1972 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

101 ]

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Thank you Mr.

Speaker. The Premier and I, you'll notice, are wearing white

carnations today. This is to mark a very special occasion. We

have the first group of high school students visiting this new

legislative assembly, this new Parliament, under this new

government. I think it's fitting that they come from Lake

Cowichan, and they sent the flowers to the Premier and I, and on

behalf of the Premier I want to thank them and I want you to

welcome them to this assembly.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

AN ACT RESPECTING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN

MR. G. B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey) : I beg leave to

introduce a bill intituled

An Act Respecting Proceedings Against

The Crown.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be introduced

and now read for the first time.

Motion approved.

MR. GARDOM: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ACT

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to

introduce a bill intituled Guaranteed Minimum Income Act.

Leave granted.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced

and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on

the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL HISTORIC SITE GRANT ACT

MRS. P.J. JORDAN~(North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to

introduce a bill intituled, the Christ Church Cathedral Historic

Site Grant Act.

Leave granted.

[ Page 102 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the bill be

introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on

the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Motion approved.

RECREATION FACILITIES GRANT ACT

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill

intituled the Recreation Facilities Grant Act.

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm pleased to have your support on that one.

Your wife's for it, too. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the bill

be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on

the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Motion approved.

MRS. JORDAN: If you'll permit me your wife also favours this

Act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm neutral.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 8, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

The principle of this bill is basically to cancel the

amendment that was brought in last spring. The bill here requires

a two-thirds vote of council to change the entry into a land use

contract or to change zoning under municipal bylaws.

Now you will recall, those that were here last year, the

extensive debates that took place regarding this

section in Bill

No. 77, last spring and I don't intend to repeat the statements

that were made at that time. But, I would point out that it is

our opinion that some unfortunate changes in zoning and

unfortunate development have and can take place and, although the

two-thirds vote may not change this, at least I think it requires

a little more thought for the councils to change the existing

bylaws.

I therefore move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver

Howe-Sound.

[ Page 103 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. We intend to support this bill and second reading.

I am pleased that the Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs

has seen fit to follow the distinguished arguments presented in

debate not long ago.

It's a sorry thing when legislation which has been so

long-standing on the books has changed but it's refreshing. There

is, however, one aspect of the change made at the last session

which still may present a problem. I would like to inquire

whether or not the Hon. Minister, in closing the debate, would

indicate what he or his department intends to do in the case of

those municipal councils which are small in number and which

often result in, not a two-thirds majority requirement, but

indeed sometimes 80 per cent. This also arises in instances when

due to illness, necessary absence from the duties of an alderman

or from death it is indeed sometimes 100 per cent of the vote

that is required. I know this doesn't cause difficulty in the

majority of municipal governments, but, nonetheless, it can be

significant in those municipalities which have small numbers on

their councils.

I would hope that the Minister would indicate how this

difficulty might be overcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, the

official Opposition support this amendment. I might say, as far

as a member of the last House was concerned, that I voted with

the Opposition when this change took place. I was opposed to it

at that time. I'm glad to see now that it's going back to

two-thirds and we support the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, I rise to

support the bill to amend the Municipal Act.

I see this amendment as very necessary and very, very urgent.

Zoning changes in my area are a major issue. They're a major

issue in fact in the entire Lower Mainland.

We see farm land rapidly disappearing, changing into

industrial lands and into residential lands. There's only so much

land available in the Lower Mainland and we've certainly got to

make the best use of it.

The results now are that large tracts of land in my area are

held by large development companies, companies that are sometimes

registered in other parts of the world. These people have really

only one interest and that is making a profit on the land and the

zoning changes that they can bring about.

As a matter of fact I recently looked at a zoning map of Delta

and I see that very, very little farmland is today owned by the

farmer which places a very, very dangerous situation before the

entire Lower Mainland.

Far too often these development companies become involved in

civic elections and it's only necessary for them to change one

alderman sometimes and they end up with changing the zoning of

the area. The result is that they get things the way they want it

and the interest of the community is forgotten.

In my area, for instance, I see one large farm, 600 acres,

that's presently owned by a foreign company that's interested in

high-density development. If they were to be successful in

getting the council to change that, we would create problems in

traffic, in schooling, in parks and in all the other services

that are hinged in the community. It seems that when the change

was made in the Municipal Act earlier this year it was a

concession to these types of developers. It is a concession we

must reverse and we must reverse it right now. To me it's a real

emergency that we remove it and I know that the Union of B.C.

Municipalities endorses the position that's being taken here

today.

I know there are also a number of other problems facing the

Municipal Act. I'm pleased when I see that the Minister has

invited all groups to

[ Page 104 ]

present their ideas, their views and that there's going to be

a thorough study of the Municipal Act. I'm sure that there'll be

a great many presentations made.

I hope that the kind of study that is carried out will end up

being beneficial to the whole community. There's a great field to

cover there.

In the meantime we must support this amendment to change this

section immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, we shall also support this bill.

I congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) for moving so promptly in this regard. And I

congratulate the government for moving to correct something which

was undertaken just a few months ago without one single request

from the Union of B.C. Municipalities or from any particular

municipality in this province.

Perhaps the most important function given to local government

in this province today is control of land use. And we are happy

to see the Minister move so quickly in this connection.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

thank the sentiments expressed by those Hon. Members that spoke

and I appreciate their remarks. I would like to mention to the

Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) that we

had considered the problems that this amendment will make in the

small councils. We had considered the point of having it read

two-thirds of those present but then we realized that we might be

walking into that hide-and-seek legislation where, when someone

is out for a drink of water, you call the bylaw. So, you know, if

there is any sound way we can avoid this…. I realize the

problem, especially in the villages where the numbers are

smaller. But I really haven't been able to think of any way to

get around that particular problem and if you have any

suggestions in regard to that certainly we'd be happy to have

them.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, certainly. This can be dealt with in

committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 8 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

committee at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MEDIATION COMMISSION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 5,

An Act to Amend the Mediation

Commission Act. The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, Hon.

Members, in moving second reading of Bill No. 5,

An Act to Amend

the Mediation Commission Act, perhaps I might be allowed to

digress momentarily to acknowledge your election to the Speaker

of the House and compliment you upon it.

[ Page 105 ]

MR. SPEAKER: It's the only digression I'll allow.

HON. MR. KING: I had hoped perhaps that I might comment how

nice it is to see some of my friends across the House.

I recall a particular voice from the past admonishing me that

I would be a one-timer. It's nice to be back. I don't intend, Mr.

Speaker, to suggest that I've become a two-timer. I'll leave that

distinction to the former administration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the bill that we present for second reading

is one which has the purpose of diffusing and bringing into a

better framework, a better structure, the labour relations

climate in the province. I think that it's generally acknowledged

today that industrial relations in the province had reached an

all-time low last year.

I think similarly, Mr. Speaker, that I have indicated to the

public in a quite adequate way that this is but an initial step — an interim measure — that is necessary to bring about a degree

of cooperation between labour and management, the public and

interested parties, pending an overall review of the labour

legislation which presently exists on the statute books of this

province.

So the purpose here as I indicated at the outset, Mr. Speaker,

is simply an interim measure. We changed the name of the

Mediation Commission Act to the Mediation Services Act. I think

it's one which indicates a service rather than an arbitrary

authority.

It amends the Act further by removing sections 18 and 19 which

were the compulsory measures which apparently our predecessors

thought could bring industrial peace to this province, but in

fact resulted in chaos. So I think this was an essential step to

restore a climate of good relationship between labour and

management.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that during the past few days we've had

assurances from the Opposition parties that they are full of good

spirit and cooperation for the new administration. I want to

suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there's really no more

sensitive area in the province today than the labour management

climate that exists.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if these protestations from the

opposition are sincere then we will receive an expeditious degree

of support in getting this bill through the House so that we can

get on with the task of conducting hearings and taking the

parties into our confidence and letting them have a say in the

type of structure that we develop in the future. I recommend the

bill for second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, we're

discussing the principle of Bill No. 5,

An Act to Amend the

Mediation Commission Act.

I want to say this. That this is the most ill-conceived and

ill prepared piece of legislation to be presented by the new

government in its first session.

It's very difficult to believe the lack of preparation that

has been put forward in this legislation. This is the worst piece

of legislation introduced by the new Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King) of that new socialist administration.

It's quite obvious to me that he lacks the knowledge of the

particular sections that have been added and deleted in this

particular amendment.

He refused to even discuss it when he introduced it in the

Legislature with the Press because he wasn't familiar. He wasn't

aware of what he was presenting to this chamber. He'd rather

prepare a Press release on second reading. He'd have an

opportunity to see the type of criticism and the type of support

that would be generated from the public at large on this

legislation.

It wasn't too long ago either, in which the Premier of this

province and the Minister of Labour told the people there would

be only minor amendments to labour legislation this session. If

this is what they call minor amendments I wonder what it will be

when there are major

[ Page 106 ]

amendments to labour legislation in this province. I know why,

I know why it was presented at this time in such haste with the

lack of understanding on the part of the Minister of Labour. It's

the political pay off, that's what it is. That's what brought

this piece of legislation on the floor of the House at this

particular time. It's pay-off. Pay-off for financial, moral and

physical support…

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Point of order!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Point of order! Point of order!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think the language "pay-off" is

unparliamentary and the imputation is unfair and should be

withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that is unparliamentary and I seem to

recall a previous Speaker having ruled that.

MR. CHABOT: Are you always going to agree that quickly with

them?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I…

MR. CHABOT: …the government?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think that I'll be prepared to examine the question

and report back to the House.

MR. CHABOT: Well, it's pay-off. I won't call it political

pay-off. I'll call it pay-off.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member will cease to use that

expression.

MR. CHABOT: Call it pay-off.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the Speaker — you or the Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Who are you taking your instructions from?

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member to cease using the

word "pay-off" in the context that he is using it.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm sorry…

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that's an older rule and if you want me

to look I'll report back to you. But in the meantime cease using

it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: One has to take into consideration what took place

just a few months ago — the type of financial, the type of

moral, the type of physical support that was given to that

political party — to envisage why this piece of legislation is

put on the floor of this House at this particular time.

I think that's parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I think that's

parliamentary.

Even the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) received financial

support from certain labour leaders during the last provincial

election. Thousands of dollars were spent by certain labour

leaders on behalf of that Minister of Labour.

[ Page 107 ]

You know, I think to be a Minister of Labour in British

Columbia one should be impartial.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Impartial! (Laughter)

MR. CHABOT: You certainly haven't indicated your impartiality

to this date. You certainly haven't. Because you've consulted

with only one side of the two important forces that are dealing

with this piece of legislation. And you know it, and everybody

else does too.

I want to say that the original legislation was brought in as

a serious attempt on the part of the former government — a

serious attempt to protect the public interest and welfare.

Are you opposed to that? Are you opposed to that? You are

opposed to the public interest and welfare.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: You are, eh? I never thought, Mr. Speaker, that I

would hear a Minister of the cabinet say that he is opposed to

the public interest and welfare, as the minister of Agriculture

just said. It's shocking, it's shocking that you would hear this

in this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it is also shocking that you don't

address the Chair. Please!

MR. CHABOT: I was speaking to you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, thank you — continue addressing the Chair

would you please?

MR. CHABOT: The usage of the Mediation Commission for instance

has always been done with a great deal of reluctance. It's always

been treated by the former government as a court of last resort.

One would tend to believe, Mr. Speaker, that there was referral

of labour disputes to the Mediation Commission almost every week,

but what are the facts?

The facts are that only six disputes in the last four years

have been referred to the Mediation Commission for a binding

settlement under

section 18. And I protect the public interest

and welfare.

The Mediation Commission has always been dealt with at arms

length by the former government. It's been treated as an

independent body without political interference by the former

government at any time. Now I think from the remarks made by the

Minister of Agriculture, and his lack of concern about the public

interest and welfare, that the Minister of Labour, when he closes

this debate, has the responsibility to tell the people of this

province that he is concerned about the public interest and

welfare and there will be some form of action and also to outline

the type of legislative programme they have to protect this most

important area of concern to the people of this province.

I'm going to say this. I'm not going to oppose the removal of

the three man commission because even though it was a genuine

attempt on the part of the former government to improve

collective bargaining, to improve the labour climate in this

province, it hasn't been exactly a success story.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: There were areas in that Act — other sections of

the Act which were really never used. And I think that had we had

cooperation from both sides — from management and labour — that

those sections could have been used to improve the labour climate

in this province. But unfortunately the cooperation was not

coming from both sides.

There are certain sections of this new Act that have been

introduced which I must support because they do bring in

flexibility which was badly needed in this particular Act — to

bring in flexibility. The

section 8

[ Page 108 ]

of the Act, the entire

section — it is a lengthy

section — is something that we can support because it is a real good

section. We have no objections to this.

One thing that I am shocked about though is the method in

which you dealt with the three commissioners — the most inhumane

way of dealing with individuals. And your government who says and

has stated on numerous occasions, that you care for people, do

you not consider these three individuals people?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: They are not people. That's all you care about

these people — just dollars and cents, eh? You certainly change

your opinion from being on the opposition side to the government

side, my friend.

I think their rights deserve to be respected, Mr. Speaker, and

I think the way in which they were dismissed was a most callous

disregard for human rights in this province, a most callous

disregard. It was necessary for these individuals to be informed

by watching the Premier, in all his histrionics, say on

television that they've been kicked off, they've been well-paid.

What a way to have your services terminated in the position in

British Columbia by a socialist government that claims it cares

about people. It's unbelievable, it's unbelievable. The Minister

of Labour did not, in my opinion, have the intestinal

fortitude.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no, Hon. Member. Order! The Hon. Member knows….

MR. CHABOT: He didn't have the courage then, if you don't like

that word.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you know that is unparliamentary and

I ask you to withdraw it. Right now.

MR. CHABOT: I'll withdraw, but the Minister of Labour did not

have the decency to meet with the three commissioners prior to

their being dismissed on television. They've been informed that

they are being dismissed by the Premier of this Province and I

saw it on television.

Well I'll tell you that public reaction has forced the

Minister of Labour to consider the fact that these people have a

contract, to consider the possibility of meeting with them now.

Only public pressure brought this on. He had no intentions

whatsoever prior to public reaction of meeting with these

commissioners. After all they are human beings, whether you like

them or not. That's back of the hand dismissal which isn't worthy

of any government in this country.

I want to say that this doesn't speak very well for your first

legislative attempt in this parliament. It doesn't speak very

well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Let me make my remarks, eh? You can speak after.

You will have an opportunity too, Mr. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you both address the Chair, please?

MR. CHABOT: Because of the criticism that has been heaped on

this particular piece of legislation — the public criticism — the Minister of Labour now says that it is just an initial step.

Just an initial step that we will adjust as we go along, you

know. "We will fumble-bumble as we go along," that's what

he said, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that there are certain sections of this

legislation which I don't like.

Section No. 11, for instance,

where "the Minister may for the purpose of this Act, enter at any

time during regular working hours" — that's very gracious of him

to consider doing it only during working hours, you know — "enter any premises. The Minister may exercise

[ Page 109 ]

the powers contained in sub

section 1 without the necessity of

obtaining a warrant or any other form of authority."

Section 17 also say "the information obtained for the purpose

of this Act in the course of his duties by any employee of the

Department of Labour shall not be open for inspection by any

person or any court and the employee shall not be required by any

court to give evidence relative there to." You know, these are pretty broad dictatorial, what I consider

police state powers to place in the hands of one man. Those are

very broad powers to place in the hands of one man. Very

dangerous powers, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that any one man

should have the right to have those type of powers conveyed on

him by legislation. The power to search and seek without the

necessity of a search warrant is almost unbelievable. You've set

yourself above the courts of the land with this legislation. It's

contrary, in my opinion, to the principles of a free society.

It's the heavy hand of state socialism, and unless these

dictatorial powers are removed from this legislation….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: …that unless these dictatorial powers are

removed from this legislation we will have no alternative but to

oppose it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. May I also digress? This is the first opportunity I've

had to rise in this House, and I offer yourself my

congratulations on your election and wish you every success in

your attempts to reform this chamber. (Laughter). Mr. Speaker, I

couldn't help but thinking — it's the first time I have been in

the House this session — I couldn't help but thinking that in

the last half hour or so's debate, it is the same script, it's

only the players that are different. It's just exactly the same

script, almost word for word.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill has two principles. The

first principle is the removal of the Mediation Commission. With

that principle, this party is in agreement. We're on the record

both before and during the last election campaign that the

Mediation Commission had to be removed, it had to go.

The second principle (and I want to come back to the first

one in a minute) is the sweeping powers given the Minister.

Particularly the powers that have been referred to under

section

11 and 12 where he is empowered to enter any place of business

without a search warrant, and where he is empowered to withhold

or release information in any way he sees fit.

Those are very sweeping powers, Mr. Speaker, and this bears

the same earmarks as that kind of blank cheque legislation that

the former government used to bring into this House and which the

present government when they were in opposition used to oppose

loud and clearly. We objected to that blank cheque legislation

and so did the N.D.P. when they were in opposition.

If the powers that are in

section 11 and 12, Mr. Speaker, if

those powers had been suggested by the last government to be

given, for instance, to the former Minister of Social Welfare and

Rehabilitation I wonder what the N.D.P. Opposition of that day

would have said?

I think the rafters still would be ringing, Mr. Speaker, with

those comments that they would have been making. So I find it

somewhat shameful to find this party, now that they are sitting

on the other side of the House, giving to themselves those kind

of blank cheque powers that all of us on the Opposition side have

objected to. And it's very strange to hear the former Minister of

Labour (Mr. Chabot) now suddenly objecting to these

[ Page 110 ]

powers. I didn't hear him objecting to them last spring, Mr.

Speaker, he never spoke up in the last session to explain his position on

these matters.

He kept very quiet and he voted with the government in every

case.

I was concerned two days ago at some word of these sweeping

powers. But my concern was alleviated when I picked up the paper

yesterday to read that Ray Haynes obviously understood the whole

situation and that he was making all the proper arrangements. In

fact Mr. Haynes was quoted yesterday as saying, and he's

referring to members of the Government, "they haven't gone

through the whole Act yet, and this is just a holding

proposition."

I wonder who really is pulling the strings. I wonder who the

real Minister of Labour is? Quite obvious Mr. Haynes thinks he

knows what's going on. So very clearly we object to these

sweeping powers and we may propose some amendments which I would

hope that the government might consider and support to clear its

New Democratic conscience.

Now I'd like to return for a moment to the first principle — that of the removal of the Mediation Commission. I've been

involved in the construction industry for the last 22 years. That

industry in the last two years, 1970 and 1972, has suffered under

divisive, difficult work stoppages that have cost the industry

many millions of dollars, have cost the workers in the industry

many millions of man hours.

I want to particularly draw the attention of the House, in

view of the bill we're discussing now, to a speech made yesterday

to the convention of the Amalgamated Construction Association and

the labour unions, representatives of the labour unions of the

construction industry at Harrison by Mr. Thomas Dohm, who's head

of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I think that the words he had to say to that convention bear

listening to and should be given a lot of consideration to the

Members of this House. Mr. Dohm said: "There is need for serious

reassessment of your relations with the unions of your industry,

the government and the people of B.C." He said, and he's talking

now to all the members of the construction industry, labour and

management, he's saying, "you have an opportunity all too rare in

life, a second chance." Reflect on your aims and objectives,

redefine your responsibility to the community, enter into

dialogue with the new government and with industries and with

unions. Place your officers and committees at the disposal of the

Minister of Labour. The evolutionary progress of labour relations

has paused briefly. The opportunity to change its course must not

be lost.

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign last August I spoke

repeatedly of the desirability, of the necessity, of one key word

to be brought into labour relations in British Columbia and that

word is "flexibility" and the Minister has already referred to

that word. I think the last Minister of Labour understands what

we are talking about. And as far as this Act will provide that

flexibility, this party will support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this particular topic

of labour management problems certainly has to be one of the

vital issues for this government, or any other government. And I

think at least all the three or four parties in the election

would agree, if not on the measures that should be adopted, at

least on the tremendous importance of revamping existing

legislation.

Discussing this bill in principle reminds me of the phrase we

had during the election campaign when we would phone each other,

and we would start off by saying, "the good news is," and

then we would go on to tell each other what the bad news was. And

a lot of it was bad.

The fact is that there are many things in this bill, Mr.

Speaker, which we certainly can support. I like the statement of

the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) that the commission

had hardly been a success. I think really it has been a total

failure.

In our election campaign we promised that anything we could do

to remove, to abolish, the commission and to remove compulsory

aspects in arbitration would be pillars of our labour policy and

we stand by that. Therefore we can agree with that part of the

bill.

[ Page 111 ]

The other thing that always bothers me personally

in politics is to have to be against something when there's a large

part of it that you're for. And I've never had anyone explain how

you can remain a youthful politician and not be able to take definitive

stands. And this is the kind of problem I think we're faced with in

this bill.

What is more important, to support a promise you made regarding the

Mediation Commission and compulsion, compared to your very deep concern

about the democratic process as such? Because I feel that the latter of

these two considerations is more important, I would have to vote

against this bill.

It is true that the Minister today, and previously in public

releases, has said: "It's all right fellows, this is just an interim

measure, just don't get excited. It's not all it might be, the bill

could have been improved if I had had more time," and so on and so

forth. Well, that may well be the sincere feeling of the Minister of

Labour and the government but I regret that I am more concerned about

the sweeping powers that have been mentioned as having been placed in

the hands of one man, and I would have to echo the sentiments of the

former speaker as to the absolute howl that went up in this House just

a few months ago when "absolute discretion" was to be given to a

certain Minister of the former administration whose performance did not

rank very highly in the eyes of the N.D.P.

Therefore again it is rather similar to the comment I made yesterday

that I sometimes have to look around here and just wonder what in fact

has happened that people who were saying one thing a few months ago are

saying the very opposite today. And it's working both ways, I might say.

So the consistency in politics seems to be another problem that all of

us have.

This power however, I might say, Mr. Speaker — giving the Minister

the authority to enter premises without a warrant — really is a bit

reminiscent of Germany, and the knock on the door in the middle of the

night. And as I say, while I do agree with the removing of the

commission, and removing compulsion, the way in which the government

has sought to do it, with all due respect, I don't think the situation

is so urgent that it could not have waited until January.

Between now and January, Mr. Speaker, I think the deficiencies in

this bill which compel us to oppose it could have in fact been

corrected. Because one of the elements of the bill that also upsets us

is the fact that there seems to be no replacement or mention of what I

thought was the direction everyone was moving in — namely independence

or voluntary arbitration as recommended by such experiencved men in the

field as George Meany. If we have George Meany admitting that strikes

are a worn out, obsolete tool and that compulsion is not acceptable

either then I would have thought that this bill should have at least

produced some kind of alternative. Don't just take way what is there

and transfer total power to one man.

I think we are dealing with two extremes, with respect, Mr. Speaker,

and this is no reflection on the individual who occupies the role of

Minister of Labour. I am speaking to the principle of this bill, and

the principle that it is bad in a democratic system to concentrate

this much power legally in the hands of one man.

And I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm rather shattered by the Press

who — and there are numerous editorials and comments in the Press

naturally — but what astounds me is that because these powers resided

in the hands of a commission of three men the members of the Fourth

Estate seem to think that it's quite alright just to transfer these

same powers to the hands of one man who happens to be a Minister of the

Crown, while the three commissioners are meant to be neutral

individuals who would interpret for both sides of the argument. So I'm

absolutely astounded that the Press would consider such little

difference existing between the neutral feelings and opinion of three

men on a commission as compared to giving exactly that amount of power

to one man.

We are also upset, or "worried" is a better word, at the repeal or

the removal of

section 19 which states that disputes with civil

servants could

[ Page 112 ]

be referred to the commission. And here again, the Minister,

I'm sure, will answer that; "Of course we're going to set up some

alternative procedure if you'll just give us time"…and so

on. The fact is that this

section 19 with special reference to

the Civil service means once this is repealed, I presume — and I

would like to have the minister's answer to this — that the

whole question of whether the civil servants they have the right

to strike becomes a much hotter issue than it has been. And with

publication of the Carruther's Report, for which I might say in

passing we appreciate the government's rapid action in letting us

know what that report finally said, we are concerned in the

Conservative Party that civil servants certainly should have

collective bargaining rights, but we are opposed to any change or

any alteration of legislation moving in the direction of giving

civil servants the right to strike.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather sad, and I'm sad to

think that the Premier who started off in terms of courtesy and

good manners, should have made the mistake — I think, at least

— of treating the commissioners in a rather shabby fashion.

Whatever we might think of each other or whatever we might

think of men doing a job with which we do not agree, they are men

of honour and dignity in the community, trying to do a difficult

job. Much of the failure of their job was beyond their own power

to control and I just do feel that they're worthy of a greater

show of courtesy and good manners and that they should have been

given the privilege — it isn't a privilege, I think it's their

right — to have been told ahead of time of the government's

intentions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members opposite there

have used some pretty strong language. The Member for Oak Bay who

has just taken his seat says that he is astounded at the sweeping

powers given to the Minister of Labour in this bill.

You know, Mr. Speaker, these powers have existed in the laws

of the Province of British Columbia — and I'm speaking

particularly of the right to enter work premises — since 1917 in

the Department of Labour Act supported and endorsed through the

years by the Liberal Party, by the Conservative Party under your

distinguished leader Dr. Tolmie in the early 1930's, by the Social

Credit Government. There is nothing new about those powers and

they're absolutely necessary if you're going to give protection

to the employees.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right, in Tory Ontario they have the same

thing. All across Canada….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In Ontario they have these powers — every province of Canada. And there's never been any complaint, Mr.

Speaker.

We have never been upset about these sections in the Labour

Relations Act.

And, Mr. Speaker, these Hon. Members ought to have done a

little bit of research before they came into this. We are trying to provide

the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, with the very best research personnel

in the world and look what they come up with. (Laughter).

The former Minister attacks a

section that he lived with

easily while he was the Minister of Labour. And what we're

talking about is the protection of employees.

For example: surely the representatives of the Department of Labour were experienced

and trusted employees and well-known to the employers for the most part throughout

the Province of British Columbia. They go into an office and ask the employer:

"Would you mind showing me your payroll because I want to be sure — I've had

a complaint — that somebody isn't being cheated with respect to their wages?"

Now does he have to convert that into a criminal proceeding

and go before a justice of the peace and get a search warrant?

These are the traditional things. Supposing there's hazardous

machinery and there was

[ Page 113 ]

a complaint or the department thinks that somebody might be

killed or maimed. Can he not go in there and ask the employer

very nicely: "May I examine that particular piece of

machinery?"

These are traditional powers and nothing whatsoever has been

arrogated to the Minister of Labour that hasn't been part of our

legislation through the years. And I am talking generally about

the Act now. The power to have an industrial enquiry commission

which has been a very effective resource in the past, the power

of the minister to appoint mediation officers — all this is

traditional, normal administration in the field of labour

relations and the language that has been used opposite, Mr.

Speaker, has been very highly coloured and under researched.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD.(Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, I

rise to support the bill. I rise to support a couple of the

principles that of the eradication of the compulsory aspects of

the past bill and also the principle that we deal with in the

Mediation Commission.

I speak as one who has been involved as a worker, as a

negotiator and as a mediator under this past legislation. And

this past legislation with its compulsory aspect has brought

about a climate of frustration, mistrust and confrontation

between labour and management that we've never seen before in

this province. It's going to take time to repair the damage that

has been done over the past years. Compulsory arbitration has no

place or role to play in a democratic society. It's been tried in

many countries and never worked.

It has worked in the totalitarian countries, but third

party intervention as was set up under the Mediation Commission was

not conducive to meaningful bargaining. Wherever there is a third party

lurking in the background that can make the final decision and as the Hon.

Member across the floor mentioned the court of last resort we find that in

many cases we have the parties relying on that decision.

We find that compulsory arbitration or the Mediation

Commission was set up was only a crutch for someone else to do

the thinking for the parties involved. Compulsory arbitration is

a short cut to solve a problem, it's the easy way out. And in

labour management relations there is no easy way. It's hard work

— consultation — and many other aspects that I'll mention later

on. Lengthy or deep seated problems cannot be solved, only

settled under compulsion. Collective bargaining, in effect is

power using power. Take power away from either management or

labour and you have an unbalance. This is what we had under Bill

No. 33. When we start to interfere with the strike or negotiation

process we then are taking the guts right out of free collective

bargaining. We hear a lot about strikes, we hear people say they

are obsolete, no one wins. But really this is the only means that

the worker has any power. It's the only means he has to keep that

balance of power in negotiations.

To ban strikes or control the ability to strike serves only to

transfer disputes to the political arena where they become

imbedded in the ideological overtones, which I think the past

government realized on August 30.

Many people are surprised by the termination or the intended

termination of the Mediation Commission. This was one of our

policies. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. They've been

paid well. And how, they've been paid!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's sort of twisting it.

MR. RADFORD: As the past Minister of Labour mentioned. They've

dealt with six disputes. That's pretty good pay when you consider

hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent for salaries. I can

recall in June 1954 when the Labour Relations Board made a trip to

Victoria and they were terminated by the past government. They were given

wristwatches for their endeavours as is related in this

article here, in the

paper.

[ Page 114 ]

There is also a lovely cartoon by Norris in the June 18, 1954,

paper where two people go into a jewelry store and they say:

"We'd like to see some nice standard going away gifts, suitable

for power commissioners, railway construction engineers, assorted

government board members, and miscellaneous civil servants."

Well, maybe our Hon. Minister of Labour may consider a like gift

in the next few days.

What are the prerequisites of finding a viable and tolerable

balance in the relationship of labour business and estate?

I think we have some flexibility as was mentioned before. I

don't think it's a blank cheque that we give the Labour Minister.

I think that we can bring about solutions in the area of having

some consultation between labour and management. Some input by

labour, some input by management. I think I would like to see a

situation where labour and management can come together and agree

on some solution to labour peace in this province, without the

government. If that fails, then the government has come in and

assist the parties.

In the past there was no consultation. This was one of the

problems. Again legislation was the shortcut to problems — it

was the easy way out.

In 1954, Bill No. 28 was passed, 1959 Bill No. 43, 1961 Bill

No. 42, Bill No. 33, Bill No. 88. The teachers, the doctors, the

welfare recipients — the easy way out, without consultation.

None whatsoever.

Today we have many problems in the labour relations field.

Technological advancements are coming very fast. They're causing

many problems. Problems to government. Problems to management and

problems to the worker on the job. Problems to the trade union

movement who have jurisdiction, caused by technological changes.

It's time that all these parties got together and discussed a

solution to some of the problems.

There is another possible avenue that has been discussed by

many people; the Industrial Relations Advisory Council, which

could consist of experienced responsible representatives of

labour and management to study and make recommendations on

matters affecting labour management relations in the

province.

There is a great need I feel, though, in the collective

bargaining process for accurate and unbiased statistical research

material to be brought about when the dispute is on. At present

the public is left to decide which or what party does the best

propaganda job. We have the union putting out their side of the

story, we have the management putting out their side of the story

and it just depends who has the best P.R. department, I guess, in

many areas, who gets and wins the favour of the public because in

my opinion the public is the final judge in many cases.

In conclusion, I'd like to quote to you the last five lines in

a book called "The Labour Policy in Canada" professors at the

Labour College in Canada. He's also in charge of the industrial

relations department at McGill University. You may also recall he

headed the Wood Task Force Report a few years ago. This is what

he had to say.

"The task of finding a viable and tolerable balance in the

relationship of labour, business and the state is difficult, but

the stakes are high. The degree of personal freedom possible in

our society may depend largely on the insight displayed in

fashioning labour relations policy."

Mr. Speaker, we have the public interest at heart. This bill

is presented to bring about participation. This bill is presented

to bring about flexibility not rigidity. This bill is presented

to bring about an avenue to industrial peace in this

province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I'm a little surprised by one of the leaders of the

opposition over there, when he talks about the bill as being one

of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever introduced by

this government. He makes it sound as if we've been in for a long

time, and then he tells us that he's going to

[ Page 115 ]

support the bill. That is as confusing to me, as were many of

his actions throughout the past three or four years since he's

been the Minister of Labour. I'm thankful, believe me, that he's

no longer in that position.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I'm not supporting the

bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's changed his mind.

MR. GABELMANN: You're voting against the bill?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, yes.

MR. GABELMANN: It's good to know. Mr. Speaker, the problem

with labour relations is that it is far too complex for most

people in our society to understand. I guess one of the reasons

for that is our education department over the years has never

felt that labour trade unions, working people, should even be

talked about in education. Leave it out because that's dirty

politics, or leave it out because we have a class orientation to

our whole education system which says it's fine to talk about

business, but don't talk about labour.

I hope the Department of Education will begin to change this

policy so that future Members of this House will have some

understanding about the whole question of labour relations — by

far, in my view, the most complex topic going.

I view it sometimes a little bit the same as a marriage. There

is no way that a government of a Legislature or any so-called

impartial group in society is able to tell a married couple how

they are going to regulate their business. The only people who

can decide in that marriage what's going to happen in that

marriage, whether it's going to continue, what the new rules and

regulations are going to be in that marriage are the two people

involved. Labour relations is exactly the same thing. Only the

two parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, it's many years away but I hope we get to the day

in labour relations where we no longer need mediation officers,

because I think they are a crutch that parties should learn to do

without. I think that we would have far less labour strife in our

society if each party understood that it had to come to a

conclusion with those difficulties on their own, without any

outside assistance. Then, they would get down to business and

they wouldn't wait to be bailed out like they've been doing for

so long now.

Fortunately, we're going to do away with that silly commission

and we can begin to start this process where we have both parties

looking after it, both parties knowing that there is no way that

they can get bailed out — like management has known for so long

in B.C. Four-and-a-half years it has been, a happy day to get rid

of that.

This new Act — let me refer to that silly nonsense that the

newspapers have been referring to and I see it being picked up by

some of the opposition Members, about the sweeping powers. The

Attorney General, I felt, dealt with them pretty adequately. The

whole thing is a pack of nonsense. The other Members for one of

the North Vancouver ridings should have another look at what it

was he said and have a look at it in relation to the labour law

across the country, in relation to the labour law that used to be

in this province.

If the Minister of Labour can't go into a factory or into a

saw-mill to check up on something what in the heck can he do?

Those are essential powers in my view, but the minute the

Minister of Labour begins to abuse those powers, if I can get to

him first, I'll be the first one to complain to him and make sure

that he doesn't do it any more.

I think that what this new piece of legislation or what this

new piece of legislation are what this simple repeal of the

Mediation Commission allows us to do now in this province — to

begin a discussion, that has never been held yet in British

Columbia in a proper way. A discussion which can allow us to

draft a brand new labour Act which can be

[ Page 116 ]

a model for all of North America. We can get down to talking

about how can we organize the unorganized because we're now in a

new framework, Mr. Speaker, where we don't have the

bitternesses created by that commission. We can now sit

down labour, management and government — and decide just how is

it we can make some progress with organizing the unorganized — the

people in our society who are left out. The people in our society

who need representation in order that they can better cope with

the economic demands of our society.

One of the things that we can look at is improving the

certification procedures. This sometimes takes six months now,

Mr. Speaker, to get a certification through. Reducing it to 35

per cent, taking a vote after 35 per cent rather than 50 per

cent, maybe instant certification, a full-time labour relations

board, written decisions and onus on the part of the employer to

prove that an employee should be fired during an organizing drive

and not the other way around as it is now.

There are a great many things to discuss in this whole

question of organizing, Mr. Speaker. And one thing I might say

about the labour relations board at the moment is the whole

question of determining bargaining units. They make decisions one

day and the next day they make a decision totally contradictory.

There's just no way that the people out there who are organizing

have any opportunity to know exactly what the board is going to

do in terms of bargaining units.

Mr. Speaker, the new Act allows us to begin a rational

discussion about collective bargaining. The whole principle of

free collective bargaining. Do we go the Australian route where

they have compulsion? Where they have a lot of stiff legislation

and the most industrial strife in the world? Or do we go into

what I think is the best system. A system which does not have any

restrictions whatsoever.

It may sound strange, Mr. Speaker, coming from a socialist,

but I think the less law we have on this subject, the better we

all are. The less law on this the better.

There's a couple of keys, and I'm coming to a conclusion, Mr.

Speaker. The two keys that are important in order that we do have

good atmosphere in this province.

The first thing is a strongly-organized work force so we don't

have a situation where we have the unorganized against the

organized because of the economic income differences. We have got

to make sure that everybody is represented, everybody is

organized so they all have a fair kick at the can. That's the

first thing.

The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is — I mentioned this before

— it's important in this new atmosphere that the parties

understand that they have to make decisions on their own. We're

coming to that and this new piece of legislation gives us that

chance.

The third thing, and this is very important, Mr. Speaker, the

third thing is that there must be a high degree of economic

security in the community. As long as we have the threat of

unemployment, as we do now, as long as we have the threat of

inflation, as we do now, we are not going to be able to tell

working people that they shouldn't be asking for the moon.

Because believe me, if I were negotiating a contract here in this

House at the moment for my salary I would be negotiating for the

moon because there's not much security in this job. You know, you

can lose it very quickly.

And it's the same thing in our industrial community out there

now. Those people are aware that they could lose their jobs or

they can lose the value of their income because of inflation.

That leads to a situation where occasionally you get uncalled-for

demands. I think we can reduce the whole level of those demands

if we can create a better economic climate.

The final thing, Mr. Speaker, is the whole question of

mediation officers. I mentioned earlier that I didn't believe in

the whole idea of having a third party involved but I recognize

that because both labour and management are now so used to it and

they rely upon it so much it is a necessary ingredient. Therefore

let's do something with it. Let's pay those guys decent wages.

Let's give them some recognition. And let's give

[ Page 117 ]

them some power to make recommendations. You know, they can't

even make recommendations now in a dispute. That's absurd.

That's all I want to say, Mr. Speaker. I'm personally going to

look forward very much to the drafting of a new Act and I want to

thank the Minister for giving us that opportunity because he's

done it by removing in this bill by removing that Mediation

Commission. Thank you.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I don't know if it was

before or after this bill was drafted that the Hon. Premier (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) appointed the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) but it seems

to me that the document bestows I'm sure the Premier had to look around

and find the only man with the name of King and have him as the Minister of

Labour.

I think that's how that came about.

Mr. Speaker, we indeed welcome the abolition of the office of

the Mediation Commission. In our view that office and that

function became obsolete and discredited both by management, by

labour and by all parties. Even after the election oddly enough,

by the Social Credit. But, Mr. Speaker, it was one of the former

government's more famous buffers. It was one of the former

government's more obvious fire curtains to try to keep the

government fireproof from the problems of management and the

problems of labour and from dealing effectively with each of

them. But it didn't work.

I would, however, not go along with the language of the

earlier speakers today, but I do feel with respect, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker, that your treatment of the individuals

was somewhat cavalier because these people were working in an

unworkable framework that conceivably was not designed by the,

but by the former administration.

I would put in, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister a word for

the 17 other employees who I'm sure and indeed hope that the Hon.

Minister will find as best he can suitable employment in other

areas of the Civil Service. For goodness' sakes, let's not go

ahead and provide a hazy future for them. It's very true that

these people were not hired under the provisions of the Civil

Service but they were treated as such, paid as such and surely to

goodness let us hope there is a great area there to benefit from

their experience over the years.

And dealing with that item, I would suggest to the Minister of

Labour, Mr. Speaker, that he request these three Mediation

Commissioners to prepare individual briefs of their expertise and

observations over the years and of what recommendations that they

personally would have for the betterment of the labour management

industrial climate in the province. Because I would very much,

Mr. Speaker, like to see the taxpayer of this province receive

some benefit from that very, very expensive experiment. I think

this would be one way to do it.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Minister,

please be sure not to go ahead and throw the baby out with the

bath water. I think within the Mediation Commission there is one

element that is a very valuable element to the Province of B.C.

and it should definitely be retained. I'm talking about its

statistical and research expertise. I would suggest to the

Minister, Mr. Speaker, who speaks to the principle of this bill

that those resources are ones that we should not lose. I would

suggest to the Hon. Minister that perhaps he could see his way

clear to investigate and recommend the appointment of an

independent industrial research service and use the expertise

that the research department of that Mediation Commission has

built up over the years to form a base for the industrial

research service that I've just suggested.

Its function I think would be a very, very valuable function.

I made this suggestion once to the former government and one of

the Ministers felt rather kindly to it but it was not acted upon.

I think it's a very valid suggestion and I do hope, Mr. Speaker,

the Hon. Minister will give it his earnest consideration.

The function of this research service would enable the public

to have an independent microscope and make ready and available

for the general public of B.C. an impartial and true and

unweighted set of facts or statistics and

[ Page 118 ]

economic data when they are examining the two sides of an

industrial dispute. That is certainly something that the general

public does not enjoy now. I think that this would being into far

better perspective the materials that is fought out in the Press

through a public relations campaign and a Press campaign of both

management and labour of these apples and orange statistics where

the general public doesn't really have an opportunity to see what

the independent position is. I would commend the Minister to give

thought to establishing just this kind of a body.

I would also suggest that you have taken another step in this

bill and that is to provide that collective agreements don't have

to be filed, with the mediation service. I think this again

serves to emasculate the research service we should turf these

kinds of things out. I think that we should do whatever we can to

retain as much of the public watchdogs sentiments that we

can.

Now, I would like to say a couple of words about the powers

and I would like to address myself at the termination of these

remarks somewhat to the statements a little bit earlier made by

the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

Now the New Democratic Party has always been passionately fond

of civil liberties and we've had some excellent talks in this

House from the former Opposition on exactly those points.

But I do feel, and I concur with the sentiments, but not with

the expression of the sentiments of some of the other Members

when they said today that you may as well, pretty well, set an

extra place at the table for the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King) in pretty well every kind of an operation because he can

come as, when, and if he chooses and without invitation consent

or warrant.

Now, this to me just looks a little bit like Big Brother and

quite frankly I do not find the historical background that the

Honourable Attorney General found to support the premise that

you're raising here. And I will be talking about that in a couple

of seconds.

Now,

I think not only has the minister in this statute, Mr. Speaker, given

himself complete powers to receive information — which are fine and

dandy, and I think he's very much entitled to that — but he should

receive that information in confidence. I very much question that he

should have the right to blurt out whatever portion of it he wishes,

and only as he wishes, in public. So he's blessed, shall we say, with

the totality of power to receive information — also total power to

disseminate it, and publish it whenever he wishes to, whenever he

directs, and whenever he chooses. We don't find checks, or any balances

here and this is raw unbridled power. This is the very thing that we

heard from those great speeches from the former Member from

Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) about in the last session, and

many sessions behind that. And I'd say that…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: You're the Minister and you're so elevated now I nearly

forgot myself, Hon. Minister, my apologies. You do look good with your flower

there too. I say what fertile ground for abuse of power here. You could have

censorship, selective information and stool pigeoning of the very worst. And

this I don't think is the way the new government wishes to come in with legislation.

I would repeat there would have been no more indignant and

more vocal and rightfully so, and fought so hard against this

opportunity — and I'm not saying it would happen — but this

opportunity for the abuse of power as the former official

opposition of this House.

If it's bad cloth, Mr. Speaker, it's bad cloth, and it doesn't

matter too much who the tailor is. And I say that some of these

sections are very bad cloth indeed.

I say don't go ahead and set up something that is capable of

misuse with the argument that you're not going to misuse it. With

respect to the (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) I would suggest to him never

mind the hoary

[ Page 119 ]

arguments of the past, that because it was done in the past

and we've got to do it now, because you're a New Democratic

Party. You're not a hoary Democratic Party, you're a New

Democratic Party….

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you spell it?

MR. GARDOM: H-O-A-R-Y, Sir. You're a New Democratic Party. And

for you to go ahead and suggest to the House, Mr. Speaker, the

Hon. Attorney General coming to the legal defense of the Hon. Minister of

Labour and suggesting to the House that this was something that was

merely inherited or inherited through a wisdom channeled from former

government, I find it rather difficult myself to determine by perusal of the

statutes.

I have to readily admit I did not quite go back to 1917.

However, I did go back a little bit of the way. In the little bit

of the way that I went back I find out that in the 1954 statutes

you had a Board of Conciliation, Mr. Speaker. That consisted of

three people, and they were set up under very stringent rules,

and stringent regulations and very, very definite and

clearly-defined guidelines. They also had to take a specific oath

which we don't find here, because there is an unlimited right to

disseminate any portion of the information that the Hon. Minister

may wish to do.

But not so under the former Labour Relations Act, not so there

at all. It is true that they had the opportunity, as the Attorney

General said to go ahead and come in without warrant during

regular working hours. But look what the Minister's power of

disseminating information was restricted to. He may direct "that

the decision of a Conciliation Board be published in such a

manner as he thinks proper." And if the decision was not

unanimous the minister may also direct "that all findings and

recommendations be published."

Now it's one thing, Mr. Speaker, to be talking about

publishing decisions, and it's another thing to give the Minister

the raw unbridled power to let trickle out one or two facts that

he alone may selectively choose and I think that's far too much

power.

So I went back from 1960 and 1954, back to the next statute

and I got back to 1948 and I'm afraid that's all the time that I

had at my disposal to check into this point. But I don't find any

of the references in 1948, 1954 or 1960. So I think if the Hon.

Attorney General is seeking to enlighten the Province of British

Columbia by referring to 1917 he's even more out of date than the

Social Credits.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr.

Speaker, I'll be brief. I just want to make a couple of comments — particularly

one that was delivered by the former Minister. He complained that the legislation

was hasty. Well, I might remind him that it wasn't hasty, we were a little out

of breath after 35 days but it wasn't hasty. We had four-and-a-half years to

think about what we were going to do with this one. I would suggest that his

Bill No. 88 was very hasty, ill-conceived and showed a tremendous amount of

lack of knowledge of the labour movement.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson)

wanted to know who's pulling the strings? Well, I'll tell him who

is pulling the strings. On this one the people of British

Columbia pulled the strings when they elected us. Sitting on this

side of the House are 12 active trace unionists. They are the

people that have put the input into this kind of legislation. And

four of them sit in the Legislature cabinet.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: We are interested in people, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[ Page 120 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: I would just like to say one other thing. That

I am very happy to see that some of the leaders of the business

and management community have expressed an earnest desire for a

better climate to exist in respect to labour management

relations. Over the last few days we heard a number of speeches

which have been very positive in terms of the principles of the

legislation that we have before us. I think that that augurs well

for labour peace in this province. Because for the first time

there's a lessening of hostility and I think that is one of the

reasons why we've felt it necessary to introduce this legislation

now in order to create the climate now — not in a few months but

now. It is necessary to defuse that atmosphere that that Hon.

Member over there contributed so much to.

In 15 months he did almost as much damage as the government

that was in power for 20 years. But it is our intention in terms

of this bill to have an atmosphere between labour and management

that will not require a third party intervention. It won't

require, my friend, welfare either because the kind of atmosphere

we want to create nobody will have to go on strike, and there

will be no need for them to get support. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members. As a

member for many years of the work force of this province I must

commend the Minister for this bill.

It is a step into the future, I feel, and not backward into the past — to

get back to an era of trust and understanding of some kind between the two parties,

to any kind of an agreement or any kind of living association.

This is going to give the flexibility that is necessary to

meet the problems that are here today. And it's going to give the

flexibility necessary to meet the problems as they arise in the

future. And the problems that are arising on the industrial

future of this province as far as employee relations are

concerned are so great and so many that we can't even picture

them all for the next three to four years.

This province since 1942 has been building one process

industry after another. And by process industries I mean those

such as refineries and chemical plants. In plants of this type

management is requiring a greater and greater amount of training

and education. And the job itself through automation is giving

less and less personal satisfaction every month that goes by, in

every job and every bit of technamation that is brought into the

plant.

They are requiring senior matriculation for many of these

plants, and demanding junior matriculation. And after a training

period and a man takes over the supervision of perhaps $3 million

worth of equipment at the end of eight hours that probably is

from midnight till eight in the morning, because most of these

jobs are shift work, the only satisfaction he has for his

education, for his training, and for these hours he has put in is

perhaps go to the rundown sheet or the records and see that he

has perhaps helped to contribute to put six inches in tank No.

1008, and maybe he has helped to make two inches more in a

certain chemical tank than they made in the same week in the year

before.

This is one of the greatest causes we're going to have in

frustration and alienation of the work force in this province in

the future — the lack of job satisfaction — and I do not know

how this can be legislated against or for. It is a problem which

we're going to have to have a lot of flexibility in our present

legislation, and these consultations that we've talked about

between management, labour and government, may have to include

some psychologists to help with this question of alienation and

lack of satisfaction in the job that you're doing.

Most of these jobs, Mr. Speaker, are well paid, most of them

have excellent pension plans, but they all have these horrible

lack of worth that every person in the work force in this country

should have in the job he's doing. The result of this is that

when bargaining time comes — and

[ Page 121 ]

we've seen many examples in the past — and his committee

comes out of talking with management and makes a representation

for settlement with the members of that union they get the one

chance they ever have to strike out and relieve their

frustration.

They turn it down, they say it's not good enough and send them

back in even though it was probably a very good settlement. This

is a thing which has probably contributed in my opinion to the

problems in the work force in this province, and it's not one

that you're going to correct by compulsion of any kind.

I can understand some of the Opposition Members fear in this

bill about the powers and how will we fare at the unbridled use

of power by the government. I can understand why they're

concerned. They've seen 10 years of it in the past. So no wonder

they fear it.

Interjection by An Hon. Member.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I'm only speaking about the worst 10.

(Laughter). I hope to see the Minister set up a committee to

study this thing, the matters that I raise, because it's growing

more and more all the time. There are more and more process

plants and in consequence there are more and more people who are

working at a job, feeling useless and they're not getting enough

out of their work or no satisfaction as a person or an employee.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, and Mr. Speaker, may

I be the first to congratulate the Member for Kamloops for his

fine speech. It's a fine speech, exactly the type of quality of

presentation in this House that you can expect from someone with

the name that he bears. (Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm quite sure that the Hon. Member

from Kamloops will be making the good contribution to our

discussions.

I will quickly say, if you'll permit an aside, that it was one

of the more difficult campaigns because, of course, the name was

the same.

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned by other Members of the

Liberal Party in this debate, we intend to support this bill. We

do so however, and I'd like to make this perfectly clear, on

accepting the clear understanding of the Premier which was given

yesterday and at other times as well that he wanted to have all

parties in this House and all Members of this House cooperate

and put forth their best ideas by way of amendment. He said he

will consider them and accept those that he felt were

improvements. We intend to do precisely that.

There will be amendments brought forth at the correct stage.

We will be putting forward amendments.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well we've sent in a few ourselves. Don't

know where he might be.

In any event….

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nice of you to help us out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We realize that it is the desire of the

government to get on with the certain things that they talked

about during the campaign and of course before. We do regret that

there are apparently some things which have been forgotten in

this bill, and some things included which should not be included

— and I'm thinking in particular of the excessive powers granted

to the Minister.

[ Page 122 ]

I say this with all due respect. I think that one of our

difficulties in arguing today is who could believe that a

Minister who is as nice as our good friend opposite could

possibly misuse these powers. Indeed, this was the error that the

Hon. Member, in another excellent first speech to this House, the

Hon. Member from North Vancouver–Seymour, made when he spoke.

He said: "Of course plenty of power has been given to the Minister and I'll

be the first to jump on him if he makes any mistakes."

Well, we shouldn't be granting Ministers that type of power, I

feel, simply because we don't think that they'll misuse them. We

therefore will be putting amendments in to this bill and I trust

that the Hon. Minister of Labour will realize that it's not in

any way a reflection upon him or his ability or his honesty or

integrity, not at all. It's indeed, because as I said, it's more

difficult to argue this point because he is by reputation and by

personal knowledge a very fine man. But, we do have to realize

that other people may take this portfolio. Who knows, indeed, a

government may change sometime, some of the rogues and rascals

who may be on this side of the House, either here or there, I

know not, may wind up in that position. Therefore we have to

think of this very carefully.

All I would suggest to the Hon. Attorney General is that

wide-ranging powers are of course in certain bills and lawyers

can easily make a case to continue to include such wide a power

as being granted the Minister. Certainly lawyers who are

Ministers can continue to make arguments that more and more wide

power should be granted to Ministers. I can only remind him of

the words of his predecessor and I quote from the Vancouver Sun

for June 21 where there were a number of seizures of documents by

R.C.M.P. under warrant —

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No… No, that's quite right, Mr.

Attorney General, it was not under this Act but the then

Attorney General, and I quote him, Mr. Peterson said that the

police visits to union offices were "normal procedure." It is the

type of thing which I think that you should try and avoid. You

should try and anticipate problems. You should try and improve

legislation, not simply say that: "Well, my father did it while

he was Attorney General, and I'm going to do it now, when I'm

Attorney General." (Laughter)

I feel that the object of our whole purpose here is to try and

improve legislation, year by year as we go ahead and therefore I

will….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, naturally Hansard could not

report references of the Attorney General to his grandfather.

(Laughter).

Nevertheless, it is something we should consider fairly

seriously. We are trying to improve legislation.

The argument that is done elsewhere is not really a valid

argument. You should be able to justify it here and now, in terms

of whether it is good or bad — not in terms of whether it was

done in 1917 or whether it was done in another province, such as

Ontario or Saskatchewan, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney General, Sir. You

have not made that case yet, and therefore we simply go on record

now as saying that while we will be supporting this bill in

principle, we do so under very clear understanding that we are

taking the Premier's word very seriously. We are taking him at

his word that he will consider the reasonable amendments from the

Opposition to improve legislation.

We feel that we have such amendments coming forward and I

simply remind the House and of course, in particular the back

benchers of the New Democratic Party, that at this stage we are

simply discussing the principle of the bill.

When these amendments come we trust that they will treat them

with the credit they deserve.

[ Page 123 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. It is a real pleasure to be here with you today. I would

like to congratulate you in your new office. I think I'd like to

congratulate every Member in this House for being elected or

re-elected in this election. It's a real pleasure to be here.

I just want to make one or two points on this question. I

think our riding is one that suffered probably as much as any

other riding, by virtue of the compulsion in the Mediation

Commission.

Free collective bargaining has just not existed in the past

and I think that we should give this a great deal of thought.

Just what does free collective bargaining mean… I think it

simply puts legislation into effect that puts both sides on equal

ground in their bargaining programme.

If you equip one side or the other with legislation that they

can use as a weapon and keep it in their back pocket while they

are bargaining, then the side that's got that weapon is going to

have the position to use it. Either to procrastinate — he can

afford to be arrogant and when one side, be it management or

labour is able to be arrogant, then the other side becomes

militant and you just do not have any bargaining process at all.

I think as long as we have free collective bargaining we're going

to make a big step forward toward labour peace.

I think the real thing that we should keep in mind is the

question of when a dollar becomes worth 80 cents and a person is

working for a pay cheque and $100 becomes worth $80, he is

certainly going to have an incentive to bring it back up to that

level.

If I'm a merchant and something goes up a dime or two I'll be

able to mark it up. This is part of the economic process. But in

collecting a pay cheque you have to fight for everything you get

and when inflation starts eating into your pay cheque, you want

to do something about it, and if we want to force people to

prevent them from fighting to maintain what they have been

receiving, that is a purchasing power of their work. You are not

going to be able to restrain them with force and I think that's

the whole thing. We remove force from the bargaining process and

let them discuss and negotiate on particular arguments or

statistics or whatever they need to discuss.

I think also we should look at this question of power. Do we

want to give free license to people, to operations, to indulge in

sweatshop labour conditions? If nobody is going to check up on a

place or pay it a visit once in a while they are going to find

management indulges in labour sweatshop conditions.

I can also think of an example in my riding where there was a

case. A fellow got fired because he refused to lift a man in a

bucket on a crane to do some maintenance work way up top. They

fired him because he refused to do that.

When the case was examined it turns out — and of course this

was what his argument was, the fellow that got fired — the case

was examined and this particular bucket did not conform with the

specifications for the sake of safety. It was a continuous

hazard. It also turned out that this bucket was picked up from a

scrap heap from the construction period, and they made a

make-shift arrangement to lift people up in this bucket.

They tried to argue that this fellow shouldn't have done that

— there are other ways to refuse without taking up a position

like this. But nevertheless the arbitration board reinstated him

and put him back to work.

It was agreed that apparently that he maybe shouldn't have

done that, but the company shouldn't have done that for the

previous five years either.

Now if you don't have ways and means to govern these things,

then you are going to encourage violation of safety, of hours, of

so on and so forth. In regard to the officers' pay. Somebody says

that they get $40,000 a year. Just one observation on that value

— it's equivalent of 22 years of pay that a widow will get in

workmen's compensation benefits

[ Page 124 ]

when her husband is killed in an industrial accident. Surely,

this is something we should all keep in mind.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I would like to

say first of all I am sure that the Speaker appreciates the

nature of the debate this afternoon. It has been carried on in

such good feeling.

I don't think the Hon. Attorney General should be concerned

about the vehemence in debate. Based upon the experience

yesterday, when the official opposition attacks you vehemently

you know whether they are going to vote with you. I think you

know that they have to have some way of telegraphing these little

suggestions and I think you should encourage it. It certainly

helps us in knowing what they are going to do.

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker who sat down, in the course of

his remarks mentioned the value of research and I must echo the

comments by the second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) in

expressing concern that the sections which have been repealed in

this Act are going to remove, perhaps, from the availability of

the minister competent people, and I hope that this will be

overcome.

The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) also raised a

matter of what work really is today, and how meaningful the

employment is and how enjoyable it may be or not be for the

worker. I think that we would all agree that men and women need

to work, but the concern will always be before us as to when work

stops and it becomes toil, and that we must do everything that we

can to ensure that toil is destroyed

whereas the right and the

ability to work remains with us always.

Too, the Hon. first Member from Vancouver South (Mr. Radford)

spoke about the fact of having a third party present in

connection with disputes in industrial matters. I'm sure he would

be the first to agree with me that the situation has arrived in

our modern economy when in any industrial dispute there always is

a third party and that is the general public and that the effect

of the resolution of any industrial dissolute — the effect of a

strike — the effect of a lockout — is felt not only by those

who are directly involved, but also by the third party. It is

surely our responsibility as legislators from every area and

region of this province to be concerned that when we do have

legislation dealing with these disputes that the public interest

is foremost in our consideration.

Because if labour as a group in society or if management as a

group in society begins to take positions which are

contrary to the public interest, then they must be expected to

give way. With that in mind, I must express some criticism of the

Minister. I'm sorry that today was the first time he rose in his

place in this House and congratulated you, Mr. Speaker, on your

election.

I would have thought that in view of the expressions from all

sides of the House today, the Minister would have been on his

feet during the previous debate, to tell us what he said today

that he was going to hold hearings and he was anxious to get on

with them. I would have had on the orders of this House by now a

motion for the purpose of establishing a committee either

composed entirely of, or including, Members of this House — the

committee that is going to hold these various hearings. Because I

say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, it will not be

good enough if you meet with representatives of labour, if you

meet with representatives of management to discuss what future

changes you will make in this legislation or companion

legislation. Because there are other more important groups

affected by this legislation who's voices must be heard, and you

will never be able to seek them out unless you establish a

committee which is able to hold hearings throughout this

province, to receive briefs, be they from consumer groups, from

senior citizens, from small business people — whatever segment

of society they may call their own.

They must be heard. Their thoughts must be received by the

committee and their ideas must be taken into account in the

formulation of that

[ Page 125 ]

legislation which we still look forward to receive from

government. In order that such a committee can not only do the

job of assisting you in drafting legislation which we hope you

will have before us at the next session, but also to enable

members of this House better to deal with that legislation when

it comes to this House, I suggest that they should be on that

committee from the outset. Nonpartisan — all parties sitting

which there has been evidence in the debates today. That's what

we need and that's the kind of motion, Mr. Minister, which you

should have had on the order paper of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I rise today to

make a token participation in this debate on labour legislation

in British Columbia. I think the Minister in his opening remarks

indicated this is an interim piece of labour legislation. This is

required as early as possible because somewhere back in previous

years labour management relations had taken a wrong turn and it's

necessary sometimes to go back on part of the road you've

travelled in order to get back on the right road. This is an

interim procedure in effort to get us back on the right road. I'm

making this token participation today, because I happened to be

in the House the night that we started up that wrong road. At a

time — and that was the 1954 session of the Legislature when the

then Minister of Labour introduced legislation. It was a night

sitting, he spoke to second reading. He was going to abolish the

full-time Labour Relations Board. He told the House that he was

abolishing this board because: "They had exceeded their

responsibility."

How anyone could exceed their responsibilities in trying to

bring labour and management together I don't know, and the

Minister never did explain. But further he said the abolition of

the full-time Labour Relations Board would save the Province of

British Columbia $65,000 a year. That was the most expensive

$65,000 this province ever saved. That was the first step down

that wrong road.

And from time to time in the succeeding years other

legislation was introduced. Each piece of legislation we were

told would bring labour peace to British Columbia. But each piece

of labour legislation that was introduced by the previous

administration brought more friction, more abrasive language,

especially from the Government side of the House, against labour,

and created more and more the kind of climate that brought this

disaster in the labour management field to the Province of

British Columbia.

The spokesman for the official opposition when he stood up

said the present legislation was ill-conceived, ill-prepared

legislation. I have to agree that in 35 days we had to determine

what first steps had to be taken. I have to agree that the

legislation that he supported while it may have been

ill-conceived was not hasty. It was carefully calculated to bring

about a certain result. And it indicated the position of that

particular government vis-à-vis labour and management.

That same spokesman for the official Opposition talked about

the way in which the Mediation Commission had been handled

in-so-far as the dispensation of the jobs were concerned. I was

in this House when a previous administration introduced a bill.

And that bill disposed of the services of a top civil servant in

the Province of British Columbia. Just like that. And not one

Member on the government side of the House gave any reason of any

kind why that individual should be removed from office.

Completely different situation. Here was a position where both

labour and management had agreed that the Mediation Commission as

a part of bringing labour management peace is a complete failure.

And that if you're going to do something about it there has to be

legislation. An agreement that something had to be done about it

and that's what was done.

I disagree with — I think it was one of the Liberal Members

— who said we should get some value for the money that has

already been expended. I think the people of this province have

had some value, a great deal of value, for the money

expended.

[ Page 126 ]

We received an education, we received an education. One, that

you can't legislate human perfection. Two, that you can't chain

workers to the job through compulsion. Three, that you can't have

labour/management peace with one-sided legislation. And that's

what we've had in the past, one sided legislation. And the

legislation itself became a major part of the province.

I think we've heard some fine speeches today on all sides of

the House indicating concern of the Members of this House about

labour/ management relations and what can be done to improve it

in the Province of British Columbia. I have said for many years

that the government must give the leadership in setting the

climate. And this government is giving the leadership and will

give the leadership to re-establish the kind of climate that is

very necessary for labour, management and peace in the Province

of British Columbia.

I think the government must be a prime example, and that's why

we've said that the civil servants of this province will be

treated in the same way as other workers and other citizens in

the Province of British Columbia.

I think we have to have labour legislation that will allow

more flexibility and more freedom. Because the administration,

and the previous legislation was a mechanistic, ritualistic thing

which took labour and management down the road step by step with

no escape toward a compulsory strike situation.

There was no way out because you made it so ritualistic there

was no flexibility, there was no way to escape. Finally came that

final step — a strike vote. Once a strike vote was taken a

psychological barrier was removed and there was the strike and

the lock-out which has bedeviled us so much in the past.

I think we have to recognize, in writing labour legislation,

the facts of the forces that operate in the society today. The

personal satisfaction that comes to a worker through his job.

Society has produced some jobs that it must be very difficult to

live with year after year without personal satisfaction. Somehow

we have to find a legislation that will allow that individual to

negotiate with management so that the individual does get some

compensation for what we do to them as human beings in doing

these very necessary production jobs in a disciplined economic

production factor.

I think this is a good first step in correcting the errors of

the past. I think the debate has been on the level that we all

appreciate, and I hope that with the help of everyone we can

create that kind of society where there is a symbiosis really — that's the situation we're after achieving — between labour and

management. Wherein each group requires the help of the other in

order to achieve their maximum.

That's the sort of objective that this government has first in

bringing in this legislation and then getting the time to bring

in a completely new attitude, a completely new legislation that

will start us back up the right road.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I don't

wish to prolong this debate. I would like though, to make just a

few comments in passing and one of the things that seems to be

emanating from the Opposition benches today is that the Mediation

Commission has been used as some kind of an axe, or some kind of

a tool hanging over the head of labour. Was it not also….

AN HON. MEMBER: The Government benches.

MR. PHILLIPS: Or the Government bench — pardon me, pardon me.

I have to get used to my position in this House. I'm sorry. From

the Government bench. Is this same axe, is this same tool not

hanging over the heads of the business leaders of this community?

Are they not subject to the same, as you call it, devastation

should this axe fall?

[ Page 127 ]

I wasn't in this House when this was passed, but I read that

where a dispute between any employer or group of employees, and

his or their employees or a trade union is not resolved, and in

the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council it is necessary

in order to protect the public interest — is that not what the

Mediation Commission is all about, to protect the public

interest? Do you not think that by protecting the public interest

that many times you may be protecting the worker himself who is

not desirous of being out on strike, and his wife and his

children who do not want to have their father out on strike?

Is that not what the Mediation Commission was put in to

protect? Was it not put in to protect certain segments of the

society that may be no party or partial to a labour dispute and

through no fault of their own, their own economy, or their own

business may be entirely wiped out?

Is that not what the Mediation Commission was all about? I

would like to know, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King) what he intends as an interim piece of

legislation, or how he's going to handle it, should there be a

devastating strike in the province between now and the time his

proposed new legislation is brought down.

Because without this Mediation Commission we could in theory

have a strike that would be devastating to the entire Province of

British Columbia.

How is he going to handle it? You going to handle it — how?

Mr. Minister of Lands Forests and Water Resources. I would like

to know, I'm serious about this, I'm not standing on my feet to

create a hazard here today, or prolong the debate. I am sincerely

interested in knowing and I have faith enough in the Minister of

Labour and I know him as a gentleman that when he closes the

debate on this particular Act that he will try and endeavour to

answer my questions.

Because as I said before, supposing — and we have had this

and it has hurt the farmers in my area in the past where dock

strikes, where train strikes might have tied up the movement of

grain — again through no fault of the farmer, through no fault

of the agriculture industry.

But they have tied up grain shipment, have hurt the off-shore

market for the export of grain and if the farmer doesn't sell his

grain how can he continue to buy the products, and continue to

feed his family and continue to pay his taxes?

You know this, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, and there again I

think you are making fun of a serious question that I am asking

about the farmers in my area. How are they going to be protected

if there is a devastating strike — and school buses have got

nothing to do with it Mr. Minister of Agriculture. School buses

have got nothing to do with the question that I'm seriously

asking in this House, Mr. Minister of Agriculture.

I want to know what interim measures are going to be taken to

protect the other segments of this society, Mr. Speaker, and I

think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, the seriousness of my

questions here this afternoon. I know that certainly the Minister

of Labour will endeavour to answer them when he goes on to move

second reading. All I want to know, Mr. Minister of Labour, is

what you are going to do to protect the working man, what you are

going to do to protect those segments of our society who want no

part of or are impartial to a strike? Are you Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker, going to ban the strike as a method of

settling Labour disputes? Is it your intention to ban the strike

and come up with something new, something aggressive, something

entirely new, a first in the whole world, for settling labour

disputes?

If you are, I would certainly wish you success and tell you

that you would certainly have my support from this side of the

House if you can come up with something new. You are supposed to

be an aggressive forward looking government. You are for the

working man, so you say I hope that you take all parts of the

working man, all parts of labour, and not just the labour bosses

into consideration when you bring in your new legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

[ Page 128 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the House too

long. I think this is an appropriate time for me to express a

number of comments about this particular bill and a reaction

prior to the introduction of the bill and the community.

I have received some very, very kind letters, some very

extensive phone calls, prior to this bill being introduced, from

prominent businessmen in British Columbia whose letters are in my

office if anyone who cares to go through them. Some of them are

beyond the usual letter of congratulation. You are welcome to see

them, I'll file them if you want. You can go through the whole

file. I have had literally hundreds of letters and I have had my

staff using their own discretion of selecting some of the

letters. I received phone calls from a number of prominent

businessmen…

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you file them all?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You come down to my office and take as long

as you want to go through all the correspondence. No, I don't

think there is any point of bringing them all up to file up here,

but if you want to come to my office, you can go through all the

letters.

What I am offering is in the spirit that these letters were

sent and the spirit which these phone calls were made. One of the

phone calls, and its not a private matter, one of the phone calls

was from none other than J. V. Clyne. Mr. Clyne is a citizen of

British Columbia, and the other people who contacted me expressed

to me personal good wishes to the government.

They made it clear that they are not N.D.P.ers but they are

citizens of British Columbia. They expressed sincere good wishes

to the government. They expressed sincere good wishes to the

government. They expressed to me the very best hope that we would

be able to develop a different labour management climate in this

province. Not loaded in favour of management, or in favour of

labour. Mr. Clyne asked as well as the other letters that we

would consider all points of view in drafting new legislation. We

intend to do that. We intend to do that, and I am pleased that

almost everybody who has spoken in the House welcomes a new

approach in labour management relation. Whatever bill we come up

with will take the input not only of all the MLA's in this House,

but from labour, from management, from any interested citizen and

we will try to come up as far as humanly possible with a bill

that will accommodate some solutions hopefully to this very

vexing problem.

No one is ever going to prevent disputes between groups of

people or between individuals. Unlike the former Premier I've

never considered labour management relationship to be like the

analogy he gives of a hockey game with the players going all out

and the referee's stepping in on occasion to change the rules, or

to impose the rules and hopefully the game goes on.

I'm not criticizing analogy. I've looked upon labour management more than just

a brief exchange as though it's a game that's over a time period — more like

a marriage where partners are wedded for a lifetime and where a referee cannot

be called on occasion to blow the whistle and pick up the puck and change sticks.

They both have to live in the same house. The teams don't travel home when the

game is over. They must reside together for the rest of their lives. It's a

working relationship.

I'm no expert in labour management relationship, but I've had

some experience in marriage counselling and let me tell you

that's the toughest job in the world — trying to get two

partners who have a love-hate relationship going to sit down and

come up with some common answers to problems that are common to

both of them.

We will not see the end of strikes in British Columbia. I wish

we could but I'm being realistic, we'll probably have strikes.

We'll not see the end of emotion running rampant during tense

situations when people are in dispute, because emotions do run

rampant when people are in dispute.

[ Page 129 ]

If you want any example of that, bring in a contentious piece

of legislation. We have it here. But we're in a far more amiable

experience here. We don't have the frustrations as pointed out by

the Member from Kamloops (Mr. Anderson) and so well added to by

the Member from West Vancouver Howe-Sound (Mr. Williams).

We don't know what goes on in people's hearts and minds when

they get all chewed up in some kind of experience that they

aren't able to articulate. They aren't able to explain. But they

feel it. When somebody feels something is wrong that feeling

becomes a fact. And that goes for both labour and management.

I have great confidence in the Minister of Labour. I wouldn't

have asked him to do the job if I didn't have. But I think that

there is no more sensitive portfolio in terms of my experience

than the poor guy that gets stuck with being Minister of Labour

in this province.

He smiles, and you know we will welcome all amendments, we

will peruse the, we have to make a decision whether or not

they're acceptable to us as government. We don't have a closed

mind about any of the directions we wish to go in and as of all

Members of all parties said what we're really looking for is

flexibility.

I wasn't a very good marriage counselor. I gave it up very

early because I found it the most frustrating kind of work with

people that I had ever experienced. And if I use the same analogy

I hope that my labour Minister doesn't suffer the same

frustrations I suffered as marriage counselor. Nonetheless,

that's his task. I think all of us can make it easier.

It's not been an easy road with me as leader of this party

with the trade union movement, I'll be frank about it. I had my

difficulties, publicly, privately. It's not been an easy road

with me with industry. I've had most of my difficulties with them

publicly. But nonetheless we are here to govern.

We are making this move very quickly, because management and

labour have indicated that the Mediation Commission is a failure

and as my friend the Minister of Highways said perhaps the best

way to move forward is to take one step back. That's what we are

doing. We are going to be responsible when crises come — as they

will — and we be criticized — as we will. We will expect that

we will weather those storms as best we can. But I just want to

say in conclusion that I have felt both happy and sad about some

of the tasks I've had as Premier, but one of the happiest moments

was receiving the letters and the phone calls from prominent

citizens in this province who have said, publicly and privately,

that they want to cooperate for the sake of British Columbia and

that I appreciate very, very much.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

After listening to the Premier….

MR. SPEAKER: What's the point of order please?

MR. CHABOT: The point of order is that the Premier made

certain statements relative to amendments to this bill. We have

presented amendments on the order paper and we would like very much to

support the legislation, but unless those amendments which take certain

powers away from the Minister are accepted we are in a very difficult

position….

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Just a moment, just a moment…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you "just a moment."

MR. CHABOT: Will someone adjourn the debate until the next

sitting of the House?

[ Page 130 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The matter of amendments and whether they're

accepted or not, you can do it outside the House but — accept it or

not — you can do it outside the House, but not as a point of order. The

Hon. the Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've listened with great

interest to the contribution that the various Members of the

House had to make to the debate. There were those that I thought

were beneficial. There were those which the former Minister of

Labour (Mr. Chabot) made. You know what I liked about his

address? Actually nothing, Mr. Speaker, not a thing because I

think he indulged in the same type of inflammatory statement in

this debate that he was prone to use in his position as Minister

of Labour. Certainly, that's partially responsible for the sorry

situation that exists in British Columbia today, in labour

management relations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm somewhat amused by the Member for Oak

Bay, (Mr. Wallace) the provisional interim or whatever leader of

the Conservative Party. He tries to play "Mr. Clean" apparently

and he hedges on the compulsory aspect, the sweeping powers that

the Minister has taken and so on.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to remind him, Mr. Speaker,

that when he joined the Social Credit Party, and ran for that

party and sat as a Member of the House, it was with the full

knowledge that the Minister, the government of that day, had all

the powers to which he now objects so strenuously. He certainly

lent himself to it for a number of years before he made his long

trek across the House.

Now a number of things have come up that were criticized,

about the amendment that was brought in, or the legislation that

was brought in. Particular criticism, particular attention was

given to the alleged sweeping powers, new powers that were given

to the Minister.

There were various epithets used to describe these powers,

"astounding," "tremendous" and so on, and I think it's

rather astounding that certain Members of this House who have sat

here for a number of years were so ignorant of the legislation

that existed on the statute books of the province.

I would like to draw your attention to

section 44 of the

Mediation Commission Act. It reads as follows: "The commission or

any person who has been authorized for such purpose in writing by

the commission, may without any other warrant than this

section

at any time during regular working hours enter a building, ship,

vessel, factory, workshop, place of premises of any kind where in

work is being, or has been done, or commenced by employees, or in

which an employer carries on business, or any matter or thing is

taking place or has taken place concerning the matters referred

to the commission, and may inspect and view any work, material,

machinery, appliance or

article therein."

Now, it's shocking enough to me that the various leaders of

the small splinter parties didn't seem to recognize this

legislation was on the books, but it's completely unforgivable

that the former Minister of Labour occupied this office for some

8 months and didn't even seem aware that this power was contained

in the legislation.

I think he has exposed himself not only as one who gets up and

makes shallow and inflammatory statements, waving his arms with

no content whatsoever, but he has exposed himself as one who is

totally unfamiliar with the powers that he had under his

office.

No wonder the province was in a mess. No wonder we had chaos

in industrial relations in the province, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I might just expand that line just a little bit further.

Some of my legal friends got involved in the discussion as to the

powers that exist under the new Mediation Services Act. Let me

point out to them that similar powers exist under a variety of

legislation in the province. The Apprenticeship and Tradesmen

Qualification Act — read

section 18. The Department of Labour

Act — read

section 9. The Hours of Work Act —

section 9.

Department of Labour Act. The Male and Female Minimum Wage Acts,

the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Department of Labour Act,

section

[ Page 131 ]

7. Board of Industrial Relations. Minimum Wage Act,

section

11, and on and on it goes as a whole vast variety of different legislation

which contains identical or similar powers.

How on earth would you enforce the provisions of this

legislation, unless you had the power to police the Acts as they

exist? It's a bunch of nonsense based on synthetically artificial

arguments and I think that they are not worthy of further

discussion really.

I might point out too, Mr. Speaker, that these provisions are

certainly not peculiar to the Province of British Columbia,

certainly not peculiar to the Department of Labour. The Public

Inquiries Act provides similar powers to a variety of other

departments of government. It is a little bit shocking that the

learned friends who lead the various opposition parties wouldn't

be familiar with what goes on in the Province of British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they're not.

HON. MR. KING: Oh, come on! Mr. Speaker, we outlined the

intent of this Act in a very brief statement that I made when I

introduced this for second reading. Apparently, my Hon. friend

from that great industrial riding of West Vancouver–Howe Sound

wasn't listening, because we indicated that we wanted to bring in

new legislation, not my philosophy, and I would suggest for the

edification of the Hon. gentlemen across the way that I've had

more experience in the work-a-day conditions of the employer and

the employee in the province than he has. But I'm not prepared to

foist my philosophy on the people who must live with it.

I indicated that we intend to set up an adequate hearing

process, whereby the people who are going to be compelled within the

framework of the new laws have some input into them. I'm not prepared to

accept that the politician should hand down dictums from above and

say "that's what you must live with." This is the same bag that the

previous government fell into, I think it's unacceptable to this

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: So why don't you do it?

HON. MR. KING: Why don't we do it, he said. That's beautiful,

Mr. Speaker: "Why don't you do it?" You know, I think he must be

impressed with, wasn't it the 30 days of action, or the 60 days

of action that one of the Liberal Prime Ministers started out

with and ended up with 30 days of chaos.

Now we would like to have a little more detailed look at the

legislative programme that we are going to bring in. We would

like to involve the people in it who are going to be committed to

live with the legislative programme we bring in.

I think it's reasonable to go about the organization of this

type of programme in a reasonable way. If the Hon. gentleman

expects it in 35 days, then perhaps he can wait until he has the

good fortune to form a government in the next century sometime

and pursue that programme. Now, there is one other thing that I

just wanted to comment on, the former Minister of Labour made a

number of statements that I really can't take too seriously. He

called me a number of names personally and you know about the

state of my constitution as to whether I had courage or not.

Really, I find no area of the bill that is really relevant to

that type of a consideration, but I can tell the Hon. Member for

Columbia River this, Mr. Speaker, that when the day arrives that

I need an armed escort or an escort of commissionaires from the

Douglas Building to the Legislature, I'll resign as Minister of

Labour.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, if that's a reflection on courage

or something else, but certainly I look for something better in

the future. Now we have suggested that we wanted cooperation

from the other side of the House. I accept some of the points

that the Opposition has made and

[ Page 132 ]

certainly some of the people on our side of the House have

given some serious thought and made some valid points.

I'm prepared to talk and I'm not prepared to be stampeded into

fast action in setting a stage for a new labour relations Act in

this province. My friend from South Peace I believe, queried me

on the provisions contained under existing legislation or

legislation as it will exist, should we be confronted with a

major strike in the province now.

I might point out Mr. Speaker, that we are simply returning to

square one. We are returning to exactly where we are before the

Mediation Commission was established. We have people within the

Department of Labour who are very capable in terms of acting as

mediators and so on. We have the flexibility under the amendment

posed before you now to provide the services necessary to mediate

and assist in resolving labour disputes.

I might point out to my friend from Vancouver-Howe Sound that

his concern about the research facilities of the Mediation

Commission, I think they are certainly worthwhile. However, we do

have — I forget which Liberal it was, that introduced it, the

Member for Point Grey then — we do have within the Department of

Labour a research branch which although it hasn't been expanded

and utilized in the past it is certainly my intention to activate

as a broad function in the future. I can say that this is a very

useful organ that has been partly emasculated by the narrow

policies of our predecessor. It hasn't been able to play the role

that it should have been designing new policies for the

future.

Now I think the last area that I would comment on, Mr.

Speaker, before I close the amendment is the manner in which the

announcement of this legislation was dealt with and the effect

that it has had on the three commissioners over in Vancouver.

The Opposition again wants the best of two worlds. I know that

they must play the role of scrutinizing and criticizing. I accept

the fact. Can you imagine the cry that would have emanated from

the opposition benches, Mr. Speaker, had the full intent, the

full provisions of this legislation has been announced prior to

the convening of the House? Can you imagine how the experienced

legislators on that side would have shook their fingers at us and

accused us of contempt of parliament for baring our legislative

programme before it was presented to the House in the usual

manner?

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, further that the Mediation

Commission is not terminated as yet. It's not terminated as yet.

We are in the position where the legislation contained in the

Mediation Commission Services Act becomes law by proclamation.

Therefore, each

section is subject to proclamation and I can tell

the House this, Mr. Speaker, I've said it publicly before — that

I intend to have a dialogue with the commissioners and the

chairman. Not only the commission, but all those conciliation

officers and the office staff, who worked in that particular

department.

It seems a little bit singularly unusual to me that the venom

of the former Minister of Labour was all directed at the loss of

jobs for commissioners, employed at $40,000 and $42,000, with no

concern expressed for the secretary and the officers in that

department.

A little bit shallow, Mr. Speaker, a little bit transparent, I

think.

MR. CHABOT: Don't be a phony.

MR. SPEAKER: That is unparliamentary. I ask the Member to

withdraw it immediately.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't say he was a phony, all I said was "don't

be a phony."

HON. MR. KING: I wouldn't emulate the former Minister for

anything, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't think of it.

[ Page 133 ]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that we have every intention of

getting together with the Mediation Commission officers, with all

the employers who were involved in that particular department and

discussing the termination that will take place and the

possibility of employment in other areas and so on. All these

things will be taken into consideration. Adequate opportunity

will be given to discuss their attitudes with us.

I think the straw-man that was built by the former Minister

was something that was done for the edification of the Press

galleries rather than for its validity and I don't think that it

is worthy of any further comment, Mr. Speaker.

I think that this deals fairly well with it. Some of