1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th 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, OCTOBER 25, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 941 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Contempt of parliament.

Mr. Smith — 941

Mr. Speaker — 941

Mr. Smith — 941

Mr. Speaker — 942

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 942

Mr. Speaker — 942

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Relocation of Burlington Northern Railway tracks.

Mr. Bennett — 942

Tabling of B.C. Ferries design estimates report.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 943

Potential further shutdowns on B.C. Rail. Mr. Phillips — 943

Additional natural gas costs. Mr. Wallace — 943

Sale of newsprint in B.C. Mr. McClelland — 943

Design of new B.C. ferries. Mr. Curtis — 944

Negotiations with Ottawa on Sukunka coal port.

Mr. Phillips — 944

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill 36). Second

reading.

Mr. Wallace — 945

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 945

Public Officials' Disclosure Act (Bill 37). Second

reading.

Mr. Curtis — 946

Hon. Mr. Hall — 946

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 946

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 38). Second

reading.

Mr. Curtis — 946

Cyril Morley Shelford Compensation Act (Bill 41). Second

reading.

Mr. Richter — 947

Hon. Mr. Hall — 947

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 947

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 47). Second

reading.

Ms. Sanford — 947

Mrs. Jordan — 948

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 948

An Act to Limit Smoking in Public Places (Bill 42). Second

reading.

Mr. McGeer — 949

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 950

Ms. Brown — 950

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 951

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 951

Public Service Labour Relations Act (Bill 75). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 951

Mr. McClelland — 953

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 957

Mr. Wallace — 961

Mr. McGeer — 964

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 966

Hon. Mr. King — 967

Mr. Chabot — 969

Hon. Mr. Hall — 971

Division on second reading — 974

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. SMITH: The matter that I wish to bring before this House

is, in my opinion, the most serious breach of parliamentary

privilege that was ever committed by any responsible Minister

of the Crown. I believe that it is a contempt of parliament and

for the parliamentary process.

I wish to refer, Mr. Speaker, to a matter which I believe

should require the resignation of the Premier of this province,

and I wish to bring before your attention the particular

matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to point out that the fact that you're

standing and making an oral statement on something is a serious

matter for several reasons. Over the past year I have felt that

it's really unfair to the House and it's unfair to the Speaker

to rise without any knowledge by the Speaker of what you're

doing, whether you're in order or whether you're not, and

whether there should be some guidance in this question before

it's brought to the floor of the House.

Usually, in most Houses, a written statement is handed to

the Speaker of the question of privilege before the House sits.

And I'm wondering if this is the sort of thing where you should

perhaps do that. You confer with the Speaker before you proceed

if it's as serious as you say.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a serious matter: it

constitutes, in my opinion, a breach of privilege of

parliament. I wish to bring it to your attention at this time;

later on during the session this afternoon I will present a

formal motion which will have to go through the proper channels

of the House. So I wish to continue, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: I would say another thing. Certainly the advice

I get both from my readings and from my advisers is that your

only function when you rise on a point of privilege is to state

the matter of privilege. It is not up to you to make judgments — that's for the House.

MR. SMITH: I respect your decision in that respect, Mr.

Speaker.

The matter of privilege is the fact that the Premier of this province did today

indicate in an interview that a message bill had not only been before His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor, but has already been signed by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

without ever coming before this House. And this constitutes a breach of privilege

of parliament: that a message which His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is required

to bring in through a cabinet Minister was signed by the Lieutenant-Governor

before it was ever brought in, discussed, debated, or in any way disposed of

in this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's get the sequence of events

correctly. You've made a statement of a fact that you say you

know — that's the first point.

MR. SMITH: Right.

MR. SPEAKER: The second point is: do you have any

authorities that would guide the Speaker to look at the matter

from a prima facie point of view before I recommend to the

House whether it should even take the time on a motion?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you give me an authority, please?

MR. SMITH: I have a transcript of the programme "Capital

Comment," which was taped this morning.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let the Hon. Member have his

say.

MR. SMITH: I also have a transcript of the words that the

Premier used in speaking in "Capital Comment."

MR. SPEAKER: Would you be prepared to send that up to the

Speaker?

MR. SMITH: Yes. And I also have the 17th edition of Erskine

May , page 613, talking about message bills: "Such messages are

usually communications in regard to important public matters

which require the attention of Parliament." Then they go on to

state it may be a declaration of emergency and so on, the way a

message bill generally comes before the House. It's been the

custom in this House to introduce many bills as message

bills.

And on page 617:

"Constitutional character of these communications. — These

several forms of

[ Page 942 ]

communication are recognized as

constitutional declarations of the Crown, suggested by the advice of

its responsible Ministers, by whom they are announced to Parliament in

compliance with established usage."

The message that the Premier discussed this morning on

"Capital Comment" in an interview has never been before this

House. He discussed an emergency bill which they had prepared,

drafted, signed and were ready to use at any time — it was

never brought before this House. It was referred to as a bill

similar to a war measures Act; it could be used in the energy

crisis either now or in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the obvious answer to this is that if

the Hon. Member would send up to me the statement upon which he

bases his allegations — he's given me the citations, which is

very useful and for which I thank him — I'll give it my urgent

attention and report back to the House on what my duties are in

regard to the statement that you've raised.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I reserve my right to

present a motion which I have indicated that I will

present.

MR. SPEAKER: Naturally, that matter will be dealt with in

due time in accordance with our rules.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): First of all, I would like to

point out to you that no bill or message is ever brought into

this House unless His Honour signs it.

I would also like to point out to you that I was asked the

question if such a bill had been prepared and signed by His

Honour. I said yes, such a bill had been prepared by His Honour

and is ready. There was no way I was going to lie, Mr.

Speaker.

I just want to bring that information to you when you

consider this matter of privilege which referred to me. I have

a right to respond. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker,

that the message has not been brought to the House. I was asked

if such a message had been prepared and I said yes, such a

message had been prepared.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I would find it in very bad taste if

the party who makes an allegation doesn't permit the other

person to clear up what he says are the facts. I've got both of

the statements now from both Members concerned; I will examine

the matter as soon as possible and report back to the

House.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): With us today in the

gallery are two officers of the Canadian Council of Unions. I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming Len Dircks and Reg

Ginn to this House.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I take great pleasure in

introducing to the House His Worship the Mayor of Salmon Arm,

Martin Budziak, and the administrator for that municipality. In

the past I have had the honour of working in the municipal

government with the mayor and he is a great asset to this

beautiful Shuswap area.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): Today I am very pleased

to ask the House to welcome a couple of the best campaigners we had in our campaign.

They happen to be almost relatives of mine. I'd like the House to welcome Tricia

Cummings and Roy Cummings, Jr. and the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver—Little

Mountain's (Mr. Cummings) nephew, Bruce Clow, who are in the gallery with us.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): From the riding of Revelstoke-Slocan

in the village of Meadow Creek at the headwaters of the beautiful Kootenay Lake,

we have the gentleman who runs the artificial spawning grounds and husbands

the Kokanee as they journey up the river to spawn. I would like the House to

welcome to the gallery Mr. and Mrs. Ken Bowles of the village of Meadow Creek.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, up in the gallery

is one of the grand old men in British Columbia of personal and

marriage counselling and family effectiveness training, Bert

Bentum. He actually had some input into the development of the

psyche of both the Premier and the Member for Dewdney in that

he did help us in some of our earlier formative training in

marriage counselling.

Oral questions.

RELOCATION OF BURLINGTON

NORTHERN RAILWAY TRACKS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Yes. I would like to

direct my question to the Hon. Premier; it is to do with the

Burlington Northern Inc. Relocation Act. In that Act the B.C.

Railway was charged with removing the tracks through White

Rock. I would ask him what has happened and if agreement has

been reached.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Discussions are still continuing.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary to the Premier. Has no

agreement been reached as to the relocation area or has it not

been relocated at all, or what?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Discussions that we inherited from the

previous administration are still

[ Page 943 ]

continuing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they now?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are in second phase. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: You mean it is a two-phased answer.

(Laughter.)

TABLING OF B.C. FERRIES

DESIGN ESTIMATES REPORT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Minister of

Transport and Communications whether he will table in the House

a report dated May 24, 1973, cited by the Minister in the

Legislature on September 24 of this year, containing the

competitive estimates for design costs of the new B.C.

ferries?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'll

give it consideration.

POTENTIAL OF FURTHER

SHUTDOWNS ON B.C. RAIL

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Labour and director of the

British Columbia Railway. Would the Minister advise me if there

are any unions in the British Columbia Railway that have not

yet renewed their contracts?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, there are many.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Of

these unions who have not renewed their contracts, have any of

these unions served strike notice?

HON. MR. KING: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question to the Minister of

Labour and director of the British Columbia Railway, Are we

facing a further shutdown on the British Columbia Railway with

the resulting damage to the economy of British Columbia?

HON. MR. KING: I hope not.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question. Is the Minister of Labour going

to take some positive action to resolve the union disputes that are still not

settled so we don't have to have any more shutdowns on the British Columbia

Railway? You've already shown that under pressure you can certainly resolve

these problems. Will you please, Mr. Minister of Labour, assure the House that

this is going to happen so we don't have any further shutdowns?

HON. MR. KING: The answer is partially yes and partially no

and partially maybe.

ADDITIONAL NATURAL-GAS COSTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Attorney General, with regard to yesterday's announcement

regarding the natural gas problem, has he had an opportunity to

find out who is going to absorb the added costs of the more

expensive gas: the consumer or Westcoast Transmission?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the way

things have worked out, we won't be importing the more

expensive gas from the Province of Alberta. Therefore, there

will be no additional impost on the consumers of this

province.

SALE OF NEWSPRINT IN B.C.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. On October 15

the Premier told this House that he would consult the Minister

about tabling the new newsprint sales agreement with

Gottesman–Central National Organization. I would like to ask if

that consultation has taken place with you and whether you

would now agree to table this agreement as public business.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

The answer, Mr. Speaker — and I indicated that on a previous occasion — is no.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would

the Minister advise us whether the newsprint sales committed to

this new organization are on a guaranteed or a floating

price?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's on a basis which is beneficial to

the company and the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, come on.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I had a couple of other

questions but it is obvious that I won't get any answers to

them.

I would like to ask if the government is in a position right

now to insist that newsprint from Ocean Falls be available in

British Columbia to avert a threatened rationing of newsprint

products in B.C., or is the newsprint committed to the

artificial high-priced world market which exists presently? In

other words, is the government going to take the same position

with regard to local needs in newsprint

[ Page 944 ]

as it has taken in the energy situation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would hope that the newspapers start

looking at the question of quality rather than quantity in

British Columbia.

On the question of artificial prices, as supporters of the

market system, I am surprised that the question is raised. The

intent is to proceed on the basis of the contract we have. It

allows some flexibility which the company still has not dealt

with. In that sense we do not regard it as prudent business to

discuss the contract when further matters are still

pending.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, just another

supplementary. Does the Minister realize, for one thing, that

there can be no new newspapers started in this province because

of the lack of newsprint?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I am asking a question.

MR. SPEAKER: You are not asking a question.

MR. McCLELLAND: I am asking a question.

MR. SPEAKER: That is entirely argumentative. That is

forbidden under the rules.

MR. McCLELLAND: I asked the Minister if he realizes that

condition exists in this province. Perhaps he'll advise me

otherwise; perhaps he will advise me that that condition does

not exist.

The question is: will there be any protection for the people

in this province who need newsprint and have been told that

they are going to be restricted to the amount of newsprint they

used this year? There can be no expansion of either new

newspapers or any expansion of existing newspapers which may

want to expand their business.

AN HON. MEMBER: …you have a personal interest in

this.

MR. McCLELLAND: I have a personal interest, Mr. Member, in

the business of the people of British Columbia, and that's the

kind of interest I hope to protect.

DESIGN OF NEW B.C. FERRIES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Transport and Communications. I wonder if he would indicate to the House

if there has been any communication with masters and senior officers of British

Columbia Ferries, or will there be any, with respect to the design of new vessels

which are to be added to the B.C. Ferries' fleet? The reason for the question

obviously is that these are the men who will have to operate and sail the vessels

and I wonder if the Minister would tell us what input they have in the design

stage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I expect that there will be

consultation.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary. I wish the Minister would

cooperate a little more with this side of the House, Mr.

Speaker. At what stage? After the ferries are built? When they

are on the slips about to be launched? When the designs are

complete? Could he elaborate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the very first stage.

MR. CURTIS: Well, that would be now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I told you that.

MR. CURTIS: Are they being consulted now?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I told you I expect. Do you understand

the meaning of the word "expect"?

MR. CURTIS: Not in your case.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH OTTAWA

ON SUKUNKA COAL PORT FACILITY

MR. PHILLIPS: I have a question to the Hon. Premier. Would

the Premier please advise me how negotiations are progressing

with the federal government with regard to a port facility for

the export of Sukunka coal?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Phase three. We have agreed to an

impartial person to do the economic studies. I forget his name;

he is a professor at UBC. There is a dispute, or a

disagreement, between us and the federal government as to the

most economic routes. When we have the outcome of that study we

will be able to make a statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question on the same subject.

Would the Premier advise me, now that the coal project has

closed down for the winter with just a holding operation of 10

men, does this mean that serious negotiations with another

company to take over the other percentage has failed, or is it

still progressing?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Member

raised that. The fact that they are keeping a 10-man crew on

at this time indicates how

[ Page 945 ]

serious the negotiations are. They are quite serious. But

you must understand that it is not an easy matter. In the past

what was done was that coal leases were signed and people were

given access to resources with hardly any restrictions, and as

a result this is something new. We have a government now that

is saying that we will not give resources away, and we are

bargaining on very tough conditions so that we get a fair

share.

MR. PHILLIPS: But are there still very serious negotiations

underway and is the project still indeed alive and in the minds

of the government, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is the desire of this government to

complete that deal, but we intend to be very hard-nosed in our

bargaining. We understand that progress is being made.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills in the hands of private Members.

MR. SPEAKER: It doesn't require a motion; it is private

Members' day.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 36, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a very

simple bill that was discussed at the last session, and I hope

for a sympathetic hearing. It is simply an amendment which

allows a child, a student, who moves from one school district

to another, since some course or some option is open in the

second school district which is not available in the first

school district…. This amendment is simply to ensure that if

that child's parents have paid the equivalent amount of

education tax, that it be transferred from district No. 1 to

district No. 2.

At the present time this is optional by the first school

district. If the first school district has been paid for the

education of that child or student and the student moves to a

second school district, it is not mandatory for the first

school district to transfer the funds to the second one.

I've had cases brought to my attention where a child may move, let us say,

from Campbell River to Victoria and is charged or is expected to pay $300-and-some

to continue her education in School District 61.

I've discussed this with the staff of School District 61,

and this is the kind of amendment which they would very much

like — namely, that instead of it being optional for one school

district to transfer the funds to the second district, it

should be mandatory. The amendment would have that effect.

It seems to me like a simple housekeeping measure, Mr.

Speaker, which is favoured by certainly the administration of

School District 61. It would seem to me only fair that while

the parents may pay taxes in one school district, if their son

or daughter has to go to another school district to obtain the

particular education, then surely the funds should be

transferred; and I so move.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Yes, I know that

this is the second time of asking by the Hon. Member. When you

brought this up last year I did say I would look into it in the

ensuing year, which I have done.

At the time you presented this I, too, thought it was a

fairly simplistic bill and one which could solve a problem that

has plagued some parents. I am quite aware, particularly it

seems in the greater Victoria district, that we've had this

problem. But I would like to bring to your attention that we

have studied it, and if we followed your bill, as you have it

here, it really does still pose a lot of problems to the

Department of Education and to school boards. I would just like

to run through a couple of those and then give you some idea of

what we would like to do about it.

The whole problem of that mobility of students, as you said,

from district to district does perhaps cause undue financial

strain on parents. It is interesting to see the different ways

in which various boards cope with it, and there is a great

variance.

One thing that bothers us in looking at your bill is that

you could have a possibility, because of the simplicity of the

wording in this bill, of having a mass influx of a group of

students from one district to another. There is really nothing

there which could prevent that, because there is nothing

written there which sets out any specific regulations which

could stop that.

You could have a situation where a number of parents were

discontented with the particular structural organization in one

district and simply decided that they wanted to move wholesale

into another district. This would really cause a considerable

number of problems.

I myself questioned the department officials on whether this

could happen, but they were concerned that there could be this

possibility following the way your bill is written here.

Interjection.

[ Page

946 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, but to whom do they make the reasons? Who are

responsible for accepting those reasons? You still could have a confrontation

scene between the two boards over whether each board accepts that reason as

valid — that is, whether the receiving board would accept the reason from the

board that the child was coming from as a valid reason.

Now I sympathize with the Member who brought this to our

attention and to the many parents who are concerned. At the

moment it is unfair.

I wonder if the Member would appreciate the fact that

instead of accepting his bill in this very simplistic form, I

am prepared to bring in amendments to the Public Schools Act

which would reduce some of the financial strain which now

exists on parents.

MR. WALLACE: I will accept that.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Thank you. Well, then, I move adjournment

of this to the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 37, Mr.

Speaker.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS' DISCLOSURE ACT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

will be very brief in my remarks with respect to Bill 37,

inasmuch as it was presented in pretty well the same form in

the spring, 1973, session of this Legislature. There have been

some refinements which are incorporated in the bill before us

now. I also referred to it in the debate on the Speech from the

Throne. Therefore, I feel that most of the points which have

been made in the past on those two occasions would only be

repetitive today. I am sorry that this has to be a private

Member's bill. I would much prefer to see this, or something

similar to it, as a bill introduced by the government side of

the House.

It has been said that one cannot legislate morality. But in

spite of the possible accuracy of that statement I believe most

fervently that the public has the right to know what other

interests someone in public office may have and that this

information must be readily available and would apply not only

to Members of the provincial Legislature, but to mayors and

aldermen, municipal councils, to members of regional districts

who are elected at large, to school trustees throughout the

province indeed, trustees or directors of any other body which

is elected by a public vote.

There is similar legislation in force or under active consideration in other

jurisdictions. I think that it is time British Columbia caught up with those

other jurisdictions and adopted legislation of this nature.

I think that there is perhaps nothing of more concern to the

average citizen when he considers the people who represent him

in a variety of political arenas than the possibility of

conflict of interest. I move second reading of Bill 37.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I remember

this was Bill 132 in the previous session. We're working on

this, as the Member well knows. It's part of our programme.

I must draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to

section 8, which

I think really renders the bill out of order in the hands of a

private Member. But in so doing I want to indicate to the

Member for Saanich that this is on our programme. We've had one

stab at it as you know and information is still coming in.

MR. WALLACE: Don't wait too long.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I point out

section 8 does

provide for penalties and imposes conviction for an offence.

Under our constitution it's impossible for a private Member,

without the sanction of the government, to introduce a bill

imposing a penalty. Therefore the bill would be out of order in

its present form. I presume I have no other course but to rule

it out of order, and I do.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 38, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, again I feel that it is unfortunate

that this bill has to be introduced by an opposition Member,

particularly when the government party, if not officially prior

to the election in 1972 certainly in a variety of ridings,

indicated that this matter was of real concern to that party.

And yet we have no indication of any bold move on the part of

the government with respect to restricting foreign ownership of

land in British Columbia.

I think perhaps in the past I have referred to the

astonishing amount of lands which have been acquired by

foreigners, that is other than Canadian citizens, in Prince

Edward Island, where I investigated the situation very

carefully approximately three years ago. To a lesser or greater

extent the problem faces every jurisdiction in Canada and

British Columbia is no exception.

You will note in

section 1, Mr. Speaker, that there are

opportunities made available to newly-arrived people in Canada

with respect to land ownership: in subsection (

a) where the

land is less than 10 acres and intended for the residential use

of the purchaser;

[ Page 947 ]

where the purchase of land by non-Canadian corporations and

individuals is compatible with commercial activities already

located within the province; or (

c) where it can be proven to

the satisfaction of the British Columbia government that the

purchase of the land by non-Canadian interests would be in the

public interest.

I feel very strongly about this particular matter, Mr.

Speaker, and again express extreme regret that the government

has not brought forward a bill something along these lines. It

seems to me that it is almost too late in some parts of British

Columbia, but if the government sees in its wisdom to accept

this private Member's bill and sets something of an historic

precedent, then we might be well on our way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't hold your breath.

MR. CURTIS: I won't hold my breath.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 41, Mr.

Speaker.

CYRIL MORLEY SHELFORD

COMPENSATION ACT

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in

giving the purport of Bill 41, the Cyril Morley Shelford

Compensation Act , the history of this particular case is well

known and well recorded.

Cyril Morley Shelford was formerly a Member of this

Legislature for some 20 years. Along with that he was a Member

of a former government's cabinet and was injured in the course

of his duties. Now this can happen to almost anyone. I know

that the respective Members of the government bench, namely the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and also the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) were supplied with copies of the

physician's report on Mr. Shelford. It's well known that he has

been permanently injured and will remain so for the rest of his

life.

I feel very strongly that people who are prepared to enter

into political life are subject to riots and other uprisings.

Of course, there's always open season on government Members, I

don't care what political stripe they carry. I think anyone who

is offering their services this way should have some measure of

support in the event of injury.

I can cite a particular case of one of the cabinet Ministers on the present

government benches, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). He could

have been subject to a situation very similar to what happened to Mr. Shelford.

Fortunately it didn't happen and I'm very happy for that point.

However, it isn't always so. We have had civil servants who

were injured outside of the province; we have had a number of

other cases in Quebec, for instance with Pierre Laporte; we

have George Wallace in the U.S., we had Robert Kennedy who met

a fatality that way. Even if the Member meets his demise this

way, his family still must go on. Without some form of support

or some form of assistance then it becomes a matter for the

state to enter in and support that family.

Now it might be much easier if a fund were set up in some

form in which some form of assurance or insurance could be

given in such an event. Let's hope it never happens. Maybe we'd

never have to call on it, but certainly it would be something

to rely on.

When I speak in relation to this bill, I'm talking about a

retroactive measure which is necessary to help the named party

on the head of the bill. I have discussed this at various times

with the government. I hope they will be more prepared to

accept this bill at this time. I move second reading.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the

Leader of the Opposition for his persistence in looking at this

problem. I realize the difficulties that he mentions. The

results and the affairs he refers to in countries not too far

away from here are all part and parcel of the picture that the

government is looking at in terms of protection — there are

pension plans and everything else.

However, we are not prepared at this time to move in this

singular and particular direction. I don't want to adjourn the

debate. That in some ways is a way of killing it on the order

paper; I much prefer to be tidier.

Having said that, and being straightforward with the Leader

of the Opposition, I draw your attention to

section 2 of the

bill and declare it out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The only question is whether under standing

order 67 it would be lawful for the House to proceed on this

bill, in view of the fact it would require an appropriation in

order to bring it into force and effect and that therefore it

would require a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor. Since it would do all these things, with

much regret I have to declare it out of order. I so do.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 47, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): This bill also attempts to come to

grips with the question of

[ Page 948 ]

foreign ownership of land in British Columbia.

The bill is in two parts. The first part deals with the

registration of the people who are purchasing land in the

province. At the present time the provincial government has no

record as to the nationality of the owners of the land in this

province. The Land Registry Office asks you to list all sorts

of things, but doesn't ask whether or not you are Japanese or

German or whatever else.

The first

section of the bill calls for the registration of

the nationality of the people who are purchasing the land. What

I'm hoping to accomplish in this

section of the bill is that we

can begin to get a record of how much of our land is owned by

Canadian citizens or landed immigrants or foreigners.

The second part of the bill deals with this question of

purchasing land by foreigners. I'm calling in this bill for no

further sale of land in British Columbia to people who are not

either Canadian citizens or landed immigrants.

This is not a new concept, Mr. Speaker. Just recently in the

Province of Ontario — in Tory Ontario — there was a legislative

committee struck to look into the matter of the foreign

ownership of land. That committee, which was made up of members

of all sides of the House — seven Tories, two Liberals and two

NDPers, brought down some very interesting recommendations.

They recommended that: "The future sale of lands to foreigners

be prohibited." Secondly, they recommended that foreign heirs

to Canadian properties would be required to sell them to

Canadians within three years. Another recommendation this

committee has made to Premier Davis is that the government give

this whole matter urgency and priority in its

consideration.

In Prince Edward Island, for instance, they have set up a

royal commission to look into the matter of foreign ownership

of land. Other provinces are doing the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that so much of our economy

is controlled by foreigners in this country, that so much of

our economy is directed and our resources are controlled by

foreigners, I think it is high time we at least control our own

lands. I suggest that we should not sell any more land in

British Columbia to foreigners.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, it's rather

unprecedented that anyone else should speak to a private

Member's bill, but I was so shocked by what this Member

proposed that I just can't resist the opportunity to say first

of all, as far as this party is concerned, that Member's

suggestion that where the land registry applications now

require to know your nationality if you are purchasing land,

and then to suggest that that should be there if you're selling

land — I suggest the whole thing should be wiped off.

I don't think it matters to anyone in British Columbia what

anyone's nationality is. We're fighting to do away with this

type of discriminatory thinking. What would be important and

relevant is to whether or not the purchaser, and possibly the

seller, is in fact a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant. And

that is quite different from wanting to pry into a person's

nationality. I would strongly oppose such a thought being

extended. I must mention in all kindness that I'm shocked this

Hon. Member, who always champions the cause of the underdog,

should even express such an idea.

Another matter that I would like to bring to the Minister's

attention in speaking to this bill is — whether or not he

chooses to get into the debate of foreign ownership in British

Columbia — that I do think we have no need to wait for the

revision of a whole bill in order to make it illegal for anyone

from another country to own land in British Columbia if they

have an indictable offence against them in another country.

We have such a case now in the north Okanagan where a young

man who has an indictable offence against him in the United

States — for the use of drugs — has been allowed to purchase

land in British Columbia.

In considering this bill, and his response to it, I would

ask the Minister to make reference to at least this type of an

amendment, which could be done right away, and also my comments

that the nationality of people in British Columbia does not

matter. It may well be important that the citizenship or the

intent to take out citizenship does.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome this bill

and the particular debate related to it. I specially want to

thank the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) for bringing this bill

in.

The intent, as clearly understood by me, is that the Member

is addressing herself to a very serious problem of

non-nationals purchasing land here in British Columbia — those

are people who are residents of other countries who have no

intention of becoming Canadian citizens, or becoming landed

immigrants. Quite frankly, it is a problem.

If you are to examine the problems in the State of Hawaii

right now, great blocks of land are being bought in that state

by non-nationals. As a consequence the price of that land is

being driven up.

The land purchase by non-nationals is a matter that is being

discussed by all premiers in this country, at the request of

the federal government. We have had on the agenda at the first

Ministers' meetings a lengthy discussion on this problem right

across this country. It is my understanding that the federal

government is also considering some federal legislation

regarding this matter. But it is a very serious problem and the

Member is being completely

[ Page 949 ]

responsible especially as it relates to her constituency

because it is a choice part of the world to live in — almost as

good, Mr. Speaker, as the District of Coquitlam.

I want to say that because this matter is being discussed by

the other premiers and is under consideration by the federal

government, I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say to the Hon. Member who is standing in

some perplexity, she still reserves her right to wind up the

debate on the bill when, if ever, it is called again.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, can I rise just on a — point of

order? There was the point raised by the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan….

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, there's no way at this stage that it

may be debated further.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, in

addressing myself to the very excellent principle contained in

this bill….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out what the bill is?

AN ACT TO LIMIT SMOKING

IN PUBLIC PLACES

MR. McGEER: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. May I note, Sir, that

this is a public place; you and I and the other Members do not

smoke here and neither do the guests who are in the galleries,

and I think that's a very excellent principle that should be

extended beyond this legislative chamber.

I don't think it's ever worked a hardship on the Members not

to smoke in this legislative chamber — the atmosphere gets murky

enough without tobacco smoke. I don't think it's worked a

hardship on the people who are in the galleries either.

This particular bill is slightly different in form to the one I

introduced last spring. It says that smoking tobacco in any public area

is a misdemeanor only and it is punishable by a fine of not less than

$10 nor more than $100.

Now, my reason for presenting this version of the bill,

which is slightly different from the Act introduced last

spring, is that the State of Arizona — a place very proud of its

fine clean atmosphere — has introduced exactly this Act and it

is the first jurisdiction to pass a law against smoking in

public places.

Mr. Speaker, may I say to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) that I would

be prepared to accept amendments to this particular legislation if he or other

Members of the government can think of ways as to how the bill might be improved.

But I think all Members realize that smoking is not only the

number one source of air pollution in this country, it is also

one of the major public health hazards for people between the

ages of 35 and 50 — the best working years. Lung cancer is the

number two killer.

The average male in North America, and that includes all the

ones like myself who are non-smokers, consumes 205 packs a

year.

Mr. Speaker, what would you say to someone who offered you a

trip around the world?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): He'd take it.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I'd think about it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, not just a trip around the world,

but three years' holiday.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll take that.

MR. McGEER: That, Mr. Speaker, is what you can offer every

single smoker in this country because the money spent on

cigarettes over a lifetime would pay the way around the world

for every adult in North America over 18 years of age.

More than that, Mr. Speaker, statistics acknowledge the fact

that quitting smoking for people who do smoke will add three

years to one's lifespan. That's the offer we throw out — three

years and a paid vacation around the world. That should be

incentive enough for any man to kick the weed.

Now then, Mr. Speaker, having offered this enticement to the

smoker, may I speak for a moment about the rights of the

non-smoker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. McGEER: Anybody who goes into a crowded public place,

whether it's a restaurant or one of our B.C. ferries, Mr.

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), you are forced to inhale

the same poisons that bring on lung cancer. You have no choice

but to deeply inhale those poisons.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You can always stop

breathing.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications): There are non-smoking areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go out on the deck. (Laughter.)

[ Page 950 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Jump off!

MR. McGEER: "Go out on the deck," says one Member — a

bitter smoke. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Choke!

MR. McGEER: The non-smoking areas are almost as big as the

Member's desk, and if you hunt with a magnifying glass, you can

even see the sign. But what happens if somebody smokes in that

area? Why, nothing happens.

AN HON. MEMBER: They walk the plank.

MR. McGEER: They don't make them walk the plank, no. They

just go ahead and puff away.

Mr. Speaker, there are areas reserved for non-smokers on

airplanes. Try and get a seat in that area unless you're one of

the first passengers to arrive at the ticket window. I'm always

last, and I can never get into these non-smoking areas because

they always fill up first.

So there's no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that what

people who hate air pollution and want only clean air for their

lungs desire is to be free of the curse thrown upon them by the

smoker. This is what this bill intends to end. Give the

non-smoker his right to inhale a lungful of oxygen. Nothing

provokes me more these days than to see some young ego freak

complaining about the pollution of the beaches and the

pollution of pulpmills and pollution of everything else, while

he's blowing smoke rings in your face.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. McGEER: Shame. Yes, indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell from the enthusiastic applause on

the other side of the Legislature that I've made my point, this

bill will be accepted and the people of British Columbia will

be free from the air pollution caused by smokers from this day

on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker and Smokey McGeer, speaking

for myself, not as Premier, I accept the bill. I am in complete

agreement with the Member's sentiments, but before I express my

opinions, I canvass the gallery very closely and I notice that

my wife is not here. For those of us who don't smoke, smoking

is a filthy habit, Mr. Speaker. It is disgusting, it is very

expensive, and I'm against it. But if any one of you repeats

this speech to Shirley, I'm in trouble. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, smoking is often fatal, as life itself must

come to an end. But why add to that possibility, Mr. Attorney

General? On occasion I succumb and smoke a cigar, and I feel

guilt for days, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: And its awful taste in your mouth, too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I always smoke OPs.

Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid the great day when this bill would

pass this Legislature is not yet with us. But I completely

support the good doctor and I wish that other people would have

his good sense and not smoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have a free vote!

HON. MR. BARRETT: In my case, it's not a free vote — I am

under instruction from someone who is not here in this House,

and I dare not record my feelings because of that pressure.

Nonetheless, I would enjoy hearing further comments in the

debate, and perhaps you'll find even greater support than my

timid approval.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): One of the very first

things that I learned when coming into this Legislature was

never to get up and speak after the Premier, because he's a

hard act to follow.

MR. PHILLIPS: Act is right.

MS. BROWN: But since you recognized me, I guess I have no

option. I would like to speak in support of this bill very

strongly, despite the fact that I have been reminded on more

than one occasion that charity begins at home and I live with

someone who smokes cigars. Nonetheless, I think that they're

not as harmful as cigarettes, to start with — they may smell

worse and they may even pollute more, but when a cigar is

smoked by a very special person, it doesn't carry the same kind

of effect. (Laughter.)

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on health

last session looked into the business of tobacco advertising.

Often, on more than one occasion, the recommendations came

through that it really didn't make much point to cut down on

the advertising of cigarettes unless we were going to do

something about the whole business of encouraging the use of

cigarettes, which is what we do when we continue to permit

smoking in public buildings.

I think the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

outlined in great detail the kinds of things that we can do

even without legislation. The fact is that the no-smoking area

on the ferry is so much smaller than the smoking area on the

ferry, and as someone who has to use the ferries each week, I

certainly share with him his concern for my own health, if for

no one else's, because people do smoke even in the no-smoking

area, and the no-smoking area is so small that when you get on

the ferry you have a choice: do you race to the dining room or

do you

[ Page

951 ]

race to the non-smoking area? So my recommendation would be

to the Minister, first of all, that even if we do not accept

this bill, let us expand the no-smoking area in the ferry, as a

first start.

As a second start, let us extend this to other public

facilities and other public buildings that we have some control

over, I supported in principle Bill 71, the weed control bill,

because I was hoping that when the decisions were made about

what a noxious weed was, cigarettes and tobacco would be

included in the whole area of noxious weeds and the control of

the use of tobacco was one of the things that were going to be

controlled by this Act. So even though it's possible that Bill

42 will not go through, I'm hoping that when Bill 71 goes

through, it certainly will take into account that tobacco is a

noxious weed, and the control of tobacco in public places

should be included too. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, motherhood is beautiful, particularly when we take this particular

issue. We don't smoke here, agreed, but there's a bit in this Act that says

that smoking tobacco in any form is a public nuisance and dangerous to the public

health. Mr. Speaker, that was made by a scientist — not of the variety, however,

that makes these kinds of decisions. I have spoken to thoracic people and chest

people, lung people, who don't always come down on the same side of that issue.

So therefore I suggest to you that while this, to many many people, is a very

enticing kind of piece of legislation up to and including the Premier in private,

there is a lot of study that has to go on, particularly if we're going to take

a great vast majority of people and place them in a position such as this bill

does. It's too broad, it's too expansive, the wide powers are totally unacceptable

by this little government. And it's very vague about who the powers are directed

at, how they're to be directed. Mr. Speaker, this kind of blank cheque legislation

(Laughter) just can't possibly be endorsed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. Then it was also suggested

that there's a great deal of the heavy hand of state Liberalism

here, so we're very worried about it.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that it is the

prerogative of the Crown and the Crown only to impose

penalties, and therefore I would suggest that the bill be

declared out of order on that basis. There is noted in

section

2 that very question.

MR. SPEAKER: I have 24 books around my desk here, and I've

looked through every one of them.

There's no way I can get around

section 2, although I would

like to, if I can express that much support for the bill. It is

out of order in its present form.

AN HON. MEMBER: So are you. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He's always out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I know I'm out of order now. Nonetheless, it is

my duty to declare it out of order because of the punitive

sections that cannot be made by a bill in the hands of a

private Member. So I rule it out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public

bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading, Mr. Speaker, of Bill

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR

RELATIONS ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, in the

spring session of this year I introduced into the House a bill

intituled the Public Service Labour Relations Act, whose number

at that time was 182. In a statement to the House I said that I

would not be calling the bill for second reading but would

instead let the bill remain, as it were, on the order paper so

that all Members and the public generally, together with all

the interested parties, could have an opportunity to look at

the government's attitude towards the public service labour

relations and what best form collective bargaining should take

in — this most important endeavour.

We've now had an opportunity to receive the information from

those directly concerned, those indirectly concerned, from

Members and interested people. Now the bill has been reworked a

little here and there and has now come before you in the form

of Bill 75, still intituled the Public Service Labour Relations

Act .

Mr. Speaker, what the bill seeks to do implicitly is to

provide a system of free and full collective bargaining for the

public servants of this province which is long, long, long

overdue. We're the last jurisdiction in Canada to present such

a system to its Legislature. We're the last holdout for the old

systems of paternalism and edicts, and I think that it's time

now we got on with the job.

The government, of course, is honouring its election

commitment; its programme for many, many years has had an item

such as collective bargaining for the public service. In many

ways the party that

[ Page 952 ]

preceded the New Democratic Party, namely the CCF, of

course, was one of the first governments to bring in this kind

of activity in its sphere of influence from time to time.

The system that we propose, envisaged in Bill 75, is

innovative and it's unique. It's giving employees a real voice

in determining the wages and working conditions which they have

been requesting for years in place of the outmoded systems I've

just referred to.

The system is tailor-made to the unique conditions in

British Columbia and it has not been tried anywhere else.

British Columbia, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has the highest

ratio of union members than any other place in North America.

The bill recognizes the high degree of union activity and the

history of attempted formulization of union activity even in

the last 20 years.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is 31 years ago

since the public servants of this province banded together and

eventually formed the beginnings of the union that currently is

the only one with which the previous government and this

government have done business.

The bill envisages a two-tier system: that is, it proposes a

system which will give a master contract and then will give the

people who work in the same kind of occupational groupings an

opportunity to reflect those particularities and singularities

that are theirs in the form of a component agreement.

The bill proposes regulative procedures which include the

right to strike. I maintain that giving workers the right to

strike in a full and free collective bargaining system in

effect reduces strikes, reduces illegal walkouts, reduces

lockouts, reduces the kind of recalcitrants that have been seen

to appear in our public service over the years.

There will not be any strikes, Mr. Speaker, if both sides

work conscientiously to make this new system work. I would be

foolish to suggest to you, and you would be even more foolish

to believe it, if I said that everybody will accept this

totally. There are obviously going to be some who resist the

sweeping changes, and I certainly don't expect 100 per cent

acceptance of all the details.

However, the vast majority will accept, and will find the

significant improvements to the mutual advantage and to the

better advantage of all of the people of British Columbia.

Several new sections, Mr. Speaker, have been added to the

bill that you saw in the spring session, namely a

section on

unfair labour practices, a religious conscience clause worded

the same as in Bill 11 and, of course, a penalty clause.

The bill applies to all public servants with fewer

exceptions than before. There are some four or five changes in

the exclusion section, namely the little operation the

government has in Manning Park Lodge, in the Lions Gate Tourist Court and the Workmen's

Compensation Board, and a temporary situation which is still

causing some unease, namely the one in the British Columbia

Institute of Technology. It is the government's desire, as soon

as is possible, to make that institution independent, or at

least on the same square footing as other post-secondary

institutions in the province, and have its own board of

directors, regents or governors — call them what you will. But

for the meantime we'll have to grope along, doing the best we

can with the staff of the BCIT until that happy day when I can

see the Deputy Premier and Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) rise in her place and introduce a bill about the

British Columbia Institute of Technology.

We have taken in large measure, Mr. Speaker, the advice of

the commission of inquiry into bargaining — not all of the

advice, Mr. Speaker, but the advice that frankly we thought was

first class and in line with the real requirements and our own

philosophy. We, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, rejected some of

the structures that were enumerated in that report. We believe

that now that we've seen the shape of things to come, as it

were…. I can't debate this bill meaningfully without

referring to Bill 11 to a little extent, if you'll allow me to

do that, Mr. Speaker.

We didn't see Bill 11 in the spring of last year, but now

that we've seen Bill 11 you can perhaps now see better why it's

my view that the kind of alive, vibrant, swift, decisive Labour

Relations Board that we are going to have in this province will

be the one that administers the nitty gritty of this Act. I

know the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

has other adjectives he likes to apply to this board, but those

are the ones I feel are perhaps better suited to describe it,

and describe it more accurately.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

The Civil Service Commission, Mr. Speaker, will be the

government's bargaining agent on behalf of the Treasury Board.

All the employees will be in one of three bargaining units

which are described and shown in

section 4 of the Act. The

two-tier system of bargaining, whereby each bargaining unit

will negotiate a master agreement and subsidiary agreements is

of course, as I say, unique.

The determination of the people themselves, on both sides of

the table, to negotiate exclusions to explore the whole

grievance field, in my view, again is progressive and unique. I

want to particularly refer, if I may, to the

section on

technological change, which I think is probably the most

progressive in this country, if not on the continent.

For those of you who may care to seek some differentiation

between the technological change

section in this bill and any

others that may be before you, may I point out to the House,

Mr. Speaker, that

[ Page 953 ]

you must look upon Bill 75 as the first step in a two-step

system. This step is, in effect, the first that goes towards

getting a collective bargaining agreement with as many of the

people as we can in the public service, and it has got a

particularity and a singularity that shouldn't be confused with

the overall labour code that is for the total private sector

that we have been debating these last few days.

Mr. Speaker, I can say as I prepare to take notes, as the

debate ensues, that it has been a happy six or seven months and

it's been a particular point of pleasure for me and for the

Civil Service Commission to receive, in a very large way, the

cooperation of the majority of the public servants in the

province. I want to commend the public service of this province

for its patience, its goodwill, its good temper over the 12

months that this bill — the gestation period, if you like, of

this bill.

I want to go on the record of this House as paying that

tribute to them. As I say, there are going to be some feathers

ruffled and there may be some noses out of joint. But in the

large and overall scheme of things this bill, I think, is a

good one — a bill which will seek to and will suit the purposes

of bringing into operation in this, the last province in

Canada, full and free collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Commission and the

representatives of the various groups have not been idle during

the summer. It is fair to say that at a committee level, at the

grassroots level, there have been tremendous strides made to

facilitate the introduction of collective bargaining.

Already there has been at committee level, still to be

endorsed by a senior level, a surprising amount of agreement in

a very short space of time on the facilitation of this Act — namely, the getting together of the commission and workers to

determine exclusions, and the getting together of people in the

payroll departments of the Minister of Finance and

respresentatives of the unions to make sure that the smooth

introduction of the payroll business is done properly. It opens

up the question of check offs, and possibly the question of

savings, credit unions, and all that kind of thing.

There has been a committee set up of members of the Civil

Service Commission staff and representatives of the union and

the nurses, a committee of female persons to look into some of

the problems in the civil service to do with the hiring of

women. I think that that is all for the good.

There have been meetings, as I say, in my office of representatives of the

psychiatric nurses, registered nurses, and the B.C. Government Employees Union.

It has been a happy time. It has been a constructive time. It has been a time

when a lot of differences have been placed on the table and compromises and

solutions have been worked out. It is my fond hope, my real hope and, I think,

my expectation that that state of affairs will continue and that the smooth

introduction of collective bargaining in the public service over the next six

months will proceed on schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I know that many Members in the House have got

a number of points to make about this bill and I want to assure

them of my attendance and my keen attention to their debate and

their arguments. Hopefully I will be able to answer them in the

greatest of detail when I rise to close this second

reading.

So, Mr. Speaker, to start that I move second reading of this

bill.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): At the outset I would like to

say that the official opposition supports completely the

concept of collective bargaining for the public service.

However, we find that there is more than one principle in this

bill. In addition to the fact that it is perhaps a

multi-principled bill it also contains a number of areas with

which we have some concern, and I'd like briefly to outline

some of those areas, Mr. Speaker.

For one thing there is, it appears, no prohibition of a

strike during the term of an agreement in this bill. Strikes

are permitted either on the master agreement as well as on any

subsidiary agreement. In the bill the Minister has, of course,

placed the counter to a strike, which is a lockout. That turns

out to be a completely phony concept because you can't assume

in your wildest imagination any lockout by the government.

Would you, for instance, lock out at Riverview? Would the

government lock out the ferry system? The Workmen's

Compensation Board? Provincial jails? No, Mr. Speaker, that

provision is real window dressing.

There aren't either, Mr. Speaker, any requirements to

bargain collectively before proceeding to mediation,

arbitration or a strike. It isn't necessary to bargain

collectively before taking those drastic measures. The

Mediation Services Act , if you will recall, did require that

collective bargaining be in operation for at least 10 days

before a mediation officer would be appointed. There is no such

requirement in this bill and, as I understand it, the union

could proceed almost directly to strike without ever getting

together with management to talk over their problems.

There is no actual requirement, Mr. Speaker, in this bill to

take a strike vote before striking. I think the only

requirement in the bill is — and I don't want to refer too much

to individual sections but I must point out — that the

bargaining agent "may" conduct a vote by secret ballot as to

whether or not the employees will strike. So once again there

is no requirement for those employees to take a secret ballot

strike vote before actually walking off this job.

I recognize that the Minister said that in the time

[ Page 954 ]

between the spring and the original Bill 182 that we had and

this bill that we now have before us, the bill was reworked a

little here and there. I notice that there has been a penalty

clause added. But despite the addition of that penalty clause,

because of the other requirements or lack of requirements in

this bill, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the union can take

strike action on any matter at any time without any penalties,

because it would not be in violation of the terms of this

bill.

Mr. Speaker,

section 27 perpetuates this government's

disdain for contractual agreements. It seems fairly obvious

that this

section is aimed at ferry workers. But regardless of

who this

section is aimed at or what group of people, Mr.

Speaker, it is wrong in principle. As we have pointed out on a

number of other occasions in this House, it is wrong in

principle for agreements, contracts, memorandums of

understanding or any other kinds of agreements reached between

two parties to be considered by this government as mere scraps

of paper. That is exactly what we are seeing again in this

bill, as with so many other bills that have been put forward by

this government.

The concept, Mr. Speaker, of the sanctity of a contract is

totally destroyed by this government, and it is being carried

out once again in Bill 75.

The Minister, in opening debate on the bill, Mr. Speaker,

referred to the commission report, the report and

recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into

Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service of British

Columbia — commonly known as the Higgins report, I believe — and suggested that they didn't take all of its recommendations,

and we recognize that. But I would like to ask a few questions

of the Minister about some of the recommendations which the

government decided not to take.

In the first instance, the commission, Mr. Speaker,

recommended the establishment of a secretariat responsible to

the Treasury Board, distinct and separate from the Civil

Service Commission, to act as the bargaining agent for

government. However, as the Provincial Secretary has pointed

out, the bill now provides for the Civil Service Commission to

act as bargaining agent, with the addition, I believe, of one

cabinet Minister.

But the Higgins report made some very good points, Mr.

Speaker, on the reasons why the Civil Service Commission should

not be the bargaining agent for the government. I quote from

page 20 of that report:

"The commission of inquiry, however, considers it both improper

and illogical to assign to the Civil Service Commission the task of acting as

the employer's bargaining agent. The essential function of a Civil Service Commission is to act as an independent

body which ensures the maintenance of certain standards in personnel administration

within the public service.

"Foremost in this is the Civil Service Commission's role in

the application of the principle of recruitment to the public

service by merit. If the Civil Service Commission were also to

act as an agent of the employer at the bargaining table, it

would completely forfeit the status of an impartial commission

whose autonomy ensured that recruitment to the public service

was free of political and personal consideration or any other

forms of patronage."

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, the Higgins commission

recommended very strongly that the Treasury Board should be the

responsible agent for which the bargaining would be carried on

for the government. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why that

recommendation wasn't considered by the government in preparing

Bill 75.

There is a serious question in the mind of the official

opposition, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the definition of

"employee" in the Act, and certainly as it relates to either

managerial or administrative positions.

The Higgins commission recommended that person in managerial

positions be excluded from the provisions of this Act. However,

this bill provides only that a collective agreement "may"

exclude employees in managerial or administrative positions,

the exclusions to be determined by negotiation between the

parties.

The commission was very specific on this again, Mr. Speaker,

and I quote. The commission recommends that the Public Service

Labour Relations Act provides that "those persons performing

managerial or confidential roles are not considered employees

for the purposes of this Act." However, when we look at the Act

itself, we find that the only people really excluded under the

terms of these provisions are the Deputy Minister, the

Associate Deputy Minister or Assistant Deputy Minister — the

terms with which we are interested.

There is a serious problem here in that the relegation of

duties is going to be placed under a severe strain if this

aspect of the bill is not changed. I don't think there's any

objection, Mr. Speaker, to managerial employees or

administrative employees being covered under some form of

collective agreement. The question is: should they be lumped

into the single collective agreement with all of the other

employees and those employees to whom they bear direct

responsibility? I don't think they should. I think that the

commission recommendation with regard to administrative

employees and confidential employees and managerial employees

is a good one,

[ Page 955 ]

and one which should have been followed when this bill was

being drafted.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Higgins commission recommended that

the Rand formula apply with regard to union membership. The

bill, however, doesn't provide for that at all. Once again, if

I could quote from the Higgins report so that we know exactly

the kind of conclusion that the Higgins commission arrived at,

they said that:

"The most appropriate form of union security for the public

service of British Columbia is that which combines the

individual's freedom of association with the obvious obligation

owed by members of a bargaining unit to the security commonly

referred to as the Rand formula most appropriately meets these

criteria."

Now the government has waffled a bit on this one, but it's

once again a bit of a smoke screen, I believe, because the

government has said that all employees on staff at the time of

certification have the option of joining or not joining the

union. In effect, the Rand formula will apply to those

employees. But with the rate of attrition and as time goes on

this will become a closed shop and the Rand formula will no

longer apply, despite the fact that this commission, a member

of whom was Mr. J.L. Fryer of the British Columbia Government

Employees' Union, felt that the Rand formula was the most fair

way of dealing with both matters of conscience and with the

rights of the unions to expect support from all of the people

in the service.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, what should be done is that we let the

workers decide the system by which they'd like to operate.

Perhaps the thing to do would be to let the employees in the

public service take a vote on whether or not they would like to

be governed under a form of the Rand formula. Perhaps that

would be the most fair way to approach this problem — and it is

a problem, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to get an explanation again of

the reasons the Minister decided not to follow the

recommendations of the Higgins report in this regard.

Further to the commission report, Mr. Speaker, the

commission recommended that 10 days' notice of strike action be

required. The bill requires only three days' notice. I wonder

why. I wonder what kind of problems we're going to find

ourselves in if we adopt the formula of allowing only three

days' notice before strike action can be taken. Once again, the

commission was very firm in its recommendation and very clear

on its recommendation. Under the dispute settlement

section it

said:

"Where a majority of employees have voted to support a strike,

the employees' bargaining agent should be required to give 10 days' written

notice of any intention to strike, but no strike should be permitted pending

the receipt of the report of the mediator appointed under the Act. A similar

time limit should apply with any intention by the employer to lock out."

That's a fair and reasonable amount of time, Mr. Speaker — 10 days. Certainly three days is not. Three days doesn't give

us nearly enough time. What, for instance, would happen if the

union filed its strike notice on a Friday? We would have no

time within the service to prepare for that strike. What about

welfare cheques? What about Mincome payments? What about the

alteration of ferry schedules, if they need to be altered?

The government must be given the opportunity to first of all

prepare itself for any eventuality, should a strike occur.

Three days doesn't give the government the chance to do that.

Secondly, of course, only three days' notice allows no

possibility for any kind of a last-ditch settlement. It allows

no possibility for the parties to get together and work again

for another attempt toward the settlement of the particular

dispute. If, for instance, the three days' notice came on a

weekend, it would be as if there were no notice at all, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the government failed to

understand the reasons for the recommendation by the Higgins

commission for 10 days' notice. They would seem to be very

clear and it would seem to me that with only three days' notice

we're — as in other sections for this bill, about which I'll

speak a little later — almost offering, almost inviting the

parties to either lock out or strike. Why don't we allow them

the opportunity to have a period of time in which they can get

together again and try once and for all to make a decent and

honourable settlement? What's wrong with 10 days?

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that there are perhaps two

or three principles in this bill. One of them, of course, is to

allow collective bargaining in the public service. It's a

principle for which you'll find no argument, I'm sure, in this

House.

But there is another principle, Mr. Speaker, regarding

strikes in essential services. I wonder who the government

asked when they were talking about allowing strikes in

essential services. I wonder if they had thought to ask the

people — the employees who are in the public service. Because I

have a feeling that even the employees in the public service

aren't too crazy about the right to strike for essential

services. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, every survey that has been

taken in the last several years shows that the public sure

isn't in favour. The public is diametrically opposed to the

disruption caused to third parties by strikes in essential

services.

At least, Mr. Speaker, if you're going to allow strikes in

the public service, limit those rights to strike to

non-essential services. I understand that it's very difficult

to decide which is a non-essential service — and that area

between non-essential and

[ Page 956 ]

essential service has become completely fuzzed up in the

last little while because the line is diminishing. It's hard to

know whether one strike which affects many people outside of

the actual area of dispute is an essential service just because

it does affect many third parties. But we do know for sure, Mr.

Speaker, that third parties are more and more being affected by

strikes of all kinds. We have an obligation to respect the

rights of those third parties, of those people perhaps a fixed

income, the consumer and housewife and the worker on low wage — he's the person who is being affected now by strikes, and by

the settlement of strikes, in many instances.

So it's more than a little difficult to decide what are

those essential services. But decide we must, Mr. Speaker. I

think we must someday sit down and face that there are services

in this province in the public service which should not be

allowed the right to strike.

Perhaps the Minister might refer to one of his own kind, a

prominent member of the New Democratic Party who is from the

Toronto area, who sometime ago — June of this year, I believe — was in the Vancouver area and submitted, I believe, some

suggestions to the Labour Minister's advisory group, Mr. Val

Scott, who has come up with an interesting concept that he

calls "Final Offer Selection" (FOS).

It is an interesting concept, particularly as it relates to

the people that I talked about earlier, those people in a

professional and supervisory class of civil servants. FOS,

according to Mr. Scott, involves what he says is a mutually

acceptable selector — perhaps that could be the Minister's

special officer — being named by the parties who can't solve

their contract dispute. The selector chooses between the final

offer presented by both sides, and his decision is binding.

According to Scott, the method encourages the parties to be

more realistic, It dissuades them from taking the extreme

positions which have made the job of arbitrators and

arbitration boards more difficult in the past.

The arbitrators have tried to find a happy medium in the

widely divergent positions of the disputants, and they have

wound up leaving one or both sides dissatisfied. The chain

reaction, he says, has been further discontent over the

existing bargaining processes, and the suggestion is that

perhaps some kind of a modified form of the FOS could be

implemented first of all in the public service at that level

which is concerned with supervisory and administrative

personnel. If it works, it could be used, in other sections of

the public service.

I think that's a reasonable suggestion, because I really

can't accept the possibility that supervisory and managerial

positions can be lumped together with the rest of the

bargaining unit.

Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to go out on a limb and do a little

experimentation. He said that this government is interested in new ideas — why

not try something like this with the professional people and the managerial

people in the public service?

Already one of the Ministers on the government side has said

that they're willing, in fact anxious, to reconsider the

position that all workers have the right to strike. The

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan),

following his disastrous negotiations with the ferry strikers,

said flat out, "I'm not so sure any more about that

concept."

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well after he had the gun to his head the

trigger went off — of the gun which he didn't know was loaded

but found out very quickly the kind of calibre it was.

That Minister said he was perfectly willing, in fact

anxious, Mr. Speaker, to have another look at the concept that

all workers in the public service should have the right to

strike. I think that that Minister displayed a very reasonable

and sensible attitude. I hope that that Minister has had some

influence with the rest of the Members of his cabinet and that

he's had some influence in convincing them that they too should

soften their position on the matter of the right to strike in

the public service.

I said before and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in many

instances this bill makes it so easy for a strike to take place

it is almost an invitation for a strike to take place. The bill

and the attitude of the bill seem to be overly obsessed with

strike, strike, strike, and that's part of the problem with our

labour relations in this province.

The attitude is so prevailing that the union, the British

Columbia Government Employees' Union, has already gone out and

started to build a strike fund, and it's because of the

attitude that is contained in this bill with its obsession with

strike action. They've already gone out and begun to build a

strike fund. Their very first reaction to the public display of

this bill — although I know very well they saw much of this

bill far sooner than this House did — was to get out and build

a strike fund.

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that because of the attitudes

contained within the bill there is an invitation to try to make

it not work. And as we've said with Bill 11, every Member on

this side of the House wants labour peace in this province.

There's no doubt about that.

Labour-management practice — and the Speaker I'm sure knows

this better than anyone — is largely a question of attitudes.

It doesn't really matter what you put down on paper. If you

can't change attitudes or if you establish attitudes in the

minds of either one

[ Page 957 ]

of two disputants, you're never going to change them unless

you take some action toward the attitudes — not towards laws or

anything else.

As long as we continue to perpetuate and glorify the

adversary system, if both sides always have the chance to use

the so-called "ultimate weapon" — strike or lock-out — then the

chances are pretty good that the ultimate weapon will be used

regardless of what the Provincial Secretary has said in his

comments that he feels that the "right to strike" means that

the strike weapon won't be used. Well that's not correct in my

opinion.

What is wrong with the concept of compulsory arbitration?

The teachers of this province have submitted to compulsory

arbitration for years and years, and they are an employee group

under the public service umbrella which has done very, very

well for itself in this province under compulsory

arbitration.

I don't think there's anything wrong with compulsory

arbitration. Labour leaders throughout North America, sensible

and responsible labour leaders, have been more and more coming

to the idea that strike action is an out-dated and barbaric

concept, one which should be replaced with something better.

And yet each time we sit down and attempt to tackle the

problems of labour and management in British Columbia, and for

that matter anywhere in North America, we always end up with

the same idea that it's the strike that must be the final and

ultimate weapon and that we build from there. The strike is the

centre of the core and everything else comes from that

centre.

Not until we develop some attitudes among ourselves that the

people are no longer prepared to accept blindly strike action

by employees or lock-out action by employers, not until we

accept that concept as out-dated, will we ever get real

labour-management progress in this province or anywhere else in

Canada.

I say once again that the official opposition intends to

support fully the concept of collective bargaining for civil

services but that we have some serious reservations about the

other concepts contained in this bill. We'll discuss them more

fully in committee stage in third reading.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss this bill

on second reading here with a great deal of interest. Perhaps unlike most in

the House I have been a civil servant; I have been affected both before and

after bargaining rights came in and I had the unfortunate experience of losing

some $1,500 as a result of a provision in the federal legislation, which is

very similar to a provision in this one, which I'll describe later on. But I

certainly would caution people who think that collective bargaining in the civil

service is an easy or quick thing that can be introduced.

As far as the whole concept of collective bargaining goes,

which I presume is the principle of the bill, I have no

objection to it whatsoever. My own personal view is there

should be the maximum amount of consultation, discussion and

involvement of employees, be they employees of the civil

service or be they employees of private industry, in the

question of working conditions, wages and differentials between

the various categories of people working in certain areas. I

think that the more involvement there can be of the employees

in this the better off we will all be. This is particularly

true of course of the civil service, which is such a big

employer of labour.

We question — and I think at this stage in the discussion of

the principle of the bill that's about as far as we can go — the position of the government with respect to the right to

strike and with respect to essential services.

First the question of the traditional position of the employee in private industry and the position that a civil

servant finds himself or herself in, be it a federal or

provincial civil servant, or even a municipal employee as well.

The difference, of course, is that there is virtually no way

that an employee of the civil service at any level can put

economic pressure upon the government. The contrast with

private industry in this area is very sharp indeed. In private

industry a long strike will put heavy and indeed in some cases

fatal pressure upon an employer and either lead to a settlement

or to an organization's going out of business.

The newspaper industry for example is littered with the

corpses of newspapers. In particular I was thinking of New York

City at this stage, where strikes and labour disputes led to

the demise of the employer organization — in other words the

newspaper company.

This is not the case at all in the civil service. If the

members of the civil service go on strike there is really

nothing in the economic sense which happens which can affect

the government itself. The tax revenues are guaranteed by

statute, by criminal law, and the revenues of the government

are not materially affected.

I have only to give as an example the postal strike which

occurred in the federal civil service, and let's refer back to

1968, a strike that went on approximately three weeks. The

postal strike was inconvenient to a large number of people but

in no way was the effect of that strike on the government one

of creating economic hardship or an economic pressure to settle

the strike.

The strike eventually was settled entirely on different

grounds. It was settled because of political pressure; it was

settled because of public inconvenience. The economic pressure,

which is the

[ Page 958 ]

traditional method of putting an employer in a more

agreeable frame of mind to accept a union demand, simply didn't

exist in that case at all.

Obviously the revenues of the post office are important, but

quite obviously the revenues of the post office were quite

irrelevant in terms of having the government come to a

settlement in the case of the postmen.

That is an important distinction which I think we should

recognize at this time. It's fine for us in this Legislature to

say well, we want to treat the employees of the government in

the same way as the employees of private industry are treated.

But when there are very fundamental differences between the

positions those people find themselves in, we have to recognize

that to apply in a blanket way provisions which may be very

successful in private industry is perhaps to simply bring in

concepts which cannot work effectively in the public

sector.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to a strike which took place

not too long ago in the ferry system of British Columbia, a

strike which the Minister informs me, by way of a question that

I asked on the order paper, cost approximately $3.5 million if

my memory serves me correctly.

The amount of money involved, of course, was totally

irrelevant. We know that the revenues and the expenditures of

this government are somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.8

billion to $2 billion. For a work stoppage $3.5 million really

isn't a major factor in affecting this government's ability to

carry on its operations, in causing it to change its mind with

respect to those employee demands. The economic element in the

settlement of that strike would, in my mind, be such a fraction

of 1 per cent as to be totally irrelevant.

What did settle it, and this was referred to earlier by my

friend from Langley (Mr. McClelland), was the public

inconvenience — inconvenience which I think the Minister

correctly described as of such intensity that he felt that the

ferry workers had a gun to his head, to quote his own words. I

think he was right: they really did have a gun to his head.

He in turn gave in to these demands and we saw a settlement

which eventually ended the strike. I give those two examples — (1) the post office, (2) the ferry workers' strike — to

indicate this major distinction between employees in a private

company, employees in the private sector, and employees in the

public sector.

Take, for example, a strike of civil servants in the filing

department of the archives. Those people carry on an extremely

responsible job. Anything lost in there will be lost forever.

If they do things badly, the whole concept of archives becomes

just absurd because archives are only of value if information

can be retrieved. So they carry on a very responsible bit of

work which is generally unsung and unheralded.

But say, for example, because it is the type of job that

isn't in the public eye, that they do go on strike; say they

feel that they've been mistreated; say they want to better

their lot by strike action. How much political pressure can

those people put in comparison, for example, with the ferry

workers, Mr. Speaker? None whatsoever. They can put no economic

pressure on the government. They can put no political pressure

on the government.

We can see, I think, from this that there is a tremendous

imbalance within the civil service depending upon whether

people are before the public eye, carrying on jobs that are of

critical importance to individual citizens, or what individual

citizens feel is of critical importance to them, and those who

carry on equally important work for all of us, but which is not

the type of work where individual citizens and taxpayers are

critically affected at any one time.

Mr. Speaker, there's no need to suggest what would happen if

a group, say 10 days prior to the expiry of the licences — say

on February 18 — went out on strike. Obviously it could create

chaos, particularly in this year where insurance comes in at

the same time. That type of group is in a very critical

situation, but my friends who may be filing in the archives are

not. I think this must be borne in mind. The normal economic

pressures which lead to settlement in the case of private

industry do not exist in the government, and to not recognize

this is to buy trouble for yourself in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested that the Hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) introduced this bill. My belief in

his position is that he is really the head employer, the man in

the cabinet responsible for his employees. It was a curious

parallel, I would think, with an employer bringing in some sort

of framework for a collective agreement. I would think that

there would be a conflict of interests and I'm surprised that

the Minister of Labour did not bring it in, as was the case

with Bill 11.

I would like to turn to the question, Mr. Speaker, of

essential services which was discussed earlier. It's pretty

simple for us in this Legislature to say, "Sure, we approve of

collective bargaining, the right to strike — fine. We'll grant

it to civil servants regardless of where they may be." But

every one of us in this Legislature knows in his heart that

when we're dealing with essential services, the right to strike

is as phony as the proverbial $3 bill. Why? Because just as

soon as they go on strike we'll be called back into this

Legislature and we'll be called back to take them off

strike.

So we've got a $3 bill situation. If we're telling these

people who are the employees of the public that they have the

right to strike and we ourselves as legislators know that our

job will be to wipe out that right just as soon as it starts

affecting essential

[ Page 959 ]

services, then we are really talking with a forked

tongue.

There is no real right to strike in essential services

because if they are essential — and the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke), I'm delighted, is looking quite interested in

this point because many of these essential services come under

his department — if they are essential, there is no way we can

permit them not to continue functioning and therefore there is

no way that we can permit strike action in these areas.

The legislatures of the British Commonwealth and of Canada

in particular are simply full — their records are full — of

examples of legislatures being convened for the purpose of

essentially, let's face it, strikebreaking — breaking strikes

in essential services, be they in transportation, be they in

health or be they in a number of other fields.

For us to stand here and fail to recognize…. Essentially

we're talking in really pious terms about the right to strike,

and yet we know full well, and the government knows full well,

that if they honour their responsibilities to the public, they

will have to call us together to break a strike; it's pretty

ridiculous.

I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, the transcript of a taping

interview, a tape for Sunday, October 28, with the Premier of

this province for that show Capital Comment, which was referred

to earlier. I only refer to it to point out that in that

transcript there is a statement by the Premier with respect to

an energy question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What's going on with this thing? How did

you get hold of that…?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You just relax, relax, relax. The Premier

stated that "We have to have emergency powers in British

Columbia." That's the statement. This is the reference, in case

the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) was not following events earlier, to which the Member

for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) referred. It's obvious in

that case that he was aware of it. It's obvious in this case

that I am.

What I'm stating, Mr. Speaker, is very clearly this: in a

situation where the Premier of the province states flatly, "We

have to have emergency powers," and he complains that

they're not on the books now, we are in a situation where the

Premier realizes there are situations where this vaunted right

to strike, in essential services that we have talked about,

simply will not be permitted to be exercised. We won't permit

them to exercise those rights to strike.

So we're in a situation where basically, I think, the government is being far

less than frank with us, and I would say that the Provincial Secretary has been

less than frank with us, in not properly discussing what will happen in essential

services if this so-called right to strike is granted. It won't be allowed to

take place and, therefore, it's no right at all. That has to be faced up to.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what should we do instead in this area? It

would seem to be a lot better, rather than wait with

uncertainty in the public mind, uncertainty in the minds of the

employees who feel that they have a genuine grievance which the

Civil Service Commission are not taking adequate note of, if

they feel that they've got such a problem that they want to

strike, they should know beforehand what would happen. Indeed,

if they don't know it and if they simply expect that maybe or

maybe not we'll have to come back to the Legislature and we'll

have to settle it that way, then everybody's in this area of

uncertainty, and no one really knows what can be done and what

should be done.

Instead, and I think this is really essential, we need some

decent mechanism worked out beforehand in a dispassionate way

before there are disputes which will take care of these cases.

Because we know full well that in essential services when we

are called back, we're dealing with an explosive situation

quite frequently, sometimes involving life-and-death

situations. We're then dealing with a very emotionally charged

situation and the opportunity of having a dispassionate

settlement at that time is far less than it would be

otherwise.

What we need at this stage before any such disputes occur is

a properly set out system of procedure whereby compulsory

arbitration can take place because that, Mr. Speaker, is what

is inevitably going to happen anyway. For this government to

pretend otherwise is for this government to deceive the civil

servants. And I speak with feeling as a former civil

servant.

We need smooth machinery, prepared beforehand, in operation

in the critical times. You really don't get a good settlement,

Mr. Speaker, you really don't get a good resolution of

problems, if you wait until the crisis is acute, if you allow

uncertainty to increase and then at the last minute bring in

something which, of course, will be hastily drafted — it will

have to be hastily drafted — and which will not, I think, best

serve either the public or the employee.

Mr. Speaker, the bill has one aspect that I feel I should

comment on at this time in that it will give the Minister a

chance to prepare amendments. I mentioned when I opened my

speech that there are great difficulties to bringing in

collective bargaining for civil servants, one of which was the

tremendous delay as you took job category by job category and

attempted to work out some organized system of differential

between them. Quite frequently 18 months was the amount of time

that the federal civil service was behind in its negotiating

with the civil servants in the unions.

[ Page 960 ]

This delay was not expected and yet it occurred, This delay

was not due to any bad faith on anybody's part; it was just the

tremendous problem of establishing a whole series of collective

agreements, the major and the minor, throughout the whole range

of the federal civil service.

In the case that I mentioned, 18 months later a decision was

arrived at, collective bargaining was concluded and it was

retroactive. In my specific case, as I had then ceased to be a

member of the civil service and had become a politician,

because I was no longer then employed I couldn't take advantage

of the retroactive provisions which led me to lose

approximately $1,500.

I was not the only one, There was a large number of people

who had left the civil service during that period of

negotiations for retroactive increases who were met with the

same problem. In particular, the group that was particularly

hard hit were nurses. Nurses, for some reason, had a longer

delay than some other groups in having their collective

agreement arrived at. The result was, of course, that many of

these girls found themselves in other jobs in private

hospitals, found themselves unable to take advantage of the pay

increase which was brought in for the actual months they were

working. They were unable to take advantage of it and

therefore, of course, lost that money.

This makes

section 27 of this particular Act highly

questionable.

section 27, in my mind, will cause more

difficulty in this regard than perhaps any other. The reason is

fairly simple:

section 27 talks about anything not negotiated

under this Act…"is terminated on the date upon which the

Act or any provision thereof comes into force." That, in the

light of experience of the federal jurisdiction, doesn't make

sense and will lead to enormous difficulty.

Unless these collective agreements carry on, unless we allow

a maximum amount of time as we set up this new system, we're

going to be in trouble. I would most strongly urge the Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) to have his draftsmen

re-examine that and change it, perhaps delete it. It's the type

of provision which experience elsewhere shows will cause much

more trouble than it is worth. It's a temporary provision, a

transitional provision and it should not be there.

Mr. Speaker, in this stage of the bill, we would like to

emphasize that this particular bit of legislation essentially

embodies the principle of collective bargaining, which we are

for. Amendments we will bring forward later will deal with this

legislation and other aspects which we feel are subordinate to

the basic principle.

Because of the experience of the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) yesterday,

when he attempted to bring in an amendment to Bill 11, and my own experience

last year, when I attempted to bring in an amendment to the insurance legislation

which would have allowed competition and which was ruled out at that stage because

it apparently affected the principle of the bill, when this is examined in committee

clause by clause, we trust the question of what is principle and what is not

is very carefully looked at.

As we understand it, this is a bill bringing in collective

bargaining in the civil service. After that general principle

is accepted, we understand there will be the possibility of

exceptions and alterations in certain categories. We trust, Mr.

Speaker, that the very closest examination is given to any

amendment dealing with this legislation which would affect

certain sections of it or certain groups of civil servants but

which, in our minds, at this stage does not affect the general

principle of collective bargaining in the civil service. If

we're wrong on this we would like the Provincial Secretary to

state his views.

We cannot see that Acts which are complicated and involve

many thousands of people in tremendously different categories

should be treated in a simplistic fashion. We would most

strongly urge, Mr. Speaker, that if you, Mr. Speaker Dowding,

have any doubts on this, we should have a declaratory judgment

before this bill comes up for second reading.

We feel it is essential, in this bit of legislation where

you have collective bargaining, for us to stand up and say we

approve, in principle, of collective bargaining in the civil

service. I've stated the reasons why. But we do not feel that

accepting the basic principle leads us to accept every other

principle which may be included in other sections thereof. We

do not feel that the experience of the Hon. Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) yesterday and my experience on the insurance

legislation in any way should be repeated in the future except

when the amendments in question go to the heart and crux of the

bill, when they really go to the principle of it.

If the principle of this bill is not collective bargaining

in the civil service, we would like the Minister to state what

it is. If he wishes to amend or alter or adjust or increase or

decrease what happens to be the opposition's understanding of

the principle, we think he should speak up now and we think,

indeed, a declaratory judgment from the Speaker will be

necessary. There is no way whatsoever that we in the opposition

can continue to put amendments up for bills in good faith when

we find them struck down as, indeed, amendments have been

struck down on at least two other pieces of legislation.

We feel that if the clause by clause consideration of these

bills is to mean anything at all, it must be more than strictly

drafting errors, such as the one picked up yesterday and, I

might add, accepted by the Minister on Bill 11.

If we are to put forward intelligent amendments, if we are

to examine this legislation with the intent of

[ Page

961 ]

improving it, we wish to have amendments considered in good

faith by the government and not rejected on the grounds that it

may involve some principle. Every amendment, except a drafting

amendment, involves some question of principle; that we

know.

Drafting amendments, okay; it's an error that has been made

and we are quite willing to suggest to the government it should

be changed before the legislation comes into force. But other

amendments which deal with questions of principle, perhaps in a

tangential sense, are important to us. If there is to be any

proper examination of legislation such as this, we must know

that, while we accept in principle bills of this nature because

we think we understand what the principle is on the basis of

what the Provincial Secretary has stated, we cannot be barred

in future from suggesting amendments which we were going to put

forward in good faith and which we feel would improve the

legislation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would like to preface my

remarks on second reading by following up the comments of the

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to the effect

that this bill, in the light of yesterday's decision in this

House, makes it mandatory that the whole question of what is

the principle of this bill must be very clearly stated.

We in this party, as in the Liberal and Social Credit

Parties, certainly agree that collective bargaining is the best

method by which employees can obtain justice in terms of

financial return for their labours and the various fringe

benefits that go along with employment. Therefore, as has been

clearly stated by the other two parties, let me make it also

unmistakably clear that the Conservative Party favours the

pursuit of collective bargaining as the best and fairest method

of employing — the government being an employer and the public

servants being the employees.

But, on the other hand, as has also been pointed out by the

other parties, it would appear to me — if I make an analogy

between this bill and the labour code which I attempted to

amend yesterday — that there are at least two principles in

this bill: is collective bargaining a wise and justified

procedure to follow; should the employees concerned have the

right to strike?

Mr. Speaker, the right to strike can be such a powerful

weapon with such tremendous ramifications in its damaging

effects on the public interest that one cannot possibly debate

this bill simply in terms of collective bargaining without also

considering that the equal principle, or maybe an even more

important principle, is the principle of the right to

strike.

Therefore, I'll make this party's position very plain,

although perhaps one should wait for the possibility of a

declaratory judgment from the Speaker. The point is that if the experience that I had with

Bill 11 is to be followed as a precedent, then we have no

choice in this party but to vote against this bill on second

reading because we are opposed to the right to strike by

public-service employees.

If by voting to support the principle of collective

bargaining amendments are then thwarted because this government

chooses to say that the principle of the bill is the right to

strike, then of course we are at an impasse.

I repeat, this party, as was very clear in our comments on

Bill 11 in second reading and yesterday, does favour finding

the best, fairest, most comprehensive way of giving employees

and employers justice in their relationships with one another.

But to suggest that because we support that principle we have

to support every single

section of the bill or otherwise be

accused of contradicting the principle of the bill, I think

makes our job as opposition impossible.

Therefore, while we support very strongly the concept of

collective bargaining, we do not accept that this bill should

give to the public service employees the right to strike.

When the Minister introduced the bill, Mr. Speaker, he said

this was a unique bill, and that's right. This is a very unique

employee-employer relationship. There's no other employer

anywhere in the province like the government and there is no

other employee of such importance or who perhaps has as few

equals in importance, as the public service employee who keeps

the very life of the province flowing in a most indispensable

way. For that reason the Minister is perfectly correct when he

talks about this being a unique bill because he is certainly

dealing with a unique employer and a unique category of

employee.

The word "service" is in itself something unique. In our

society people providing a service are closely associated with

human needs, as perhaps contrasted with many other examples

where people are employed manufacturing goods or products which

may be useful but not in any way comparable with the importance

of the type of service, whether that service be the

distribution of goods, or the transportation of people, or the

very carrying out of the provincial government's business in

the many departments — and we can all think of many of them;

some of them have been mentioned this afternoon, such as the

Department of Human Resources, just to take it as probably the

most obvious example.

Therefore I think it is very appropriate that the Minister

has used the word "unique," because indeed you cannot

compare public service employees with anyone else other than

people in other service pursuits. I'm thinking in terms of the

services such as those provided by hospital workers, by

firefighters, policemen and doctors.

[ Page 962 ]

In the throne speech debate at this session I made it quite

clear that this party feels that the time has come to look

fairly and squarely at the meaning of the word "service" and

more specifically at the phrase "essential service." We have

all, I think in the three parties in the opposition, discussed

this to a greater or lesser degree.

I think one of the points which I have raised for the first

time this afternoon has a great deal of bearing on the attitude

we should adopt to essential services, and that is the fact

that in the so-called essential services the so-called right to

strike is really a mirage in the sense that, if these employees

exercised that right, the very damaging impact on the public

interest and possibly the serious impact on the public economy

of the province or the nation makes it absolutely unavoidable

for the government to intervene in some unilateral way.

Now I am not about to define what that particular unilateral

way would be, whether it would be simple imposition of a

settlement or whether it would be the recalling of this House

or the recalling of Parliament, as happened with the national

railway situation. All I'm saying is that I am echoing the

words that were said by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) when he said that it may have some superficial

value in dealing with essential services employees to say,

"Yes, we'll give them the right to strike," when in fact

we know very well that if that right is exercised it is of such

a temporary and transient nature, for the reasons that I have

mentioned, that it is very little more than a sham right in

terms of other businesses or industries where the right to

strike exists and where the purpose of the strike is to

exercise economic sanctions against the employer. There is

then, I think, every valid reason to say that the right to

strike truly exists, and we have numerous examples of this.

I think that the comparison that has already been made this

afternoon between that sector of business or industry and the

situation covered by this bill is invalid. You cannot compare

the two situations.

Apart from our party philosophy on this point I certainly,

in my travels and in my own area of British Columbia, get the

impression from general conversation that the public is seeking

some restriction of the right to strike on essential services.

And I'm not at all convinced, from talking to the public

service employees, whom we are discussing today, that very many

of them wish to have the right to strike.

Furthermore I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, since this is such

a very vital point in this bill or in any other bill affecting

labour relations, that some form of plebiscite or vote should

be taken of all the employees who would come under the

provisions of this bill to ask them a simple question: do you

or do you not wish to have the right to strike?

The Minister, in introducing the bill, made what I thought

was a very reasonable statement, that if government provides

bargaining rights to the public service employees the very

bestowal of these rights or that right to strike within the

collective bargaining arrangement would, in effect, inspire

confidence and would engender a sense of responsibility on the

part of the employees. I'm not sure that that is correct, but I

think that the implication behind the statement is that the

Minister would encourage this attitude of responsiveness on the

part of the employees.

He proved that it already exists to a degree by the patience

with which the employees have waited for the re-introduction of

this bill; and in the brief I have here which they submitted

following study of Bill 182 they made a comment that the only

thing they would like to say is that Bill 182 cannot be

introduced quickly enough.

So I think there is that measure of responsiveness presently

in existence. But I wouldn't be carried away by an attitude of

responsibility, because I think the recent ferry strike

demonstrated that although there was a memorandum of agreement

the ferry workers in withdrawing their services did quite

clearly breach a written agreement.

It is all very well for the Minister, in introducing the

bill, to say that he feels sure that by being fair and

considerate and just in his attitude negotiations will take

place in the atmosphere described in the bill — collective

bargaining in good faith, et cetera, et cetera. Nevertheless, I

don't think he can conclude that the existence of the right to

strike will diminish the likelihood of strike. Because we did

have a legal agreement with the ferry workers. It may not have

been in a collective bargaining agreement as is understood in

the labour code, but it was a signed memorandum of agreement to

the effect that any difference of opinion would not be solved

by withdrawal of service.

Now despite that commitment the workers did withdraw their

services. They broke their word and they breached a contract.

There's no getting around that fact. And that fact is proven by

the Minister's statement at that time, that it was an illegal

strike.

It is certainly, I think stretching the credibility a little

bit to suggest that because the right to strike will be put in

this legislation, it will in fact not be used — or is less

likely to be used. This is where we obviously have an honest

difference of opinion.

To return for a moment to the question and the definition of

essential services, I'm sure that the great majority of

citizens in this province realize that we do have certain

essential services, and the word "essential" means "necessary,

unavoidable, must be there." If it is essential then there is

no sense in suggesting that, at the wishes of certain

employees, these services can be withdrawn.

As I say, it is a contradiction of terminology on

[ Page 963 ]

the one hand to say that you have essential services and yet

permit legislation which allows the withdrawal of such

services. We feel, quite clearly, that the public service

employees provide such a vital and essential service that

society is in very serious trouble if they are allowed to

withdraw such service. Therefore we are opposed to the bill for

that reason.

The other statement was made publicly by the Minister that

he expected that he would have tacit — I think that was the word

quoted in the press, and the Minister can correct me if he

wishes — tacit agreement or verbal agreement, and that, of

course, those essential services would not be withdrawn

although, in fact, the right to withdraw them is written into

this legislation. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment

when he winds up second reading, or might interpret for us in a

more accurate way, what he meant by "tacit agreements" or what

kind of private arrangements have been made or have any private

arrangements been made between his department and the BCGEU to

assure him that, in fact, although the right to withdraw

service exists in the bill they are not going to use it.

This would seem to me a very strange situation: that we have

a clear definition of a right in the bill which the employees

themselves have privately told the Minister they are not going

to use. This was certainly the implication of statements

attributed to the Minister which appeared in the press.

Certainly, if this is the way in which the government is

dealing in two different directions with the employees, giving

them one assurance of certain rights in black-and-white in the

statute, but on the other hand, behind closed doors, coming to

some private agreement or having some verbal promise from the

employees that in fact they won't use that right, then I think

that would be a very strange way for any government to behave.

There are certainly newspaper clippings available which quote

the Minister as making that kind of statement.

It is always necessary, we feel, that when we criticize or

negate some intent of government we offer a positive

alternative. It would be our feeling, as it obviously is of all

the opposition parties, that binding arbitration could be set

up. Perhaps the most strenuous efforts would have to be taken

to ensure that the employees and the government could reach the

fairest possible settlement since, of course, the employees

have not the same power in the strike weapon that other

employees have, such as I have described earlier.

Therefore any employee in an essential service who is denied the right to strike

must be given, as far as is humanly possible, some extra assurance that whatever

technique of arbitration will be used can assure the employees of the maximum

degree of justice in the marketplace. I feel certain — and I would expect the

government to agree with this since they have already said that they are appointing

such highly-experienced men and women with a great degree of expertise to the

Labour Relations Board to the degree that they are trusting that board completely

with decisions and to a degree of confidence which obviates any mechanism of

appeal….

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the government feels

that confident in being able to select a Labour Relations Board

who can do that perfect a job, surely it should be equally

possible to create some board of arbitration which could

equally and correctly, infallibly solve any dispute affecting

the employees in the public service of the government.

I don't think really the government can have it both ways.

They believe, and I accept the point of view — the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) made their point of view very clear

yesterday — that they have given great power to the Labour

Relations Board simply because they are picking the best people

they can find to serve on the board in the belief that the best

kind of judgments will be handed down with the greatest chance

of fair play to both parties.

I just submit, Mr. Speaker, that if that concept is applied

to the Labour Relations Board, it should be equally possible to

apply that concept to an arbitration board which could ensure,

in the case of binding arbitration, fair play to the employees

of the government in this province.

Until yesterday I was about to introduce an amendment to

this bill with just that intention in mind. The amendment would

suggest (1) that we have binding arbitration, and (2) that the

arbitration board would be specific and unique for this

particular situation, namely, the matter of the employm