1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1305 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Shutdown of Evans Plywood

operations. Mr. Wallace — 1305

Okanagan fruit growers' plebiscite. Mr. Bennett — 1306

Submissions re designs for new ferries. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1306

Foulkes report. Mr. Chabot — 1307

Proposed amalgamation of the University Endowment Lands. Mr. Gardom — 1307

BCIC capital expenditures. Mr. Gardom — 1307

Answers to questions. Mr. Phillips — 1307

Fraser Valley milk producers' request for financial aid. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1307

Motor vehicle lien indemnity fund. Mr. Morrison — 1308

Crime wave in Mission. Mr. Wallace — 1308

Shortage of antifreeze. Mr. Gardom — 1309

An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act (Bill 99). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1309

Mr. Morrison — 1310

Mr. Gardom — 1310

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1310

An Act to Amend the Companies Act (Bill 115). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1311

Vancouver Enabling Act, 1973 (Second Session) (Bill

120). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1312

Mr. Gardom — 1312

Mr. McGeer — 1312

Mr. Richter — 1312

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1312

Public Service Act (Bill 116). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1312

Mr. McGeer — 1312

Public Service Labour Relations Act (Bill 75). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Wallace — 1313

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1313

Mr. Wallace — 1314

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1314

section 1.

Mr. Chabot — 1314

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1314

Amendment to

section 1.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1315

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1315

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1316

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1316

section 1.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1316

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1316

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1317

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1317

section 3.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1318

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1319

Amendment to

section 3, Mr. Richter — 1319

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1319

section 4.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1320

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1320

Amendment to

section 6.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1321

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1322

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1322

section 7.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1322

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1322

Amendment to

section 8.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1322

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1323

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1323

Division on amendment to

section 8 — 1323

Amendments to

section 13.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1324

Amendment to

section 14.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1324

Amendment to

section 17.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1324

Hon. Mr. King — 1325

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1326

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1327

Division on amendment to

section 17 — 1327

Mr. Wallace — 1328

section 17.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1328

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1328

Mr. Williams — 1328

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1328

section 21.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1328

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1328

section 27.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1329

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1329

Report stage — 1329

Medical Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 81 ). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1329

section 7.

Mrs. Jordan — 1330

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act (Bill

76).

Committee, report and third reading — 1330

An Act to Amend the Mines Regulations Act (Bill 80). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 23.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1330

Report stage — 1330

Geothermal Resources Act (Bill 77).

Committee, report and third reading — 1330

An Act to Amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act (Bill 95). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 18.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1331

Report stage — 1331

An Act to Amend the Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill 107). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1331

section 1 as amended.

Mr. Gardom — 1331

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1332

Report stage — 1333

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill 10 I ).

Committee, report and third reading — 1333

An Act to Amend the Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act (Bill 97).

Committee, report and third reading — 1333

An Act to Amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Bill

102).

Committee, report and third reading — 1333

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act (Bill

103).

Committee, report and third reading — 1333

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pension Act (Bill 104).

Committee, report and third reading — 1334

Weed Control Act (Bill 71). Committee stage.

section 5.

Mr. Curtis — 1334

section 7.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1334

section 16.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1335

Report stage — 1335

An Act to Amend the Soil Conservation Act (Bill 94).

Committee, report and third reading — 1335

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill 96). Committee

stage.

section 9.

Mr. Curtis — 1335

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1336

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1336

section 79.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1336

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1337

Mr. Curtis — 1337

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1337

Report and third reading — 1337

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill 114). Committee

stage.

section 4.

Mr. Schroeder — 1338

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1338

Mr. Schroeder — 1338

section 5.

Mr. Schroeder — 1338

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1338

Report and third reading — 1338

An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act (Bill 113). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1339

Community Recreational Facilities Fund Appropriation Act (Bill 117). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1339

Mr. McGeer — 1339

Mr. Phillips — 1340

Mr. Curtis — 1340

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1341

Reports Report of the Vietnam committee.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1342

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today there are 56 students from Burnaby North High

School, in the riding of Burnaby North, and they are

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Cooper, and his wife. I would

like the House to join me in welcoming them today.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I wish to rise on a point of

privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if we could have the introductions

over first and then deal with it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, there are 12

students in theatre from Vancouver City College sitting in the

gallery today. They are accompanied by that noted thespian, Mr.

Tony Holland, and I'd like the House to join me in welcoming

them.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my

welcome to Tony Holland, along with a group of 55 students from

Centennial Secondary School in Coquitlam, and they are

accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Dubosov and Mr. Wall. I'd

ask the House to welcome them.

MR. McCLELLAND: I rise on a matter of privilege. I refer to

the 18th edition of May , in which May says that statements in

the House should not be grossly misinterpreted. Because of the

fact that a committee of privilege is sitting in this House, I

don't want the possibility to happen that the committee can be

prejudiced by outside interference.

I refer, Mr. Speaker, to a front-page story in this

morning's Colonist newspaper in which it's stated that: "Both

McClelland and Strachan made public documents which they claim

supported their points of view — McClelland that the Minister

authorized a management study of the B.C. ferry system,

Strachan that he had never done so." Mr. Speaker, the record in

Hansard clearly shows that at no time in this House did I use

the word "authorize." At no time did I accuse the Minister of

authorizing a survey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: My questions were, in fact, whether the Minister intended

to have a management survey and whether such a survey had in fact been underway

on October 11. Mr. Speaker, the record must be set straight. I appeal to you

to have it set straight.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, it would be, I

think, presumptuous of me to make any statement whatsoever on

this matter while it's before a committee of the House to

report back. If there's any matter involving or touching upon

the questions concerned, I do urge the Hon. Member to raise

them in that committee, because it's relevant to the

proceedings of the committee, "I would think, although it's not

for me to say. It's for the chairman of that committee to say,

under the rules.

I do suggest it would be wrong of me to take any further

steps in regard to that while a committee of the House is

dealing with it. I would ask the Hon. Member to reserve this

question to the committee. After the committee has reported on

the matters involved, if he's not satisfied that the matter is

cleared up, I certainly would not prejudice any rights that he

might have in this question.

Oral questions.

SHUTDOWN OF EVANS

PLYWOOD OPERATIONS

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

Premier if the government had any advance notice of the

proposed shutdown of the Evans Plywood operations in

Vancouver?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a letter

earlier this week from the management of Evans. I was informed

by the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams) that

this matter had been brought to his attention before and that

talks had taken place between Evans and the Minister in the

past and will continue in the future. It's a question of supply

and the Minister concerned is dealing directly with this.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it

be fair to ask the Minister of Lands and Forests, then, to what

degree it is anticipated that the government might take over

this operation of Evans Plywood?

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

That sounds like pregnancy — "to what degree"? There have been no discussions

in that vein at all, Mr. Speaker.

OKANAGAN FRUITGROWERS'

PLEBISCITE

[ Page 1306 ]

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. On a

quotation on a TV interview in South Okanagan, Mr. Charles

Bernhardt, president of the BCFGA and the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture, has quoted the Minister as saying that if the

plebiscite does not pass, the fruit growers could expect no

help from the government to stabilize income. Is this a correct

quotation?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): No.

MR. BENNETT: Will the Minister, because this quotation is

receiving a lot of publicity in South Okanagan, take steps to

clarify this situation outside the House with the growers of

South Okanagan?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in the House I answer

questions that are asked in the House. Outside the House, I

answer questions that are asked outside the House.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I address my question

to the Minister of Agriculture on the same subject. Did the

Minister intend to influence the outcome of this plebiscite

when he said on Friday last, "I'm fairly confident in my own

mind that the growers will want to continue their

organization"? And quote No. 2: "Personally I believe in the

single-desk selling agency that exists." Did the Minister

intend to influence the outcome of…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order

because you're asking an argumentative question about something

that was said in this House in a debate. The time to deal with

that is in that debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm asking it now!

SUBMISSIONS RE DESIGNS

FOR NEW FERRIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Communications and Transportation, following up

four previous questions: will the Minister undertake to table

today the report of May 24, 1973, referred to by him in this

House on September 24, dealing with submissions by two firms

for design fees and working drawings for the new B.C.

ferries?

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

that question yesterday. I explained yesterday that your group complained about

having people outside the House…(mike off)…and to find time to search

my files for the information. I've been a little busy the last 24 hours.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria that he must not multiply with slight variation a

similar question on the same point. He knows that rule, I'm

sure.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then I'll ask a supplementary: in view of

the Minister's assertion in the press conference of October 24

that the Canadian firm had not been chosen because its

estimates were more than $100,000 higher than the United States

firm and because it had promised the designs in less time, may

I ask the Minister whether each of the two firms involved was

asked to submit estimates on the same type, same size of

ferry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will take that question as notice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister is taking

that on notice, could I point out to him and could I ask him

whether he, at the same time, will check as to whether it is

true that the Canadian firm — Case Existological Laboratories — provided the Ferry Authority with an estimate for a

single-ended truck-trailer ferry and a double-ended 208-vehicle

and 274-vehicle ferry,

whereas the American firm provided

estimates on a double-ended truck-trailer ferry and a

double-ended 208- and 305-vehicle ferry?

MR. SPEAKER: Any further questions? The Hon. Member for

Columbia River.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary

question on this same subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member give way?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yes.

MR. McGEER: To the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by

his answer on September 24 that the Canadian and the American

firms were asked to give bids on an identical tender? That's

what he gave the House reason to believe on September 24. Does

he stand by that statement today?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said I would take it as notice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But you have done that five times now

already.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. He

[ Page 1307 ]

gave a firm answer on September 24. Now he says he'll take

it as notice. I think we should have a yes or no. He stands by

that or he doesn't stand by it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member saying that

he's repeating a similar question? Because if he is, he's out

of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He's not only repeating the question,

he's referring to something he said I said outside, and we look

at the whole thing and it's to be taken as notice. Now what

more do you want?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like permission of the

House to table two documents.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not proper in question time. Would you

do it at the end of the period, please?

FOULKES REPORT

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Health. Can the

Minister indicate to the House when the Foulkes report will be

available to the Members?

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

Mr. Speaker, I've had a number of disappointments. I wanted to have a copy or

a number of volumes on that Member's desk long before this. However, there's

been a great deal going on in this House and as yet I haven't been able to get

it printed. It won't likely be done now until sometime around November 28, I

understand.

MR. CHABOT: November 28.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's what I hear. But it could be the

beginning of December or the end of November.

PROPOSED AMALGAMATION OF

THE UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LANDS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would ask the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker, if he would inform

the House if there has been any negotiations between the

government and the City of Vancouver concerning the suggested

amalgamation of the University Endowment Lands with the City of

Vancouver.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, there

has been none.

MR. GARDOM: Is it government policy that there will or will

not be such amalgamation?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, at this time, this next week or two,

there won't be. But there have been no discussions at all and

seriously there's been no….

BCIC CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

MR. GARDOM: I have asked the Hon. Minister of Transport, Mr.

Speaker, as to whether or not it would be his intention to

table in the House before the end of this session the capital

cost expenditures of the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia to date.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Notice that there are still several

questions on the order paper; I'm trying to get answers for all

of them before….

MR. SPEAKER: If this matter is already covered in the order

paper, of course it isn't proper for oral questions. Any

further questions?

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

MR. PHILLIPS: I would ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources: when are you going to answer a question?

Questions 1 and 2 are still on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

FRASER VALLEY MILK PRODUCERS'

REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL AID

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker.

May I ask him a question of which I have given him notice,

whether or not he's received a telegram from a group of Fraser

Valley milk producers, and whether he's acceded to their

request to have two active producers on the board, and of

course, the request for the addition in the amount of money

they receive?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram from — and I may not pronounce the name properly — Jim Huetala. At

that time he was not identified as even a member of any

particular group except that he is a dairy farmer. He did ask

for two active producers on the Milk Board. The whole

organization of the Milk Board and the whole purpose of its

being is being examined right now and we're certainly not ready

at this point in time to change it by simply adding two active

producers. That runs into the whole question of whether there

should be representation from various areas of the province and

whether there should be sub-boards, if you like, of the main

board. So that's something that is being examined.

They did say, as has been said by other dairy producers,

that they require an immediate $2

[ Page 1308 ]

increase. There was no information to back up that

particular figure — nothing to show that it was calculated as

opposed to one that was simply picked out of the air. I'm not

saying that it's wrong, but on the other hand I don't know that

it's anywhere near the right figure. This too is being

examined. The department is currently engaged in a study of the

costs of production for milk in various production areas of the

province.

MOTOR VEHICLE LIEN

INDEMNITY FUND

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. In view of the fact that there is a

considerable time lag at the moment in processing the

registration of liens in the Motor Vehicle department, have you

given any consideration to setting forth an indemnity fund

under the Central Registry for people who are damaged by the

fact that they've received information that a car is free and

clear of lien, when in fact there has been a lien registered

but not in fact showing on the registry? In other words, they

receive a notice that the car is free and clear, yet when they

sell the car at a later date they're notified that there was a

lien and it was in the process of being registered, therefore

they lose the money of that lien because the dealer has to pay

it out. There are other indemnity funds for other….

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is clear now. Does the

Hon. Member have any answer? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to do it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, he asked me if I was considering it.

The answer's no, not at this time.

MR. MORRISON: Why?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you just raised the point. If you

want to send me a memo on it, I'll certainly check into it.

MR. MORRISON: Could I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the department

speed up the filing of liens, because at this moment there

appears to be anywhere from a 7 to 14-day lag from the time the

lien is filed until it shows up on the registry.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd appreciate it if the Member would

send me a memo on that, and perhaps give me a couple of cases

where this has happened. I'd appreciate that very much.

CRIME WAVE IN MISSION

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask the Attorney General, in relation

to a question asked earlier that he took as notice, regarding

the serious crime wave in Mission about which I quoted a

telegram last week — I wonder if he could report back to the

House.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, yes, I

had that looked into and I didn't bring my notes into the

House today, but I think the crime wave in October was no worse

than it had been in September. The RCMP — it's an RCMP

provincially-policed area — do not regard it as a crime wave,

but there have been some breaking and enterings. I think in the

month of October it was some seven or eight breaking and

enterings in that town, which might sound like a wave but

really it isn't; it's more than a ripple, nevertheless. A

number of the local citizens there want additional RCMP

policing. We're looking at that. But there are many areas in

the province requesting that additional policing, and it will

have to be considered as part of next year's budget.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Does the

Attorney General have any specific measures in mind then to

pursue the problems in Mission any further? Or am I to take it

that he considers this average for the province and that the

people in Mission just have to live with it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind Members not to

ask two questions at the same time. It's very difficult to

answer them. Which question do you want him to answer?

MR. WALLACE: Beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. May I just ask

one question? What further investigation is the Minister

preparing to take in this situation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We've asked the RCMP to look at it in

terms of their requirements for additional personnel. But I

must point out that that's part of a problem over the whole

province — the distribution of personnel and the total number

that should be employed by the RCMP and provincial policing. So

I can't say that we're paying particular attention to Mission,

because frankly I don't think the situation there is any more

aggravated than it is in many other sections of the

province.

MR. WALLACE: A final question, Mr. Speaker. In that case,

what province-wide measures is the Minister taking to increase

the force of RCMP?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The total personnel is a matter for

budgeting. Their request comes to us about this time of the

year. I present that to our

[ Page 1309 ]

Treasury Board, to the Minister of Finance and then to the

Premier, (Laughter) then we know whether we're going to get the

additional bodies or not.

SHORTAGE OF ANTIFREEZE

MR. GARDOM: A question to the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. It appears that

there's very serious indications of shortages of the supply of

antifreeze in the province. I'd ask the Minister as to whether

or not the government has considered the problem, and if so,

are you taking any measures to relieve the shortages?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Refer that to the Attorney General.

(Laughter.)

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

With respect to those shortages specifically mentioned by the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey, Mr. Speaker, I was just made aware of those today. There are general overall

global shortages that we must take into consideration, but I've asked my department

to canvass these areas and provide us with further information. Perhaps a little

later on I could report to you.

MR. GARDOM: And you're going to keep it warm until you get

it?

HON. MR. LAUK: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I point out that you shouldn't

be asking questions that have been ordered on the order paper.

That one on weather control is already on the order paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table two

letters, one dated May 8, 1973, another dated November 22,

MR. SPEAKER: On what subject, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the subject of proposed new ferries

for the Strait of Georgia to Mr. W.B. Weston, Operations

Manager, Province of British Columbia, Ferries Division, from

Mr. Peter Hart, Director of Operations of Case Existological

Laboratories.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

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

proceed to public bills and orders. Second reading of Bill 99,

Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): You will

find that the explanatory notes give a very good explanation of the intent and

purpose of the bill. In opening debate on second reading, I would perhaps elaborate

on the explanatory notes briefly.

The bill rewrites a subsection to add the term "mobile

home." This is to overcome a deficiency in the previous

definition of "dealer."

It also eliminates the reference to the duplicate copy of

the dealer's report of sale, which was formerly a document

issuable by the licensed dealer when he made a sale during

times when motor licence offices were closed. This will no

longer be practical.

It deals with certain areas of offences under the

Motor-vehicle Act, and the implementation of the new direction

of licence plates so that they will now go with an owner from

vehicle to vehicle. We can see a situation where in certain

instances licence plates will not be attached to vehicles,

pending the purchase of a new vehicle by the person who had the

licence plate on the vehicle he has sold. This bill also makes

clear that it does not apply to dealer number plates, which at

times will not be mounted on vehicles.

It also rounds out refund fees to the nearest dollar and

another

section sets out the requirements of a dealer prior to

carrying on business in the light of the requirements now of

obtaining automobile insurance, and it makes the requirement

that a dealer have separate licences for each place of

business. The separate licence concept is very necessary for

the proper control of the licensed dealers and the ease of

enforcement of the licence law.

This new legislation through these amendments rewrites the

provisions for the use of the dealer's licence plates and

provides for considerably more latitude than was previously the

case. There was previously a very strict limitation on the use

of dealer plates for demonstration purposes and a few other

incidentals of the business, but the new concept allows for a

very liberal use of the plates by the dealer and his vehicle

salesmen. I might say that we had two choices in this — either to toughen up on the whole matter of the dealers and the

dealers' use of cars, or to go the other way and make it as

reasonable and functional as possible. Those changes are in

this legislation also.

The bill also repeals certain sections which are now

redundant because of the decision to cease licensing the

individual car salesmen but instead to license each place of

business of the agents.

[ Page 1310 ]

There's one other section. It's a requirement now that a

person or firm who rents cars out for hire must determine that

the party renting the vehicle has a driver's licence and also

an insurance policy related to that driver's licence.

Inherent in the legislation is a new fee

schedule for

permanently mounted motor homes which are recreational

vehicles. The new fees are comparable to those in other

provinces of Canada and are more realistic than the fees which

were being charged. Our fees on this particular type of vehicle

were roughly two to four times as high as those charged in

other provinces, and this brings it down into line with other

provinces.

That mainly is what this housekeeping legislation is

about.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to

this bill, I understand that most dealers are reasonably happy

with it. Many of the requests that they've had for a number of

years are incorporated in it.

There are one or two items which I wonder if the Minister,

when closing the debate, would clarify for me. One of them is:

will a dealer be able to become an agent so that he can sell

licences and insurance after hours and on weekends? Many

dealers in the past have had insurance agent's licences for a

specific company, particularly if they were dealing with one

specific finance company and one specific insurance company.

They were able in the past to sell a vehicle and use an interim

licence plate, license the car and insure it after hours and on

weekends so that a customer could, in fact, drive away and if

need be go to the States for a short period without getting a

proper licence.

The second question I would like to ask is concerning the

driver's licence of people who wish to rent U-drives or

short-term-lease automobiles. I understand what happens if the

client is a B.C. resident, but I am a little concerned and

curious as to what happens if he lives in Alberta or the United

States or somewhere else in the world where there is no

insurance carried on his driver's licence. What's the way

around that one? Beyond that, I'm quite sure they're happy with

most other things.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would have hoped

in seeing this statute, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Minister

would have been able to inform the House that for the first

time in the history of this province we would have motor

vehicle inspection throughout the whole of British Columbia, as

opposed to just being in the larger centres as it is now. We

still are experiencing roadway roulette with some of these

older and crippled vehicles that are on the road and should be

off the road in every sense of the word.

I'm not suggesting that the government has to utilize public

funds to build another set of very expensive and huge edifices,

but they could well utilize existing public structures on off

hours, such as fire halls, schools or what-have-you on

Saturdays to perform this service, as well as increase the

number of mobile units that are in existence. Unfortunately I

don't have at my fingertips the number of mobile units, but

when the Minister closes the debate he might inform us. I

believe it was two or three.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I also think it is very regretful

that we do not find in this statute a clause and a statement to

the effect that there would be in all of the high schools of

this province, as a part of the normal and accepted curricula,

compulsory driver training. I well recall that the former

administration passed an amendment to the Motor-vehicle, Act

which was to the effect that a person under the age of 18

years, from 16 to 18, would not be able to acquire a licence to

drive in the province unless that individual had undertaken a

driver training course. I think there's a considerable degree

of regret that that

section has not been enacted. I would have

expected that it would have been enacted by this government

long before now, and I think that it's very regretful that it

has not attended to that measure.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What

section is that?

MR. GARDOM: I've forgotten the precise section, but if you

take a look at the Motor-vehicle Act you'll find it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, some questions were asked.

Can a dealer sell licence plates and insurance? To the best of

my knowledge, there's no provision at this time for that.

With regard to people who rent cars, if any person from

outside the province carries no insurance with his driver's

licence, then insurance on the car itself will be recognized as

covering any accident that that particular driver is involved

in.

I agree with the Member with regard to the opening of new

motor-vehicle inspection stations throughout the province. As I

recollect, there are five more in the construction or

development or planning stage right now, as we move out through

the province. I personally opened a new one in Nanaimo just a

couple of months ago….

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, okay, maybe they did. I'm not arguing about

who planned it, but we have I think five more on the line.

[ Page

1311 ]

We're having some difficulty in acquiring permanent staff

for these motor-vehicle inspection stations. There are some 15

vacancies in the stations around the lower mainland at the

present time. There's a rapid turnover of staff; it might be

the wage scale is not high enough or that the wage rate being

paid to garage mechanics is high enough to steer them away, but

we are having a problem getting staff. There are 15 vacancies

right now.

MR. GARDOM: There's a terrible clog in Vancouver.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I realize that. This arises out of

ultimatums by the RCMP. They get spurts of this and issue

ultimatums "…by a certain date." What we're anxious to

have is continual day-to-day checking on who doesn't have a

valid inspection sticker. This is what creates the build

up.

MR. GARDOM: People have been lined up for two hours.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm fully aware of that. No one knows it

as well as I. My telephone and the mail tells me that. But the

problem is getting an adequate number of inspectors.

With regard to mobile units, I think it is a good suggestion

that we have more mobile units travelling throughout the

province.

I think we have to keep the cars on the road as safe as

possible without undue harassment of the driver. We have to

find a proper balance. There is some feeling among some of the

drivers that perhaps we are too tough. I have had expressions

of that opinion and I haven't checked it out yet. I agree we

must make our thrust towards safety because about 700 people a

year are dying on the highways. This can't be tolerated.

The accident record on the highways has just been going up

and up; it's unbelievable from year to year. We have to reverse

that trend. There have been two minor reversals in the last 10

years, but basically in the last 10 years the accident record

has been going up and up fairly steadily.

It's certainly the intention of the Motor-vehicle Branch to

embark on a general safety programme. We hope to encourage all

of the new drivers to take an adequate driving course and

defensive driving course before they get their licences or

during their learning period. Because statistics show that that

group of drivers don't have the accidents that the other

home-learner-driver gets involved in. To those who have been

involved in accidents, the defensive driving course very often

reverses their whole tendency to become involved in

accidents.

So we are going to make a major thrust in the accident prevention field and

we hope to have some incentives for the new drivers to take an adequate driving

course before they hit the road.

MR. GARDOM: What's wrong with the high schools?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I say, we are trying to provide some

incentives. I have had some initial discussions with my

colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), along

these lines. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 99, An

Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 99 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of

Bill 115, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

COMPANIES ACT

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

are rather technical amendments to the Companies Act which went

into force on October I in this province. It is doing very well

but it requires a little tightening up of nuts and bolts here

and there and a bit of clarification. I would suggest that the

best plan would be for me to answer particular questions under

the sections concerned at a later stage in our deliberations,

which hopefully we will reach, namely Committee of the Whole

House. At this point I move second reading of Bill 115,

An Act

to Amend the Companies Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 115 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 119, Mr.

Speaker.

VANCOUVER ENABLING ACT, 1973

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill comes before the Legislature

at the request, and I believe the unanimous request, of the Vancouver City Council,

following the plebiscite dealing with the property adjacent to the entrance

to Stanley Park whereby the voters approved, in effect, that the smaller portion

of property west of Denman Street should be purchased for $2 million but did

not

[ Page 1312 ]

approve the proposition that the whole of the property should be purchased

for a total of some $6.5 million.

This bill will make it possible for the City of Vancouver to

purchase the necessary shares in order to effectuate the

agreement which they have signed with Dawson Development and

carry out the will of the electors. I move second reading of

Bill 119, Vancouver Enabling Act, 1973 .

Motion approved.

Bill 119 read a second time and referred to Committee of

the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT

ACT, 1973 (SECOND SESSION)

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 120, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there is no principle to

this bill. It contains a number of very interesting little

amendments to various statutes of the province. I think again,

as with the Companies Act, it would be better dealt with in the

committee stage because, of course, it covers a very wide area

and at this point I move second reading.

MR. GARDOM: I would like to ask the Hon. Minister, Mr.

Speaker, as to whether or not there are any hookers in this

bill, such as there was in the one we experienced in the last

session. Is there any small print here dealing with the

takeover of M & B or the emasculation of PNE contracts? Or

is it pretty straightforward stuff this time?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All the provisions are happy.

(Laughter.)

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I have been in the

House for quite a number of years. This particular statute has

a remarkably similar title from year to year and I have never

yet heard the Member who introduced the bill, usually the

Attorney General, explain the principle of the bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's no principle.

MR. McGEER: Well I understand that second reading requires a principle.

Is it the Attorney General or the statute that is suffering from that description?

I wonder if the Attorney General, in summarizing this debate, could help out

this particular Member by explaining to me why the Attorney General's department

always produces an abomination of this kind to end each session with a whimpering

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): I think generally in principle

the official opposition goes along with this bill excepting in one particular

section. I feel it would be more appropriate if we spoke to that in the committee

stage.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Which one?

MR. RICHTER:

section 5.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to close this

debate, not with a bang, but a whimper. I move second reading

of Bill 120, Statute Law Amendment Act, 1973 (Second

Session) .

Motion approved.

Bill 120 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 116, Mr.

Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Bill 116, the Public

Service Act is before you, Mr. Speaker, for one or two reasons.

First of all, for renaming this particular Act the Public

Service Act instead of the Civil Service Act in keeping with

the findings of the inquiry I occasioned to take place a year

ago.

Secondly, since you have before you in committee stage Bill

75, which seeks to give collective bargaining privileges and

rights and freedoms to the civil service of the province, we

need therefore to take out of the Civil Service Act those

aspects of the Act that seek to determine wages and working

conditions. That will now be up for bargaining and agreement.

Therefore, it is in a real way a housekeeping procedure we are

involved in.

There are, however, a number of principles in the bill. But

because they are singular and different each to the other Act,

it would best be handled in the committee stage.

I therefore move second reading of the bill, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. McGEER: In

section 34 of this particular Act — and I

realize that we are not debating individual sections, only the

principle here — I noticed that there is a little marginal

notation, "appointments upon merit." Will that disqualify

defeated NDP candidates under this section?

[ Page 1313 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the

debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Question.

Motion approved.

Bill 116 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR

RELATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, we've received

communications from the B.C. Institute of Technology which set

out, in our opinion, some reasonable grounds why they should be

excluded from the provisions of this Act. The main reason they

give is that they are — and I may say that I speak in support

of the point of view that they put forward — an educational

institute.

Perhaps in winding up the debate the Minister can confirm,

or refute, the evidence that's been presented by the staff at

the BCIT to the effect that they are an educational institute

which had been given verbal assurance by the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) that next year they would be given

the right to choose their own bargaining unit, and that they

felt that they were not suitable for inclusion under one of the

three units set up under this Act.

The other part of the evidence presented by letter to all

Members of the House. suggested that the Provincial Secretary — and I haven't got the file in front of me as to the exact date

- at a certain date last year or earlier this year intervened

when negotiations were close to settlement. It would appear

that this is a unilateral intrusion by the Minister when they

were close to agreement — an agreement which they claim and

state was so much better than a similar agreement worked out by

the B.C. Government Employees' Union.

It is obviously the feeling of the employees of the B.C.

Institute of Technology (1) that they shouldn't be in this

bargaining unit in the first place, and (2) that the history of

government intervention, in their opinion, leads them to

suspect that this would not be a suitable bargaining unit for

them in the future.

I'm merely raising this point, Mr. Chairman, so that the

Minister will have an opportunity to clarify — I notice the

Minister of Education is busy in caucus with the Provincial

Secretary — to clarify the statement about plans to give the

institute autonomy in similar terms to a regional college. It

seems clear that it is the feeling of the staff at BCIT that

they wish to be excluded from the provisions of this bill.

I'd like to ask the Minister finally if, in fact, the staff

has been given any opportunity to vote and express their

wishes. When we debated the labour code, and quite rightly so,

it was often stated that the wish of this government and the

wish of the opposition has always been, wherever possible, to

give employees the free choice of selecting their own

bargaining unit.

I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would also care to tell

us whether or not the BCIT staff were given this opportunity to

express their preference in a vote. If this has not been done,

is it intended that in the near future they should be given

this opportunity? I feel that, in terms of the letters that

they have sent to our office, it is quite clear that they have

no wish to be included under this bill.

With that thought in mind, Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing in my name on the order paper: "To amend

section 1 by adding after clause (

E) of subsection (

x) of the

definition of 'employee' the following clause: '(

F) the British

Columbia Institute of Technology.'"

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, the

government isn't prepared to accept the amendment, which is all

I can speak about at this particular point in time. I hopefully

will be able to answer some but not all of the Member's

questions, most of which I think were out of order in this

debate, after we dispose of the amendment.

In order to explain to the Member why I don't feel it

correct to accept the amendment in his name on the order paper,

it is simply this: we have to proceed along certain courses of

action, each of which has to be authorized by this Legislature

in the form of

an Act, each of which must then take its place

as described in the events that will be found in the various

sections as we go through this Act.

Unfortunately, at the same time we will also be moving — as

the Member has made reference to — to the granting of

independence to that post-secondary institute of education. We

hope that will be done as soon as possible. I can't guarantee

it because the House is going to do that. I've already, as you

know if you've read the correspondence, made one assumption and

assurance to these people that could not be delivered by this

House. I'm not going to make another one. Therefore these

public servants will have to be somewhere in the meantime; I

suggest that the best place for them to be is under the aegis,

as they

[ Page 1314 ]

are at the moment, of the Public Service Labour Relations

Act — or activity, as it is at the moment.

Amendment negatived.

HON. MR. HALL: I want to respond to the rest of the

question.

MR. WALLACE: I apologize; I was slow to get up before you

called the question. I've got the file now in front of me.

I wonder, in light of the Minister's remarks, is he then

saying that the opportunity will be given to the employees at

BCIT to express their wishes after they become an autonomous

body? Again, I know the Minister can't give….

HON. MR. HALL: I'll give you what I think will happen now.

First of all, this Act does not name any union or group of

people in any sense of the word as having the automatic

jurisdiction of any one of the three units, other than

section

4(a), which is to do with nurses. When this Act goes through,

every person who works for the government will have an

opportunity to vote or to sign a card or to do something to

indicate which, or how, or what union is going to represent

them. With regard to each of those three units that are

described in

section 4, that association, group of people,

union, that gets the majority will be, in effect, the

bargaining agent for the employee, so there will be an

opportunity to vote yes or no on something or other whenever

this thing becomes law.

When the happy day arrives — and I think it will be a happy

day — that the BCIT becomes a fully-fledged,

standing-up-proud-and-tall institute of public education in the

post-secondary field, with its own board of governors or

regents or whatever the expression may be, following the

introduction and passage of the bill in this Legislature by the

Member for Burnaby North (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), they then will

also have an opportunity, having become excluded from this Act,

to determine who will represent them at that time — at which

time, I suppose, such varied associations as the BCTF, down to

the Canadian Union of Public Employees or the Retail Clerks,

can go for the certification under the Labour Relations

Act.

I think we have to do it step by step. It may seem a little

bit pedantic, but if holes are allowed to develop in this thing

then I think it becomes a little frenetic.

MR. WALLACE: This is just a temporary arrangement, in other

words.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): There are many observations I'd like

to make in the committee stage of this Act in the various sections. I have amendments

on the order paper as well on certain sections.

Unfortunately I must attend the committee meeting in about

14 minutes, and prior to that time I must study some of the

documents presented to the privilege committee. I can't be at

both places and therefore, in all fairness not only to myself

but to other Members who are on that committee who have

amendments and I'm sure would like to speak to this particular

stage of the Public Service Labour Relations Act , I have no

alternative but to move the committee rise and report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, is that motion debatable? I

don't think it is.

I don't think it's acceptable at the time, because no matter

which piece of legislation we're going to be on in the next two

hours, there are Members involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion has been made that the committee

rise and report progress.

Motion negatived.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it's most unfair that the Minister

is unwilling to allow a Member who has another obligation to

appear on a special committee….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking on

section 1?

MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes, I'm speaking on

section

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed.

MR. CHABOT: And that has to do with my responsibilities in

this House and my opportunities in this House as well. You

passed a motion last night which, because of a certain set

meeting this afternoon, denies me the opportunity of debating

this legislation. It's most unfair. It's most callous on the

part of that Minister and on the part of that government as

well that a Member does not have the right to sit on this floor

because of his responsibility in committee.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

[ Page 1315 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

HON. MR. HALL: I didn't refuse him, Mr. Chairman. The House

has just voted that we do not rise and seek to report progress

and ask leave to sit again. But I just want to point out, Mr.

Chairman, that no matter what we do, some Member of that

committee is going to suffer some default in terms of his

debate in the House on Bill 75 or bill whatever number we want

to call next at this time of the day. What the Member would

seek to do is deprive some other Member of what he wants for

himself.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, come on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to get back to Bill 75,

section 1,

and I'm going to recognize the Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson).

MR. CHABOT: Are you denying me the opportunity to…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you rising on a point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. CHABOT: This is a very critical piece of legislation

we're discussing. It's one which has a great series of

amendments on the order paper. Therefore, there is a lot of

significance attached to this particular piece of legislation

we're discussing on the part of other Members and myself as

well. Here I won't be…. I'll be denied the opportunity of

presenting an amendment to this legislation…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. CHABOT: …because I have the responsibility to be in

another committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member take his seat? That question

has been dealt with.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on

section 1 the Minister turned back

an amendment that would have excluded the members of the British Columbia Institute

of Technology from being exempted. But a very similar case in some respects

exists for the Workmen's Compensation Board employees. These people have decided,

by an 82 per cent vote I believe it was, that they wanted their own union. They

are not a Crown agency in the traditional sense. They are not acting on behalf

of the Crown. They are not even being funded by the Crown directly; they are

funded by contribution.

They feel that they would prefer their own association, even

though there was a strong effort made to have them in the B.C.

Government Employees Union. Despite that — and I might add it

has been stated to me by one employee of the Workmen's

Compensation Board — that despite the B.C. Government

Employees' Union waging a very strong campaign, they want their

own. They went through the required procedures and they still

want to be on their own. They see no reason for them to be

included in a bargaining unit which they feel is inappropriate

for them.

There are some 800 workers in this particular group and they

feel that it's "a travesty of justice and a breach of

democratic rights" for them not to be given the opportunity of

choosing their own union.

A letter was sent to the Hon. Premier; a copy was sent to me

on this issue. Material was provided to us from the

association, and I think they made a pretty good case. I would

therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that we add after clause (

E) of

subsection (

x) of the definition of "employee" the following

clause fl: "The Workmen's Compensation Board" which would

result in them being excluded.

If it so happens that at a later time they change their

minds and if the B.C. Government Employees' Union makes a

better case, and they manage to persuade a majority, rather

than 18 per cent, that they are the appropriate bargaining

unit, I'm quite sure we could make the changes in this House

with no trouble at all. But at the present time only 18 per

cent have indicated their desire to be represented by the B.C.

Government Employees' Association. The rest wish their own. I

would move this amendment and urge the House to support it.

HON. MR. HALL: I wouldn't be completely frank with the House

if I didn't say to the House that this particular area the

Member for Victoria has raised isn't causing me some problems.

I've had correspondence, I've had phone calls and I'm conscious

of a genuine desire on the part of the Workmen's Compensation

Board employees to involve themselves in the selection of the

union of their choice.

It's also been brought to my attention by the members of the

Department of Labour, the Minister of Labour, the Deputy

Minister of Labour that, in effect, this Act currently excludes

the Workmen's Compensation Board employees. Therefore, we are,

I suppose, dealing with an amendment that is somewhat

superfluous. In effect, the Member has inadvertently won his

case, perhaps — if indeed he was presenting it as a case in

that fashion. I mean that sincerely.

However, I do know that there are organizational

[ Page 1316 ]

campaigns going on at these places. I'm at something of a

loss to satisfy the House in its entirety in this particular

one instance. What has happened that has caused us some

confusion is that when Bill 182 was laid on the order paper it

used exactly the same words when it described "agency of the

Crown" in

section 1. But it went further and specifically

exempted the Workmen's Compensation Board employees in the

definition

section under the heading "employee."

It has now been brought to my attention by Mr. Ison, for

instance, and Mr. Matkin, and my colleague from

Revelstoke-Slocan the strict

interpretation of the word "board"

where all members of the board are appointed by

an Act or by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so it applies. This has

only come to light very, very, very recently. Therefore, I

think that we should take it that the Workmen's Compensation

Board will not be included under the Public Service Labour

Relations Act . That's not to say that they may not be

represented by the B.C. Government Employees' Union and leave

it at that. That would be my advice to the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If the Minister wishes to agree with the

proposal…and I accept his assurance that the Workmen's

Compensation Board Employees' Association will not have their

rights to represent the Workmen's Compensation Board employees

taken away. I'll be happy to withdraw my amendment on his

assurance that they will be able to continue with their union

in the same fashion that they're doing at the present time.

HON. MR. HALL: If you're asking for assurances as to whether

that particular association would be declared by the Labour

Relations Board a trade union within the meaning of the Act, et

cetera, et cetera, I can't do that. There seems to be some very

grave doubts as to whether it would. But if you will accept my

assurance that nothing will be done to disturb that association

in its endeavours to represent that body of work people, then

you, of course, have my assurance, as indeed, any group of

people getting together have my assurance.

I should also advise the House that even as we speak it's

likely that Mr. Richardson, my Civil Service Commissioner, and

Messrs. Matkin and Ison may indeed be talking at this moment

about this problem. It's that current in nature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is withdrawn.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in

section 1, I believe that we are

going to be faced with a difficulty because in 1(1), where you have the definition

of the word "Minister," I think that we're going to find a difficulty which

arose with another case of civil service collective bargaining where the same

Minister was responsible for more than one function of the civil service.

In other words, the Minister that is responsible for the

Civil Service Commission, as is the Provincial Secretary, is

responsible for promotions, responsible for morale, responsible

for informing members of the civil service of promotional

opportunities, advancement by way of on-the-job training or

other things. The same Minister should not wear the other hat

of being the government's bargaining agent. The reason is

fairly simple. If he is to carry on his function as a

government bargaining agent in a non-paternal fashion, he has

to be a hard-nosed negotiator. It makes sense that if you have

a good union, you want it met with a good member of government

on the management side to negotiate the settlement of wage

disputes or any other disputes.

You do not want the same person, who one day is arguing on

the question of pay, arguing the fact that some civil servants

may or may not be overpaid or they're not entitled to a certain

amount of extra money, responsible for the civil service

commission and its function, which is something totally

separate. The reason for this is clear.

You have a joint function. You have a conflict of duties.

You have an erosion of the trust that the civil servants may

have in the Civil Service Commission because, of course, that

same Minister is involved in hard-nosed negotiating. While one

day they may be calling him a son of a gun, it's a little

difficult to ask them the day after to treat him in a very

different manner as they should do if he's responsible for the

Civil Service Commission.

So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we amend this section,

and amend the definition of "Minister" by removing the

semicolon and add after the word "minister," in line

three, the following words: "This minister shall not be a

member of the Treasury Board or a member of the executive

council designated under

section 3."

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned when I started discussing this

section that in another jurisdiction, namely the federal civil

service, this division has proved to be very beneficial. While

Treasury Board are always the bad guys, nevertheless the Civil

Service Commission, or Public Service Commission, is not

treated in the same fashion. The reason is that they are

distinct and separate people. I would move this amendment

standing in my name.

HON. MR. HALL: We had this point brought to us in the very

first instance in the Higgins Commission report, who dealt with

the kind of structures that were required, in their eyes, to

deal with the public service of. the province. It's the

government's intention that Ministers will not be involved in

negotiations in the way the Member describes.

[ Page 1317 ]

Very likely the worst thing that can happen is to have

cabinet Ministers across the bargaining table dealing with the

dollars and cents of an issue. In fact, we've gone to some

extent in

section 3 later on to determine exactly who is the

bargaining agent for the government under the direction of the

Treasury Board.

I think this amendment would be a little too far-reaching in

its implications for me to accept, in that it would certainly

rule out of question in terms of the economic planning of this

province, four or five of Her Majesty's Ministers, and I don't

think that's good. I don't think that we should allow that

state of affairs to take place.

It places a restriction, I think, on the cabinet and on the

Minister of Finance and the Audit Act, as to who could or could

not be members of the Treasury Board to do all those other jobs

the Treasury Board has to do. I therefore, Mr. Speaker, cannot

accept the amendment as it's not anticipated under

section 3

that the Ministers will be in the face-to-face negotiations

that the Member makes reference to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps the Hon. Minister is not aware of

the merits of this, because I didn't stress the fact that in

this House the Ministers are responsible for these operations.

Maybe they are not actually sitting at the table, but if my

hon. friend, the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot), wishes

to question, he has to question the Ministers who are

responsible for their departments and their operations. This, I

think, will tend to result in them becoming identified with the

bargaining team.

If there are tough negotiations going on which may extend

over a period of weeks, which may occur during the sessions of

the House, I would think it very strange if the Members of the

opposition did not question the Minister involved — fairly

hard, I would trust — as to whether he's doing a good job,

either to defend the public interest or whatever else he has in

mind.

This type of thing leads to a conflict of interest, leads to

the identification of the Minister with the bargaining team. If

I can mention a name, the Hon. Bud Drury is always the black

hat in all these set-piece negotiations with the civil service

unions in Ottawa. He is the Minister responsible. He's not

sitting on the board. He's not negotiating, but he appoints the

people. He's the one that has to carry the can in the

legislature, in the parliament. And I think that the same thing

will happen here. I've seen it happen, I've been a member of

the civil service when these negotiations were taking

place.

Perhaps, while the Minister himself is quite right — that he

won't be actually sitting there — he's going to be very closely

identified with the bargaining team, and history shows

this.

HON. MR. HALL: Well, I agree that history shows it in the

federal civil service, but we're not going the federal civil

service way. We're not going to have 75 contracts going every

day the way they have in Ottawa. We're going to have three with

12 or 15 components, that's all. Also, I'm not so sure, with

respect to the Member, that I want to deprive him of that

privilege of grilling us.

The buck's got to stop somewhere, Mr. Member, and this is

one of the reasons that I personally — and have recommended so

to the cabinet — reject some of the aspects of the Higgins

report, who wanted somehow to keep on putting it up further and

further and further away into some group of beautiful people

that didn't have the normal functions of people. The buck's got

to stop somewhere and we may as well have it stopping on the

Treasury benches.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: All we need's a split.

Amendment negatived.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in this definition

Section

1 believe there is a failure to properly define those people

who are in a confidential capacity, or in a managerial

capacity, who, of course, should be excluded from the

operations of the Act.

For example, say a person is employed in a confidential

capacity — the Lieutenant-Governor, a Minister of the Crown, a

caucus of the Legislature, the deputy head of a government

department, or the chief executive officer, or of any other

portion of the public service, I feel they should be excluded

because of the normal rules that apply in cases of this nature

where a person in a confidential capacity, aware of managerial

decisions, enjoying managerial functions in many respects,

simply is not appropriate for bargaining.

I have therefore an amendment on the order paper, top of

page 17; it's fairly lengthy. It basically deals with those

people who are in executive positions, people who are in the

personnel departments who are involved in personnel work, and

people who have to deal formally on behalf of the government

with a grievance which may be put in in accordance with the

grievance procedures of this Act, and others who may be in a

special capacity.

The employee, for example, of the caucus of the NDP

backbenchers is obviously in a rather curious and special

position. I think it would be inappropriate to have him covered

by this particular Act. Therefore, I move the amendment

standing in my name, a copy of which I have here, which would

exclude these people in confidential or managerial

capacities.

HON. MR. HALL: I congratulate the Member for a

well-thought-out amendment — an amendment

[ Page 1318 ]

which would find acceptance, I suppose, in almost every

board room in the province, but not this one. It is a different

philosophy, and I think nothing points up the philosophy

difference better than this amendment.

It's our desire, when making sure that work people have full

and free collective bargaining arrangements, that that

privilege, right or access be guaranteed to as many people as

is possible. A study of history will show that the insistence

on management to exclude those people in "confidential

relationships" has caused more people to be kept back from

reasonable rates of growth, salary-wise, reasonable

improvements in job conditions, than anything else.

In fact we have already received in our committee work in

the facilitation of collective bargaining almost complete

agreement as to the levels of exclusion. We don't see as a

government, in a philosophical way, the need to exclude people

who are in a confidential capacity from the rights and freedoms

of collective bargaining. Confidentiality per se is no reason

to be excluded from hammering it out at the bargaining table.

What should be the criterion is whether the person is involved

in labour-management relationships. You've included, I think,

three of them in your amendment, under subsection (

b) of your

amendment, which are already covered in the Act anyway.

Therefore, I can't really accept your amendment because it

simply says that because you are dealing with confidentiality

of planning on highways or confidentiality of casework in Human

Resources, or confidentiality of who gets the money in the

Provincial Secretary's department…that's not sufficient

reason for you not to be in a union.

In fact, the Premier is often on record as saying everyone

should be in the union right up to the Deputy Minister. Well,

we've not gone that far but…hopefully, he's out; we won't

tell him that at the moment.

The fact of the matter is that we've gone as high as we

possibly can by making sure we don't exclude in the way the

Second Member for Victoria wants to exclude.

Mr. Speaker, the criterion should only be: is the person involved in management

in the sense of hiring and firing and personnel practices? One of the amendments

seeks to deal with the caucus of the Legislature, and so on and so forth. I

will confess I've not had an opportunity to entirely follow that right the way

through the Act, but I would imagine that those who are officers of the caucus

are not public servants within the meaning of the Act because they come in by

order-in-council. I would think that would be the answer on that one. I think

so. I can find that out very quickly for you, but I'm certain that that's the

case.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, I'm sorry. At the moment I'd say to you,

Mr. Member, that it's a well-thought-out amendment. It's one

that would be found in most collective agreements throughout

the province. But it's one that strikes at the very heart of

the philosophical difference between you and I.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 3 brings up a problem which I

alluded to earlier when I was discussing responsibilities of

Ministers, and that is if you have the Public Service

Commission designated as the bargaining agent of the government

and not some other agency. I mention that the Public Service

Commission has a unique function at the present time which is

quite separate from bargaining — and should be separate — from

bargaining. There should be, I believe, two separate bodies

involved.

Now I realize the Minister has not accepted this argument

when we're dealing with Ministerial responsibility. But may I

just bring to his attention the problem that can occur?

Perhaps there could be the danger, in as much as the Civil

Service Commission or Public Service Commission has a vested

interest in increasing the size of the civil service and

reducing conflicts. After all, they may wish to hire more

people to get around certain problems that are occurring

between civil servants. They would say, quite rightly, "We want

more people," and yet at the same time the government is

saying, "No, no, no, no. You people hold the line, Your

function is to bargain; your function is to act on behalf of

management and say, 'Look, we don't want any more hired than

the minimum number,' or whatever it might be."

I am sure the Minister can see the conflict which this

legislation brings in. The two functions are different. One is,

again, sitting on one side of the table being hard-nosed in

bargaining, because if they're not going to act that way, we

will probably simply have a company union. If we're going to

have a really good B.C. Government Employees' Union, they're

going to have to be tough. If they're tough, obviously the

people on the other side are going to be tough too, or else

they are going to get pushed all over the map, just the way the

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

was pushed all over the map in the ferries dispute.

Now we need to have toughness if we're going to have a good union. If we're

not — if the Minister doesn't think we're going to have a particularly good

[ Page

1319 ]

union — then I would say this

section is perfectly all

right. But if he is going to have a bushy-tailed fighting

union, he's going to have to realize that the Public Service

Commission is going to get put into situations of conflict

where on the one hand they're trying to preserve morale;

they're trying to say to employees "Okay, you need a few extra

people," while on the other they're trying to cut costs

through wage negotiations and therefore saying "fewer

people".

I just fail to see why we should put the Public Service

Commission into this adversary situation when it comes to

negotiation and bargaining. It's unnecessary and could be done

by Treasury Board.

HON. MR. HALL: Well, Mr. Member, "just done by Treasury

Board." I…. It's taken me….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A bargaining agent for the government is

the Public Service….

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, I'm sorry. Let me start again. I'm

trying to jump ahead of you and I shouldn't do that.

Your argument is based on the fact the Public Service

Commission is in charge of establishing the number of people

working in any one organization, branch or department. That's

not the fact. The fact of the matter is that it's different

from, perhaps, the federal civil service which you may be more

familiar with. Treasury Board itself is the holder of that

particular power. In fact, one of my problems….

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Well let me finish and then respond. One of

my problems at the moment, in view of the new programmes that

the government are entertaining, is recruitment. There are 11

single and distinct procedures that must be undertaken before

the establishment of the civil service is increased by one

person. The group of people that have the controlling feature

— in fact the spark-plug — of the scheme altogether is the

Treasury Board, not the Public Service Commission. The Public

Service Commission can act only in terms of increasing the

establishment by an order-in-council that first of all has had

the approval of Treasury Board and then the cabinet itself. Now

if I've misunderstood you, perhaps you'll respond.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You have here in

section 3: "The bargaining agent

for the Government is the Public Service Commission acting on behalf of, and

under the direction of, the Treasury Board…." Now, what I'm suggesting

to you is the Public Service Commission is responsible for morale in the civil

service. I just don't feel that it's the best thing to do to put them in the

position of being the adversary of the union when it comes to negotiations,

when indeed I think they should adopt a much more flexible and soft role, if

you like, when dealing with these questions in between the negotiations that

are going on.

I would far prefer to see the Treasury Board and perhaps the

Minister of Finance — or some other Minister, yourself for

example — being responsible for protecting the public purse and

making sure that the public money is handed out grudgingly

rather than generously, because that's what the management

function is under these circumstances when faced with a good

union. I fail to see how you can effectively carry on tough

negotiations and the day after step into a different role, a

much more conciliatory role, not an adversary role, when it

comes to morale and other questions. There's a dilemma there

which I'm afraid the Minister's remarks have not solved.

HON. MR. HALL: I agree there's a dilemma. This dilemma was

presented to us — and now I fully understand what you mean — in

the Higgins commission report. They wouldn't face: that

dilemma. Rather than face that dilemma and brace themselves and

come up a recommendation….

I shouldn't be critical of that commission; they were a very

good commission. What I'm saying is that instead of grasping

the nettle as the government has done in Bill 75, the

commission has gone the way you are going, in effect, of

erecting different structures. All I can respond now that I

fully understand your question is that we don't see necessarily

that you can't be a good tough bargainer and a good employer.

Why you have to have two groups of people with presumably two

different approaches, we fail to understand. We believe that

once free and full collective bargaining takes place, we can

have tough, no-holds-barred negotiations; at the same time we

can still engage in a discourse with the employees of this

government in terms of merit, in terms of training, in terms of

safety, in terms of travelling, in terms of pension and

everything else, I don't see where we need thrash this

particular bogeyman that was first raised a year ago.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Due to the Member

who was handling this bill having to be out at another

committee, may I have permission to move the amendment to

section 3 standing in his name on the order paper?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The procedure, Hon. Member, is that you

adopt the amendment as your own, which is the acceptable

thing.

HON. MR. HALL: Speaking to the amendment presented by the

Hon. Leader of the Opposition on

[ Page 1320 ]

behalf of the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), what the

Member seeks to do is simply and squarely make the Treasury

Board the bargaining agent of the government, and there's no

way. We know the buck's got to stop somewhere, but we want the

buck to go a couple of steps before it arrives on our desk.

The Public Service Commission is a commission which, in

another Act we will deal with later on, is going to be

expanded. It will be comprised of first-class people with a

great deal of experience in the bargaining field, not only in

the public service but also hopefully in other sectors. Frankly

that's the only way this government could possibly handle wage

negotiations for 40,000 people. There's no way in which four

men of the Treasury Board, including the Premier of this

province, will be handling dollars and cents, day and night

over a table, face to face with 40,000 employees.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 4 gives us three bargaining units

essentially. The difficulty here is that we are trying to force

together a large number of disparate groups.

I'll refer to one example. I had some of the officers of the

B.C. ferry system and the highways department ferry system come

to me. They said, "Look, we are professional mariners. We enjoy

working on the B.C. ferries but we may not work there forever.

There are professional challenges elsewhere." And they put

forward a very reasonable case that their own professional

association gives them service which is well beyond what the

B.C. Government Employees' Union would do, simply because it is

geared specifically to their task, their training, their

occupation and their problems.

They said, "Look, what we want to do is continue with our

present association because it's clearly the appropriate unit

for us." Personally, I think they're right. They came up with a

very, very good argument. There may well be other groups; in

fact there are plenty of other groups. I don't want to go into

the other examples I've got, but this indicated to me fairly

clearly — and I think indicates to the House — that to try and

force people into three separate groups is simply trying to

simplify things too much.

There are enormous numbers of people hired by the provincial

service, many different skills involved, and sometimes you have

an interest which supersedes their interest as civil servants.

These people regard themselves not so much as civil servants,

for example, but as merchant marine officers. They take a great

deal of professional pride in that fact.

Mr. Chairman, I think I would like to have clarification

from the Minister on this

section because it appears to me that

it simply doesn't take care of the problem of groups such as

this.

It also appears to me that it is in conflict with

section

7. If you look at

section 7 — I realize we're looking a little

ahead — it's on change of certification. Now how on earth, for

example, if every single one of these ferry officers is

thoroughly dissatisfied, are they going to get 50 per cent plus

1 of all the people in their group to change the certification?

It's obviously going to be impossible for them to do, even

though every single ferry officer thought that the system they

were under and the group in which they had been put were quite

inappropriate for them. They just can't get out of it unless

they can persuade people in many different trades and

occupations, who have different interests and different

viewpoints, that the whole thing should be dismantled or that

another unit should be brought in.

It appears to me that

section 7 — and I'll get to this in a

moment — is really redundant. I just don't see how you can

possibly get a change of certification in the bargaining unit

when you have so many different groups put together in one

specific unit. If it does collapse, I assume your whole system

of Collective bargaining will collapse. It certainly won't take

care of the individual group which may have a separate point of

view and will want to have that point of view maintained and

their separate interests protected by quite special

associations.

HON. MR. HALL: I think I should respond to that. Did the

Member move an amendment? It's not on the order paper. Are you

moving an amendment?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No. I am just trying to raise these

points. I think I put 30 amendments on the labour bill and got

more of them accepted; I put a whole series on this bill. I

could put more amendments, but it is pointless.

HON. MR. HALL: All I am asking you is if this amendment was

on the order paper. I'm not saying that I am happy that it's on

or not on; I just wanted to find out if it was.

In response to the Member's questioning about

section 4, it

is our view that this is the

section that will ruffle feathers,

that will upset certain people in the public service. There is

no question about that, but I don't know how else one can

actually erect a meaningful bargaining procedure with 40,000

people covering the kinds of trades and occupations there are

in the civil service without falling into the pitfalls of the

federal government and come up with a decent, workable

system.

I can think offhand of 25 trade unions that would be

knocking at the door tomorrow if I were to agree

[ Page 1321 ]

with one of the Member's suggestions. We have been around a

bit. We've not been around the government a long time but we've

been around in life a long time. There's no way that this

government is going to walk into that kind of whipsawing

arrangement on behalf of the people of this province, period.

No way at all. We love the trade union movement; we feel proud

to be associated with the trade union movement in many of our

political endeavours. We are not that crazy to start walking

into a whipsawing arrangement, period.

There are certain people who work on the third floor who are

left-handed pencil sharpeners who claim a singularity of

endeavour that is almost frightening in its intensity. They

always want to be members of their own trade union. I can think

of studies I have read when I was a student of labour matters a

long way away from here in which 30 members of a hog bristle

processing group, which was over 105 years old in the City of

Birmingham, resisted the overtures to join another union. We

are in that kind of a box. We have commissioners of the

Canadian Labour Congress currently spending most of their time

trying to deal with this kind of singularity of specialty the

Member makes general reference to.

I agree he makes a particularly good point; he has chosen

probably the best of them all with the Merchant Service Guild.

But in your debate you actually said you could go on to give

more and more examples. That's the very point I am making: if

you open the door for one you must open it up for them all.

We have chosen three because, frankly, our wisdom indicated

that Bill 182 that had two was unworkable. That was just a bit

too much to expect 40,000-odd people to look at, so we took the

nurses' bargaining unit out because of a very cogent and

cohesive history. Prior to that, if you will remember, in Bill

182 we had just (

a) and (b). We had to tighten up the language

in subsection (b).

Occupational gymnasts, remedial therapists, masseurs all

believe they are professionals and believe that they should be

licensed specially. Frankly, we've got the dilemma (it's the

current word) of how you have carpenters, painters,

electricians, plumbers, stationary engineers, beverage

dispensers on the Queen of Prince Rupert — have we got alcohol

on the Prince Rupert yet? — many of whom have no history of

being in the private sector and being used to the unions that

effectively cover the private sector.

We think this is a good piece; we will have a go at it. We

believe that the two-tier system of having a component will

meet those special and particular singularities to which the

Member made reference.

Now, all that is left really is for us to persuade the Merchant Service Guild

people that if they want always to have an access to that large union so they

can become blue-water sailors again, that's a problem they will have to meet

with themselves.

We think this is the best way of doing it, and that is an

endorsation of the Higgins report that had all these hearings

that you know so well.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Provincial Secretary:

where, for example, the ships officers wished to remain members

of another and perhaps quite an expensive association — because

it's virtually a requirement of theirs now and certainly a

requirement of this Act that they belong to essentially two

associations — will he be willing to give the assurance that he

will consider sympathetically any requests by them for some

sort of grant to make up their professional association dues

when the time comes for negotiation?

HON. MR. HALL: I will certainly look into that question, Mr.

Member. I will go even further, and sympathetically too. If

they want to use my good offices to get some talks going so

that some of those overall national policies of the MSG — maybe

the collective units that they will find themselves in — should

interest themselves in getting part of that action as well, I

will certainly lend the government's offices to anything that

gets working people together for the betterment of working

people. That's not just a cliché. I say to you:

definitely, yes, we will look upon it.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This is a similar amendment. This

section

was not in previous legislation and perhaps the Minister will

give some explanation of it. I think that an amendment is in

order and I have one on the order paper, It's the same

amendment essentially as I discussed previously: where you have

a person in a managerial or confidential capacity, whether or

not he is acting on behalf of the government, there should be

exclusion.

The reason is fairly simple and I have given it before; I

won't go into it again. I think this would be essentially a

guarantee for the union members that there won't be included in

their midst people whose loyalty is not. to the union. It is a

guarantee to the union member; it's a desire on my part to make

sure that those people who are included in the union, who may

attempt to make managerial positions in the union and become

officers of the union, really represent the union and have no

conflict of interest and conflicting loyalties to the

government with whom they have a managerial or confidential

capacity.

The amendment definitely strengthens the union

[ Page 1322 ]

operation and gives a better opportunity, I feel, for the

union members to be sure that the people acting on their behalf

are not infiltrated by government managers or people who are in

the confidence of the government and that their loyalties are

clear and simple.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order

paper.

HON. MR. HALL: This is the standard unfair labour practices

section found in most collective agreements. I think it is the

same as that found in Bill 11.

I'll be open with the House: it was brought to our attention

by the representatives of the nurses' unions who pointed out

clearly and strongly, in the first place, that there was no

section originally dealing with unfair labour practices.

I don't see that your words add anything to the

section

because the determination of whether or not that interference

takes place is with the Labour Relations Board. If the

newly-constituted Labour Relations Board, with all its awesome

powers, can't find out if there is an M15 agent or confidential

agent or somebody involved in that kind of practice, I don't

know who can.

I'm not so sure your words add anything to a very simple

section that says no person shall, "interfere with the

formation or administration of a union," and no person

shall, "in any way discriminate against any employee who is

engaged in the lawful activities of a union." I don't see that

it adds anything to it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The situation may arise where a member of

a union may feel that his loyalty is more to the government

because of a confidential capacity or managerial capacity.

I remember once running across someone on the ferry, funnily

enough, who said, "Remember good old Bob Strachan? You know Bob

Strachan?"

I said, "Yes."

"Well, I can sure remember him when he was a foreman. Did he

ever tell you the time he was a foreman? I believe the company

was A&W construction or something, and apparently old Bob

was cracking the whip. He was representing management; he was a

foreman."

This is the type of situation which I think we should try to

avoid. We want to have a situation where the people who are in

the employees' association are strictly employees and they know

full well there can be solidarity among themselves because they

don't have people who are managers or people in a confidential

capacity.

Amendment negatived.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On

section 7, a change of certification.

Once again We don't have an amendment.

If we read back to

section 4, the third public service

bargaining unit includes all employees other than those persons

who are either nurses or professionals. It appears to me

impossible to get any change of a bargaining unit once we have

this cumbersome apparatus, this great umbrella which takes in

so much underneath it. I just wonder whether the Hon.

Provincial Secretary will comment on

section 7.

I appears to be a fairly unworkable provision because of the

fact that we have only three bargaining units.

HON. MR. HALL: I hate to think what the Member would say if

this

section wasn't in. This is a kind of "damned if you do,

damned if you don't" argument. We had to put in some procedures

whereby a changed certification can be made — period. That's

one of the policies upon which we've stood for a long, long

time.

I agree that the fact that it is going to take, in the

instance of the general section, 4(c), something of the order

of 15,000-plus-1 votes, let's say, is a monumental task. I

agree with you that the union which will eventually get this

certification by next April presumably will have to have made a

terrible mess of it to lose it. I agree with that. But we had

to do something.

While I'm on my feet, let me say that I don't consider this

the last word; I don't consider that this will be the last time

you will see the Public Service Labour Relations Act . It's a

brand new game; it's a brand new thing. We've got some goodwill

going and we've got to start somewhere. Maybe, in the fullness

of time, we'll have to bring this bill back and have other

looks at it as practice indicates.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In

section 8 we're dealing with religious

conscience. I don't wish to repeat the many arguments that have

been made before. But when a person who has a religious

objection — something I don't understand despite many attempts

of people to explain it to me; something I'm sure the

government Ministers have the same difficulty understanding — to membership, these people — and they've said it time after

time — cannot accept the fact that they make a contribution to

support an organization which they feel is impossible for them

to join.

[ Page 1323 ]

I would like to take care of this problem by moving the

amendment standing in my name on the order paper:

"By deleting the words after the word 'wages' and

substituting the following: 'to a charitable organization

mutually agreed upon by the employee and the union, but if the

employee and the union fail to so agree then to such charitable

organization registered as a charitable organization in Canada

under

Part 1 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) as may be

designated by the board, such assignment shall not be revoked

without the consent of the board."'

The reason why this is of more importance than in the

previous legislation we were discussing is because we are here

talking about the public service of the Province of British

Columbia where all citizens of British Columbia — everyone

within the confines of British Columbia who meet the

requirement of citizenship of Canada are citizens of British

Columbia — can and should be entitled to to become members of

the civil service if they're qualified and if an opening is

there. We are not dealing with the private employer.

We have talked at great length about discrimination; we had

discussions yesterday about the human rights legislation which

is before the House at the present time. But if there is any

place where you want to make sure that there can be no

discrimination against a person who has a religious conviction,

which you and I, Mr. Chairman, may not understand, it is in the

public service of the Province of British Columbia.

Everybody pays the 5 per cent tax to the government;

everybody pays the other taxes to the government depending upon

their income and the amount they spend. Everybody is entitled,

when dealing with their own government, to have the same

opportunity as everybody else. A fair shake — that's all this

amendment asks for.

It means that if they have a certain religious view, they

should not be barred from applying to the public service of the

Province of British Columbia simply because of that religious

view, which would prevent them under the present legislation

from accepting any employment.

The amendment is a modest one; it exists in other

legislation. It has been found time after time that a minuscule

fraction of I per cent of public servants or any other

employees ever take advantage of it. It's a simple thing to

police; there's no question of evading responsibilities. It's a

simple case of conscience, a conscience which is quite clearly

definable.

Mr. Chairman, I realize this has been rejected in the labour legislation that

we've had up to now, but when dealing with the public service we're dealing

with something else: the right of every single citizen of this province to have

an equal crack at taking a government job. We should not discriminate in any

way, shape or form even though it is on religious grounds. To leave the Act

in its present form would be discrimination on religious grounds just as sure

as can be. We know this from what these people have told us. They will be barred

from even applying for government jobs if this

section remains unamended.

I move my amendment.

HON. MR. HALL: I don't suppose I'm going to surprise the

Member when I say we don't find the amendment acceptable. The

arguments have been going on now for some four or five weeks in

this House on this kind of section.

This is a repeat of the wording in Bill 11 which the House

has decided upon. I can't accept it.

Everybody has the right to apply for a job in the civil

service of this province. If there's ever been one group of

people who have fought hard for recognition, it's the people

who 31 years ago this month started in three different areas to

try to get recognition in the civil service of this province. I

think it would be silly for this amendment to go in when we

don't have it in for the rest.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we're here dealing with the

public service of the Province of British Columbia. We know the

attitude of these people. To pass this

section unamended would

be to discriminate against these people because of their

religious views. There is no way that I can accept the

arguments of the Provincial Secretary; we are in no way

affecting the right to organize. We are simply dealing with a

very special, curious group of people.

As I've said before, the measure of a democracy is how you

treat minority groups who have different opinions from your

own. I don't understand these people properly; the Premier

doesn't; you don't, Mr. Chairman; I doubt if anybody in this

room shares those convictions. But they have those

convictions.

I would most strongly urge that this amendment be

accepted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Fraser

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

NAYS — 36

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

[ Page 1324 ]

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

HON. MR. HALL: I would like to move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper on page 18 of today's issue. I

have a copy in my hand which I will hand to you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment to

section 13 seeks to further

particularize

section 13(a). As it is in the bill before you

it says, "the principle of merit and its application in the

appointment and promotion of employees under the Public Service

Act ;" that being an exception to bargaining.

However, in our work this summer we decided that we should,

when we change the Public Service Act , deal specifically with

this question of merit. In order that it may be fully

understood we are making reference to the specific

section in

the Public Service Act , namely

section 34 of the Act that was

tabled yesterday. That way there can be no misunderstanding

because, while my legislative counsel tell me the word "under"

is sufficient, it perhaps is better for us all if we make

reference to the particular section. That is the purpose of the

amendment.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should now also talk

about the second amendment, which is clause (

c) of line 2. This

was, frankly, a mistake in the bill. The three words "the

effect of" were left out of the bill which was a mistake in

drafting. The

section will now read:

"Every collective agreement shall include all matters

affecting wages or salary, hours of work, and other working conditions,

except

(

c) the organization, the establishment," — that means the number — "and the administration of the departments and branches of the

Government except the effect of reductions in the establishment of employees…."

It doesn't really make complete sense unless you have "the

effect of" reductions.

Amendment approved.

Section 13 approved with amendments.

section 14.

HON. MR. HALL:

Section 14, Mr. Chairman, needed some

clarification. If you followed these dates upon which members

of the union became members and were affected by the dues and

all the rest of it, you came in a sort of full circle without

getting anywhere. It needed some amendment, so we have cleared

that language up. That again is, in the current vernacular of

this session, a little "housekeeping" amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 14 approved with amendment.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

section 17.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this deals with settlement

of disputes. In this instance it is time for all Members of the

House to face up honestly to the question of the right to

strike in the public service.

The fact is that the public service, where you have

essential services, inevitably will not be permitted to have a

strike. It is a fact of life which we have got to face up to.

This Legislature will be called back into session if an

essential provincial government service is interrupted and we

will be asked, in the heat of the moment and the passion of the

time, to force people back to work, which is wrong. I think it

is a bad way of handling labour disputes.

Therefore, I would like to move the amendment standing in my

name, that in 17(7), line 6, we add after the word "strike"

the following words: "except that in a case where the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall certify that the strike

would jeopardize the maintenance of essential services to the

public no such strike vote shall be held and the dispute shall

be referred to an arbitrator as outlined under

section 17(4)."

A very modest amendment, an amendment which would indicate

that the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council is so concerned that

they realize the essential service should not be interrupted.

It prevents the charade of having a strike vote, of having a

strike and calling the Legislature together to force them back

to work. It is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under this

amendment who are given those powers. If they say "Look, chaps,

there is no way we are going to permit this — we're going to

have to bring them back to work," they can avoid the

charade that would go

[ Page

1325 ]

on otherwise.

It's not up to anybody else to determine, only the cabinet,

exactly the same people who would be required to bring us back

into session anyway. It simply avoids a couple of stupid,

unnecessary steps which will lead to a great deal of public

difficulties, which will lead to a great deal of bitterness and

which will not lead to any settlement to the labour dispute in

question.

This amendment would mean, therefore, that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would take steps to avoid the

phoniness of a strike.

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

this a rather interesting position for the Hon. leader of the

Liberal Party to take. I note that a number of municipalities,

particularly on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland, have

distributed resolutions which they have passed opposing the

right to strike in the civil service as such, in the government

service and in a variety of other areas which they like to

refer to as essential services.

I would like to read, Mr. Chairman, the contents of a letter

put out under the name of Mrs. T.W. Sturrock, acting city clerk

for the City of Victoria. This is a letter directed to my

office on September 10, 1973, and it says:

"Re: strikes and essential services.

"The following resolution was recently adopted by the Municipality

of Saanich.

Whereas the B.C. Ferries strike and the Canadian railway strike

provided to every citizen clear evidence of the serious and crippling effect

of strikes in industries providing essential services;

"And

whereas, under the laws of British Columbia, employees providing essential emergency services

such as firefighters, nurses and ambulance drivers are

permitted to strike; "And

whereas a strike of such

employees would be a serious threat to the health and safety and

protection of ordinary citizens and their property;

"Therefore,

be it resolved the Government of the Province of British Columbia be requested to

introduce such legislation and take other measures as may be

fair and equitable to both employees and employers to avoid the

unfortunate consequences of a strike of employees providing

essential emergency services to the public."

This same letter apparently, Mr. Chairman, was directed to

the Hon. John Munro, the federal Liberal Minister of Labour,

and his office did me the kindness of providing me with a copy

of their response to Mrs. Sturrock's request. I would like to

read that into the record, Mr. Chairman, It is a letter

directed to Mrs. T.W. Sturrock, acting city clerk, Office of the Clerk, City Hall, Victoria. That's the

constituency of the Hon. leader of the Liberal Party, I

believe. It says:

"Dear Mrs. Sturrock:

"The Hon. John Munro, Minister of Labour, has asked me to

acknowledge and thank you for your letter of September 10 which

takes the form of a resolution adopted by the Municipality of

to introduce legislation that would avoid the unfortunate

consequences of a strike of employees providing essential

emergency services to the public.

"My Minister has asked me to suggest that it is generally

accepted that free collective bargaining, including the right

to strike and lock out, is the most appropriate industrial

relations system in a free democratic society such as we enjoy

in Canada."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a Liberal?

HON. MR. KING: That's a Liberal, the federal Minister of

Labour.

"To impose compulsory arbitration as the final method of

resolving a dispute, even in so-called essential services,

would not automatically bring an end to strikes, but would

simply make them illegal.

"In Australia, where arbitration is compulsory and decisions

are handled by labour courts, the incidence of illegal strikes

is greater than the incidence of legal strikes in Canada.

"Another problem associated with imposing compulsory

arbitration in so-called essential services is the definition

of essential services. What criteria would be used in

determining essential services? And if such a definition could

be agreed upon by all concerned, what criteria would be used in

determining wage levels and working conditions for those who

would be denied the right to utilize economic self-help by way

of a strike or lockout?

"I wish to assure you that my Minister and offices of his

department are continually searching for ways and means to

reduce the incidence of strikes in the federal jurisdiction.

The Department of Labour is presently undertaking studies which

hopefully will lead to a better understanding of the complex

problems associated with labour-management relations. The

department has already initiated an industry specialist

programme designed to offer greater assistance to management

and labour toward a continuing dialogue between

[ Page 1326 ]

the parties during the closed period of collective agreements."

And so it goes.

So I wonder, Mr. Chairman, in light of the federal Liberal

position, in light of the formal position of the federal

Minister of Labour, which coincides very closely with the

response that I had given in debate on the labour Bill 11, I

wonder where this places the Liberal Party of British Columbia.

I guess they find themselves way out in right field once

again.

I don't know what kind of an alliance they're trying to

develop, but it would seem perhaps that it's directed more at

some other element than it is at unanimity with their own

colleagues in the federal jurisdiction. Or does it simply mean,

Mr. Chairman, that they take one position in opposition and

another in government?

I'm not quite sure, Mr. Chairman, but I do find this

rather startling inconsistency somewhat surprising. Rather than

asking the Provincial Secretary to respond, perhaps the hon.

leader of the Liberal Party should try to explain the

inconsistency of his position.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we were having a fairly

rational debate of the sections of this bill. The Hon.

Provincial Secretary brought up some good points; I withdrew an

amendment at his request when he pointed out something I was

unaware of. And then we bring on the heavy hand of the old

Minister of Labour. He really is great.

Having turned down all the amendments in the labour bill but

one which was a clear case of a drafting error, he brings up

this great problem — this great problem that he sees. First of

all, he introduces a letter from some other organization,

another level of government, the City of Victoria, then assumes

that this is the amendment before the House, which it is

not.

He has not read the amendment before the House. He has not

listened to the debate in the House, and then he goes on to

this great simplistic argument that he likes putting forward

about what the position is of the Liberal Party.

Let me tell you, Mr. Minister, if you're interested, through

you, Mr. Chairman, that we make up our own minds as to what .

we do in this House, and I think that's right. I would point

out to you that if you don't like…as the Premier often

points out that he doesn't like the actions of the federal

government. He has a party in Ottawa called the NDP and 11

Members of which are from British Columbia….

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): We like them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, you like them, but you certainly

don't like their actions.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He consistently points out the fact that

they're kept in power by an NDP group in Ottawa. He fails to

point out when he's attacking them that the person that he's

really attacking is poor old David Lewis, who gets it in the

neck from his own side as well as from, of course, the

government and the opposition now that the Tories have

essentially taken away his thunder in the opposition there.

It's interesting that the Minister of Labour has put up

his great straw man. The fact of the matter is that the

amendment is fairly specific….

HON. MR. KING: Don't call John Munro a straw man; he's a

good Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The situation we have here…for

instance, the Minister went on to ask about the problem of

definition of essential services. Now if you'd read the

amendment, which he normally doesn't do whether it's his bill

or anybody else's, he would have discovered — and this is

despite the invitation of the Premier in his normal

sanctimonious tones about how important it is to get the views

of the opposition and to get them putting them forward — despite that, he just makes fun of our amendments, consistently

rejects them regardless of whether it's logical or

otherwise.

In the amendment on page 18 may I point out that the

definition obviously is in the hands of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? It's the cabinet, the very

group of people who will be issuing instructions under the

present legislation to bring people back to, work anyway — and

that we know. Why can't you face up to the fact that in certain

essential services, which the cabinet knows to be essential, if

they're going to remain as cabinet and carry out their

functions as government of the Province of British Columbia,

they're going to have to bring in the legislation, in a special

sitting of this House in all probability, to get the people

back to work.

The definition is simple. The definition of essential

service is entirely up to the cabinet. It's entirely up to the

Minister of Labour and his colleagues — not that I have any

confidence in them, but he apparently does. Now if he doesn't

think they're capable of deciding what's essential service or

other, I wish he'd tell us because that's basically what he's

suggested in his fatuous speech on this amendment.

As far as the economic self-help, the situation that we're

faced with, which this amendment attempts to deal with in

anticipation, is a situation where we have essential services

which the cabinet considers to be so important that they cannot

allow the people to take advantage of the provisions allowing

strikes. We anticipate that by having compulsory

arbitration

[ Page 1327 ]

in those instances alone.

I wish the Minister would read these amendments more

carefully. I wish he'd take his responsibilities more

seriously. The fact is that we have here a situation which he

knows full well is just absurd. He talks about economic

self-help of the essential services going on strike. What

absolute, blatant, fatuous nonsense! We are not going to have

situations, where the cabinet itself has decided that these

people should not be on strike, where they're going to remain

on strike and not be called back. It's just ludicrous for the

Minister who is responsible for labour peace in the province to

come in and quote from letters from city councils, wherever

they may be, quote from correspondence on that letter and

refuse to deal with the amendments here.

He may make all the fun he likes of it, but we are faced

with a potentially serious situation. We are attempting to put

forward an amendment which would defuse the situation by

sending it to compulsory arbitration. Under 17(4), which exists —

section 17(4) of your own Act — we're attempting to get to the

situation where instead of calling the Legislature together,

where the cabinet has determined it's an essential service, we

avoid that cumbersome mechanism which has in the past, let's

face it, led to difficulties elsewhere and sometimes led to

loss of life elsewhere, and have this thing handled in a more

reasonable and dispassionate manner in anticipation by the

amendment to

section 17(7), line 6.

I really find that the government would be a lot better off

if it would leave more rational Ministers, such as the

Provincial Secretary, to handle questions such as this. If we

have a delicate labour situation in the Province of British

Columbia, I cannot see how the Minister of Labour himself, who

has shown a demonstrable lack of ability to understand

amendments and to understand legislation, can handle this

difficult portfolio sensibly.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a serious one to deal with a

serious problem. The government can make fun of it all they

like but we in the opposition know that there are situations

where such an amendment would be something. any government

would be delighted to have. It is something which prevents them

from having to call the Legislature. It allows them to avoid

calling the Legislature into session; allows them to deal with

the thing, with the problem that has developed, by handing it

over to compulsory arbitration; allows them to avoid the

confrontations and possible violence and possible death that

has occurred in situations such as this in the past, and deal

with it dispassionately.

I really find that for the Minister of Labour to come in and put forward such

facetious remarks on this is to be quite uncalled for and quite absurd. As far

as our position goes, if we don't like what our federal colleagues are doing,

we say so. I said so frequently when I was a Member of the government backbench,

as well as my present capacity.

Unlike the NDP — or I don't know, perhaps like them — we

don't feel ourselves bound by their federal decision. We have

here Douglas Fisher. Remember Douglas Fisher, the NDP, CCF, MP — the man who defeated C.D. Howe? In his

article in the Times

on October 17 he was talking about why the NDP continues to

support the government.

He pointed out that a few members of the caucus may have

been influenced by the fact that if they last as MPs until

June, they become eligible for a lifetime pension of $390 a

month. That's ex-NDP MPs saying that they're supporting the

government in Ottawa for the reason that they want a

pension.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, no matter how you dress up

compulsory arbitration in language like this…. I can see the

liberal, rational approach to that policy, but we differ on it.

No matter how you wrap it up, whether compulsory arbitration be

apprehended, be pre-emptive, or disguised in any other fashion,

compulsory arbitration it is.

We maintain that when the situation deteriorates to a strike

in essential services we must then respond in the time-honoured

way that is the only one that's left open to us and that is to

admit that the economic pressures on the province are such that

this Legislature must be called into activity. That we hold

fairly close to our hearts.

That's what's going to happen, and if we have made a

mistake, Mr. Member, I guess we're going to pay for it. No

question about that. I hope we don't. Nobody's more conscious

than I of those problems, having as I say over the years spoken

from those seats over there about matters like this. I well

remember….

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You were better over

here.

HON. MR. HALL: Was I better? I'm not too bad wherever I am,

really. (Laughter.)

So I'm not prepared to accept this pre-emptive compulsory

arbitration amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Curtis

Wallace

[ Page 1328 ]

NAYS — 36

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I'm not able to take

part in

this debate because of the committee on privilege holding its meeting, but I

already spoke to this on second reading, and with that thought in mind I move

the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment negatived.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On subsection (11). Would the Minister

please outline under what circumstances he envisages locking

out the civil service?

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I imagine that if the

labour-management climate deteriorates in the public service to

such an extent that the government will be looking to this

particular section, I guess we're not going to be too far from

some real editorial comment in the newspapers, for one thing.

It seems to me that this is the kind of

section that has to

really be in in terms of even-handedness; if indeed a strike is

acceptable, then a lockout must be acceptable.

I know that the Member makes reference to the fact we're

charged and we solemnly do swear to exercise our duties and

make sure that the public service of the province carries on,

but there may indeed become a time in one particular section,

say the technical

section or some highways work, when it's not

in the best interests of recalcitrant employees on a dispute

such as this, who are not responding to the actions of the

mediator or arbitrator, to be on the job. I can't give you an

actual answer to a hypothetical question, but it seems to me

that that's the kind of even-handedness we want to see in a

dispute.

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

I wonder if the Minister would also indicate the wisdom of the

provisions in subsection (8).

It seems to me that the vote to be taken of all members of the union certified

should be a vote taken of the bargaining unit in respect of which the dispute

arises, and not just of one of the bargaining units. It may just be a matter

of wording, but if there is a bargaining unit having difficulty with the master

collective agreement affecting them, it should be the members of that particular

bargaining unit and not just of one of the bargaining units — it may be one

of the others.

HON. MR. HALL: I think that you've misread the section. That

was deliberately put in to clarify the language in the previous

Bill 182 because it wasn't apparent that when an argument

arises out of the master agreement for either of (4)(a), (4)(

b) or (4)(c), if that is the case then all people in (4)(

a) or (4)(

b) or (4)(

c) will vote on that dispute. If however the

argument arises out of a component within (4)(

a) or (4)(

b) or

(4)(c), only the component votes on that item. That language

is very carefully spelled out in sections 8 and 9.

Sections 17 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On

section 21 we raise the question of

conflict between the Ministers. Can the Attorney General assure