1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

2435 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates On vote 129.

Hon. Mr. King — 2435

Mr. Chabot — 2436

Hon. Mr. King — 2438

Mr. Gibson — 2440

Hon. Mr. King — 2444

Mr. Gibson — 2445

Mr. McGeer — 2445

Mr. Wallace — 2450

Hon. Mr. King — 2452

Mr. Dent — 2453

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2455

Hon. Mr. King — 2456

Mr. McClelland — 2457

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2458

Hon. Mr. King — 2459

On vote 130.

Mr. Chabot — 2459

Hon. Mr. King — 2459

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 129: Minister's office, $78 724.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I was

going to respond to the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr.

Wallace), but he doesn't seem to be here at the moment.

The Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) did ask a number of

questions and I might just comment on them. The suggestion that

the Minister of Labour might make regulations by which the

board would be guided in their adjudications on certification

applications is one which I would not suggest would be a

good move in terms of maintaining the impartiality of the

Labour Relations Board.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, under the Labour Code the board

has the authority to set their own administrative policy, and

that administrative policy as it is developed, based on the

experience of the board, will be published in the first

instance and it will be available and understood by the parties

making applications to the board.

I would point out further that a number of questions have

arisen as to whether or not the board is proceeding in an

impartial way. Some questions were raised on applications that

are now before the board. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that

it is really improper to comment on applications that are

before the board. The board is governed by an investigation by

the representations of the parties if a hearing is called and

on all the combined evidence in the situation.

I don't think that it's the purpose of this Legislature or

Members of it to intervene in the independent adjudication by a

quasi-judicial agency of questions of evidence. I think

that if there is any evidence, as I indicated earlier, of

improper conduct or of the board exceeding their jurisdiction

or authority, questions of that nature should certainly be

brought before the House.

But it does nothing really to improve and strengthen the ability of the Labour

Relations Board to deal with these very, very complex questions when the House

is debating the very evidence which the board is considering and upon which

they make their decisions.

As an example, I can draw to the attention of the House one

particular situation, It's been suggested — it's been at

least inferred — that there is a campaign to discriminate

against Canadian trade unions. I have rejected that completely.

It's just not so. But let me point out to you, in light of the

particular cases that have been raised by certain Members of

the House, a situation where the Canadian Pulp Workers Union

applied, I believe it was at Ladysmith and I think it was

CAIMAW that applied at Western Canada Steel.

In those cases the board, of course, had to determine who

was properly in the unit — what employees should be

included in that unit. They were both raid situations. The

Canadian Pulp Workers Union was raiding the IWA. The CAIMAW

union was raiding the steel workers union, I believe. In both

those cases the Labour Relations Board used exactly the same

criteria.

They set the condition that part — time workers would be

included in the unit, which is the same principle they used in

the Cominco application at Trail. Now one application was won

by the Canadian union, and they never questioned the inclusion

of these part — time workers when they won their

application and replaced the existing international union.

In the other case they lost, and they immediately conducted

a political attack on the Labour Relations Board for including

the part-time workers.

But the point is, Mr. Chairman, that the application is

even-handed, and it applies equally to any trade union. I

would suggest that Members who are interested should pursue the

reasons that the board writes for their decisions. I think that

it would help all Members of the House to perhaps be a little

better informed of just what the issues are and just how the

board functions.

Now the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) suggests that

the people should have a vote. But he, being a former Minister

of Labour, should understand that certain criteria have to be

met before a vote is granted. A vote is not called to

accommodate minority wishes. But if the members of any union

can indicate that they have a majority of workers who wish to

change trade unions, then they are entitled to a vote if it is

a jurisdictional situation.

Now one of the questions that was raised — I think it

was about little Coghlan or Carlisle, or something like that,

up in the northern part of the province....

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Kerr.

HON. MR. KING: Kerr, is it?

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: It's still before the Labour

[ Page 2436 ]

Relations Board, and I think it would be improper for me to

comment on that at this time.

I would like to make an additional point, particularly in

light of the comments that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

made. He seemed to feel that I should be held accountable for

decisions of the Labour Relations Board. Now we in this House

can't have it two ways either. If we are serious about wanting

to grant independence to the Labour Relations Board so that

their adjudications and their handling of applications that

come before them are free from political interference, then I

think that we have to grant them the right to make those

decisions without expecting the Minister of Labour to be

answerable for the evidence and for the criteria for their

decision in each application that comes before them.

As I indicated earlier, if it's a question of some

impropriety, if it's a question of improper conduct, then, of

course, they are responsible to this House and I think it's

valid that Members should question and draw anything of that

nature to the attention of the House.

But, quite frankly, in this whole question of trade alien

certifications, the circumstances vary so much that it's

difficult for Members to get the whole picture from a press

report or something of that nature. There are exhaustive

investigations undertaken by members of the Department of

Labour at the behest of the Labour Relations Board. There are

hearings field where the parties make representation. It's only

after the most exhaustive investigation that a decision is

arrived at.

The Member for Oak Bay questioned the situation where a

group of workers, after the application had been made —

and who appeared to be a majority — indicated that they

did not wish to join the union. But the question is: when was

the application made? By how many employees did the employer

increase his staff in an effort, perhaps, to thwart support for

the union?

This frequently happens where employers increase their staff

substantially in an effort to change the context of the

bargaining unit of the workers who have applied initially for

certification. The point that should be remembered — the

significant point in time — is the date that the

application is filed. What were the wishes of the workers on

that date? That usually represents the normal work force.

Were it not so, employers would be free to manipulate their

work force in a fashion which would perhaps defeat

certification votes, after which a layoff would take place and

a return to the normal work force. These kinds of devices are

involved.

As I say, there are many different circumstances peculiar to different applications

that it ill behoves Members, in my view, to start condemning the Labour Relations

Board before all the facts are on the table. If we respect their independence,

I don't think it's for this House to review decisions that the Labour Relations

Board has made based on the evidence before them.

I just wanted to make those points, Mr. Chairman, before the

House votes on the office of the Minister of Labour.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few words, Mr.

Chairman. I'm wondering where all the Conservatives and

Liberals are tonight.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): They

knew you were going to speak.

MR. CHABOT: Their absence is conspicuous. I imagine they

probably caught the float plane with the other absent cabinet

Ministers tonight and it's most unusual — not unusual but

it's most unbecoming, really — to see those two minor

parties absent from this Legislative Assembly tonight when

we're discussing this very critical issue of labour management

in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (SOUTH PEACE RIVER): None of them are

here.

MR. CHABOT: That's right — they're all

absent.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not one single one.

MR. CHABOT: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, how happy I am that

you've been refrocked into the Anglican Church, because I was

really worried about the situation when you had been defrocked

and I'm happy to hear that you made the announcement a little

earlier about being refrocked. But I was a little disturbed,

Mr. Chairman, to see you put your ballet slippers on a little

earlier in the day and walk down the middle of the fence, and

make sure that you didn't tip either side. Really what

disturbed me most of all was that as you were walking that

fence you were singing all the way. You were singing and saying

absolutely nothing.

You did say one thing which really distressed me, and that

was that there is, in your riding, interference by employers in

union activities. I thought that was a very serious accusation

you had made. You also said, Mr. Chairman, that some of the

unions in your constituency are employer-dominated and

employer-controlled.

If that is the situation, then I think you have a

responsibility as a Member of this House to expose those

employer-dominated unions which exist in your riding. I

think you have to realize that it's illegal for a union to

exist in British Columbia that is employer-influenced and

employer-controlled.

[ Page 2437 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Amen.

MR. CHABOT: In other words, not only have you made a serious

charge against unions and employers, but you have slurred the

Labour Relations Board. When they certify a union they have a

responsibility to ensure that that group which they are

certifying is not employer-dominated or employer-controlled. If it is as you state it is, you have a serious

responsibility to expose these unions which in essence are not

true unions. You made a very serious attack against the Labour

Relations Board because you have suggested that the Labour

Relations Board has certified an employer-dominated

union. That's a serious charge because the Labour Relations

Board has no right to certify these type of unions. You should

name names.

You talked very briefly — you waffled very seriously

as well — on the question of Canadian unionism in British

Columbia. You failed to take a position as to whether you

support Canadian unions or not, whether you support the right

of workers in this province to belong to the union of their

choice. You never made a clear distinction in that respect. In

other words, what you did, Mr. Chairman, was toe the government

line and that government line is strong support for the

Yankee — dominated unions in this province.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Aw, come on!

MR. CHABOT: You stated as well, Mr. Chairman that you were

misquoted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regarding

your position on Canadian unionism, and you extracted from them

an apology, which you should, if you were misquoted. I don't

doubt for a moment after listening to you a little earlier

today — the way you walked that fence — that you

were misquoted, because you couldn't possibly take a position

if you wanted to.

I'll tell you why you won't take a position, because it

brings back to mind what took place in the constituency of

Atlin a few years ago when that Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder)

made an attack against the B.C. Federation of Labour and their

discriminatory policies against the employment of Indians in

this province. You know what happened to the Member for Atlin.

He was denied political funds by the B.C. Federation of Labour.

You know full well, Mr. Chairman, why you won't take a position

— you're frightened you'll get the same kind of treatment,

that they'll dry up the political funds in your

constituency.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Are you denying, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke),that

the Member for Atlin, who is not here tonight, was denied the opportunity of

getting political funds from that political arm of the NDP — the B.C. Federation

of Labour? That Member stood in his place in this House and stated very clearly

and emphatically that he'd been dried up of any political funds from the B.C.

Federation of Labour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to the Minister's responsibilities, please?

MR. CHABOT: I'm talking about labour, and I'm talking about

political funds from certain labour groups in this province. I

hope, Mr. Chairman, that I haven't made you a little touchy by

what I've had to say, because I was dealing with the Member for

Skeena (Mr. Dent) and what might happen to the Member for

Skeena if he expressed his true feelings, which he's frightened

to do. He'd rather walk that fence in his ballet slippers.

Mr. Chairman, a little earlier in the day the Member for

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) raised the question of the registrar of

the Labour Relations Board and suggested that that position

should be occupied by a civil servant and not by a

representative from the trade union movement. I support the

point that he made. I don't agree with the position and the

rebuttal made by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

regarding this appointment. He suggested that his position is

really basically that of a civil servant, which is not true at

all, because you have to realize that his position was created

by an order-in-council. It wasn't that of being

appointed through the Civil Service Commission of British

Columbia through the various competitions. He was appointed by

order-in-council.

How can you suggest that his position is that of a civil

servant? He's under a contract through your

order-in-council. Don't try to lead people to

believe that his position is that of impartiality because it

isn't. He's not a civil servant and you know it. He's an

order-in-council appointment similar to many of the

other order-in-council appointments you've made,

which in most instances are nothing but political hacks.

We listened also a little earlier in the question period to

a statement made by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)

dealing with the efforts being made by the government in an

attempt to ensure that people who receive certain funds from

the government are not inconvenienced by the postal workers'

strike. Very noble indeed. But I want to suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, that these are strike-breaking tactics....

HON. MR. COCKE: Aw, you're crazy, You're out of your

mind.

[ Page 2438 ]

MR. CHABOT: You have taken away from those workers the kind

of economic sanctions that they can bring........

HON. MR. COCKE: We're using another service.

MR. CHABOT: Sure, it's another service. I agree with you.

But you're destroying the effectiveness of those workers to

bring economic sanctions against their employer, and you know

it.

You've taken away from those workers a weapon which they

rightfully have to negotiate a collective agreement with the

employers. You say that you believe in collective bargaining.

Is this true collective bargaining when the government takes

sanctions against workers? Is the reason why you took these

sanctions because they happen to be in the federal

jurisdiction? Strikebreaking tactics by that government —

that is what that amounts to.

We listened to the Minister talk about the various

appointees to the Labour Relations Board and the contract they

have suggested that they have a five-year

contract. I am wondering if the Minister will tell me some of

the type of fringe benefits that exist in those contracts

— whether they are normal, abnormal, extravagant, or not.

They certainly have security of employment for five years at a

stipulated salary. But what are the fringe benefits in those

contracts?

We also listened to the Minister talk about the

length-of-arm situation between his department and

the Labour Relations Board. I wonder how long that arm is. I

wonder whether there really is an arm's length agreement

between the Labour Relations Board and the Department of

Labour, or whether there is interference on the part of the

Minister in some instances, on the part of his Deputy Minister

in other instances.

It is a very serious thing because people out there who are

involved in the labour world feel that there is some kind of

interference on the part of the Department of Labour with the

Labour Relations Board. And I think you have a responsibility

to tell us what kind of relationship does exist between the

Labour Relations Board and the Department of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: You never felt that way when you were in.

MR. CHABOT: You must convince those people who are involved

in collective bargaining in British Columbia, the employers and

the trade unions in this province, that the situation between

your department and the Labour Relations Board is at arm's

length.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is

back in the House now, and I did comment on some of the points that he raised

earlier. However, I do want to briefly comment on the speech the Member made,

particularly as it refers to his advocacy of the compulsory arbitration route

for settling disputes in the Province of British Columbia.

The Member for Oak Bay started out commenting on the

relative success of industrial inquiry commissions that have

been appointed in the province. Then he went on to question the

difference between a trade union voluntarily accepting as

binding the recommendation of an industrial commission and

compulsory arbitration. He questioned the difference; he said

it was a question of semantics. I am surprised at that because

the Member for Oak Bay, who I think is very sincere in his

beliefs, previously had indicated his concern for minority

rights and the rights of the individual.

But I have to question if a Member cannot discern between

something that is compulsory and something that is voluntary

— that, in effect, he doesn't recognize the difference

between freedom and slavery. I question how he can, on one

hand, assert his grave concern for the rights of minorities and

individuals, and on the other hand fail to recognize the

difference between an arbitration arrangement that is accepted

as binding in a voluntary way by the parties, and one which is

imposed upon them in an arbitrary, compulsory way.

Now, there is a vast difference. I recognize and I accept

that the Member has a different viewpoint than the government

in that regard — and that's fine — but I would also

remind that Member that the Federal Minister of Labour, the

Hon. John Munro, has made an excellent case, I thought, for the

right to strike as a full measure of the collective bargaining

right. He pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that in the country of

Australia, where they function under a compulsory arbitration

system, they have a higher incidence of illegal strikes than we

have in this country of legal strikes. Certainly, that implies

to me, and I think to most thinking people, that if people are

aggrieved, they are going to strike. I don't think we should

put anyone in a position where they have to violate the law to

deal with a legitimate grievance or a legitimate point of view,

be it in labour or be it in any other segment of our society. I

think that would be a most dangerous principle.

The other question is on the compulsory arbitration trip. I

am surprised that Members of this House advocate that route

because most employers don't. Most employers would be very,

very much afraid....

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): More of the people would —

who are you listening to?

HON. MR. KING: Perhaps some of the people

[ Page

2439 ]

who are not too well informed would, but I suggest this to

the Member: if we can't accept the concept of freedom and

rights, that which is laid down as a convention of the

International Labour Organization and ratified by pretty near

every free nation in the western world, then I think it would

be a black and very regrettable mark on Canada's development as

a free society.

I am surprised that Members are so far back in the 20th

century that they advocate that kind of outdated

response to what is basically a human relations problem.

MR. WALLACE: I'm surprised at you. Listen to the people and

see what they think.

HON. MR. KING: I think the people spoke at the last

election. I think they will have a chance to speak again in the

next election.

MR. PHILLIPS: Call one tomorrow and see what they say.

MR. CHABOT: Down the tube.

HON. MR. KING: The other point is: surely no one would

advocate that we should restrict the right of working people to

sell their labour, and at the same time leave management and

industry generally free to sell their commodity in an

unrestricted way. I don't think we can single out one sector of

the economy of this country and ask them to carry the load for

the inflationary spiral or for any other consideration.

Certainly if working men are going to be restricted and be

compelled to sell their labour under a certain scale in a

legislative way, then I think the same restriction should

extend to interest rates, to rentals, to the prices of

groceries on the shelves and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's it, tie them all up.

HON. MR, KING: I'm surprised that anyone would advocate that

kind of thing in what is essentially an open-market

economy in B.C.

The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) made a few

comments — the hiring of the registrar of the Labour

Relations Board was questioned. The point is that the board

does its own hiring. That's true that the members are confirmed

by order-in-council, but the board is, indeed,

independent and does their own hiring. For the Member for

Columbia River to question the independence of the board is a

bit curious. He functioned under a system for quite a period of

time where his Deputy Minister was chairman of the board

— 18 months. He was an interchangeable Deputy Minister. He was not only chairman of the Labour Relations Board, he was chairman of the Board of Industrial

Relations and the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I am not criticizing that Deputy Minister one

bit — I think that he gave very valuable service to this

province. But the point is, if we are questioning independence,

surely one would be moved to question the independency of an

agency that is controlled by a chairman who is directly

responsible to the Minister's office. Now, that is not the case

in today's organization. We have a board which is truly

independent, not only in the selection of the people involved,

but in the structure also. I have absolutely no authority to

hold that board accountable for the administrative decisions

they make.

MR. FRASER: They are made by the public.

HON. MR. KING: That's right. And if we don't like....

MR. FRASER: The taxpayers of this province pay them.

HON. MR. KING: That's quite correct, Mr. Chairman. But the

Members over there can't seem to discern between independence,

in terms of administration, and legislative responsibility. Now

if we find that procedures are unjust or they are improper or

that members of that board are not conducting themselves

properly, of course the Legislature has control. Certainly we

can change the structure.

But if we are going to set up an agency and call it

independent and then attempt in here in a political way to

monitor every decision and review every decision they make,

then it's a complete farce in terms of independence. I don't

think the Members would want that type of thing.

MR. CHABOT: There is so much interference. There is so much

interference the board gets matkinitis.

HON. MR. KING: Well, I think someone up there in the

Columbia River riding around Golden has taken an

eye-dropper and brainwashed that Member. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: He has matkinitis.

HON. MR. KING: Well, I tell you, if we have matkinitis it's

a much healthier disease than what the former administration

was afflicted with, and I welcome that, quite frankly, Mr.

Chairman.

I would like to comment before I sit down that the members

of the department — we've brought in

[ Page 2440 ]

certain new members — the Deputy, two Associate Deputy

Ministers of Labour are doing a fantastic job, as is the whole

department, and I'm very, very proud of them. I feel that

they've made a significant contribution already to better

understanding in the industrial relations world in B.C. and to

better consultation with both labour and management. I

certainly welcome that and it's in no small measure due to the

dedicated activities of the Deputy and the Associate Deputy

Ministers of Labour. Thanks very much.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you lonely over there?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Lone Ranger.

MR. GIBSON: When the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) started to speak, just at the beginning of the evening,

he wondered where all the Liberals and Conservatives were.

MR. CHABOT: Right.

MR. GIBSON: I'll tell you where we were, Mr. Chairman; we

were huddled around the loudspeakers in our office, just like

when you used to listen to Charlie McCarthy and Edgar Bergen.

Do you remember? When the Hon. Member for Columbia River stood

up to speak we said: "That's Charlie McCarthy. We'd better come

in and listen to him."

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Yes, but they can see the

laugh signs; we can't.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: That's right. Just watch your back after

this.

MR. GIBSON: To hear those kinds of words from a

representative of a government that lived by divide and rule in

this province for many, many years...

MRS. JORDAN: Now, now, don't call daddy.

MR. GIBSON: ...dividing and ruling, dividing the labour

movement from other parts of this province, that was a strange

thing to hear.

Interjection.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Quit fighting. Quit fighting.

Only one can be the official opposition; now quit that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member continue his

speech?

MR. GIBSON: The former government, Mr. Chairman, has to be

one of the basic reasons for the continuing labour difficulties

in British Columbia over the last generation.

MR. FRASER: Let's hear a little of the federal policies

right now. Let's hear about the federal Liberals right now.

MR. GIBSON: And then, Mr. Member for Cariboo, the Hon.

Member for Columbia River launched into an attack of the

Chairman...

MRS. JORDAN: Where are the fair freight rates for B.C.?

MR. GIBSON: ...who had given a speech — the Hon.

Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent). It was an attack that I thought

was very unjust. He said that the Member walked the fence. He

didn't walk the fence, Mr. Chairman. He gave his views when he

spoke. I hope some of the other Members of the government will

give their views and speak.

MR. FRASER: Tell us about Trudeau's labour policy. We want

to hear it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You are dealing with vote 129.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the Hon. Member

for Skeena on one point.

HON. MR. LEA: Should we come back later?

MR. GIBSON: You're very welcome. We're having a secret

meeting, Mr. Minister. That's how they go.

The Hon. Member for Skeena wondered if ordinary persons who

were not members of unions had the right to speak in these

estimates. I very strongly believe they do.

During the time when the LeDain commission was holding

hearings across the country they were challenged in Winnipeg by

a person in the audience who said: "Wait right have you people

to be handing down judgments about the use of drugs? Which of

you people has ever taken drugs?" So one of the LeDain

commissioners turned to the other and said: "Thank God we

weren't entering into a commission on suicide." You can't

always have experience in what you're talking about.

I think especially that we have the right to speak on

international unions.

[ Page 2441 ]

MR. FRASER: Talk about the airports and the post office.

MR. GIBSON: I'll get to the airports and post office a

little bit later, Mr. Member for Cariboo.

MRS. JORDAN: Don't talk about it. Do something about it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Phone your ex-boss.

MR. GIBSON: Don't call us. We'll call you.

But you don't have to be a land speculator to talk about

foreign land ownership and I don't think you have to be a

member of an international union to talk about international

unionists.

I think it's especially appropriate for any Member of this

House to talk about the estimates of this department, because

something like 36 per cent of the work force of this province

is unionized, rather than the 42 per cent mentioned by the Hon.

Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). This means that 15 per cent of

the citizens in this province are unionized and the balance are

not. So I think the balance have some right to comment on

that.

To start with the bouquets: the Labour Research Bulletin,

which is published by the Minister's department, Mr. Chairman,

is a superb document. I compliment him on that. I wish that

every department had a detailed, interesting informative

publication of this kind on a regular basis.

I compliment him and his department on the work they are

doing towards furthering the apprenticeship programmes in

British Columbia. I have a quote here from a recent newspaper

story.

"Because employers sometimes insist that people get experience elsewhere first, the Department of

Labour devised the pre-apprenticeship training programme.

At all colleges and vocational schools except Douglas College

and Vancouver Vocational Institute five to six months training

in many trades is offered: bricklaying, cooking, carpentry,

heavy-duty mechanics, et cetera. Tuition to these courses

is free. The students receive a subsistence allowance and

return transportation if necessary."

These apprenticeship programmes it seems to me, Mr.

Chairman, are very essential, not only to our young people but

to our well-being in the Province of British Columbia.

The Minister mentioned a general field of manpower prediction

they were getting into — manpower supply and demand. I'd

be grateful if when he speaks later on he might mention how the

apprenticeship programme fits into these problems of resolving

manpower supply, and whether he sees any particular serious

skills on the horizon in the future in any of the various

industries of British Columbia and in any of the various

regions of British Columbia.

I compliment him as well on the increasing use of the Industrial Inquiry Commissions,

financial assistance for arbitrators and training for mediators. These are all

excellent programmes and it's obvious the Minister is applying himself to his

department with a great deal of concern and sympathy.

Now the second

section of my remarks is not compliments but

rather concerns. I'd like to ask the Minister if he could

inform the House as to his view of the status of the United

Fishermen and Allied Workers Union and to what extent it is

federal, to what extent it is provincial, and how the situation

in British Columbia differs from the situation in Newfoundland,

where the province there has taken jurisdiction of the fishing

unions.

I'd ask him if he could give this House a status report on

the going forward of joint bargaining in the construction

industry. I appreciate that he can't make a general report on

that bargaining. It's at a very delicate stage right now

— in some ways an Alice in Wonderland stage, when $2.30

interim raises are being turned down out of hand.

But according to an excellent

article by a usually reliable

writer in The Province at the end of March, one of the

serious problems is trepidation among the building trade unions

about banding together at this point for negotiation on the

theory that in the longer run they might be glued together by

the Labour Relations Board because of its present association

and not knowing at this point in time whether they are prepared

to be that closely tied together in the future.

I would ask the Minister to comment specifically on a matter

which he mentioned as one of the things that happens in the cut

and thrust of union raiding, and that's the United

Steelworkers' release on the morning of the Noranda

certification vote on, I think it was, Annacis Island.

He referred to this as one of the normal things that was

done — the premature revelation, if indeed it was a

revelation or merely a guess, that Steel had managed to hang on

in the certification procedure at Trail. Would he call this a

fair labour practice? He said it was a normal kind of thing,

would he call it a fair thing? Is that the kind of thing that

perhaps should be enjoined by regulation or by the board?

Much of the debate so far has been in terms of organized

labour. I would ask the Minister if he could spell out in a

little more detail than he has — he has spoken of

industrial relations officers enforcing minimum wage rates,

safety practices and so on — if he could spell out in a

little more detail what the government is doing for unorganized

labour in this province, which if anything that 60 per

cent–plus of the labour force, unorganized labour, needs

more attention from the Minister's department than does

organized labour. Organized labour is pretty big and tough and

can look after itself if it's got reasonable ground riles.

Unorganized labour has greater difficulty.

I would ask the Minister if he has any general forecast for

1974, because some of the forecasts for

[ Page 2442 ]

1974 that we have been getting in the newspapers have been

exceedingly gloomy. We have reports that over 400 major

contracts are to expire, covering over 185,000 employees,

equivalent to 50 per cent of the union membership in the

province and up to 18.5 per cent of the labour force as a

whole.

Does the Minister have any forecast about this year? Will it

be, as an editorial in The Province the last day of 1973

called it, British Columbia's critical year, and in which the

president of the Employers' Council of British Columbia is

quoted as saying:

"If short-term gains are demanded by labour to meet the unusually high expectancies generated by the

past economic situation, those being high wage settlements, an

exceptionally good profit year and the ever rising cost of

living, the probability of widespread labour conflict in B.C.

is unquestionably greater than ever before."

If that is indeed the case, Mr. Chairman, if it is indeed

unquestionably greater than ever before, then it's very great

indeed.

I would like to know what advance measures the Minister's

department is taking to reduce what this editorial refers to as

a probability.

I'd ask him also if he has in his mind any proper figure,

any guideline figure, for settlements in the present state of

economic affairs. One of the duties of any government,

provincial as well as federal, is to try and have some kind of

a handle on inflation and at the same time to be fair to all of

the people within its boundaries.

Does the Minister have in his mind any figure that he would

set forward as a guidepost for settlements as this critical

bargaining year evolves? — bearing in mind that the early

settlements are going to set trends. This will apply

particularly to the construction settlements. They're going to

exert strong pressures on the public sector, and in turn

settlements on the public

section will reflect back into the

private sector because the private sector always says, "Well,

that has to be at least the minimum. If it's good enough for

the government, it's good enough for us." So, the government is

bound to set floors in that kind of settlement figure. And

bearing in mind that this magical settlement figure, whatever

it should be, has to reflect the equity of the working people,

the very rapid advance of the cost of living.

Suppose the cost of living is going up 10 per cent. In order

to maintain your take-home pay, even after indexing,

because indexing of the income tax system lags a year or so,

you're going to have to have another 2.5 per cent on top of

that. Then probably you want to have some share of the national

productivity. These are the figures that are being tossed

across the bargaining table, Mr. Minister. Are they proper in

terms of equity?

Finally, how do they fit in with British Columbia's position

in international markets? We are in a seller's market for now

but that market seems to be going downhill a bit. We had

discouraging words yesterday from the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) about the

probability of our lumber sales in Japan. It's conceivable that

many of our prosperous international markets in '73 could be in

difficulty in '74.

How should all of these things be tied together? Does the

Minister have any advice for the people, both labour and

management, and for his own mediators as they sit together

around the bargaining table?

On a separate but related subject, does the Minister have

any policy thoughts on COLA, the cost of living adjustment, as

a feature to be built increasingly into contracts? Is this the

proper way for unions and management to deal with inflation,

particularly in times of very rapid inflation such as we have

now, without, by the necessity of guessing in advance, making

settlements that either are far too inflationary or, on the

other hand, not sufficient for the labour force to keep up with

inflation? Would the Minister make a statement either for or

against the general concept of COLA as contracts are being

looked at this year?

Those are all concerns; now I have to state a few

differences I have with the Minister and with some of the

things he has mentioned earlier tonight. I have to disagree

with the Minister and agree with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) that there are some disputes, which are what I

would call public interest disputes, where there do exist areas

where there is or should be no right to strike.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. GIBSON: For example in the police force; as for example

in the medical business; as for example, the ferry services

where they are such that they are unique suppliers of transport

to an area. Any things that cause such great human suffering.... Firemen, the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) just

mentioned. Anything else where a strike will cause human

suffering of immense disproportion to the number of people on

strike.

Without any great hope of changing the Minister's mind, he

stated his views very precisely, but I would suggest it's my

view that in those areas if a person says, "I'm going to work

in that area, then unhappily I give up that very basic right,

that right to strike — but it is a condition of

employment." I don't think those areas have to be very broad,

but I would suggest to the Minister that down the line if his

government doesn't decide to grasp that nettle and circumscribe

some of those areas, they're going to find themselves,

[ Page 2443 ]

no matter how magical the management of the Minister, in

labour disputes.

HON. MR. KING: Firemen at the airports right now don't have

the right to strike, yet they are out on strike. Tell us about

that.

MR. GIBSON: That's right. that's right. That's another

example of bad labour relations (Laughter), is it not? If

everybody goes into it knowing what the deal is how the

adjustments are made, then they have to come out and agree with

the settlement.

So, that is a basic difference and I suggest to the Minister

that the government's going to be in trouble down the road if

they're in long enough for that to happen.

The next basic difference is the conscience clause. Here's

where I point out to the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot), if he were in his seat now, that the Hon. Member for

Skeena (Mr. Dent) did, indeed, not walk on the fence but came

down very clearly in favour of a full conscience clause, and I

support him in that.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I think that's right for the Hon. Member for

Skeena, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings).

Another basic difference with the Minister relates to

foreign-dominated unions. I don't recall at the moment

with whom the dialogue was, but he suggested in answer to an

earlier proposal that international unions, Canadian branches,

have all the tools in their hands that are required to become

purely Canadian unions rather than Canadian branches of

international unions if they wish. And he cited as an example

the Paperworkers. But I, would suggest to the Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Paperworkers did this as a

result of a decision made in the United States.

It was a decision made in the United States that gave the

Canadian

section of the Paperworkers the right to hold a vote

to decide whether they could become independent. It was an

enlightened decision. I agree with it; I support it. But that's

not the point. It was a foreign decision; it was not a Canadian

decision. Therefore I say that the Canadian

section of

international unions don't have in their own hands the tools to

make these breakaways in peaceable ways.

The Minister shakes his head and I hope he'll stand up and clarify why that's

not the case. But I might recall to him that on March 5 or 6 the Vancouver and

District Labour Council called on the CLC to urge all its international union

affiliates to determine whether their Canadian members wished to remain within

an international structure. That's a quote from The Vancouver Sun of March 6.

The council delegates were welcoming the Paperworker's move.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why the Minister won't stand up and

endorse that concept; it seems to me such a clearly sound one.

Now, he may wish to put caveats on it — the concept, Mr.

Minister, that unions in Canada should be Canadian unions, free

of control from abroad, with the union dues staying in Canada

with the executive competency here in Canada, the competence to

make executive decisions and make them stick and not have them

overruled by anyone else. I'd ask the Minister if that isn't

the concept that he can endorse, that all Canadian unions

should be moving to as quickly as possible. If he wants to put

caveats on it, if he wants to say that in certain huge

industrial endeavours, such as perhaps automobiles, where the

unions are dealing with huge multi-national companies

that spread-eagle both sides of the border and have

plants in Canada and plants in the United States — if he

wants to put those kinds of caveats on it, fine, but I'd like

to hear him endorse the basic principle.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest a basic

difference in the political relationship of the trade union

movement and a political party which happens to be the

government. I suggest that those groups have two such different

constituencies that neither can properly serve their masters

when they are in an alliance, and I'm going to give a specific

example.

But just to outline the different constituencies for a

minute, I want to come back to the fact that the government

represents all British Columbians, and organized labour

represents around 15 per cent of British Columbians, not of the

workforce, Mr. Minister, of British Columbians in total. So,

naturally there are bound to come times when the interests of

the people as a whole, as represented by the government, will

be different than the interests of the international unions

representing that particular segment of organized labour. And

when that time comes, a government that's a captive of the

unions is going to be very badly torn and their decisions might

not always be wise and might not always be in the public

interest.

On the other hand, the unions, particularly when they're

dealing with that government as an employer, are going to have

difficulty in fighting for their men and women, and people they

represent, as hard as they should if they weren't dealing with

the government that they had to call their political

friends.

I want to raise a very specific example and I'd like the

Minister to give a specific answer to this. This relates to

Trail; it relates to Bill 31, and it relates to the

Steelworkers' union. I suggest, without discussing the bill for

a moment, Mr. Chairman, that Bill 31 is bad for the miners. So,

in this case who does the United Steelworkers represent when

they come out in

[ Page 2444 ]

favour of this bill?

The question I want to ask the Minister very directly is:

was there any pact or deal or understanding or talks or

discussion of any kind between the government and the United

Steelworkers? Trading, on the one hand, the support of the

government for the United Steelworkers and certification in

Trail — the continued certification in Trail — but

on the other hand the support of the Steelworkers for the

bill.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I think

that is an improper innuendo. It's a particularly poisonous and

scurrilous, irresponsible innuendo which I demand that Member

withdraw immediately.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it's a very simple, direct

question that the Minister can clear up by a straight yes or no

answer.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the answer certainly is no. I

think the kind of mind that would generate that particular kind

of suggestion belongs, perhaps, in Ottawa rather than Victoria

because we don't deal in that fashion in this capital. I regret

that a Member would make such a suggestion in this House.

The Member did ask some questions that I think are perhaps a

little more worthy of comment. He raised the question of United

Fishermen and Allied Workers' jurisdiction. I would point out,

Mr. Chairman, that the jurisdiction over the fishing industry

has been the subject of litigation on two occasions, I believe.

One decision has been handed down by the Supreme Court of

Canada just last month, which supports the jurisdiction of the

federal government in all of the off-coast waters.

The only provincial jurisdiction in the industry is on the

shore facilities, the canneries and so on.

Apparently there is an application before the federal Labour

Relations Board by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers, and

as a result of that application, an additional question has

been framed to the Supreme Court of Canada, I believe, to

further clarify the extent of the industrial relations

jurisdiction in the federal fisheries. And this hinges on a

very complex legal point regarding the discernment, perhaps, of

an employee-employer relationship.

On the one hand you have employees who are at sea but employed by an

employer on the shore who is under provincial jurisdiction. The federal

government takes the position that unless there is a discernable

employee-employer relationship within the federal jurisdiction then

they will not extend bargaining rights, so we have a variety of

situations in the fishing industry — a variety of employee-employer

relationships. Some employers are on the boats, some are on the shore;

others are on packers — and a variety of very complex relationships.

However, the jurisdiction unquestionably lies with the

federal government. It's true that Nova Scotia has arbitrarily

asserted jurisdiction, but only apparently because there has

been no challenge to that. In other words, if a voluntary

exercise exists then it is allowed to continue.

Indeed, we do have that kind of situation in British

Columbia where mutual agreement exists in another industry. But

in the fishing case in British Columbia, in the first instance,

the federal government objects, so we haven't permission, and

they've affirmed that right, that jurisdiction, both to me in

response to a telegram and in the court action that I've just

referred to. So, we're without authority to grant bargaining

rights or to bring the fishermen of this province under the

Labour Code in an arbitrary way.

The Member talked about statements made by a union prior to

the Labour Relations Board decision. I would point out that if

the Labour Relations Board decides to formulate a policy that

will regulate that, they're free to do so, but that's not a

question under my responsibilities, really. I would point out

that it's not dissimilar. The alleged situation that took place

where the steelworkers claimed a win, is really no different

than a provincial election where the leader of the Liberal

Party is claiming a victory shortly before the people go to the

polls. There's no kind of control over that. I'm not suggesting

the effect is necessarily the same, but the freedom to do that

is the same. It's pretty hard to regulate that kind of

thing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well, that's an irresponsible statement by an

irresponsible Member, so I'll ignore it.

The suggestion that I should from my office put forward a

suggested percentage wage increase is one which I reject. I

have faith in the collective bargaining system and I have no

intention of attempting in a public, political way to interfere

with the free collective bargaining machinery. I trust that

responsible management and responsible trade unions will come

to agreements that are fair to both parties and are not unduly

inflationary or disruptive to the economy.

Similarly, the Member asked me to comment on the cost of

living clauses that are becoming more prevalent in collective

agreements. Again, I don't think that I should in a political

way, from my office, give the stamp of approval to something

that emerges from the bargaining system.

I have no objections to it. If it were something that was

disruptive or damaging then naturally I would think I have some

obligations. But in the

[ Page

2445 ]

normal course of events if it's mutually acceptable to the

parties and it seems to be working well, why I think it's a

bona fide bargain able issue and I have no issue to take with

that.

Legislate Canadian unions. The Member suggests that we

should provide that all Canadian workers have to belong to a

Canadian trade union and can't pay their dues out of the

country. Well, when I made the suggestion previously that the

workers of this province have the wherewithal within the

framework of their own union to take action similar to the UPIU

I wasn't only referring to that; I was referring to the fact

that they do have the right to change their union if they're

not happy with the existing bargaining agent, whether it's an

international or any other.

I think what's more important here is that to understand the

trade union movement in this province one has to have some

historical perspective on the emergence of the trade union. Had

it not been for a tremendous impact from the American side of

the border, indeed it is doubtful whether we would be the

unionized nation that we are today. We would not be nearly so

far advanced because the working people needed the support of

the larger groups in the United States both financially and

morally to succeed, and that has been the emerging pattern in

the development of trade unions.

To suggest that we should come along and arbitrarily change

that pattern is a proposition that I just can't accept. It

denotes some divine right by government and some higher

knowledge of what is best for the workers of this province. I

have confidence that the workers can discern and decide what is

best for their own circumstances without government legislating

that they should be in this kind of organization or some

other.

I want to ask that Member a question, Mr. Chairman. Would he

suggest that we take similar action against companies, that we

outlaw all American investment in Canada and completely require

that every company be composed of Canadian owners and boards of

directors? If it were not so, he would be advocating a system

which would impose one set of regulations upon the working

people of the province but leaving their employer free to be

the worst kind of international conglomerate. That strikes me

as a most injudicious approach to the problems of labour

relations. That's my attitude. He's asked for answers; I've

tried to give them.

To get back to his final question, it did indeed provoke me. Perhaps I shouldn't

have gotten so provoked but I view that kind of question as a complete suggestion

that I am dishonest and corrupt and naturally that provokes me. That's the suggestion

that I would consider such a relationship; that's an outright suggestion of

dishonesty and corruption and I just resent that. I think the Members of this

House should be above that kind of suggestion. I recognize that the member is

a new Member and, by golly, the day that you have evidence against any Member

of the House to suggest such things you get up and fight for it, by all means.

But to infer that kind of thing without a shred of evidence is irresponsible

and the worst form of irresponsibility in my view, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister asked me one specific question on

foreign ownership which I'll get to in a moment. The Minister

took the understanding that I was suggesting that there was any

corruption in his behaviour in this regard. I was not — I

was asking him if he had any knowledge of any understanding or

deal between the government and the union with respect to these

circumstances. That was simply a question. The Minister

answered it with a flat no. The Minister should know that this

is by no means an idea which came to me out of the blue, It's

rather current around the province and I would have thought the

Minister should be glad of an opportunity to comment on it.

On the other matter, Mr. Chairman, the Minister asked me

about the suggestion about primary Canadianization of unions,

having Canadians as members, and whether I would reflect

their philosophy with respect to foreign ownership of Canadian

industry. I dare say that these are not the estimates to go

into that in any depth but I'm certainly well on record with

respect to total Canadian ownership of Canadian land. With

respect to other investments I believe that it should reflect

the usefulness that that investment brings to Canada. I invited

the Minister at the same time to place any caveats he might

wish on the continued usefulness of American jurisdiction over

Canadian workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about insurance?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I certainly

support what the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) has had to say about this matter in Trail. The Minister

can stand up and waffle around all he likes. That's what he's

been doing today. But what he should have done and what the

Labour Relations Board should have done is to order a vote to

see whether those people up there wanted a Canadian union or

wanted to continue being exploited by an American union. It's

that simple.

You can stand up and say the Labour Relations Board is

completely independent, you can stand up and say there were no

leaks, you can stand up and say that the Minister and the

government are in bed with the American labour movement, but

the facts simply dictate otherwise. If your government was

completely clean on this matter and if the Labour Relations

Board were completely clean there would have been an honest

vote ordered, and then we'd all know

[ Page 2446 ]

where the issue stood. As it is, you've avoided it. Sure,

you've avoided it. It's all very well for the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), an American union man himself, to

say "smear." Order a democratic vote, then we'll know where the

matter stands.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Point of order. I don't

mind the Member smearing, as he does all the time, but I wish

he'd get his facts straight. He and his colleague for years and

years and years have done me the honour of suggesting that I've

been connected with the trade union movement. As a matter of

fact I haven't. I've not been a member of an American trade

union, a Canadian trade union or any other trade union.

MR. FRASER: Are you against unions?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, next he's going to say that he is

not in favour of the international union movement.

HON. MR. HALL: No, I'm not. Just get your facts straight and

do your homework.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that some of the

Members of the government ought to do their homework and know

we are the people of British Columbia (I'm talking about the

workers of British Columbia) stand on this issue. They're not

in support of your government or your stand. These people want

genuine independence in their labour movement and they are

entitled to it.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) stood up a while ago

and said it was the free and democratic right of the workers of

British Columbia to choose the union of their choice. No

problem at all. If they wanted a Canadian union they could go

ahead and vote for a Canadian union. Mr. Chairman, let me

remind you that if a working man wishes to have a day's work in

British Columbia he must belong to the union that is certified

for that job.

Let me read to you from the constitution of the United Steel

Workers, who are presently certified. They won't be forever,

Mr. Chairman — sooner or later democracy will tell. For

the moment they are.

Article 12(

c) outlines grounds for

discipline:

"Instituting or urging or advocating that a member of any

local union institute action outside the union against the

international union, local union, or any of their officers,

without first exhausting all remedies through the forms of

appeal of the international union."

Subsection (d):

"Advocating or attempting to bring about the withdrawal from

the international union of any local union or any member or

group of members."

See what that constitution says, Mr. Chairman. If you are a

member of the United Steel Workers, which you have to be to

work for Cominco, you're subject to discipline. That means

losing your job, for advocating that a member....

HON. MR. KING: That's just not true.

MR. McGEER: Well, it's right in the constitution. I have a

copy of it.

Let me read from the constitution of the International

Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers on

discipline.

Article 12(b):

"Any member of the international union found guilty of

violating any provision of this constitution or decision of the

International Executive Board or of this local union shall be

subject to discipline after notice of and opportunity for

hearing on charges as provided in this article."

It's the same kind of thing that resulted in a trial of

Canadian workers, working for a Canadian company at Kitimat, in

the United States of America, where the crime was of advocating

that Canadian workers working for a Canadian company should be

members of a Canadian union. They were tried and, Mr. Chairman,

they were found guilty in Washington, D.C., under a Social

Credit government in British Columbia. Didn't want to leave

that part out. (Laughter.)

The Teamsters, Mr. Chairman. May I read from the

constitution of the Teamsters?

MR. PHILLIPS: You've heard Hal Banks.

MR. McGEER: I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Minister of

Labour was right about the dreadful things that Liberal

government did with Hal Banks. They don't deserve support, and

after all the things they've done to the west I wouldn't be

supporting that Liberal government if I were a Liberal Member

in Ottawa. I can tell you this: if I were an NDP Member from

the west I'd be attacking my leader for supporting them,

pensions or no pensions. I don't think a pension is worth that

kind of sell-out.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What party do

you belong to?

MR. McGEER: I belong to the provincial Liberal Party, Mr.

Chairman. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

should know that. I've been a member of the provincial Liberal

Party here for a dozen years.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What part of the Liberal party?

[ Page 2447 ]

MR. McGEER: I think we've taken a perfectly consistent

position. I've always supported the Canadian labour union

movement and will always support it. We're not ashamed of it.

We're not in bed with the American unions. We don't get

political support from them at election time. No, we don't. Not

a dollar's worth.

May I read from the constitution of the Teamsters, Mr.

Chairman? I think you'll be interested in this one. This is

article 19,

section 7, page 123 of their constitution.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'd better watch your back. Watch your

back.

MR. McGEER: Registered with the Labour Relations Board, it's

a union certified for any number of contracts by the provincial

government. This is what their constitution says.

MR. PHILLIPS: Look behind you.

MR. McGEER:

Section 6 — "grounds for charges against

members, officers and subordinate bodies

"The basis for charges against members, officers, elected

business agents, local unions, joint councils or other

subordinate bodies for which he or it shall stand trial, shall

consist of, but not be limited to, the following:"

Subsection 4 — "succession or fostering the same." If

Senator Lawson were to advocate Canadian unions he'd be

subjected to a trial by the International Teamsters for

violating the constitution,

article 19, subsection 4.

MR. FRASER: Could they kick him out of the Senate, too?

MR. McGEER: If this Senator for British Columbia, the

international vice-president of the Teamsters, were to

advocate that Canadian truckers belong to a Canadian union,

he'd stand trial in the United States for fostering secession.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that constitution is filed with the

provincial government, with the Minister of Labour. He can go

ahead and talk about how Canadian union members are free to

support Canadian unions. Mr. Chairman, how free is Senator

Lawson? How free is any individual union member who advocates

membership in a Canadian union movement? He could be tried in

Washington for that crime and Canadian workers in the past have

been found guilty of that crime.

Now, Mr. Chairman, something better is required of a

Minister of Labour in British Columbia and a Minister of Labour

for Canada. If we're going to break loose from the yoke of

American unionism it's going to take some gutsy

legislation.

MR. PHILLIPS: And that's no yoke! (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: It's no yoke, unless it's an American one.

Here's a folder put out by....

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's talk about the AMA in Saskatchewan in

the '60s.

MR. McGEER: Disgraceful! He said the AMA in Saskatchewan in

the '60s. Absolutely disgraceful! And more power to a crusading

Tommy Douglas who was Premier of the province. Would that he

were leader of the NDP in Canada today, and I could tell you

they wouldn't be in bed with the Liberals. (Laughter.)

Here's a folder put out by the Council of Canadian Unions.

"Canada needs a Canadian labour movement," it says. I

agree with them. They give a table here:

"Money down the drain. The following profit figures are

The law requires that all unions report once a year to the

federal government upon all receipts and expenditures. These

reports show the following net profit to the U.S.A....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I can tell you that if there were a similar

leaflet put out about American corporations, I'd certainly be

prepared to read it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Read it.

MR. McGEER: But I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that when

David Lewis, the national leader of the NDP, talks about "the

corporate rip-off" you never heard him once complain

about this.

MR. FRASER: He's a phony!

MR. McGEER: We don't hear about the rip-off of the

workers sending their union dues down to the United States. Net

profit to the USA in 1962 was $9.5 million; '63, $12.3 million;

'64, $11.2 million; '65, $8 million; '66, $9.6 million; '67,

$17.3 million; '68, $11.9 million; '69, $9.8 million. From '62

to '69, seven years, it totalled $89,900,000. That's right out

of the worker's pockets, taken off his hourly wages. Where did

it go? Well, it went across the border — bye, bye. That's

the kind of thing we're trying to fight. That's why we advocate

some changes to the laws in British Columbia, You see the pattern, Mr. Chairman? The constitution forbids

any talk of secession from these American unions. That's pretty

evident. You only have to read the constitution and any of you

can

[ Page 2448 ]

obtain a copy from the Minister. You only have to read the

Labour Relations Act to know that in order to get a job

to work in any industrial site in British Columbia, you've got

to belong to one of these unions. Over 80 per cent of Canadian

workers are forced by Canadian laws to do so. That's strike 2.

Strike 3 is when they have their hourly pay deducted and sent

across the border in millions of dollars per year.

Mr. Chairman, that's a rip-off. It's a rip-off

of the Canadian worker. It's a far greater rip-off than

anything David Lewis has talked about regarding Canadian

corporations paying taxes to the Canadian government. This is

the Canadian union man paying tithes to the American labour

movement. I'd be the first to compliment the Minister on any

moves that he might make to try and ameliorate the situation.

Not one single thing has been done since that Minister took

office.

I would have hoped, when some of the Members of the

opposition questioned the Minister today, that he would have

given some indication that the government was at least thinking

about correcting some of these wrongs. But instead, what we've

had, Mr. Chairman, is a stirring defence of all the things that

the American labour movement has done for the Canadian worker

in Canada.

I'll summarize my position, Mr. Chairman: Humbug!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is that your position?

MR. McGEER: As far as the American labour movement is

concerned, yes. Humbug!

I think the people who are going to do something for the

Canadian workers are the Canadian unions, and they deserve an

even break.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to mention one other item that

rather disturbs me. It's a minor matter, but I feel it should

be raised. That's with regard to....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: All these people that are in the debt of the

American labour movement — and I include the Minister of

Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) as one — their defence is:

"You don't know what you're talking about." It's

always what they say. "You don't know what you're talking

about."

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): That's

not what I said. I asked you where you were in 1937. You weren't even born then.

MR. McGEER: I was in 1937. Well, that's the kind of....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's part of the history.

MR. McGEER: That's the kind of forward-looking

argument that we get from the Minister of Transport. I think

you're still back in 1937, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: We're thinking about 1977 and you're thinking

about 1937. That's the problem.

MR. FRASER: Where were you? Still going to school.

MR. McGEER: It's unfortunate that you're a Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You don't know what you're talking about;

that's obvious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: That's what all you American union guys always

say when somebody begins to question the premises under which

your policies are formed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've dealt with more Canadian unions than

you've ever dealt with. Rambling incoherence.

MR. McGEER: We wouldn't...rambling incoherence!

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Put that to music. It would

be a hit, probably.

MR. FRASER: You're nothing but a wood pusher anyway.

MR. McGEER: The Minister is becoming more compelling in his

arguments all the time, Mr. Chairman, with his brilliant

interjections.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman,

the problem is that you are 30 years behind the times. I'm

being generous. I'm being generous.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Be fair. Be fair.

MR. CHABOT: Forty years in 1937.

MR. McGEER: You're just not aware...

[ Page 2449 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm aware.

MR. McGEER: ...of what the Canadian working man wants

today. Or if you are aware...

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Humbug!

MR. McGEER: ...you're not prepared to admit it even to

yourself. You're a Minister and you could prove the truth of

your statement. What needs to be done, I think, is really

pretty obvious. You and the Minister of Labour and the others

in your cabinet are going to have lots of chances. You can

start right now with just a democratic vote.

If the people in Trail followed the policies of the Minister

of Labour's brother, who is a United Steel Workers

representative, I'd be the first one to say: "Fine. That's the

way it should be; they've freely chosen it." But when the

Minister and his Labour Relations Board avoid an honest

democratic vote, we kind of get suspicious. We think that

people up there really want a Canadian union and that the

government, the Labour Relations Board and the United Steel

Workers are doing everything they can to hang on to the status

quo.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of the things that the Department

of Labour does; and this to me is a small thing, but it's an

example of how bureaucracy can run wild. The Department of

Labour administers something called the Trade Schools

Regulation Administrative Office. What these bureaucrats do is

to regulate how much private schools that give commercial

education can charge in the way of tuition fees. Mr. Chairman,

I submit to the Minister that this is just absolutely

ridiculous.

First of all, the Department of Labour has no darned

business at all being in the field of education.

Secondly, the Department of Labour has no business at all

interfering with private schools.

Thirdly, it has no business at all in saying what tuition

fees for education should be.

We've had pretty firm policies stated by the Premier and by

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) in that they

wanted nothing at all to do with the private school system in

British Columbia. I happen to disagree with that policy. I

think these schools should have support from the

government.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: But I think that the.... No, no, that wasn't

their policy under Bennett.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, we're dealing with the estimates of the

Department of Labour, vote 129.

MR. McGEER: Did you know, Mr. Chairman, that the Department

of Labour does monkey in this business ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've been listening to what you're saying but

you're dealing with something separate, and I wish you'd get

back to this vote.

MR. McGEER: Well, what I'm saying is that the Department of

Labour ought to get the devil out of it. If people don't want

to attend a particular school that teaches them typing and

shorthand, they don't have to attend. They can go to one of our public schools operated by the Minister of Education, or they

could go to another private school. If the tuition fees charged

by one of these private schools is too high, then the students

can go to another private school. But what in heaven's name is

the Department of Labour doing messing in all of this?

I have here a letter from Mr. John Melville, who is the

Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, writing to the Duffus

College of 522 West Pender, saying:

"I wish to advise you" — this is dated February 22,

1973 — "that the Hon. Minister of Labour has approved the

increase in tuition fees from $60 per month to $70 per month

for your school. If at any time you believe this department

could be of service to you in this connection, please notify me

and your request will receive every consideration."

Well, Mr. Chairman, if the people that go to the Duffus

College don't have any taste for that particular college, they

can go somewhere else. There are lots of choices.

But, Mr. Chairman, what is the Minister of Labour doing in

regulating the tuition fees of the Duffus College? It is a

place that teaches typewriting and commercial courses. The man

who runs the Duffus College says quite correctly: "We are not

really at liberty to set unreasonable rates. If we did, no one

would come." Absolutely correct.

Here is a letter from the Minister of Labour himself, July

6, 1973, to this particular college:

"This will acknowledge your letter of April 27, 1973, in

regard to the Trade-schools Regulation Act and the

guidelines regarding tuition fees for private trade schools. As

I have mentioned to you in a previous letter these matters are

to be reviewed, and you will realize that there are priorities

in the areas of labour legislation which must be

considered."

He stressed the economic need to abandon the current

administrative policy.

"However, I must advise you that a number of the operated

and private trade schools have expressed an opinion on the

established guidelines regarding tuition fees and not all are

opposed to them. I again thank you for your interest in this

matter."

The Minister of Labour is really a master of waffle. He

showed it this afternoon in this matter of Canadian unions but

he demonstrates it again in this

[ Page 2450 ]

area of Department of Labour control of tuition fees in

commercial colleges. An operator writes to him, quite properly,

saying, "Why can't I charge the fees I need to charge in order

to do a good job?" The Minister replies, "I'm too busy doing

other things. Anyway, the other operators don't agree with you.

Thank you for writing." In other words the Minister opts out of

the problem; the bureaucrats continue with their insanity.

I wish the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) would grasp

this; one of the cabinet Ministers ought to be listening since

the Minister of Labour has departed once more. The Department

of Labour has no business in the educational policies of

British Columbia. None. The government itself, through the

Premier and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), has

said the government should have nothing to do with the

independent schools in British Columbia. Okay, we accept you at

your word.

I say to the Minister, in heaven's name, stop this

bureaucratic idiocy and get the devil out of regulating fees

for commercial colleges in British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'm also a little sorry the

Minister of Labour has left his seat temporarily.

He made some comments earlier this evening which suggested

compulsory arbitration and binding arbitration and any other

kind of arbitration was not understood by this side of the

House. He took a rather holier-than-thou position:

"Tut, tut, tut. We mustn't compel anybody to do anything. This

would be a restriction of the freedom of the individual."

I guess the Minister missed the point I was trying to make

before supper time. I'm very glad he's coming back in the House

because I would just like to continue our little discussion,

Mr. Minister. The point I was trying to make before supper is

that there is a difference between freedom and licence. No one

individual in this society, for his own unlimited, selfish

motives, has any right to penalize thousands and thousands of

innocent individuals. The freedom of the individual, as I see

it, is his freedom to preserve those rights established by

tradition, but not at the expense of thousands and thousands of

others and only at the consideration of a very small minority.

The democratic system is based on justice and fair play for all

groups, however small in minority or however large in

majority.

For the Minister to suggest it is somehow unholy to suggest

that maybe there are some times in society when a group of

individuals has to have some of their desires restricted

because of the good of the greater majority, then I suggest

that this does, indeed, lead to anarchy and a great deal of

suffering of innocent people.

Regardless of that, the Minister made great play tonight on how terrible it

would be to have any element of compulsion. Oh dear, compulsory arbitration

sounded like some immoral or dirty act that in no way would be acceptable. As

I go around this province, many, many people are saying to me — and I'm sure

to every other politician — that the day is fast approaching in our society

when the right to strike, which in the eyes and ears of many people is somewhat

sacred, might have to be re-evaluated. I think it was Foster Dulles who talked

about a painful re-evaluation, or some such phrase was used by one of the

American....

HON. MR. COCKE: Good heavens! Foster Dulles, of all

people.

MR. WALLACE: Can you not remember him, Mr. Minister of

Health? "An agonizing reappraisal," that was the phrase.

You didn't think I was that old, did you?

Anyway, the phrase was "agonizing reappraisal." Maybe

society has to take an agonizing reappraisal of the right to

strike. There was a time in society when the employee had

little or no alternative as a hope of gaining social justice

and justice in the marketplace other than by striking. We live

in a rather sophisticated and supposedly enlightened society in

1974 where men and women have a much more realistic outlook on

the world in which they live and the marketplace in which they

operate. The strike weapon is so archaic and wrong that we must

start taking a look at alternatives to strikes.

One of these alternatives, in my view and the view of many

people, is the greater use of arbitration. I agree with the

Minister that, if arbitration is to be used, it is much better

that we should have a voluntary agreement by the two parties

not only to arbitration but to the fact that the decision of

the arbitrator will be binding on both parties. If arbitration

with binding effect is not acceptable, whether we like it or

not I think we then have to look at the possibility of

compulsory arbitration if it is to avoid a strike where many

innocent people are to be harmed.

The Minister can puff and pant and puff out his chest and

talk about, my goodness, how bad compulsory anything is! But

there is an interesting statement in Hansard which the

Minister of Labour made on March 8, 1974:

I don't think there would be any criticism whatsoever if I

used my office to prevail, to cajole or even to lean on the

parties to take a more responsible position so that a

settlement might be consummated and a strike averted.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I plead guilty to doing that. I

certainly have laid the wood to many groups and to trade unions

to have them take a More responsible position, a more

conciliatory position, to resolve their differences.

[ Page 2451 ]

Now, isn't that a measure of compulsion? Is that any better

or worse or less than asking the parties to get to an

arbitrator and do what the arbitrator suggests? Or have we a

Minister who sets himself up as an arbitrator and in the

privacy of his office lays the wood to the parties? It's a

delightful expression. I'm sure the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mrs. Dailly) is exercised to realize that there might even be

corporal punishment meted out in the office of the Minister of

Labour.

The Minister suggested there was a great difference between

binding arbitration and compulsory arbitration. Indeed there

is. The failure of one or the acceptance of one should be

followed by the other. But I think the Minister has just been a

little "holier than thou" tonight to suggest that compulsion is

such a bad thing in labour-management problems when he,

in his own words on March 8, shows he has no compunction

whatever, in the privacy of his own office, to get the parties

together, bang their heads together and lay the wood to them,

as he says. Yet, he turns around and suggests maybe there is

something not quite right about having compulsory arbitration

with an appointed arbitrator. I just say one is no different

from the other.

I have another quote from the Minister here which I think

further sustains my argument. We have The Province

newspaper of March 22 this year with the headline: King

Intervenes Again (sounds like Zorro strikes again) in Alberni

Strike.

"Labour Minister Bill King has summoned the Pulp and Paper

Industrial Relations Bureau and the United Paperworkers

International Union to Victoria following another walkout in

Port Alberni. King met the union last Monday after the 1,200

workers of the MacMillan Bloedel pulp mill walked out in

support of a steam plant employee's dispute over wage

revision."

And listen to this paragraph, Mr. Chairman. Are you

listening, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. WALLACE:

"At that meeting, King ordered the men back to work and had

the company drop injunctions and writs against 57 union'

members."

Is that not some kind of measure of compulsion? Then it goes

on and talks about some of the other details. Members of the

office and technical workers union walked out in sympathy and

the paperworkers set up an information picket at the mill.

"King, in a telegram to the bureau, said the purpose of

today's meeting was to get the men back to work and to set up a

programme of expediting job evaluation at the mill.

"King said if the two groups can't settle their differences, he will submit the dispute to binding arbitration."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The King can do no wrong.

MR. WALLACE: The King can do no wrong; the King has the

choice.

But the trouble with the Attorney-General's

interjection is that here in the House tonight the King is

suggesting there is something wrong with a measure of

compulsion, a measure of authority, a measure of imposition of

decision. Yet we look in Hansard on March 8 and he is

laying the wood to certain people. On March 22, he's telling

the strikers in Alberni that if the two groups can't settle

their difference, he will submit the dispute to binding

arbitration.

I actually agree and support the concept. But somewhere

along the line the Minister should do just that thing. When the

parties fail to take a reasonable approach and come to some

middle ground, I happen to believe the Minister should take

some authoritative action and order binding arbitration.

The Minister today has suggested that is wrong and, earlier

on tonight when I was in my office, through the loud speaker I

heard him taking a very sensitive approach to "interference," which was the word he used. He stated there is

something wrong with the very kind of actions which the March 8

quotation shows he has taken. I don't happen to think there's

anything wrong with the Minister of Labour getting the parties

together and trying to exert some degree of his official

authority to get them together and avert a strike. This is

exactly what he says in the House on March 8.

I plead guilty to doing that. I certainly have laid

the wood to many groups and to trade unions to have them take a more

responsible position, a more conciliatory position, to resolve their

differences.

Then,

in an earlier paragraph, he says:

...I used my office to prevail, to cajole or

even to lean on the parties to take a more responsible position so that

a settlement might be consummated and a strike averted.

I agree entirely with the Minister, but we have to have

consistency in the Minister's statements. In one voice he is

saying, "Compulsory arbitration, tut, tut, tut." But on the

other hand he is admitting that he carries out a form of

compulsory arbitration right there in his own office.

I think the Minister is on the right track; he realizes it's

very important to avert strikes. Very often in the course of

strikes it isn't just a striker who suffers harm; it's many

innocent people. Because strikes are becoming such a serious

problem provincially and nationally, I think we have to take

another look at the former attitude that the right to

[ Page 2452 ]

strike was some kind of vital element in our society without

which employees simply could not exist.

One of the alternative ways to look at the situation is

through the whole process of arbitration. I don't think it is

all that important whether the Minister is the arbitrator or

whether, in privacy, he lays the wood to them and gets them

together and we avert a strike. I hope we're turning away from

the rather deeply ingrained conviction that every

man-jack in this country must have the right to

strike.

The right to strike in many ways, in my view, is completely

immoral. It certainly is in my field as a medical man. There is

no way any medical person rendering help to people in medical

need can possibly, morally, legally or any other way have the

right to strike. It is simply wrong.

It's a matter of degree. I'm not suggesting I'm the one who

can spell out where that degree ends and strikes can be carried

on without penalizing innocent people. All I'm saying is that

the pendulum has swung and it has swung too far. The right to

strike and the degree to which it is exercised in our modern

society is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The alternatives exist.

I feel the Minister has in the past exercised the wisdom of

bringing people together either in his office or through an

arbitrator; he has persuaded them to accept the findings of the

arbitrator. So let's not get holier than thou and say, "Oh, my

goodness, we mustn't have compulsory arbitration." I predict in

the years ahead it will become an integral part of the

management-labour situation in this province and all

across North America.

Here in the debate tonight the Minister has given us two

different versions of his attitude to authority and compulsion.

I think the record shows very clearly that while the Minister,

like the rest of us, would like to see everything settled on a

voluntary basis, when the chips are down, the record shows this

Minister can lay the wood to anybody. Sometimes successfully.

Let's get the record straight that that kind of compulsion has

been used in this province. I don't criticize it; I only say

it's the kind of alternative to strikes which must be explored

to the full.

The Minister is obviously itching to make some more remarks.

At least he's itching. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: We've got Roy back in the House and awake, Mr.

Chairman. He's my conscience you must remember.

MR. PHILLIPS: I hope he doesn't sit on your shoulder.

(Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: I won't send the Minister a bill until I've

made the diagnosis. Right now there's some doubt about it.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter that can't be

treated lightly. The whole question of strikes is one of the

most serious problems our society faces. The tendency to walk

off the job or to hold wildcat strikes I believe is on the

increase. It may not right now be on the increase in this

province, but in those jurisdictions under federal control it

certainly is.

We presently have this country tied up and disordered by two

illegal strikes: the airports of this province and in the

postal system. I can't think of two areas in our communities

that are more important than communication and transportation.

I'm not blaming this Minister at all in this issue; but I am

saying we have an example in our society where responsible,

elected Ministers of the Crown are turning a blind eye to the

fact that the law is being disobeyed in illegal strikes. I'm

just saying that society must grapple with this whole problem

of strikes. Whether they're justified, legal or illegal,

they're harmful to society as a whole. One of the alternatives

has to be compulsory arbitration.

I just hope the Minister will make some comment on his

particular attitude in the years that lie ahead as to whether

or not some of the informal compulsory arbitration that he

admits to carrying out in his office might become government

policy.

HON. MR. KING: I appreciate the Member for Oak Bay's

comments. His concern about my need for a prescription of my

scratching is valid. I wonder after a stinging attack like that

if he has anything to prescribe for flea bites.

In any even, I think the Member is confused. He fails to

discern between the right to strike as it effects the

collective bargaining process — in other words, contract

negotiations and contract renewals — and the situation

which prevails during the currency of a collective agreement

when there is a work stoppage due to a breakdown in grievance

procedures and so on.

In those cases, as it was in the Alberni situation, there is

no legal right to strike. Indeed, compulsory arbitration in

those cases has been the order of the day in this province ever

since I can recall.

What you are failing to do is discern between disputes that

occur during the currency of the collective agreement and

disputes and strikes which ensue as the result of attempts

through the normal collective bargaining procedure to renew

contracts.

MR. WALLACE: Is that such a big difference?

HON. MR. KING: There is quite a difference. On the one hand,

when an agreement is signed, there is a mechanism called the

grievance procedure for dealing with disputes that arise during

the course of that agreement. It's a bona fide contract, and

the concept is that both parties to that contract have an

[ Page

2453 ]

obligation to live with it and to resolve

interpretations,

grievances and so on that arise in a prescribed fashion

contained in the collective agreement and also, finally, to

resolve disputes by binding arbitration.

How I treat disputes and work stoppages that occur which are

in violation of collective agreements is quite different than

how I view normal collective bargaining which is contract

renewal — the right of the working people of this

province to bargain collectively. In my view, that implies the

full right to strike, to decide what price is fair and just to

sell their commodity, that is, their labour.

If the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) wishes to advocate

compulsory arbitration, well and good. I just happen to

disagree. I've pointed out to the Member that this is not a new

device to come to grips with social problems; not only labour

problems but other ones too. I suggest that history and the

record show that compulsion is not an adequate device for

resolving the relationships between people. It certainly hasn't

proved to be an effective device for regulating the

relationship between the working people and their employer.

I mentioned that in Australia, where compulsory arbitration

is the order of the day, they have a higher incidence of

illegal work stoppages than we have of legal work stoppages

here in Canada. The federal Minister of Labour made that point

very well.

I don't think one should view compulsory arbitration as a

panacea. I point out further that if working people feel

aggrieved, whether it is legally possible for them to withdraw

their labour or not, they will withdraw it if they feel

aggrieved. I don't think that Member for Oak Bay, who is a

fair-minded little man, should be afraid of coming to my

office simply because he has heard I lay the whip to people.

He's welcome to come up there.

I This is no panacea for settling those kinds of

differences. I just feel he should view the historical record,

and he'll find that's not a very useful way or, in my view, a

very desirable way. I think we both agree that voluntary

agreement is what we should all strive for.

The Member has acknowledged that we have departed on a new

course in terms of industrial relations in this province and,

quite frankly, up to this point I don't think the record is all

that bad. It's going to take some time to determine whether or

not our approach to industrial relations is going to do an

adequate job.

The Member was quite right in recalling the speech I made at the B.C. Federation

of Labour. I decry the fact that strikes have become the customary method of

not only resolving collective bargaining disputes but also of resolving the

disputes that occur during the life of the contract. There's a whole variety

of factors that are responsible for this breakdown, in my view:

(1) An ineffective grievance procedure over the years.

(2) The reluctance of many employer groups to actually

engage in a good grievance procedure and to indulge in all

kinds of delaying tactics which build up frustrations of

workers and result in wildcat strikes.

(3) By far the most important in my view has been unduly

restrictive legislation directed against working people in this

province over the years.

We've charted a new course. Sure, fair enough, some people

may disagree with me on that. But we've taken a new approach

and I think it's reasonable and fair to give us an opportunity

to see how we make out with it.

Perhaps if this approach is not effective and the public is

not satisfied that we are bringing the collective bargaining

process to a workable situation, then they will have the

opportunity to make that abundantly clear. But you don't embark

on a new course and at the same time hang on to all the old

clichés and hang-ups that existed for the last 20 years.

I agree there are cases where I will have to intervene and I

thoroughly intend to. I thoroughly intend, as I indicated at an

earlier debate, to lean on parties to be responsible. That's a

good deal different than, in a legislative way, taking from

working people the right to strike as an effective method of

negotiating. That's an assumption before bargaining occurs that

these people are not responsible enough to carry that kind of

an economic weapon in their arsenal and use it responsibly. I

don't care to make that assessment on any of the working people

in this province.

I have indicated earlier today that the nurses have once

again demonstrated that they are cognizant of their

responsibility to the sick people of this province. Most people

who hold crucial positions in the work force of this province

are responsible and cognizant of their responsibilities.

Let's recognize that to go on strike is generally no picnic

for working people. I think they are genuinely groping for a

better, more effective and a more just method of resolving

disputes. That's what we are trying to develop.

I don't consider that there is any inconsistency in the

approach we are taking to it. I hope the Member understands the

position a little better now. There are two different

situations.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Now that the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) is back, I'll respond to a couple of the

comments he made.

First of all, I was neither defrocked or unfrocked or

deflowered, or anything else (Laughter). I was put into a

position where I had to make a decision, because I was teaching

school after I was defeated in the by-election of 1966,

to remain in the Cariboo and

[ Page 2454 ]

continue teaching. To do that, because it was against the

law at that time for a priest or a minister to teach, I decided

that in favour of staying in the Cariboo during that period in

my life I should voluntarily relinquish holy orders. It's sort

of a state of suspended animation; you are still ordained but

you are voluntarily not practising your ministry. What I did on

Easter Sunday was to decide that I would voluntarily pick it up

again. I wasn't defrocked.

However, in regard to his point that I said there are

company-dominated unions in my part of the country and

that I should produce evidence or not, say, anything, I have

chosen to produce some evidence.

This is from the

summary of activities of the Department of

Labour, week ending August 17, 1973, page 5. This is in the

section entitled "Application for certification rejected."

"Little, Haughland & Kerr Ltd., 5630 Highway 16, West

Terrace, P.O. Box 280, and Terrace and District Forestry

Employees Union (commonly know as the TDFEU).

"The board held a hearing for the purpose of receiving

representations from all interested parties upon an application

from the Terrace and District Forestry Employees Union to be

certified for employees in the following unit: employees at and

from the mill and pole yard at 5630 Highway 16, West Terrace,

except for office and supervisory staff.

"The employer and the Terrace and District Forestry

Employees Union in the International Woodworkers of America,

Local 1-71, were all represented by counsel at this

hearing.

After hearing and considering representations of all persons

concerned, and permitting examination and cross examination of

witnesses under oath, and after considering all relevant

material filed with the board, the Labour Relations Board

rejected the application for certification pursuant to

section

12(8) of the Act by the Terrace and District Forestry Employees

Union for a unit of employees of the above-mentioned

employer because the formation, administration, management or

policy of the organization or association of employees is, in

the opinion of the board, dominated or influenced by the

employer."

That's what I was referring to when I made that remark. The

union is certified at Skeena Forest Products, and there is

presently an attempt being made by the IWA to raid that

particular place to apply for a certification vote. However,

since it's in process, it's not appropriate to comment on

what's taking place there at the present time.

However, it is a coincidence that probably has nothing to do with the application

for certification by the IWA that 20 students who are employed at that place

who just joined the IWA the other day got fired. Now, I suppose that's purely

a coincidence but I think it should be mentioned. I would hope that the TDFEU,

which is the bargaining agent there, would fight for these particular employees

who were fired.

The last point I want to make is that it would appear that I

was walking the fence. I'm not in a position at the moment to

belong to a trade union. Maybe I will be. But what I was trying

to point out or insist upon was the fact that every person who

decides they want to belong to a trade union should have the

right and the opportunity to choose the trade union of his

choice. That is the point that I was making.

When I was suggesting changes that might be made —

which the Minister commented on — to the regulations my

concern was that the procedures be improved to ensure that a

small union would have an equal chance against a very large

union. There would be an opportunity for a small group of

employees to band together and form their own union and succeed

in getting certification. Of course, that has happened recently

in a number of instances. But the main concern is to ensure

that they will have a fair crack at it. And that's not walking

on the fence. That's asking for justice for every employee in

the Province of British Columbia to have the right to the union

of his choice. That's a clear principle.

MR. CHABOT: Tell the Minister to stop discriminating against

Canadian unions.

MR. DENT: Finally there was a certification application in

Kitimat. The United Steel Workers had been the bargaining agent

there. There was a raid by a new union called CASAW and they

were successful. In that case the employees decided in their

judgment that this would be a better union to represent them.

Certainly I respect them, and to some extent I agree with them,

given the circumstances.

However, that may change. It may well be that their zeal may

run out after awhile and maybe the circumstances will change

around the other way. But the point is that the employees made

a decision to pick a union of their choice. I think it's

a good union and I think they're doing a good job on behalf of

their employees.

On the other hand at Pohle Lumber the other day the

bargaining agent had been the Christian Labour Association of

Canada. The IWA conducted a raid and were successful. The

employees there in their judgment decided that the IWA would do

a better job to represent them.

Now, the point is clear that the employee should have the

right to pick the union that is free and democratic,

that will fight for his cause and that, in his judgment, is the

best one for him. I would hope

[ Page 2455 ]

that. the Hon. Members in the Liberal Party are not

suggesting that that right be taken away from the employees to

pick the unions that they want to have.

There was a suggestion made that legislation should be put

in that would deny employees the right to pick an international

union if that's what they wanted. I for one would never support

a measure like that. The workers on the job must have the right

to pick the union that will fight for them, whether it's a

Canadian union or an international union.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say

a few words about a matter which falls under this Minister's

jurisdiction, namely human rights.

We have a problem which I raised during the debate last year

in the Public Service Act with the Provincial Secretary,

namely the fact that we do at the present time with our

provincial civil service practise discrimination based upon

place of origin and length of stay in Canada. We discriminate

against the immigrant who comes in. We are quite willing when

we find them useful to take advantage of the education that has

been provided mainly by taxpayers in other countries for their

private means. We are quite willing to take advantage of their

skills. But we discriminate directly in a large segment of

employment in the Province of British Columbia, namely the

public sector.

I'd like to know what the Minister's plans are to deal with

this, because I was thoroughly unsatisfied with the words of

the Provincial Secretary that if that's discrimination, so be

it. That's what it's going to be.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

I was dissatisfied because of the government's

inconsistency. They put in general rules which apply to people

and I'll give you the example of Fredrick Thompson, an American

citizen who worked for I think two hours at the Liquor Control

Board store in Vancouver, I think it was. He was bounced out

without even being paid for those two hours, I understand, when

they discovered he was an immigrant. Yet when it comes to

government assistance, when it comes to people to head up

research units, apparently order-in-council

appointments are quite different.

There's a double standard being practised by the government

itself. On the one hand you have the regular law for the

ordinary civil servant. On the other you have a totally

different one for the people who have this special ear with the

government, a special relationship with the government, and are

hired under these order-in-council

appointments.

I'd like to know whether these loopholes in civil rights legislation in the

province are being dealt with by the Minister, or by the people who work for

him, in particular Mrs. Ruff, the human rights commissioner. I wonder whether

he would indicate to us what steps he is taking along these lines to have this

matter dealt with successfully.

Perhaps at the same time, because I did feel that his

answers to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

were not satisfactory, he would indicate what steps are being

taken to give women a fair break in employment in the Province

of British Columbia. It is great to have resolutions passed

dealing with women getting an equal opportunity to take jobs,

hold them and be paid the same amount.

It wasn't so long ago in this House that I raised a case of

ads being put in for the Queen's Printer which distinctly

specified that starting salaries for men and women would be

quite different, and that the salary after training would be

quite different, with women substantially below that of men. I

was horrified when the government's excuse was that it was for

different jobs. In other words, in addition to such

discrimination based on sex in terms of the amount of money you

can earn there were job reservation categories similar to those

in South Africa, except in this case it wasn't race, it was sex

that determined who could take which job. I would like to know

what steps he's taking along that line, what he can report to

the Legislature at this time for the last year in terms of

definite progress in making sure that women get a fair break at

employment in the Province of British Columbia.

He might say a word or two perhaps, Mr. Chairman, as this

comes under his jurisdiction, about women's rights generally. I

know we don't have a Ministry of women's rights even though it

was promised; perhaps it's time we did. We are delighted that

there are two women in the cabinet, but it was more than 50

years ago that British Columbia led the British Commonwealth in

having the first female Minister of a cabinet in the entire

British Empire at that time. We haven't exactly progressed in

the last 50 years; we've gone from one to two. It's not that I

am suggesting that there should be cabinet changes based

entirely on the question of sex, but it does appear to me that

we really haven't gone very far over the last half century and

perhaps we haven't gone very far in the last year either. No

doubt the Minister can say a few things about that when he gets

up to answer my comments.

Another thing, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment upon at

this time is the tremendous insistence upon the right of free

contract between union and employer or employer organizations.

There's a great deal to be said in favour of the Minister's

view there. I think he's outlined it rightly, but the trouble

is that it's quite inconsistent with

section 7 of the Labour

Code. When we voted on it I raised these issues at that time

and I put amendments to suggest that the

[ Page 2456 ]

special powers that are given to a special officer who can

come in, ignore the existing labour contract between management

and labour and rush in making other suggestions, were wrong in

principle. If the government intended to put it in they should

at least limit it in terms of time that these special

recommendations would be valid for.

The government refused the amendment, I think unwisely, and

we are faced with the situation now where just about everything

the Minister has just said on the question of this free

collective bargaining and no interference during the period of

a subsisting and existing contract is totally contradictory to

what he said when we discussed

section 7 of the new Labour

Code.

Perhaps he might try and indicate how he is going to resolve

this contradiction. It's difficult for us to accept that his

views are correct when dealing with one piece of legislation he

bases himself on certain principles while when dealing with the

administration of his department he turns and takes a totally

contradictory view.

So I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether we could have a few

comments from the Minister on this. There is no question that

at the present time in the Province of British Columbia we are

practising discrimination on a very major scale with respect to

the new immigrants. We are practising indeed, within the civil

service as well, discrimination based on sex., Finally, the

Minister's remarks regarding existing contracts between labour

and management seem totally different from those he expressed

previously.

One further point, if I could, just so I deal with all these

things at the same time. I'd like, Mr. Chairman, to hear the

Minister's views again in terms of civil liberties and human

rights. I'd like to hear his views about what steps he is

taking with his colleague who is now in the chamber reading the

newspaper, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), to

make sure of the legal rights of those immigrants who came to

British Columbia at the time when Mincome legislation was on

the books which permitted them to take Mincome as soon as they

arrived in British Columbia. Yet the Minister went on to

realize very tardily some of the things we had referred to

earlier, some of the problems I had foreseen when I discussed

this thing with him in this House.

What he did was retroactively wipe out the rights that these people had to

Mincome, a right granted by this Legislature by way of legislation. There are

not great numbers of people involved — the Minister of Human Resources can inform

the Minister or, indeed, might speak in this debate on this point. But their

rights were infringed. The privilege or right which we extended by legislation

in this Legislature was wiped out by a Minister who decided to delay from December

right through until April in the consideration of such cases, then retroactively

and as far as I can see without legislative authority decided on his own say

so to deny them the opportunity of taking advantage of a programme which we

in this Legislature had passed which would, indeed, have given them Mincome

from the date of their arrival.

I'm not saying that his policy is wrong, Mr. Chairman, I

hope this is understood. We are not discussing the policy of

the Minister of Human Resources. We pointed out his policies

were wrong to begin with. We pointed out that he was going to

create hardships. We pointed out that he would probably have to

make changes later on. What I am suggesting, however, is that

because of his mistakes, a large number of people wind up in a

very invidious position and it's up, I think, to Ms. Ruff, the

Human Rights Commission in other words, to take up their case

because they have a legal case.

They have a right to receive something to which they were

fully entitled according to legislation we passed in this House

and which, indeed, they should be given, in my view. We can

take it away by way of legislation; we can change it in the

future, but if we set up a system which encourages people,

elderly people, to come to British Columbia, we should not

blame them if they take advantages of what was obviously

careless legislation which the Minister refused to change and

improve even though he got lots of excellent ideas from this

side of the House.

These people have been put in the position where their

rights have been infringed, and I wonder what the Minister of

Labour, who is responsible for the administration of human

rights in the province, would like to say to indicate what he

has done to make sure that his colleague has the government,

the people, the general Treasury pay for this oversight of his

rather than have these unfortunate elderly citizens, who are

being so badly abused by the Minister, being forced to pay

themselves rather than have the general Treasury pay. Perhaps

the Minister could comment on those four points.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the question of citizenship as

a condition of employment with the government, which the Member

raises, is one which we are studying. I am not sure that I

agree with that Member's assessment of the situation, but I'm

certainly prepared to give consideration to that question and

it's one we'll be discussing.

The question of women in the employment of the provincial government is naturally

a question that is going to be a problem for some period of time. The Human

Rights Act is a new one and a much more stringent one than was the case heretofore.

In addition to that, I think Members should recognize that collective bargaining

rights have now been extended to the public service sector. Hopefully, many

of the disparities in terms of pay scales and in terms of advancement opportunities

for females will

[ Page

2457 ]

be negotiated as a matter of collective bargaining and the

people will have the opportunity to set their own standards in

that way.

I might add that there is a committee on which the Human

Rights Branch is represented studying many of the problems that

have obtained in the public service. Hopefully, they are coming

to grips with many of the problems of employment opportunities

and opportunities for advancement for females and other groups

who may have been discriminated against in the government

service.

I'm satisfied that things are progressing fairly well in

that way. As I indicated, you cannot make progress in terms of

human rights without putting the spotlight on current

situations that do exist. And you cannot then resolve them all

in a retroactive way. A progression of time is necessary, a

progression of different attitudes, until some degree of

equality can be obtained for all people in this province. But

that's certainly the direction we're moving in and the reports

I have are very favourable in terms of the human rights

function.

I would draw to the Member's attention, Mr. Chairman, that

if there are specific cases, then they should be brought to the

attention of the director of the Human Rights Branch. I

certainly don't make it a point of my function to refer cases

to the Human Rights Branch unless they are brought to my

attention, and naturally I transfer it to that agency.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I just have a

question I'd like to ask the Minister, a problem I'd like him

to look into for me — I'm sure he's familiar with it.

It has to do with a gentleman named Ben Goban who. Is a

former carpenter. He's just about 70 years of age and

this gentleman has been attempting for a number of years to get

somebody to look into his case to see if he can get his

carpenter's pension. He was a contributor to the carpenters

union pension for 23 years, a member of the carpenters union

for 23 years, a member of the New Westminster Local 1251 and he

retired in 1971. Because of a slight technicality he has been

denied his pension.

Apparently there was a rule passed in 1969 by the local

union that an employee had to work and contribute for 350 hours

in every year. Even though this man worked 800 hours that year,

because of that technicality he was still denied. He had even

contributed his share of pension contributions. I understand

the union has adjudicated some of these cases, Mr. Chairman,

but has for some reason refused to adjudicate in this one.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: The man, Mr. Goban....

HON. MR. COCKE: What has his MLA done for him?

MR. McCLELLAND: Dennis Cocke is his name. (Laughter.) Mr.

Chairman, Mr. Goban was forced into picketing. A man almost 70

years of age had to get out and picket his own union office

during which time he encountered a lot of other cases like his

own — cases of serious discrimination regarding pension

rights.

The man wrote to the man who is now Health Minister (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) because he was the MLA for New Westminster at the

time. He wrote to the Premier of the province and he wrote to

the Labour Minister. But he is being refused any kind of help

whatsoever. He has written the Federation of Labour but nobody

wants to help him, so a 70 year old man had to get out with a

picket sign on his back and stand in front of his union office.

He now says he's coming over to Victoria with his pickets, and

some of them are classics. So, we will probably see him over

here unless somebody helps him out of his dilemma. The Minister

says he won't intervene. I don't think that's good enough

because if there is some question about union pensions not

being allocated correctly, then it is the responsibility of the

Minister to make sure that those pension funds are being looked

after carefully and allocated correctly.

The Premier of the province wrote him a letter which said

simply, I'm sorry I can't help you. The man wrote back to the

Premier and I'd like just to quote a couple of lines from his

letter, Mr. Chairman:

"I was truly shocked and disappointed by your answer to my

letter. The Dave Barrett I knew when he was a Member of the

opposition was a kind man who was always ready to help

people who were not treated with justice, but you have changed.

Your pretension that my case is outside the jurisdiction of

your government is absurd and you choose, like Dennis Cocke, to

let it ride.

"Your close association with those American unions does not

allow you to interfere with their dirty work."

That's about the size of it as well. He goes on:

"But, Mr. Barrett, now you are riding high. To you

apparently a few old timers who have long supported your party,

that they are cheated out of their pensions is not important.

So, I wish you luck, you may need it in the near future."

(Laughter.)

"Sincerely, Ben Goban."

Mr. Chairman, my attention was drawn as well to an

article

in an American paper, I believe, which said that millions of

U.S. workers are being gypped out of their pension by the fine

print in their retirement plans.

I'm not suggesting that anybody's being gypped

[ Page 2458 ]

out of pensions in British Columbia. But if there's even a

possibility that people who have paid and contributed into

pension plans for many, many years are being withheld from

those benefits, that those benefits are being withheld from

those people, then it's the duty of the Minister of Labour to

make sure he gets an investigation going and finds out whether

or not in fact people are being either cheated out of or by

some other method having their pension benefits withheld. It's

his duty. It's not fair that a man of almost 70 years of age

has to get out and picket for his rights, and have the Minister

of Labour tell him that those rights are

non-existent.

I'd like the Minister to indicate that he might at least

look into this question a little more deeply than it's been

looked into so far and find out whether or not there's some

kind of a loophole in pension retirement plan fine print that

is allowing this kind of thing to happen.

One other item I'd like to ask the Minister about has regard

to human rights, and it is probably mixed up with Human

Resources as well. I understand that Human Resources pays

welfare to people who are living in a common law situation, but

only to the male. If a female, who happens to be sharing some

kind of accommodation with a single male, ap