 ]

The NDP are out there to bring everyone down to a class that is much

below what the average working people would ever want to have.

One of the problems that came along with industrial development, of course,

was the whole question of how to properly compensate the working man and woman.

How do we fairly share in the wealth that's being created by the combination

of the investors' dollars and the skills and labours of the working person?

It was decided through a great deal of study and a great deal of thought and

determination that the free collective bargaining process was the way to do

it. I'm speaking now as someone with experience in the workplace, with experience

of the hard times, with the experience of having run a business where we have

had employees. I believe that the working men and women are entitled to a fair

share of those results. Why shouldn't they be? But I also say that there

are companies in this province that have the unions they deserve. They're

not all perfect. We also have unions that behave in a manner that the companies

would have them behave in. That is their problem, but that should not take away

from the good that unions have done and will continue to do.

The method that has been arrived at, as one of the best that I could

think of, and anyone else, of course, has been the free collective

bargaining system. But we have now seen an example of how it is

failing, and it is failing only because of one tool that is part of it.

We must protect it. We must protect the free collective bargaining

system. We must resist all of the pressures that we get from the NDP to

move in quickly and not allow them to bargain: send them back to work,

never mind the free collective bargaining system, get them back to work

and forget about it. That is what you call the New Democratic system.

We don't believe in it. We're going to protect it, and we know....

Interjections.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, would you please get that member off

my back. She's starting to throw me off.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Order, please. There appears to be quite a lot

of noise here. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is taking his place in the

debate and will be allowed to speak without interruption.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I don't give one iota to what

any of the NDP members say in this House. I will never be part of a

government that would move as they would like us to move and take away

the right for any group of workers to free collective bargaining. What

we have seen here is something that has confirmed fears of mine — and,

no doubt, fears of others — and that is that the strike tool does not

work any more. There was a day that it did work. It does not work

anymore, because it hurts everyone.

MS. SANFORD: It's a lockout.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's right.

The people who hurt most from a strike arc the families of the workers. I am

quite sure that there isn't one family of any bus driver of the B.C. Transit

system in this province who is feeling comfortable and secure today, because

they have been on strike. That is why, Mr. Speaker, those who are going to vote

against putting the bus drivers back to work and those who would condemn us

for not allowing the free collective bargaining process to work should go and

talk to the families of those people out there who have been doing without.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted and very pleased that our Minister of

Labour has announced that he is considering going out to ask the public

whether it's proper or in the interest of the public at large to have

the public service strike. I don't think they should. I don't think

that anyone who is deriving their income from tax dollars has the right

to hold at ransom those who are paying the bills. I'm not saying that

we should just do away with it without having something to take its

place. We must find something to take its place. Those drivers and

those workers in the public service deserve a fair income.

I can assure you that as the Minister of Municipal Affairs I am responsible

for a staff. I am indeed proud of my staff. They are hard-working people, dedicated

people who are entitled to a fair income. But I don't think that they or

anyone else in that position are entitled to pick up their ball when they don't

like the game and go home with it. I don't believe that they are entitled

to just cut off their services and say: "I don't like it and that's

it. Lump it or leave it."

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we are going to see some movement in that

direction. I certainly predict that the result will be that those who are paying

the bill, the taxpayers, are going to say: "No, we don't want to see

that happen again. We don't think they should have that striking tool in

the system. Find something better." As a result of the exercise that our

minister is planning now, I'm sure that is what we're going to find

out. The public don't want it. The employees' families don't want

it, The public at large are hurt by it. The families are hurt by it. Mr. Speaker,

I'm sorry that this bill is coming in at this time. I'm sorry that this

bill is necessary. This bill has highlighted.... It has shown all of us

that while the free collective bargaining system is the only one we've got,

there is a tool within the system that must be replaced by something else, and

that is the strike.

[4:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it's been a very long summer in which

this dispute has been simmering. It's been a source of great inconvenience

to probably everyone but members of the government side — to people who use

transit and to those of us who live in the interior and aren't directly

affected but for the fact that my mother lives in Vancouver and depends on public

transit. She's a senior citizen. This government let this go on all summer

long, and then they call us back here with two days' notice as if they didn't

know all along what they were going to do. Supposedly we have been called back

here to put the drivers back to work. Mr. Speaker, really we are here to let

the drivers go back to work. This is a lockout. It is the government that has

been keeping the buses shut down all this summer. Mr. Speaker, we should be

back here to do more than just put the drivers back to work. We, should be

here to put British Columbia back to work.

We could do more than just put drivers back to work in the metropolitan centres

where we have metro transit. We could be looking at the transit needs of the

interior of British Columbia; indeed, many new jobs could be created. Yes, they

would be public sector jobs, but they are badly needed: public transit connections

between cities such as Trail, Nelson, Cranbrook and other areas. Some of them

are connected by Greyhound, but vast gaps in the transit system in this province

occur where they are not served by Greyhound.

[ Page

4865 ]

Not only would they transport passengers; they would also be able to help the

commerce of that area by transporting parts along rural areas to garages, etc.

We should be doing a lot more here in this Legislature than coming in with

another band-aid piece of legislation. Other parts of the country and the world

don't have to bring the legislature into session to deal with back-to-work

"legislation" In Sweden they have over a 90 percent trade union membership.

Most of the working force, way beyond what we would normally look upon as the

blue collar and labouring forces, and the white collar workers, are organized

for collective bargaining purposes. They have fewer strikes in thirty years

than we have in three months. It is a matter of government, management and labour

attitudes, and a government that brings people together rather than creating

these confrontational situations such as we have here.

Mr. Speaker, again we are called together to inflict a cure for

which there was no disease. Here we are bringing in a piece of

legislation which is quite unlike the pulp dispute that was dealt with

just recently We are not dealing with a private sector employer; we are

not dealing with the Council of Forest Industries employers, or FIR. We

are dealing with the government as the employer now coming in and

proposing to give the solution to their own failure by imposing terms

of settlement.

I'm sure that most people welcome, as I welcome with some relief, that

finally something is being done. However, I disagree with a good number of the

parts of the solution — that this legislation is going to be compulsive in certain

areas. Certainly it would seek to punish the one side which has won the support

of the major papers, the Vancouver Sun and the Times-Colonist . It seems clear,

in this instance, that they have seen where the failure and the breakdown have

occurred.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) got up and spoke

about how they are the champions of ordinary people and believe in the rights

of ordinary people. Did they believe in the rights of Mr. Wayne Taiji of the

recreation branch when he was told to hand in his keys almost within minutes

of the speech by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) bringing down the

draconian legislation, the dirty dozen of bills that were brought down at the

very beginning of this Legislature? No, they surely didn't believe in that,

the way people were almost dragged from their beds to have their uniforms and

keys taken from them, the way their offices were locked up and changed with

that draconian legislation. Don't tell me that this group of legislators

in the government believes in the rights of people. That was the worst, the

most ham-handed thing, and to expect people to trust the intent of a government

today, to trust the Minister of Labour with the excessive powers that he has

taken unto himself in the event that the items remaining in dispute cannot be

resolved, the fact that a collective agreement continues except where the Minister

of Labour decides to bury it....

You know, you could have been smart: you could at least have come

down on the side of the union in one particular issue necessary for the

startup of the buses. But there's not the slightest hint of any kind of

conciliation or admission that you were wrong, wrong, wrong, as you

have been from the start of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the government has been taking the wrong direction in all of these

labour actions. It has put people out of work; it has closed store doors. It

doesn't matter whether it is just the general unrest created by the government's

dirty dozen of bills, by the austerity program or by the specific inconvenience

and the threat to downtown stores. I know it has cost one merchant in Victoria

around $5,000. I know of other stores in Vancouver where the impact has been

more or less severe; they are small business people. In many instances they

are people who started up new businesses because they lost their jobs. They

have already had their jobs taken from them or privatized. People who are trying

to create jobs, as I am trying to create jobs, directly in the private sector,

only run into the opposition of government. This is not the kind of cooperation

we need. Every one of these confrontations creates a more negative climate here

in British Columbia. We have to build a positive climate here in British Columbia.

We have to make a move towards cooperation. There could have been at least one

signal that the government has learned something over the last several months

since they won a very handy win in the last provincial election.

The minister has now confirmed what everyone predicted. The best test of a

hypothesis, the thing that melds it and makes it into a theory, is when you

can take a hypothesis and predict that some results are going to follow. Everyone

was predicting that this was just a precursor to looking at more repressive

legislation possibly taking away the right to strike from the entire public

sector. That hypothesis has now been strengthened: it has now been confirmed.

In fact, that is just about what the minister outlined today in his remarks,

when he said such things as: it is time to look at strikes and lockouts in the

public sector. He said that the time is right to focus on disputes in the public

sector, with binding arbitration, indexing, etc., maybe as other solutions.

He admitted that he didn't know the answers, but "we should start finding

them." Yes, Mr. Speaker. But, I think, secretly the minister does think

he knows the answers. Any kind of public hearing process that he outlines is

probably going to have a predetermined result and will come in with the recommendation

that the right to strike be seriously curtailed.

I say that we have never given a chance to the right to sit down as equals

at a bargaining table. to work with really good, reliable economic information

— information that might prove damaging to the management case or the union

case, but a set of data in which both sides can have faith. That is the essence

of what they have in Europe. That is why Austria, under a democratic government

administration since the end of the Second World War, has had the lowest inflation,

the lowest unemployment — probably the best economic indicators in the world,

That's why West Germany has done very well. That's why countries like

Sweden have tended to do very well. I'm sure that every time they make a

mistake, you hear about it. One of the best-kept secrets today is the success

of the Bob Hawke government in Australia. Why don't we hear anything about

that Labour government in Australia'? It is because they are not messing

up. They are doing well. Investor confidence is high because there is cooperation,

not confrontation.

First of all, this government showed us a whole summer of inaction,

procrastination and delay, for whatever reasons. Whether it was part of

the agenda for the federal election to let some sort of labour thing

fester, whatever reason they might have had, or whether they just

wanted to set the stage for this ultimate thing, this public inquiry

into public sector negotiations, probably with a predetermined result,

which the minister could probably write on the back of a match folder

right now. we had this whole summer of inertia and helplessness,

supposedly, by the government. It was really

[ Page 4866 ]

part of a well-conceived plan, but not a very good

plan — a very mischievous plan, a very harmful plan, not just for those

individuals affected in the public sector but to all British Columbians

who are affected by the insecurity that this government is breeding.

That is why we have the worst economic performance in Canada at this

time, when we should be having the best.

We now have this sudden response, this sudden reaction. I say that

the people of this province deserve more than inaction, followed by

reaction of a reactionary government. This could have been a very well

thought out piece of legislation, even given all these circumstances,

but it is one that I certainly can't accept totally. I cannot accept

it, therefore, in principle. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this

legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague the Minister of Labour

is certainly to be complimented, not only for bringing Bill 34 to this assembly,

but even more so for his very frank and well-reasoned comments and the consultative

concepts that he addressed during his remarks in second reading. Yes, the priority

is certainly to get the buses rolling, and yes, thousands of bus users have

experienced extreme difficulty, and yes, so have the merchants in these urban

areas. Indeed, as he mentioned, the collective bargaining process has been permitted

to take its full course, but it didn't work. How very correctly he emphasized

the plight of the losers, those innocent third parties who have been assigned

to the back burner. They are badly bruised, but it's certainly not of their

own doing,

[4:15]

I was very impressed with his commitment to hear from the community at large

what they think about work stoppages in the public sector and about ways to

avoid them. He very candidly stated he didn't have all the answers. No one

does. He raised two suggestions: binding arbitration and some type of formula

indexing public sector wage levels to productivity. He welcomed other suggestions.

I say good, because what all of our citizens are facing is something which is

besetting every functioning democratic society throughout the whole world and

which can be reduced to one most fundamental question: can two protagonists

in a contemporary interdependent society continue to enjoy the luxury of exercising

a right — or, indeed, is it becoming a privilege? — that may well exist between

the two of them but only to the physical harm and economic detriment of their

neighbour and neighbour's family, and without their neighbour and neighbour's

family having any redress at all? I think surely the answer to that has to be

no. Third party rights have to be heeded. They have to be regarded. They cannot

be expected to assume the liability and the hurt — and in so many cases the

majority of the liability and the hurt — without having any of the benefits

that may flow to those who are directly involved in the dispute, be they management

or labour.

There's another factor that so many people tend to forget even the consumer,

because he's so conditioned that he's almost numb to it — and that is

that the third party, the consumer, is hammered not only during the course of

the work stoppage and dispute but also after it, because the increased costs

and charges that result at the end of the conflict are usually passed directly

on to him to bear. Now if that's not a double whammy, I'd like to know

what is. If that's not an abuse of freedom, what is it? If people right

across the democratic world are not fed up with this kind of thing, I wish they'd

please let us know. Freedom of action between two sets of people is not a permit

or a sanctuary absolute unto them, nor a mandate for them to be able to inflict

harm upon others without redress. If the converse is the case, then surely the

result would be that society would grind to a halt, or the third-party bystander

would have to seek a continuing and greater presence in a role which should

exist between three parties rather than two parties. Failing that, the bystander

third party will seek increased access to his elected representatives, to act

to curtail and lessen the harm and consequential damage that the bystander has

unwillingly and unwittingly had to encounter in these kinds of situations.

I've said before to this House, and continue to think, that there's

a strong and very valid analogy that may apply to certain

management-labour situations. That is the analogy of the

doctor-hospital relationship insofar as it may relate, say, to work

stoppages. If there's a dispute between the hospital and the doctor,

that does not give the doctor the licence or the right to walk away

from the operating table and leave a patient on it. Why, he could face

a civil claim for damages for breach of contract or for negligence. He

could face criminal liability, indeed, under the Criminal Code of

Canada. Fourthly, he would certainly face censure and sanction from his

professional organization. But in that case, the bystander, the

patient, the third party — they're all one and the same — has an

opportunity for redress if he suffers damages,

My colleague the Minister of Labour stated, as I mentioned at the

outset of my remarks — and I'm going to be quite short — that he didn't

have all of the answers as to what the approaches should be; certainly

neither do I. But I'd like to volunteer a couple of other suggestions

that could perhaps go into the mix. What about the final-offer concept?

Is that not worthy of additional consideration? There, as you know, Mr.

Speaker, when a deadlock arises, each side would have the right to

nominate a person on a selection committee, much like the procedures

under arbitration. Those two would have the right to name a third

party, and the final-offer selection committee, comprising, say, those

three individuals, would have the power not to change offers but to

accept what they deemed in all of the circumstances to be the final

best offer, and without alteration, and it would essentially be

imposed, and imposed through agreement.

Next, Mr. Speaker, would there not be value in an independent

fact-finding council, one that would be neutral to the parties in the

dispute and primarily act as a public microscope to look into all

facets of any specific labour-management stoppage and furnish the

general public with a set of impartial facts and statistics rather than

the mightily subjectively weighted material that pours forth every time

management and labour have prolonged stoppages? I'd say that the public

want to know and have the right to know what the actual facts are, and

greater independence and impartiality of fact presentation might be of

great value to them in considering all of the circumstances creating

the deadlock and, I think, indeed of better assistance to the parties

concerned.

Also, maybe thought should be given to a single contract date for

all public sector employees, posing the question: is whipsaw good, bad

or indifferent, and does it assist settlement at the present time, or

does it hamper settlement? Further, perhaps it would be deserved to

explore the value of its becoming a term or a precondition of

employment within public service that management or labour would be

precluded from ordering or being involved in work stoppages contrary to

the public interest.

[ Page

4867 ]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased that my colleague the

Minister of Labour talked about productivity. I'd say that perhaps that

is the ultimate summons. In exports Canada is probably facing the

fiercest competition in its history, and if the wages and prices can't

be related to productivity, Canada, in my view, can well and

regretfully spiral into economic disaster.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is of good principle. I support it without qualification.

I also support my colleague's remarks that we can and shall look for a better

way, and I say that has to be done.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it is clear as we look at the

historical events leading up to today that the one missing feature in

the negotiations on the bus situation has been good faith bargaining on

behalf of the employer.

The fundamental premise of collective bargaining is that both

parties must enter into the negotiations in good faith. As was pointed

out by the Leader of the Opposition, the Cameron report indicated that

all of the ingredients were present in the MTOC management in terms of

their attitude and the political interference that comes directly off

the floor of this Legislature in terms of two individuals who are

actively participating in the board. The corporation was interfered

with, and the ideological crusade that this government has embarked

upon since July 7, 1983, is continuing and is embodied in this piece of

legislation. When you have political interference and people cannot sit

down in good faith and bargain in a fashion that an agreement can be

hammered out that both parties can live with, and which is a foundation

of good industrial relations, then you have trouble. What we had

instead was interference so that the management side was clearly just

doing the bidding that was coming directly from the cabinet room.

In sections 5 and 8 of Bill 34 we see language which gives the power to bargain

on behalf of the government to the cabinet; the cabinet will determine the collective

agreements and will negotiate the contracts for the bus drivers. We saw this

with the pulp dispute. We saw the initiation in Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint

Act, that more and more the bargaining power for all of the public sector will

rest with the cabinet, and particularly with the key and strongest ministers.

That does not bode well for working people in this province, nor does it bode

well for the economy, because, as was also pointed out by earlier speakers,

British Columbia's economy is suffering. It is the worst performer on the

Canadian scene. Our unemployment is second-highest to Newfoundland. We have

in our own capital city the highest unemployment of any major city in Canada,

and it is getting worse. What we have is a lack of investor confidence. The

government wants to scapegoat working people. They've been trying to do

it with public sector workers of all types, whether they're nurses, people

in the direct employ of the provincial government, or whether they happen to

drive buses.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that the bus drivers worked for over

a year without a collective agreement. They did not have a contract.

Their contract expired on March 31, 1983. From that point to nearly the

present, those drivers, believe, exhibited a very responsible attitude,

and they continued to work, hoping that they could seek a negotiated

settlement to their situation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Strictly on their terms.

MR. HANSON: Not strictly on their terms at all.

Mr. Speaker, collective bargaining involves two parts. If you get a situation

where one side refuses to have flexibility, as was the case on the employer's

side as a result of government interference, you have what is called bulwerism,

That's what we had in this dispute.

The government contrived this dispute. This is the great tragedy, because as

all members of this House know, in this community here in Victoria, the capital

city.... All members are aware — and we have mentioned this on numerous

occasions — that the population of senior citizens is very high here; it's

the highest in the province. We've heard other members talking about the

difficulties experienced by senior citizens, among others, and I use them as

an example of people who rely almost entirely on public transit. Their level

of activity — their health or their ability to see physicians, to visit friends,

to get out and shop, to live their normal life, to have social activity — was

impaired as a result of this dispute. But the tragedy is that this dispute was

a contrivance of the government. The government created this for their own political

objective. That's the tragedy of it — that this government was so cynical

that it allowed that kind of suffering and that kind of inconvenience to go

on when they could have used the good offices of their government to facilitate

a resolution.

Numerous calls were made from our side, and the Leader of the Opposition wrote

the Premier, wrote the Minister of Labour, asking him to appoint — even in the

latter days of the dispute — an industrial inquiry commissioner Yet it wasn't

for some significant span of time until that was finally done. Where were the

initial mediation and conciliation officers? Where were the Minister of Labour's

offices, which should have been made available to the people last year?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND . They were. What's the matter with you?

MR. HANSON: Not at all. You refused to involve yourself in any way.

[4:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, what we really have is a program to extend management rights — to roll back....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Shouldn't management have some rights?

MR. HANSON: Certainly management should have some rights, but

employees should have rights as well, and that is what this government

fails to recognize. You have to have more of an equal partnership — a

consultative process. You don't have a process that is stacked in such

a fashion that we have bills before us where the cabinet now writes the

collective agreements of public sector workers. What I think this

government has found so threatening is that in the three-year period

that they were out of office there was a historical development going

on all through the western world, and that was the emergence of public

sector unionism. In other words, people traditionally denied rights of

collective bargaining gained them throughout the western world. That

was threatening to this government because they always wanted to have a

different approach to public sector workers.

[ Page 4868 ]

They always wanted to have them to have a lesser status. They always wanted

to use the commitment of those employees to their work and their job — whether

they were looking after mentally disabled people, driving a bus, or working

in the Forest Service — and the public service as a hammer over their head

to give them substandard living standards and remuneration. They never wanted

to see public sector workers have the status that they have in Europe, in Scandinavia,

West Germany and other more advanced industrial relations jurisdictions. They

never wanted to see that kind of development where consultation would occur,

where talent, energy and expertise would flow through the ranks of the public

service so the best possible service could be delivered to the public. That

was not the approach of this government, and that is well illustrated throughout

Social Credit's history. The approach of Social Credit is always a master-servant

relationship based on a political objective of the government — to seek only

their own political objective, not to see the best service provided to the public.

Over the last few years we've seen erosion in public transit in this

province. The burden of financing has been shifted more and more onto

the public in a constant and regular way. Also, I think the public

recognizes that the bus drivers of this province, whether they be

located in the lower mainland or in other areas of the province, have a

commitment to safety for the travelling public. They always do a good

job. The senior citizens of my community remark to me on many occasions

bow much the bus driver is a person in their social milieu. They are

people who give advice. They rely on them to assist them in getting

where they need to go, to give that extra bit of encouragement and

help, and so on. The bus driver enjoys a certain status in our society,

on much the same level as a fire-fighter or a police officer. Bus

drivers enjoy public support.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we have that member in the corner who has been

instrumental in developing this chaos that we are now here to try to unravel.

That member applauds the bus drivers. Well, I'm pleased to see that he does

that. But it must be noted that he has been told by his superiors that he's

not to speak in this debate. It's my understanding that he will not be entering

into this debate.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will be enough of that, hon. members. The House will come to order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the point I'm trying to make is that the

dispute was a political contrivance of this government. It was left to simmer

and boil without any assistance or the normal facilitating that is done through

the Minister of Labour's office. It was done according to the little brochures

that the Fraser Institute and others send out, which is the main bedtime reading

of this government. It's the crisis management situation that we've

seen develop so often under the direction of this Premier: create the problem,

let it fester and boil and become a real serious problem, and then we get a

telegram, or we hear on the local radio that we're coming back to solve

a problem that was the design of this government.

Mr. Speaker, it's already been noted that approximately $20 million

was saved as a result of this dispute in terms of wages not paid and

equipment not maintained, and so on. The levies were still charged. The

taxpayers made the pay merits, the municipalities were still strapped,

but the service wasn't provided.

We all know what a hardship this has been. On this side of the House

we're all here with great sorrow to see the loss of rights to people.

We see that the government is assuming their role as the employer of

all public sector workers, and we saw it recently in the pulp dispute.

They are going to do collective bargaining, and they can establish the

industry. So they have become a super negotiating team. We doubt their

competence. We know they're not competent. The problem is that the

economy is suffering as a result of it. The investors abroad see it.

It's not apparent to them, but it is well known because the investment

is going into other provinces. It's going into Manitoba, where some of

it should be coming from other provinces here into British Columbia.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day. It is positive in the

sense that the senior citizens and other people will be able to have

their transit again, but if we had a government of competence, a

government that wasn't inept and didn't have an ideological plan based

on removing rights of workers, the bus service would never have been

disrupted, because the drivers were there in good faith. The problem

was that the bad faith vested clearly on those benches.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, before beginning what will be a very

brief discussion in support of this bill, I would like to add my congratulations

to those extended this morning by the Premier to the new Leader of the Opposition.

I think we who are in politics must recognize the fact that it takes a great

deal of courage to enter the political arena in the first place, but even more

courage to take on the onerous duties of the leadership of any party — and I'm

not going to add — particularly that party. I do congratulate the member, and

I do congratulate also all of those members who did seek the leadership. I don't

know whether it should be my condolences or congratulations to those who lost.

The Leader of the Opposition, I'm sure, could better answer that question

than I.

Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill is Metro Transit Collective

Bargaining Assistance Act. I would like to think that we could for once

accept such a thing as written and as stated. This dispute is not

between government benches and the opposition benches. The impression

I've had after listening to the debate thus far is that it's a

political battle between two separate political views in this province,

and we have to acknowledge that these views are in fact diverse in many

areas. But I think in this we do have a common interest, which is to

find some way that is acceptable to both sides to this dispute, both

the management and the union sides, to resolve the dispute and to

maintain the collective bargaining system — at least the bargaining

part of it — that has over many years served our province very well.

I am rather disappointed, even beginning with the Leader of the

Opposition.... I hope that as time goes on he will become more the

rational person he has been over the years and not take the automatic

political stance, in effect saying: "Because we think unions support

our party, unions are right and management is all wrong." I guess

sometimes we could

[ Page

4869 ]

be accused of saying: "Because it is perceived that the management side

supports our party more than the opposition, management is always right and

union is always wrong." That is silly. Both sides are a party to this dispute,

and I'm sure if blame is to be allocated there is blame lying on both sides.

The purpose of this bill is to try to get away from assigning blame or responsibility

and get back to a bargaining system, and hopefully a resolution can be brought

about between the two sides bargaining in good faith without any recommendations

or direction by the government or anyone else. That is the idea.

People may wonder why I, as the member for Yale-Lillooet, should be at all

concerned about a transit dispute in Vancouver and in Victoria. I haven't

had a single letter from my constituency regarding this dispute. Strangely enough,

my constituents are not concerned at all, because in my riding of Yale-Lillooet

there's no transit system and the people don't need it. Because it's

not there, they have devised their own way of getting about. Their own personal

transportation systems are designed around a lack of any public transit system.

That is certainly not the case in greater Vancouver and Victoria, where a transit

system is very important to many people. As has been said so many times, the

elderly people, who perhaps don't have the financial means or physical ability

to provide their own transportation in motor vehicles, have been hurt. There

are many other groups that have as well. I'm sure many merchants have suffered

this year because of the lack of their normal transit system.

What we have to do, really, is find a way of resolving such disputes without

the parties tearing each other apart and at the same time inflicting serious

harm upon people who are not party to the dispute at all. When we look back

through history at the ways of resolving differences of opinion and finding

out if someone's guilty or not or who is right or wrong, we Find that many

systems have been used that have eventually become obsolete. I guess at one

time if someone was accused of having done something that he said he didn't,

you would take him and throw him into a big pot of boiling oil. If the normal

sequence of events happened and he perished, then he was innocent; if he survived

by some miracle he was guilty, so he would be put to death. That system was

found to be not too workable, eventually, and was abandoned. Other ways, burning

witches at the stake and having people walk ever hot coals, or whatever — some

silly means of resolving disputes — didn't work. In more recent history

a much more logical system of resolving disputes between parties was used quite

extensively, especially in Europe and Great Britain. If two parties had a dispute

they each took pistols, marched away from each other, turned around and tried

to kill each other with the pistols. The one who lost, of course, was the one

who was not correct, I guess, and the other guy carried on. Occasionally both

were good shots and both perished, and occasionally both missed so there was

no blame attached to either side. That system, too, went by the way, and I can

imagine the furor that went around the country when it was decided that dueling

should no longer be used as a way of deciding who was right and wrong in a dispute.

People would say: "How can we possibly resolve our disputes now, when we

don't have the right to shoot one another to determine who is right and

who is wrong?"

In British Columbia quite a number of years ago — I was just a baby at the

time — in the thirties, when the labour movement really began to gain a head

of steam.... It was a very necessary movement at the time and has been for

most of the years since. But I can remember, having been raised in mining communities

of this province, the terrible confrontations that took place, the pitched battles.

the picaroons and pickaxes that laid people's heads open and caused real

physical suffering and damage and economic disasters in many communities. That

was not the way to resolve disputes, and the labour movement gradually moved

into a more logical and less physical way of resolving their disputes called

collective bargaining and the right to strike and lock out. By and large that

system has served us well over the years. In recent years we have seen, as our

economy has suffered and as people have all been scrambling to take what they

feel is their fair share of a declining pie, that some confrontational approaches

have come back again, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Even

the strike and the lockout are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Those disputes of the thirties in the mining and logging camps and

in the manufacturing centres of British Columbia and Canada gave way to

more reasoned people in the labour movement. But the strike and now the

lockout is something that.... I don't know if it is appropriate or not.

The Minister of Labour doesn't know if it's appropriate or not, but he

wants to pull together those people who have any understanding

whatsoever of or input into the resolution of labour disputes to find

out if there is a better way. I don't know if there's a better way, and

the Minister of Labour doesn't know if there's a better way. I don't

think there's any one person in this province who can come up with a

system that will work to help to resolve these disputes without the

terrible financial, personal and social losses that fall to both sides

to a dispute and also to those who are innocent and caught in the

middle.

[4:45]

I mentioned the dueling system of resolving disputes a few moments ago. In

a confrontation such as the transit dispute, when two parties are in effect

shooting each other and trying to cause financial harm to each other in order

to resolve a dispute, it is like having the innocent parties standing between

the two, taking all the bullets themselves and being hurt more than the combatants

themselves. Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse and support the attempts of the Minister

of Labour — and he will be following through separate from this bill and this

dispute before us now — to find out if there is another way. Quite frankly I

hope that as years go by we will have the same view of the strike and the lockout

as a way of resolving disputes as we today have of the pistol duel as a method

of resolving disputes.

This bill is very straightforward. It does provide that if perchance

— and let's pray that it doesn't happen — the two parties cannot

resolve the dispute the minister can take a part and help to bring

about a collective agreement that is satisfactory to both sides. In

fact, what we have are two sides who seriously and conscientiously

think that they are right and that the other side is wrong. They have

come to the position where each is unyielding, and something has to

give. But surely we can come up with a resolution to this serious

dispute without further damage to those people who really do need the

service that is provided,

I have a great admiration for those guys who drive those big buses

around the traffic in these cities. When I go to Vancouver I'm very

nervous. I get in my car and I head straight for the hotel I'm going

to. I get to my hotel, I park my car; and I don't want anything to do

with driving in that traffic. When I see these guys herding these

monstrous buses in and out of that traffic like I wish I could drive a

bicycle, I

[ Page 4870 ]

have nothing but admiration for them. Indeed, it

must be a frustrating and challenging business to be given drivers like

myself to deal with on those roads. I wish them well in the resolution

of this dispute, but they and management must both realize that each

have responsibilities. They are somewhat diverse. They have to talk and

bargain with each other in good faith. If they don't, and if this

collective bargaining system which we have and which has worked so well

continuously leads to strikes and lockouts — and it doesn't matter

which it is, the result is the same — then I think that that in itself

is ample proof that somehow the system doesn't work, and there must be

another and better way.

We are gaining evidence year by year that in fact the system has some failings.

Perhaps it was appropriate 10 or 20 years ago. Perhaps it needs some adjustment,

The old saying, "If something works, don't fix it," is quite

true. The system that has worked for years didn't require overhauling or

fixing, but now it seems to be breaking down. As it appears to be grinding to

a halt, I think the total system requires some preventive maintenance. I hope

the Minister of Labour can gain the collective wisdom. of all those who have

been and will be involved in the labour-management situation in British Columbia

and help them find a better way, because I think there must be.

British Columbia is not as wealthy a province as it once was in

terms of its ability to compete in the international marketplace. Not

only does the confrontational approach in labour-management relations

in the public and private sectors damage our reputation as traders; it

also adds greatly to the cost of doing business for both sides —

employees and management. We don't have that leeway and freeboard any

longer. We must learn to resolve our disputes and do it together in a

cooperative manner. Not only will it help us in our economy and our

employment in British Columbia, but I'm sure it will also help everyone

lead a much happier life, knowing when you go to work that that person,

because he happens to be the boss or because he happens to be the

employee, is not an enemy; he can be a frien