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, OCTOBER 23, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 881 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Act. (Bill 11). Committee

stage.

section 12.

Mr. Wallace — 881

Hon. Mr. King — 881

Mr. Wallace — 881

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 882

Hon. Mr. King — 882

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 882

Hon. Mr. King — 883

Mr. Chabot — 883

Hon. Mr. King — 883

Mr. Williams — 883

Hon. Mr. King — 885

Mr. Gardom — 885

Hon. Mr. King — 886

Mr. Chabot — 886

Hon. Mr. King — 887

Mr. Gardom — 887

Mr. Smith — 887

Division on amendment to

section 12 — 888

Privilege

Construction noise in Parliament Buildings. Mrs. Jordan — 888

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Act. (Bill 11). Committee

stage.

section 13.

Mr. Chabot — 888

Hon. Mr. King — 888

section 16.

Mr. Williams — 888

Mr. Wallace — 889

Hon. Mr. King — 890

Mr. Gardom — 890

Mr. Williams — 891

Mr. Gardom — 891

Hon. Mr. King — 891

Mr. Wallace — 892

Hon. Mr. King — 892

Mr. Gardom — 892

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 893

Mr. Williams — 893

Hon. Mr. King — 894

Mr. Wallace — 894

section 21.

Mr. Gardom — 895

Hon. Mr. King — 895

Mr. Gardom — 895

Hon. Mr. King — 896

Mr. Wallace — 896

Hon. Mr. King — 896

Mr. Gardom — 896

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 897

Mr. Gardom — 897

section 23.

Mr. Chabot — 898

Hon. Mr. King — 898

Mr. Chabot — 899

Mr. Phillips — 899

Mrs. Jordan — 900

Mr. Chabot — 901

Hon. Mr. King — 901

Mr. Chabot — 901

Hon. Mr. King — 901

Privilege

Construction noise in Parliament Buildings.

Mrs. Jordan — 902

Mr. Speaker — 902

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker. Committee on Bill 11.

LABOUR CODE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 12.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, with particular

reference to

section 12 (2), we feel that in giving the power

to this board and in taking the controversial aspect of labour

relations out of the courts it must be very important that the

members of this Labour Relations Board, having such authority,

should, as far as is humanly possible and appears to be

possible, be neutral and objective.

We feel that the phraseology used in subsection 2, where

certain members are representative of the employers and certain

members representative of the employees, in fact suggests, if

not directly states, that at least those members of the board

shall be, in fact, on the side of the employers or the

employees, as the case may be.

We feel that the members of the board as far as possible

must be completely independent in their views and that this

particular designation of members being representative of one

or other of the two parties lines up the board right there and

then as at least being three against three or four against

four, as the case may be. We would be much happier with the

make-up of the board if the members were not designated as

representing either labour or management, employers or

employees. We feel that the word "representing" means that they

specifically favour presenting the point of view of that

particular segment, either employers or employees, that they

are in fact serving on the board.

With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to amend

section 12 (2) by deleting the words "equal in number,

representative of employers and employees respectively" where

they appear beginning in the second line. I so move.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): The composition of the board is

of particular significance. We are attempting as a central concept of this proposed

bill to transfer the adjudication of industrial relations matters from the courts

to another agency which possesses the specialized skills to deal with the very

complex problems of industrial relations, based on some expertise and based

on some involvement and some experience with those problems.

If the board which will be responsible for handling these

problems is to be other than a court, then it must be clearly

seen to be an administrative agency which is representative of

the complex interest of the parties involved in industrial

relations. To suggest that the board should be composed of

people who have no background and no experience in that area of

industrial relations is to me somewhat unrealistic.

MR. WALLACE: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. KING: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the

section which the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) refers

to does provide that "the chairman, and one or more

vice-chairmen…" which clearly enables the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint as many executive

members as he deems appropriate, who may be chosen from the

public or may be designated without reference to the

representative aspect that is provided for in the board

members. I think that on this basis we have a board that's

composed of a representative structure not only in terms of

trade unions and management groups but in terms of the public

interest also. I oppose the amendment on the basis that the

legislation as contained in the Act is flexible enough to

ensure that not only the interests of those parties to

industrial relations but the interests of the public are

adequately served.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry if I haven't made my

position clear. Although I stated that the amendment did not

want certain members equal in number to be clearly designated

as representing the employers or the employees, that is not at

the same time suggesting they should not have a training and a

background in this very complicated field. I believe that it

would be unrealistic to appoint people who have not a

background. But I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that not

everybody with a background in this complicated field is

identified very clearly with either employers or employees. I'm

simply suggesting that if this board is likely to function

well, in our opinion it will not do so if equal numbers of the

members on the board are clearly there because of their

experience in one or other of these two particular fields — either employee interests or employer interests.

The Minister keeps making the statement that this is not a

court and, in his statement of a moment ago, that this has to

give the appearance of not being a court. The fact is that it

very clearly is a court, with powers that equal or exceed

courts existing in this

[ Page 882 ]

land at the present time. I suppose we're going to have the

Minister repeat, as he's done many times that the mere fact

that this board does not have the legal ability to impose

penalties disqualifies it from being described as a court. And

as far as that goes, Mr. Chairman, I might say that since this

board has the power to decide the extent of its own

jurisdiction I would submit that this board probably has the

jurisdiction to decide whether or not it can impose

penalties.

Therefore all this protestation by the Minister that we

shouldn't either call this a court or regard it as a court I

think is a matter of semantics. And I would submit that when a

new approach is being taken, and when this degree of authority

is being given to a series of appointed individuals, the

question of objectivity and neutrality of these individuals in

their action on the board is of paramount importance. We have

the example already, Mr. Chairman, of the individuals who have

been chosen to serve on this board. I'm making no personal

reflection on their ability or their experience; I'm simply

saying that the choice does indeed show quite clearly that the

board will consist predominantly of two halves — three

representing employees and three representing employers — and

the only person who is clearly an academic and not identified

with one or other camp is the chairman.

The fact is that this

section clearly gives the government

the power to appoint a board where certainly the majority of

members will be in equal numbers representative of employers or

employees. We think that that removes right off the bat the

measure of objectivity and neutrality which at least we

consider would be very important in deliberating the very

thorny issues that will be taken to the board.

We reject the Minister's repeated opinion that this is not a

labour court. In our view the power it has is very much the

equivalent of a court and the composition of the board as

described in

section 12(2) we feel is not the best start to the

tremendous responsibilities and challenges which the board will

be facing. I repeat that it would be much better if people of

skill and talent and experience could be put on the board,

people who have no previous clear definition as having been

allied with the interests of the employers or the

employees.

Amendment negatived.

section 12.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

amend

section 12 by giving a guarantee to the Canadian unions

that they will have a member on the board. Now I realize that

there are many people who feel that specifically Canadian

unions should not be given this guarantee.

I can understand that when you start giving guarantees you can get into other

groups that also want guarantees. But we have had the situation in Trail which

is fairly well known where, in my view, the fact is that the majority of the

people who work for Cominco were denied the opportunity, by way of technicalities

mainly, of having the union of their choice, and the Canadian union they wished

to establish did not get the recognition they hoped for.

Now I realize that there can be differences of opinion on

this, but I would like to point out this Canadian union

movement is growing. It is strong at the present time, not only

in Kitimat but elsewhere in the province. And to ask that one

out of the 10 people on the board be a member of such a union

would, I think, be a desirable thing. It doesn't dilute

materially the number of the total board.

It does give a guarantee to the members of this particular

form of unionism who believe that they have not been adequately

treated by the previous government's legislation. Mr. Chairman,

I think that an amendment to this effect, which I have in my

hand and will present to you in a moment, is in order.

I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that we amend

section

12(2) by adding the following sentence: "At least one member of

the board shall be a representative of Canadian unions."

HON. MR. KING: The second Member for Victoria seeks to

designate in legislation a preference for a particular type of

trade union in the province. While I would suggest that every

Member of this House has a perfect right to his own emotional

attachment, to the internationals or to the Canadian unions or

to any specific trade union, I would certainly question the

wisdom of a government, which is charged with adjudicating the

affairs of the trade union movement in an impartial way,

indicating a preference in trade union legislation. I think

that the concept is most repugnant and I have no intention of

allowing this government to become involved in the workers'

democratic right to indicate and make the choice of the union

which they think can most adequately represent their

interests.

Now in terms of appointments to boards, I think that

unquestionably the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has

traditionally held authority to make appointments. To try to

dilute that authority by legislative requirements is, in my

view, faulty and not consistent with harmonious trade union

relations. So I completely resent and repudiate the amendment,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I fail to understand why

the Minister resents and repudiates the amendment. We are not

here, as apparently he believes, deciding on who should deal in

terms of certification. We are dealing with what is essentially

a legislative prerogative, namely the appointment to the

[ Page 883 ]

board itself.

Now four members are appointed already by the Crown. I

indicated that I think they are good choices, and wish them

well. Six are not yet chosen. We are asking that this specific

section be amended so that one area of the Canadian union

movement will have a representative.

We are not asking that any decision be taken, any preference

be shown by the Minister. We are not asking him, and I quote

his words, "to adjudicate a preference." We are not doing that.

We are indicating only that we feel that one out of three

should be a member of a union movement which is growing in the

province, which has a specific point of view, which is

obviously at loggerheads on many occasions with the many other

areas of union activity and others in the union movement. We

feel this in no way implies a preference; it merely gives a

guarantee that one out of the board of 10 people will be a

representative of a group that genuinely feels — I don't want

to discuss whether or not they are correct in this feeling — they have been discriminated against in the past. I would

think, if the Minister reconsiders his position in the light of

the fact that we are not showing a preference with respect to

certification, he might indeed realize the merits of this

proposal.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make this

observation. I recognize what the Hon. Member is "ahsking," (laughter) but you know the board is structured in such

a way that under the new framework the reasons for decisions

will be given, the board will operate in a much more open way

than has been the case heretofore, and I think that all parties

affected by decisions of the board will have access to the

reasons that the board has for handing down its decision. This

in itself, I think, will serve to prevent many of the feelings

of injustice that parties have felt who have been affected by

board decisions in the past.

Certainly the amendment the Member is presenting is one

which would dilute the authority of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council which is traditional. I don't

know of any jurisdiction which has provided for the

appointments of members to boards in a legislative way rather

than through prerogative of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's right there.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, there is

growing fear in the province that recognition will not be given

to the Canadian trade union movement by the government. There

is fear in the province as well that there is a close

relationship between that government and that Minister and the

international labour movement in this province. I think it is

important that recognition be given to the Canadian union movement because they are a growing force;

they are a reality in this province and I think they deserve

recognition as well.

All this amendment asks of the Minister is that he appoint

one of a 10-man board from the Canadian union force. I think it

is a very simple amendment and a responsible amendment as well.

If the Minister will tell us now that he is giving serious

consideration to the appointment of a representative of the

Canadian union movement in British Columbia, I would be glad to

vote against the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am giving serious

consideration to appointments to the Labour Relations Board

which will be representative of the interests involved in

industrial relations. I'm giving serious consideration to

appointments who are capable of doing a job. I am less

interested in affiliation than Members of the opposition seem to be.

When the Member for Columbia River suggests that there is a

close relationship between me and the international trade union

movement I say yes, there is a close relationship between me

and all the working people of this province, no matter what

union they are represented by. That is a relationship which was

conspicuous by its absence under the administration of the

Member for Columbia River. I suggest that his concern for the

choice of the trade union movement was conspicuously absent

when he occupied this office just one short year ago.

The Members can rest assured that the appointments that are

made to the Labour Relations Board by this government will be

well thought out. They will be composed of capable people, as

has been displayed in all the appointments thus far made by the

provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

AN HON. MEMBER: Double talk!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): The

assurances that the Minister has given us as to the calibre and

quality of the appointments the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

has heretofore made will be applied to the appointments in this

Labour Relations Board forces me to rise in support of this

particular amendment. If what we have seen in the past is what

we are to see with respect to the appointments to this board,

then I have the most serious concern.

What the Minister said in his remarks a few moments ago I

think establishes the need for just this kind of legislative

protection. He tacitly admitted that the decisions of the

Labour Relations Board heretofore have been against Canadian

unions. But now that we are going to have the right and in

fact

[ Page 884 ]

the obligation to have decisions in writing and with

reasons, he suggests this won't happen — that if they had been

obliged to disclose the reasons for what they did in the past,

then the Canadian unions wouldn't have had the trouble at

Cominco.

Obviously there was something about the judgmental quality

of what the Labour Relations Board did in those days which

gives the Minister reason to criticize.

Mr. Chairman, for the Minister to respond as he does to this

amendment, as he has with all the others, his conciliatory

approach seems to show through at all times. Whenever you don't

have any reason on your side, what you do is you stoop to

political innuendo — and that's his answer.

Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this is not good

enough for the Canadian unions. They are a growing force in our

community; they are a growing force in this province and in

this country. When we're embarking upon this new direction in

labour relations, according to the Minister, with this new

vehicle, the Labour Relations Board, to fail to recognize this

obvious movement is, I suggest to the Minister,

short-sightedness of the very worst kind.

In responding to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace),

he indicated that it was important that there be equal

representation from people who have particular knowledge and

skill, and I agree with that. We have not yet come so far from

the labour relations jungle that we can ignore the wisdom of

having representatives of employers and employees on the board

so that justice will not only be done but seem to be done as

well.

But when we have this significant group of Canadian unions

who are constantly at loggerheads with the internationals, I

think it is also wisdom to ensure that they are represented on

this Labour Relations Board. The Minister has not given us any

assurance that this will be the case.

What is one of the larger unions in this province? — the

IWA. At their recent convention how difficult the problem was

for them to overcome the impact of the Canadian union movement!

They went so far as to suggest that their national headquarters

should somehow or other be moved to Canada so that perhaps they

could stave off the threat of Canadian nationalism taking place

in unions. That failed because it was suggested that if this

was to happen their brothers south of the line might somehow or

other feel that they were being badly treated.

Yet we've had the Hon. Attorney General and the Hon. Premier saying that there's

no reason why anybody in this province should genuflect to any foreign-dominated

group in reaching decisions that we have to make in this province. Well, why

don't we at least have a Canadian union representative assured on this Labour

Relations Board just in case the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council happens to make

a mistake in the wisdom of his selection.

HON. MR. KING: Don't cast aspersions on….

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure that the Hon. Minister of Labour

would never make a mistake. But you know, some of his

colleagues might force a mistake on him, and I can think of a

number of names of people who seem to have great influence with

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or some of the Members of

that council. I would hate to think that the Minister would be

put in the embarrassing situation of coming back at some future

time and saying, "Well, I tried to get Canadian union

representation on the Labour Relations Board, but somehow or

other the rest of the council wouldn't go along with it."

You know, there's the Premier and the Attorney General and

so on — and Ray Haynes — and the whole group of them might

never be able to come to a decision. Mr. Chairman, we have had

from this government legislation — the Hon. Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick), who hasn't spoken in this debate, brought

legislation in this spring under which you can't become a miner

in this province unless you are a Canadian citizen or a landed

immigrant and become a Canadian citizen within a specified

number of years.

We have the Companies Act where very shortly you won't be

able to be a director of a company in this province unless

you're a Canadian resident. We have amendments to the Land

Commission Act which are going to preclude anyone from

acquiring Crown lands or Crown leases unless they're a

Canadian. There are moves afoot to suggest that no one should

own any land in this province unless they are a Canadian.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not suggesting I'm against it. But if I'm

not against it — and I'm sure the Hon. Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is not against it — then

why doesn't he stand up and support the Canadian unions having

one, just one, representative on this Labour Relations

Board?

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: I see. So we make some exceptions. It's

strange, Mr. Chairman, that we have to make the exceptions when

we're running into a matter of labour relations, because, Mr.

Chairman, we might somehow or other be criticized or taken as

criticizing those friends of the government who in the labour

movement are prepared to put down Canadian unionism. I think

that it will be interesting to see on the vote on this

particular amendment all those

[ Page 885 ]

Members of the government who are prepared to stand up for

Canadian unionism — home-grown, home-owned and home-operated

and with a representative on the board to make sure that when

the decisions are made in this board, the interests of Canadian

unions are given proper consideration — not after the fact when

the reasons are produced, but right there at the

decision-making table when all the discussions take place…that the interest of Canadian unions are really taken into

account.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's a presentation by

a member of the legal profession, a sleek and suave

representative of the legal profession — representative of a

party that aspires for office…

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Don't be so smug,

smug, smug.

HON. MR. KING: …that aspires for the government of this

province, a man who stood with all the other opposition Members

on second reading of this bill, approval in principle, and

fully supported the concept contained in this bill, and gave an

excellent speech, I thought, on the need for rational

discourse.

Now here we have him standing and attempting to drive a

wedge between the various elements of the working people of

this province, making snide remarks about relationships with

people such as Ray Haynes — including him as a member of the

executive council. I don't blame you for groaning; you should

be ashamed. That's scurrilous, snide and it's certainly not

calculated to do anything for a responsible climate of

industrial relations in this province.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that once again the Liberal

Party has revealed itself as a party which is not really

interested in the workers' interests, but is more interested in

inflaming the climate with hostility and ill-feeling in the

trade union movement of this province.

I have no intention of accepting an amendment which would

infer preference for either the international unions or the

Canadian unions, or any other type of unions. That is the

workers' choice; that's their decision. I'm confident, Mr.

Chairman, that the workers will make that decision with a

greater degree of responsibility and integrity than we could

expect from Members of the Liberal Party. I oppose the

amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister introduced this bill, he

called to this House for temperance, for good will and cooperation. I'd say,

Mr. Chairman, that all Members of the House of all parties responded in accord.

I think they have advanced very cogent reasons themselves and arguments themselves

supporting the premises that were first mentioned by the Minister. I think there

was unanimity in the House and there was genuine and general agreement of all

the Members that what we've had in labour-management relations has not worked,

and what the government has put forth is a valiant attempt towards better solutions,

and it certainly should be given a better chance.

The Minister in his opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, clearly

welcomed opinion, he stressed flexibility and he and the

Premier both welcomed amendment. The Premier made a great

analogy to the Land Commission Act where opposition amendments

were considered and in some cases accepted, and there were also

a raft of government amendments.

But notwithstanding, I'd say, the peace and the light and

the good will, and notwithstanding the specific request, Mr.

Chairman, from this Minister for the opposite point of view — and the opposite point of view in this opposition represents 60

per cent of the voters in the Province of B.C. — that yesterday

during a full day of committee, and which he started to carry

on tonight, the Minister, I say regretfully, abandoned his

position of decision via cooperation and consultation.

You launched into a very vitriolic tirade and you used the

most extreme rhetoric, in varying degree and in varying volume,

and occasionally rather lamely supported from other government

members. I think that you came out with some of the most unfair

and extreme language that this assembly has heard yet this

session.

Now you accused yesterday, and you started to do it again

tonight, various Members of the opposition of being "ignorant," "interested only in party equity," having

"biases against the working people," being "pathetic," "lacking any understanding of labour-management

relations," being "sanctimonious,"

"platitudinous," "shocking," "discriminatory," "phony," being "a disgrace to office." You

called some of their statements "poisonous." You said they had

"basic biases, hostilities and disrespect"; you even went to

the extreme of the highly questionable taste of referring to

"incest." And tonight you've used the word "scurrilous." Mr.

Minister, I may say that I have a lot of respect for you as a

Minister of the Crown; I admire your courage but I certainly do

not admire for one minute the approach that you have taken in

this bill in committee. I think it's demeaning to the Members

of the House, I think it's demeaning to the public, I think

it's demeaning to you and I hope you stop it. I'd say that your

terminology has certainly been no advertisement for temperate

approach, it's been no advertisement for moderation or

cooperative spirit. Mr. Chairman, if this Act and this

section

we're discussing at the present time is going to work in any

manner that's going to be paralleled to the performance of the

Minister, we're not going to have

[ Page 886 ]

a very good time with this new Act in the Province of B.C.

and there's going to be little hope for its survival.

I want to say this to you absolutely as clearly and

distinctly as I can, and I'm speaking for myself and I'm sure

I'm speaking for every Member of the opposition — Conservative,

Liberal, and Social Credit: We want to see this thing work in

the Province of B.C. We want to see it work, and the remarks

that I'm going to make in this debate directed to any amendment

are going to be directed to that end and to that end only.

It's my feeling, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Hon.

Minister, that any amendments that are introduced by any

opposition Member, in the same way as any amendments that are

going to be introduced by the government or the bill itself is

being introduced by the government, are for the good of the

people of the Province of B.C. They should be received in that

light by you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that the Hon.

Members confine their remarks strictly to the amendments, and I

apply this comment to both sides of the House.

HON. MR. KING: I want to thank the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey for his

summary of my remarks in the House

yesterday. I'm glad to see that he paid that much attention to

the remarks I had to make.

The Member, while portraying a mantle of tremendous

responsibility and temperance, failed to mention that my

remarks were in response to certain statements from that side

of the House which accused the trade union movement of this

province of racial discrimination, accused this government of

illicit relationships with members of particular unions,

accused this government of being in bed with the B.C.

Federation of Labour and Ray Haynes, and various other

scandalous and scurrilous innuendoes. Mr. Chairman, if I

resorted to rather expressive and descriptive remarks in

reacting to such suggestions, I suggest that the response was

justified.

Certainly I, in opening the introductions to debate on

amendments to this legislation, did not indulge in that kind of

personal attack. I discussed whether or not I was prepared to

support the amendment. I discussed the anticipated effect of

the amendments offered by the opposition on the intent of the

legislation and its possible effects on the trade union people

and on management. And because I took a stand in opposition to

those amendments, various Members of the opposition chose to

respond with innuendo.

My approach is somewhat different from yours. I'm rather blunt and straightforward.

I don't indulge in innuendo too much and I make no apologies for that. I'm of

the working people, and I take a direct, blunt approach. I think that perhaps

working people of this province understand that approach and find it somewhat

more honest than the kind of innuendoes that we have been subjected to from

that side of the House.

So I make no apologies for the remarks I made but I suggest

this, Mr. Chairman, that if the Members are prepared to refrain

from that kind of innuendo and discuss the merits of this

legislation on the basis of its content, then I have no

interest in engaging in the kind of debate that was witnessed

here yesterday and again this evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would appeal again to both sides of the

House in the spirit of good will to confine their remarks to

the

section before us,

section 12.

MR. CHABOT: I'm sure, despite what the Minister says, that

the amendment which was introduced by the Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was introduced in good faith. It

wasn't introduced as a wedge which the Minister attempted…

HON. MR. KING: I never suggested his amendment was.

MR.CHABOT: …attempted to suggest it was a wedge between

the Canadian union movement and the international union

movement.

The Minister tonight and yesterday as well used many

reckless and intemperate statements in this House. All we're

asking for is that fair consideration be given to the growing

Canadian union movement in this province. That's all this

amendment asks.

It doesn't suggest that you give an unfair balance in this.

All we're asking is that consideration be given, because there

is apprehension out there that there was an unfair decision

rendered by the board relative to the Canadian workers' unions'

application for a representative vote to represent the workers

at Trail and Kimberley not too many months ago, and their

representative application was turned down on a

technicality.

Those people at that particular time were concerned. They

felt that they'd been betrayed by international representatives

on that board. I think that as a Minister of the Crown you have

a responsibility to remove that suspicion which exists in the

minds of those people who belong to and represent the Canadian

union movement in British Columbia. I want to say one other act

on your behalf, Mr. Minister…

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got your politics mixed up.

MR. CHABOT: …which is suspect by the Canadian union movement in this

province is your

[ Page

887 ]

not-too-long-ago appointment to the Labour Relations Board

of a representative from the international steelworkers. They

were shocked with that kind of a blood-relationship appointment

to the Labour Relations Board of this province. They've become

suspect. And all this amendment is asking is that you give them

fair consideration.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) now, is that the

kind of responsible dialogue and debate that you want me to

respond to in a positive way?

MR. CHABOT: That's the kind of dialogue you're asking

for.

HON. MR. KING: Is that the kind of poisonous innuendo that

you want me to refer to and respond to in a reasonable way?

"Blood-relationship," the Member for Columbia River

says. The Member is consistent; he's wrong as usual. Quite

wrong. The representative who was appointed to the Labour

Relations Board had completely severed his relationship with

the United Steelworkers of America and was an independent

workingman of this province. He had no union affiliation, no

official capacity with the United Steelworkers. So the Member

is quite wrong and I find his inferences customarily scurrilous

and poisonous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would appeal to the Hon.

Members to please refrain from using inflammatory language and

ask them to engage in the debate in the spirit of goodwill.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll never get the bill through.

MR. GARDOM: Just in speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's out of order. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: …and in response to our Minister of Labour

who addressed a question to me, two wrongs don't make a right,

Mr. Minister, and you have the responsibility of leadership.

From this seat in the House you'll never receive innuendo;

it'll be a direct statement.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I've listened with interest to the

debate from speakers on both sides of the House this evening, particularly to

the remarks of the Minister of Labour. If I was worried before about the labour

climate I'm more so now. The remarks that he's directed towards the opposition

who have proposed an amendment in good faith seem to me to indicate an attitude

on his part that he wants to retaliate against the opposition in some means

for proposing an amendment which would give recognition to Canadians and Canadian

unions.

What are we in this country if we're not Canadians? Is it a

sin to stand in this House and acknowledge before the public

that we think it's true that Canadians took pride in their own

entity, in this country, and by so doing…?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: You weren't even in when the Minister started

this debate, Mr. Premier, so just sit down and keep quiet for a

little while.

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

address the Chair.

MR. SMITH: Is it not time that we gave recognition by an

amendment such as this, which only asks that one person out of

ten be a member of a Canadian union within this whole structure

and this whole board. Certainly, I would think the Canadian

people would applaud this suggestion because it does give a

small measure of recognition to the fact that Canadians and

Canadian unions are an accepted part of the union life of our

province and our nation.

For the Minister to stand in his place and direct the

remarks that he has to the Members of the official opposition

and the Liberal Members in this House, in my opinion, is

unacceptable.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Chabot

Fraser

Anderson, D.A.

Richter

Phillips

Williams, L.A.

Jordan

McClelland

Gardom

Smith

Morrison

Wallace

Schroeder

NAYS — 32

Macdonald

D'Arcy

Gabelmann

Barrett

Cummings

Lockstead

Dailly

Levi

Gorst

Strachan

Williams, R.A.

Rolston

Nimsick

King

Anderson, G.H.

Stupich

Lea

Barnes

Hartley

Young

Steves

Calder

Lauk

Kelly

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Webster

Brown

Skelly

Lewis

Sanford

Liden

[ Page 888 ]

PAIRED

Radford

Curtis

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on the rising of the

committee, I would ask that you would report the vote to the

Speaker and ask that it be recorded in the Journals .

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I rise on a

point of personal privilege on behalf of the official

opposition to ask your ruling on a matter of privilege under

standing order 26.

It is quite clear that the construction activities underway

in this building are incompatible with the access to normal

parliamentary amenities of the opposition, their right to

office staff who can be free to work in the freedom from noise

and from the surroundings, the right to receive and hear

incoming phone calls, and the right to receive delegations and

people in surroundings which are free from abrasive noises. It

is clear, Mr. Chairman, such is not the case in this House at

this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I point out to the Hon. Member

that it's not, allowed by standing orders to raise a matter of

privilege in committee and I would therefore ask her to wait

until the committee has risen.

MRS. JORDAN: I always assumed we had the same privileges in

committee. If that is your ruling I would then move that the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again in

order to bring this matter of urgent concern to the official

opposition….

Interjections.

Motion negatived.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) had an

amendment on

section 13, but in view of the fact that I have

the floor now I will continue debating

section 13.

(Laughter.)

Section 13(4) says that, "The chairman may terminate an appointment to a panel

and may fill a vacancy on a panel howsoever caused." What we're discussing is

the appointment of a panel, which can constitute a one-member panel, a two-member

panel or a variety of people on the panel. I really believe that the termination

of appointment by the chairman of the panel, which can be a one-man panel or

a variety of representatives of the board on the panel or other people, should

be, for cause, the termination of this panel.

I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, on

section 13 (4) to amend

by deleting the words, "howsoever caused." and substituting the

following: "By reason of a vacancy caused by reason of death,

illness, or conflict of interest."

I don't think that in this subsection 4 the chairman should

have the authority of removing without cause anyone who is a

member of the panel, nor even the removal of himself, without a

statement of cause. For that reason I move the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHABOT: The amendment has been lost. Would the Minister

give me an

interpretation or a justification for the subsection

section 13 as it presently reads for the possibility of the

chairman terminating the term of anyone elected as chairman of

a panel?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the panels may be designated to

adjudicate a particular appeal or application before the board.

There are certain circumstances when one member of the board

can form a panel to hear a particular application before the

board which is uncontested and is an academic type of

application.

As the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) well knows,

one of the great problems of the board has been expeditiously

dealing with applications that come before it. This type of

flexibility in a situation which is uncontested should serve to

increase the speed and the dispatch with which the board can

handle those kinds of situations which are not controversial

and are uncontested. There is the added protection, of course,

that any such decision that is handed down is always appealable

to the entire board, should the decision of the individual

panelist or, indeed, a panel of three, be objected to or

appealed. If during the course of hearings members party to the

adjudication which a panelist is making should appeal for a

broader panel to hear it, then the chairman would have the

authority to dismiss the individual panelist and assign a panel

of three or, indeed, a panel of the entire board to hear the

particular case.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the extensive

[ Page 889 ]

authority which the chairman has to establish panels of the

board is obviously an appropriate one, when one considers the

vast number of matters which the board will be called upon to

consider. For the board to be obliged to, sit as a board at all

times would, I'm sure, frustrate the work which will be

presented to that board.

Now we're dealing in

section 16 with a very specific

discretion that the chairman is given — to establish a panel to

consider questions of law. I must say that when I first read

this

section 1 was disturbed that it was not made obligatory

that the chairman establish such a panel. The question

immediately comes to mind as to what happens if he does not

immediately establish such a panel. Then, obviously, there is

no place to which a question of law can be referred.

But there is even a matter of greater concern in

section 16,

because if the chairman does happen to establish such a panel

and does refer questions of law to it, then the ruling of that

panel, when given, is binding on the entire board and also on

other panels of the board. It is this aspect of

section 16

which gives me the greatest concern.

I note when I read later in the Act, particularly

section

107, that the draftsmen of this legislation saw fit in specific

circumstances to give the right — and I emphasize the word

"right" as opposed to "obligation" — to the board to refer a

question of law, by way of a special case, for the opinion of a

judge of the supreme court of this province. It seems to me,

when dealing with

section 16, that without making it obligatory

the board should have the right at any time — not just in the

special circumstances in which

section 107 applies.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I think that when parties from

labour or management or both are before the board and a

question of law arises in the course of representations being

made to the board, it should be mandatory on the board to refer

those questions of law, by way of special case, to the supreme

court. Only in that way will the board be able to develop the

basic precedents, through its reasons and decisions, which will

enable the parties coming before the board to know in advance

and recognize what they may expect in the way of decisions from

the board.

I know that the Minister consistently says the board is not a court. I'm not

going to get into that semantic argument, but it is obvious that if the b o

a r d is to function effectively repetitive applications before the board on

the same or similar sets of circumstances should be avoided. The one way that

they are avoided is that reasons are given, decisions handed down, reported,

and published. This is provided for. But in order to provide some certainty,

the possibility of continuing questions being raised should at the outset be

put to rest as quickly as possible by this board or any panels of the board.

In my view this can best be done if the board has the right and, in cases where

parties are before them, the obligation to refer questions of law to the supreme

court for an opinion. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend

section

16 by deleting the

section in its entirety and substituting the following words:

"The chairman, the board, or a panel of the board may, at

any time, and shall at the request of any person involved in

any proceedings before the board or a panel, with the leave of

the chairman, state in the form of a special case, for the

opinion of the Supreme Court, any question of law respecting

the

interpretation of this Act or arising in the course of such

proceedings. Upon the receipt of such opinion the board shall

make a ruling upon the question of law which, when given, is

binding on the board or the panel, or the person involved in

such proceedings."

Mr. Chairman, this amendment gives the right, but not the

obligation, to the board to send any question of law to the

supreme court for an opinion. It also gives the right to a

party before the board to ask that a question of law be

referred to the supreme court, and the chairman of the board

must give his leave before that step is taken, so that the

board constantly remains in control of referrals to the supreme

court. Then, if such a referral is made and an opinion given,

the board brings back that opinion before itself and makes a

ruling based upon that opinion. Then, and only then, is that

question of law binding on the board or a panel or any of the

parties before the board.

I suggest that it does not take away any of the authority of

the board but merely expands the rights that it has and gives

them an opportunity, at the very outset, to embark upon their

work, their deliberations, avoiding continuous and repetitious

arguments being presented to them on the same question,

application after application after application. In such a way

the work of the board will be lessened over the months and

years, certainty will be given to the kind of decision that the

board can be expected to make, and parties, when confronted

with a problem, will know or have an opportunity of recognizing

the likelihood of the board's judgment or decision on the

particular application, and I move that amendment.

M R. WALLACE: I wish to support this amendment. It is very similar to

the amendment which we have on the order paper to

section 16.

One of the great concerns that we have in general about this

whole bill is that in taking disputes away from the courts — again with the best of intentions on the part of this

government to find a new way to

[ Page 890 ]

settle disputes — we are concerned that on the other hand it

has gone too far in even eliminating the possibility that the

courts should play a part where the question of law, the

interpretation of law, may be in doubt. It seems to us that the

thrust of the bill is, as the Minister has stated many times,

to set up a different type of Labour Relations Board of highly

skilled and experienced people who will bring better

understanding to the nature of disputes than has existed in the

other established courts of the land.

The reason that this party supported the second reading of

this bill in principle was that we were more than willing to

give this new concept an opportunity to function. But on the

other hand, we do not see that this new concept should go so

far as to completely eliminate the function or the possible

positive use of the courts in some part or other of the

deliberations or decisions of this Labour Relations Board.

We feel also, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Williams) has said, that there must be times — or we would

anticipate because of the diversity and the complexity and the

number of decisions which this board will have to make — that

there are bound to be times when there will be uncertainty as

to points of law in their deliberations. It seems to us only to

make good sense that the Labour Relations Board in such

situations should be free to refer doubtful matters of

interpretation of law to the supreme court.

I would differ somewhat from the amendment in that I am not

sure that I understand or accept the final part of 'the

amendment which still leaves the chairman of the board the

right to disagree with the

interpretation placed on the

question of law by the supreme court. The only difference

between his amendment and the amendment that I have on the

order paper is that the opinion of the supreme court in such a

situation would be binding upon the board or the panel.

But that is a much smaller point — than the main issue in

this amendment. That is that the bill in

section 16 should

allow this avenue to the board or panel to submit matters,

where there is doubt or honest difference of opinion as to the

question of law, and that such matters should be referable, or

it should be possible to seek the guidance of the supreme

court.

Therefore, while I have some hesitation about accepting the

last sentence of the amendment, certainly the underlying

important principle that this avenue should be open, to the

board is something that our party supports quite strongly.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) that his reference to

section 107,

providing to the board the authority to request a decision on a point of law

from the supreme court, is not quite accurate. The reference in

section 107

is to an arbitration board rather than to the Labour Relations Board, so there

is no precedent set in that

section in terms of referring points of law to the

court.

I can appreciate the concern of the opposition to

transferring this entire function from the courts to the Labour

Relations Board. Indeed, this concern was held by the

government to the extent that we recognized that there must be

capable legal representation on the executive branch of the

Labour Relations Board. I think we certainly have that capable

legal representation.

It may be significant to note that under the old system

there were very, very few appeals to the courts on points of

law in which the old Labour Relations Board was found in error.

The new structure will, I repeat, require the board to publish

,the administrative body of laws it's compiled. It will require

and make it incumbent upon the board to provide reasons for

their decisions so that they are more available to the focus of

public attention. And of course there is, in the final

analysis, the scrutiny of the ombudsman to question and

investigate decisions of the board.

So it seems to me that there are adequate checks and

balances to guard against abuse of the powers of the board. I

just feel that we should give this structure, this system, an

opportunity to function and work. If we find that there are

abuses, that there are frequent injustices, then certainly we

can take another look at it.

I think that it is a new concept. It is one that generally

labour and management both have advocated: the removal of

labour relations matters from the courts. I think we should

give this structure a chance to function and scrutinize it

closely as we go along.

I oppose the amendment on that basis.

MR. GARDOM: I would just like to very much support the

amendment and the remarks that were made by the two earlier

speakers on this side of the House. I quite appreciate the

premise raised by the Hon. Minister. But the reason that this

has been advanced here is that we think it would be preferable — not mandatory; it's a discretionary proposal — that the board

may go to the supreme court if it so chooses, or a party

appearing before the board may request the opportunity with the

leave of the board, or the leave of the chairman, to make his

application to the court for determination of a question or a

point of law arising out of the

interpretation of this

statute.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this definitely provides

an avenue to an opinion that is independent of the board and,

if anything, this would be totally helpful for the board. Let

us hope that they are not

[ Page 891 ]

going to run into the situation of needing it very often.

The Minister has given us illustrations in his statement to the

House that the former board did not run into this situation too

often.

But we have a new Act here. We have, to a great extent, a

new philosophy in labour-management relations. I think that we

should provide every check…and every check is perhaps

impossible, but this at least is another check and another

balance.

Now you have shut it off completely at board level. We can

have the situation there of the board being judge and jury and

also, in the initial situation, judge and jury of the

interpretation of the Act and judge and jury for a rehearing

before it. That is why we're saying here to the government and

to the Minister that this proposal is a better one. It is one

that would give a greater protection for individual rights and,

apart from anything else, would be a terrific relief to the

board if it arrives at an imponderable position. This can

happen under this statute.

Where the board is literally 50 per cent one way and 50 per

cent another on a question of legal

interpretation, this very

board would say, "My gosh, I do wish that we had an opportunity

to have this explored in front of a supreme court justice."

That is the reason for the request.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would just like to take one second longer

and attempt to see whether I can't convince the Minister that

perhaps he should change his mind.

You are creating, Mr. Minister, the most serious difficulty

for your board. If you look at the words of

section 16, to

which I referred in my earlier remarks, the ruling on the

question of law under

section 16 is binding on the board. There

is no discretion in that regard.

Mr. Minister, if the chairman establishes a panel and refers

a question of law to that panel and that panel gives a ruling,

that ruling is binding on the board or on another panel. You

can't be much more positive than that.

So the panel, once established by the chairman, has this

completely autonomous power. You think that would end the

question. Except, Mr. Chairman, when you look at

section 36 of

the Act, you find that, "…upon the application of an

employer, a trade-union, or other person, or on its own motion," — the board may — "reconsider any decision or order

made by it, or by a panel, under this Act, and may vary or

cancel any such decision or order…" If the panel makes

this so-called binding decision on a point of order, that's not

the end of it, Mr. Minister, because any person may come to the

board and say, "I ask you to vary that decision," and

section 36 is the grounds for such a request.

If the board has had the right — I'm not saying the obligation — given to it

under this amendment — a right, Mr. Chairman, which it does not now have any

place in the Act — to go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an opinion,

and its decision on the question of law is based upon an opinion of a judge

of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, then under

section 36, the board is

on solid grounds to refuse a request from an employer, a trade union or other

person to vary that decision. But if the decision has been made simply by this

panel, then how does it refuse to exercise the discretion that

section 36 permits?

How does

section 36 function at all in respect of this binding decision of a

panel on the point of law?

I think, Mr. Chairman, that we are, in sections 16 and 36 as

they presently stand, creating more problems for the board. The

amendment, which is before the committee now, I suggest would

provide the board with an opportunity — not an obligation but

an opportunity — of obtaining an opinion quite separate and

apart from the board itself, or from any of the parties who may

be before the board, on a point of law such that it could

withstand any subsequent request for variance and provide an

answer to a problem which might otherwise dog the board,

application after application after application.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we over here have

effectively made the analogy between the request under this

section and what the Minister and the government have already

brought in under

section 107, where an arbitration board has

the right at any stage of the proceedings to state a special

case for the opinion of the supreme court.

I would respectfully suggest that, certainly by analogy, we

have far more serious and onerous proceedings, effecting far

more serious rights and responsibilities of individuals,

groups, trade unions and management, under this

section than

under the check and the balance that the government has

provided under

section 107. If they can provide it for the

minor situation, should it not indeed be all the more plausible

and all the more necessary for the major situation?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that,

under the amendment offered by the Liberal Party, the board

would have the authority to refer a question of law to the

courts but it would not be incumbent upon the board to act upon

the decision handed down by the court — well, the opinion.

It seems to me that this would be a reflection upon the

integrity of the court. I seriously question the wisdom of

obliging the board to take this course of action without making

it mandatory upon them to act on the basis of the advice

received from the courts. So that's the very point; it is not

obligatory. I

[ Page 892 ]

think that to seek the court's opinion and then to act in

possible variance with that decision would reflect on the

integrity of the courts.

This is an administrative tribunal, and it has been pointed

out on many occasions that it will, in fact, build up its own

body of administrative laws as it proceeds. We have legal

counsel on the board who will be cognizant of points of law. We

have, as pointed out earlier, the ombudsman who is a check and

balance on the decisions that are handed down by the board.

I would simply suggest that this system should be given a

try; I don't think there is any way that this structure

imperils the rights of parties appearing before the board.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to debate and

introduce my amendment which seeks to meet the requirements

which the Minister has just outlined so clearly, anticipating,

I'm sure, my amendment.

I needn't cover the earlier points as to why we think the

members of the board are fallible human beings. There will be

times, when, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams) has said, the board may be equally divided on the

interpretation of a point of law, in all honesty, with the best

of intentions, and so on.

My amendment makes it optional for the board to seek advice from the court.

The amendment states that, "The board or a panel may, at any stage…state in the form

of a special case for the opinion of the Supreme Court any question of law arising

in the course of the proceeding…" But the final part of the sentence, Mr.

Chairman, states "…and the opinion of the Supreme Court is binding upon

the board or the panel and may not be reconsidered pursuant to

section 36."

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that meets our natural

concern that this option should be open to the board. It also

preserves the respect and the integrity of decisions of the

supreme court, which is what the Minister was worried about in

answering the amendment from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think we're in the unusual,

infrequent situation whereby the Minister has, in rejecting one

amendment, stated what would be required to make the amendment

acceptable. It just so happens, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment

seems to meet these very requirements. It's with real hope and

faith in the Minister's sense of objectivity — his arguments are

so good and they agree with mine — that I feel that the Minister

will accept this amendment. I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would observe to the

Hon. Member for Oak Bay that hope springs eternal from the

human breast. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Okay, sit back, I know it.

HON. MR. KING: But while it's true that I suggest that to

seek an opinion from the courts which was less than obligatory

would be an aspersion or a reflection on the integrity of the

court, this does not suggest that I favour a decision or a

reference to the courts at all. Indeed, I have stated

consistently that the whole object and concept of this bill is

to remove from the courts the whole question, the whole

jurisdiction and responsibility for industrial relations.

We have a board which is administrative in structure and

administrative in function. It's a board which is

representative of the parties involved; it's a board which has

legal representation and should, therefore, be cognizant of

points of law.

Again, I can only reiterate that there are adequate checks

and balances. I simply am not prepared to offer any opening to

the courts which would result in opening up this whole field to

the type of adjudications that we've had in the past and which

have proven unsatisfactory in terms of coming to grips with

real problems and the real issues in the complex world of

industrial relations.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting

argument but it's a bit of an "Alice in Wonderland" kind of

argument, with all respect to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) and also to the Minister, both of whom are

establishing weighty premises here that it would have to be

stated within the Act that the board would follow the decision

of the court. That's not the case at all. By common law it

would be incumbent upon the board to follow the decision of the

court, because that would be the law of the land. You don't

have to have a statutory enactment — as the Attorney General I

thought would stand up and say — you don't have to have a

statutory enactment to say that the court's orders shall be

followed. You know, I'd rather hoped that this great tiger and

champion of the rule of law, the Attorney General, would have

voiced a few remarks in this particular debate, because as

Attorney General of this province it is very much within his

bailiwick, the rule of law. We find that it's not being

supported by him tonight in the slightest.

MR. WALLACE: He ran out of natural gas.

MR. GARDOM: He ran out of natural gas, said the Member for

Oak Bay. Well I'm not too sure what he ran out of, Mr.

Chairman, but he certainly has run out of any supportive

statement for the rule of law in the Province of B.C. Insofar

as this statute is

[ Page

893 ]

concerned.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, one of

the disasters really for the courts of the land, for the labour

movement, for management and industrial relations — as it has

been the degree to which lawyers have interpolated themselves

into the problem of labour relations, has been the delays in

which cases involving human rights and labour-management

negotiations have been tied up for months and years; I can

remember cases that have gone for three years through the

courts and through the appeals and through this and that — has

been the expense which has gone along side-by-side with this

legalistic approach to labour relations.

Now there is nothing revolutionary in this

section or in the

suggestion that the Labour Relations Board should, within its

ambit of powers, decide points of law. There have been many

cases before private arbitration tribunals where the tribunal

itself has had the right to decide a point of law and the

courts have looked at that later and said that that point of

law was not correctly decided — look at the ABC Metals case — but within their powers it is not up to us to interfere.

So I say that this is a very progressive step. I'm inclined

to think, although I can't speak for the courts, that it would

be welcomed by the courts that they don't have to bring the

technicalities of the law into a human problem which is the

labour relations situation. I think it would be applauded by

the public….

MR. GARDOM: Any legal case is a human problem.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know. But in settling a labour

dispute there are intangibles there leading right back to the

cause of the dispute which an application of law is not able to

resolve. I think it's a great step that the Minister of Labour

has taken in relieving the courts of what has been an

increasingly burdensome thing to the courts and has

increasingly drawn them into the vortex almost of the political

problems involved in labour relations.

I hope that this board will be respected, by management and

labour and the public, as a body that's highly qualified both

to act impartially and with perception and according to the

rule of law. I'm sure they'll do that.

So I think

section 16 is a good

section and I think the

attempts of the Liberal Party, the shrinking Liberal Party, to

draw this labour relations procedure back into the courts of

law is a mistaken course. I don't think it's in the interests

of labour relations, I don't think it's in the interests of the

courts and I don't think it's in the interests of the people of

British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to

please keep their smart remarks strictly relevant to the

amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to speak to the amendment put forward

by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay. That's what we're debating, in

case the Attorney General didn't know.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know. Another to take it back to

the courts.

MRS. JORDAN: He got carried away there.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand why the Hon. Attorney General is

confused in this particular amendment. He spoke about the

delays there are in the courts. That's his responsibility. He

spoke about the costs of litigation in the courts. Mr.

Chairman, there isn't any Member in this House who knows better

than the Hon. Attorney General about delays and costs, because

he was a well-recognized labour lawyer before he was moved to

his exalted position. And he's got experience without end in

this matter of delaying proceedings before the courts and the

matter of the costs of labour relations proceedings.

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: A poacher turned gamekeeper.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: He needs some experience.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, you know they talk about the

sinner who repents; they talk about the poacher who turns

gamekeeper; the Attorney General stands before us the very

epitome of both of those. (Laughter.)

The trouble is, Mr. Chairman, that he has repented too late.

He poached too much. (Laughter.)

Do you still have that gold-lined brief case they gave you?

Oh, let's forget that. (Laughter.) It's a beautiful brief case.

The gold is probably all gone by now.

But, Mr. Chairman, when dealing with this question of the

amendment before us, as I have been for the past few moments,

we're talking only about the right of the board to take this

opportunity if it feels the need. That's right. The need. And

it's not mandatory. The Attorney General recognizes that. It's

not one of these long matters of great human concern. It's only

on a question of law that the board may feel the need of an

opinion. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that there have been times

when even the

[ Page 894 ]

Hon. Attorney General has felt in need of an opinion.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: His wife's opinion.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now he may never have accepted an opinion but

I'm sure he's felt the need of one, even to support his own

preconceived notion of what the law might be. That's what the

board has here, the right to seek that confirming opinion.

I'm sure this board when faced with the problem will in its

wisdom see what the law is as clearly as can be. But it just

might help if they said well, let's go and get somebody's

confirming opinion. In fact the Hon. Attorney General earned

his largest fees in giving opinions. If you talk about human

misery that's resulted from the consequences of those

(laughter)…. I won't go into that.

But, Mr. Chairman, if the HON. Attorney General is putting

forward an argument against references to the courts that this

is a matter of great human need and human concern, is he

suggesting that we should take the matter of domestic relations

out of the courts too? Is that the next move that we're to see?

Is the Hon. Attorney General, with his great experience at the

bar of this province, going to suggest when the litigants

appear before the judge that it's not a matter of human concern

and human conditions each time?

I suppose you may get the odd case between mammoth

corporations where there's not much human concern — only

dollars involved. But I know, if you go into the courts of this

province, day after day after day it's the human concern that

the judges deal with. Are we to take all of this away from the

courts? Is this the rule of law that the Hon. Attorney General

offers us as an example of why we should reject this

amendment?

I would think, based upon what the Attorney General has said

in the past few moments, that the Hon. Minister of Labour

would accept the amendment now. I'd be terrified, Mr. Minister,

at the kind of opinion which the chief law officer of the Crown

has just given to this committee.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I listened intently and I

enjoyed the debate between the lawyers of the House on this

particular

section of the bill. I just don't know how relevant

that legal discussion was to the interests of the working

people of the province.

Nevertheless whether one happens to be a labour lawyer or a corporate lawyer,

I certainly don't want to be quite as insensitive as the Attorney General was

to the interests of the legal fraternity. I would suggest, rather than viewing

this as a move to eliminate your business and your retainers before the courts,

you view it as a technological change in the legal fraternity. You will note

that there is a technological change in this bill. Although I hope it won't

be too disruptive to the long-term interests of the legal fraternity, I'm sure

they will find some other worthwhile and meaningful undertaking to participate

in.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would disabuse the Minister of

the idea that we're all lawyers on this side of the House. But

whether we're lawyers or laymen there are certain human

aspects to this and that is that all human beings are fallible,

and sometimes, as in medicine, a second opinion is an excellent

idea. In my profession we can sometimes call in two or three

excellently-qualified, well-motivated, well-informed

specialists, but still there often has to be some further

avenue of consideration.

In one respect in this little debate tonight I'm rather

pleased that the Minister has made it totally and absolutely

clear that the court shall have no place in this area of

labour-management relations. If I heard him correctly he said

that even to leave the Labour Relations Board with this

teeny-weeny little option to submit some question of law to the

supreme court — that even that teeny-weeny little bit was in no

way to intrude upon the central underlying philosophy of this

bill that the court shall be out totally.

Well, I just don't think that that's the understanding the

citizens of British Columbia have about our system of democracy

and the whole question of people having disputes of one kind or

another, whether they be civil, criminal or labour relations in

nature. Certainly, speaking for our party, this is the one

theme of this bill which gives us a great deal of concern: the

premise inherent in the bill in general and in this

section

specifically that the members of the Labour Relations Board are

infallible and, because they're infallible, they can be given

total and complete powers and we don't need any avenue of

appeal.

Now I just regard that, Mr. Chairman, as the most expansive,

extensive, unrealistic attitude to this very complex matter of

human relationships as they exist between employers and

employees. I would appeal in my last attempt on this

section

that surely where we have stated clearly that it is at the wish

of the Labour Relations Board that it may seek another opinion

in the supreme court, and since surely the supreme court does

have the respect, as the Minister himself has said, of the

citizens of this land…. It has the trust and the confidence

that its decisions are made in an atmosphere of neutrality and

objectivity.

But no, not even in this very small aspect is the Minister

willing to relent and suggest that maybe the board might save

itself many problems in the future by being able to choose at

its wish to go to the courts

[ Page 895 ]

on a question of law.

As one of the former speakers said very clearly, it could in

fact prevent an accumulation of problems perhaps arising from

one mistaken

interpretation of law. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this

is what we have all said in second reading on this bill: that

we want the bill to work — we really do.

We feel that in many respects it has innovations and new

concepts which are well worth trying. The Minister has also

said, as he said about Bill 42, that you would listen to

constructive, positive suggestions which in our opinion — and

I'm glad the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) shakes

his head in agreement — would help to make this a better

bill.

Surely that's the function of opposition in our

parliamentary system — not to shoot and snipe at each other and

create personalities and enemies, but simply to take a logical,

rational approach and come up with amendments which, in our

view, give a chance of making it a better bill and serving the

people of British Columbia better. I would submit, Mr.

Chairman, that this amendment does in fact do that without in

any serious way undermining the principle which the Minister so

clearly defined as being a principle of removing disputes from

the courts of this land.

As I said earlier, I think that that concept has gone much

too far and, as I said in second reading on this bill, I'm sure

it will be challenged in the courts as being unconstitutional.

Indeed, it completely contradicts one of the basic ideas of

justice in our system which is that a person should always have

some avenue of approach to the courts when a matter is being

adjudicated. We have this in the civil field. We have it in the

criminal field.

I suggest that this principle can be mitigated somewhat, Mr.

Minister. You don't have to have as complete and total

exclusion of the courts. In this particular I'll be arguing on

section 33 in the same vein about appeals. But, at least in

this section, we're not even making the avenue of second

opinion open to the person before the board; we're leaving the

option to the board itself when it honestly runs into a

situation when there is a 50-50 or almost equal division of

opinion on the board. I would suggest that the basic principle

of the bill would lose nothing if the Minister would accept

this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I would move the amendment, Mr. Chairman,

standing in my name on the order paper and I'm passing a copy

of it up to you together with other amendments.

One of the primary concepts of the principle of natural

justice is that a person is entitled, if he wishes, to

preparatory research and advice and assistance of a

representative of his choosing. And the individual is entitled

to make that choice. The law that has evolved really over the

centuries has given him that right and it's now a centuries-old

legal precedent. I feel that it should be very clearly stated

within this

section as it is now not. I think this would be one

small plank in the platform of natural justice which is not

clearly illustrated within the legislation, as has been

mentioned by ourselves and by other Members in debate.

The amendment is just purely and simply to the effect that…I'll read the first three lines: "The board shall determine

its own practice and procedure but shall give full opportunity

to the parties to any proceedings to present evidence and to

make submissions…" — and after the word "submissions" the

amendment is "with or without counsel."

So this gives the opportunity to an individual, if he so

chooses, to have a representative give him assistance in a

hearing before the board. It is not built into the legislation

and it is not mandatory within the legislation as it now

stands. I think this is an unequivocal right and it should be

granted.

HON. MR. KING: This

section is pretty well identical to the

old Act. The board never did deny to applicants before the

board the right to legal representation or otherwise. I don't

really feel that it's necessary to spell out in legislative

language each and every provision such as this.

The board will make its procedures known to the parties.

Certainly if there were a denial of the right to representation

of the party's choice, then certainly I would consider bringing

in an amendment to instruct the board to do that; but it seems

redundant to me. It's a natural course that they would indeed

provide and recognize any representative of the parties.

MR. GARDOM: I'm pleased to hear the remarks of the Hon.

Minister. He's saying that it is a natural course — and that's

true; it's a natural course under established precedent that we

have today. But you've given this board almighty power within

its own confines to define its own rules and procedures, and it

is not there.

If the board, irrespective of your good wishes and my good

wishes, decides that it is not possible for a person to have

representation on counsel, then that will not happen. It's just

purely and simply as clear as that.

You've indicated to the House and to me, Mr. Minister, that

you approve in principle without any question that which has

been recommended. You say that "it is a matter of a right;" so

I say, just establish the right. You say it happened before in

a former

[ Page 896 ]

board, so for goodness' sake if you submit to us — as you

have done and very correctly and validly so — that this is a

right, then make it a right. Establish it as a right within the

statute.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to give the Hon.

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

commitment. If he looks at

section 21, it states that "the

board may, subject to the approval of the Minister…." — and now I will undertake to give that Member a commitment that

I will not approve any procedure which — does not provide for

free representation by the representative of the choice of the

particular party.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to support this

amendment for the very clear reason stated by the Member. With

the utmost respect, I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the present

Minister may not always be the Minister of Labour.

For him to stand in sincerity in the House and, I'm sure in

all faith, give us his personal commitment that he would

instruct the board that this is his

interpretation of the

section…. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I just can't see, if

he believes that it's wise that the person should or should not

have council — and we think it's a good idea…three words;

all we're asking is three words, just to put the words in the

bill.

Again this is an element of the debate in this session about

a lot of the bills. We are assured by the government that the

bill means certain things, and when the opposition just

suggests a few words to try and make it unmistakably clear that

that's what the bill does mean, no dice — we don't get

anywhere.

I really fail to see, Mr. Chairman, how the government,

which claims that it wants a better bill and will listen to the

opposition…. We are bringing forward amendment after

amendment after amendment in good faith with constructive,

positive values, and this one surely, three words, to which the

Minister has agreed…. Now if we are all agreed on it, Mr.

Chairman, why cannot the Minister simply agree to put these

three words in the bill?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Obviously it is a fair question. The Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) asks when I am going to get mad.

I'm trying very hard these days not to get mad about

anything.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, that's right. Got to set a good

example.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, let me just ask the Minister once

more if he believes this is a good idea.

Since his personal commitment cannot always relied upon in

the sense that he may not always occupy this position, if the

principle outlined by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) is valid and the Minister has accepted that it is

valid, and it is three words we are asking for, Mr. Chairman,

let's at least have the government, before the witching hour,

accept one of the opposition's amendments. It's the smallest

one and the one that the government has verbally agreed to.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the

observation that if the Member for Point Grey is suggesting

that some amendments should be accepted on the basis of volume,

why I'd certainly question that proposition.

I think there are some 50 or 60 amendments moved by the

opposition. While I accept that they are moved in good faith,

we have genuine differences of opinion on these questions.

MR. WALLACE: We have agreed on this one.

HON. MR. KING: If I find that any such amendments offer

anything of significance to strengthen this legislation, then I

would be receptive to supporting the amendments. But simply to

suggest that because so many are offered we have some kind of

obligation to accept one on general principle is a little bit

foolish. I certainly don't question the Member's sincerity in

putting them forward, but I feel that his amendment in this

case would do nothing to significantly strengthen the bill.

MR. GARDOM: This is the point that the opposition has

unfortunately failed to get across to the government side, and

the government side is, refusing, absolutely refusing to accept

the premises that we are offering, both in this particular

section and in the general legislation. You are not taking into

account human frailty.

The Hon. Minister says, "Yes, this is a good proposal." The

Hon. Minister says, "Yes, I will give my personal commitment to

see that this proposal becomes the law of the land in the

Province of British Columbia." We respect the Minister. We

thank him for his commitment and we thank him for his wisdom in

appreciating the point. But he's not necessarily going to

continue to be the Minister, as mentioned. He's not necessarily

going to continue to have the same attitude and we can have

another situation, Mr. Minister, where we will have a person

blatantly opposed to the position that you are taking, which is

a totally valid position.

I don't think anybody in this Legislature right now, if you

had a free vote, would disagree with this premise — not in the

slightest. But if you do not build safeguards into statutes and

particularly into statutes

[ Page 897 ]

wherein you eliminate the rule of law, which has happened

here, you will have eliminated legal precedent from today back

to the year of 1066.

You have even suggested that the fundamental principles of

natural justice do not apply from the precedent point of view

to this legislation. You say that that is true insofar as this

bill is concerned. You said that you hope that they shall

apply, but there are not any built-in safeguards to see that

they do apply, particularly insofar as recourse to appeal,

which was discussed a little bit earlier, out of order, as it

is now being suggested by myself, similarly out of order.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: But they are not built-in, Mr. Attorney General.

You build them in in weak sections under 107 and 108 for minor

situations and in the major part of the ballgame you totally

leave them out.

I think if we are going to go ahead in any democratic

society, which is a flourishing society, and statutorily

eliminate precedent — and we have a great precedent of

jurisprudence which goes right back to 1066 — and if you don't

build into the statute certain basic principles and basic

rights, again relegated to the principle of natural justice, you are

primarily putting awesome power in the hands of these people

who have to interpret it, and you are putting them into an

exceptionally difficult and it could well be compromising

position.

This is why we are saying to you, with all respect to your

commitment, which I thoroughly accept, that a commitment is not

satisfactory. We can have a new government; we can have a

totally new cabinet; we can have a totally different outlook

and attitude to the whole point. But the job that we have to do

is a job for every one of us in the Province of British

Columbia, and surely the way to do that is not to have to rely

upon hopes and upon promises. Let's see it built into the

legislation where it should be, and where the Hon. Attorney

General absolutely knows where it should be.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister has

pointed out, this is the same

section that is in the previous

legislation. There were a number of court decisions under the

previous legislation. They all went to the effect that natural

justice applies to any tribunal, including this one, even if

there is a private clause written in.

For example, if somebody does not get a fair hearing, under

that

section as it was in the old Act, that hearing could be by

way of letters and representations. I didn't necessarily mean

an oral hearing. The board had the right to make that decision.

That was decided in the supreme court in the case, I think it

was, of Martin v. Roberts about 10 years ago. But there is a right to be a fair hearing. There

is a right, if there is a viva voce hearing, to counsel. Or

there is a right that no member of that board shall be biased

who sits on a particular appeal, for example, if he represents

that industry.

MR. GARDOM: Where do people go if he is?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to give legal advice to

anyone here. But I'm just saying that the rules of natural

justice apply to a tribunal of this kind. They must live up to

those rules, and you don't have to state all these safeguards

in the legislation. Even if you had what is called a private

clause….

MR. GARDOM: If there's a violation can they go to the

court?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, a violation of natural justice, in

my opinion….

MR. GARDOM: Under this Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. No question about it.

MR. GARDOM: Well, thank the Lord. You're the first person

who has said it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Certainly. In terms of a fair hearing

and so forth, that is right. The board must give fair hearings.

It must not have somebody sitting on that board who is

biased.

MR. GARDOM: And if they don't are they subject to the

prerogative writs?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One Member at a time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Natural justice applies to all inferior

tribunals.

MR. GARDOM: This is your own

interpretation but I can tell

you that your board, under this statute, if it makes an error,

if there is a denial of natural justice and a person seeks

relief through the courts, the board can argue that he is not

entitled to that relief through the courts because the board is

the sole arbiter of the

interpretation of the Act.

With every respect, Mr. Attorney General, what you are

offering today is vague hopes. And we want more than vague

hope. If what you say is correct, put it in the bill. We like

your suggestion. Let's have legislation saying exactly what

you've stated, Have it become a part of this statute, and then

we'll have something.

[ Page 898 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's there.

MR. GARDOM: Name a section. Name one

section where this is

there — one section.

HON. MR. MACDONALD:

section 21, the one we are talking

about.

MR. GARDOM:

section 2 1, the Attorney General says. You can

go to the court under

section 21. I don't see the right to do

that under

section 21. Try another section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

return to the consideration of the amendment and address the

Chair, please.

MR. GARDOM: I'm on it. The Attorney General has stated to

this House that if there is a denial of natural justice a party

to proceedings before this Labour Relations Board has the right

to go to the courts of this land, and I say to the Attorney

General: show me the

section within this Act where you can do

it. There's not one such section.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Now the Attorney General is agreeing it is not

built in the statute and a moment ago he said it was built into

the statute.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It wasn't in the old statute.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Attorney General, you certainly are

being volatile tonight, and very, very flexible in your

attitude to the law. I appreciate without any question of a

doubt the sentiments that you have expressed, but I say put

your sentiments into writing and put your sentiments into this

statute. Let's have the rule of law in the Province of British

Columbia and let there never be a denial of natural justice

under the provisions of this bill by statute. Incorporate those

provisions within the bill.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

section 23.

MR. CHABOT: On

section 23, I move the amendment standing in my name

which deletes this

section and substitutes the following: "The board shall make

all its decisions and the reasons for its decisions in proceedings under this

Act available in writing for publication as a report, and any party to dispute

under this Act available provided a copy of such report upon request in writing

to the minister." The

section presently reads: "The board shall make all its

decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing for publication."

It is very dry reading indeed, seeing the decisions and not knowing what the

reasons are.

The Minister presently does publish the decisions of the

board, but, without the reasons, it is of very little use to

anyone really. It might be of some direct use to the union

applying for certification or something of that nature to see

the decision in print, but it certainly doesn't make the board

responsible for publishing reasons. There has been a great hue

and cry over the years, primarily from the trade-union

movement, for the board to publish reasons for their

decisions.

Not too long ago, when the Minister moved second reading of

this legislation, he suggested at that time that some of the

reasons would be published. I hope it won't be only a selection

of the reasons for the decision but that there will be

publication of all the reasons.

I think it will be of great assistance not only to the

trade-union movement but to management as well if there's a

catalogue of all the various decisions brought down by the

board. I think it would eliminate many appeals that go before

the board. The end result would be a better understanding and

relationship between the union movement and management.

I hope the Minister will, in view of the statements made in

second reading of the bill, accept the amendment in the good

faith it's presented.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

section 23 provides that the

board shall make its decisions in proceedings under this Act

available in writing for publication. As I understand it, the

Member for Columbia River seeks to make it mandatory upon the

board that reasons for each decision be given and

published.

I would point out that, in 1972, the board adjudicated in

excess of 1,100 applications for certification. It would seem

to be completely unnecessary; in fact, it would be very

difficult for the board to find the time to publish reasons for

each of those 1,100 decisions. Certainly they do not publish

reasons for every decision that is handed down in other

jurisdictions.

This would be counterproductive to the whole intent here,

which is to make the board flexible enough so that it might

deal expeditiously with applications that come before it.

Certainly it is the intent that in controversial cases the

board will, in fact, publish reasons for their decisions and

they indeed will be published.

I feel that the Member for Columbia River's amendment contributes nothing to

this particular

section and I oppose the amendment.

[ Page

899 ]

MR. CHABOT: I hope the decisions and the reasons that will

be published on this selective basis will not be the same kind

of format and approach as is being taken in publishing the

occasional and non-controversial decisions that are brought

down by the Workmen's Compensation Board. I hope it will be far

more meaningful, when decisions of consequence are published,

that the reasons will be consequential as well.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Attorney General agrees, Mr. Chairman, and I

hope, in view of the fact that he agrees, that the Members of

the backbench have now seen the light and will be prepared to

support the amendment that I've just recently presented.

The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) just

smiled back there, Mr. Chairman, and I'm absolutely positive

that that Member agrees with this amendment. I think if he

agrees with it, he has the responsibility of a stand in this

House this evening. Tell that Minister over there that that's

the way the B.C. Federation of Labour sees it; the B.C.

Federation of Labour supports this amendment. He speaks for

that group on many occasions in this House and he professes to

speak for other trade unions as well. I'm sure that he'll

support this thing.

It's been a very frustrating thing, I think, to the union

movement that there have been no reasons published on decisions

of consequence brought down by the board. I hope, in view of

the support which has been suggested, it'll be forthcoming by

the Attorney General. Not only will the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour and the Minister of Labour accept this

amendment, but I'm sure the Premier will as well. He seems to

be nodding either in sleep or in approval; I don't know which.

I'm sure that it's a good amendment and will be conducive to a

better relationship between management and labour problems.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I must say that I'm

terribly disappointed that the Minister of Labour did not

accept this amendment. I think it's a good amendment and I

think it's one of the focal points of this whole piece of

legislation. The Minister of Labour can laugh and chuckle away

to himself, but if this bill is going to work, if you're going

to set up a tribunal — a Labour Relations Board, a court, call

it what you may — if the people who make up this board are not

going to stand on their own feet and make the reasons for the

decisions available to the general public, the people in labour

and the people in management, I really don't know how they're

going to function and be credible in the eyes of the

public.

I don't care if there are 2,300 decisions a year; there should be reasons

for decisions made. Three, five or ten years from now you would be able to build

up a library of Labour Relations Board decisions based on the reasons for their

decisions. Then anybody in labour or in management would be able to go to that

library when a particular point comes up. Am I not right Mr. Attorney General?

The reasons are laid down as to why the decisions are made; lawyers use it for

reference. I think this would be an excellent idea. Certainly somebody has to

pay for this Labour Relations Board, and the cost of them and so forth.

I'm sure that all of the deliberations are going to be kept.

We keep a record of all our deliberations here so that we can

go back years from now and pull out Hansard and say, "Well, we

said this; this is the reason for this, The Minister of Labour

gave a decision for this, and it's down in Hansard why he

didn't accept it." We're doing that. Is it not as important

that this new board which is established give reasons for their

decisions? I think this is really an excellent amendment. I

think that in this particular

section there could be

credibility as to the working ability of this Labour Relations

Board, and I mean it in all sincerity.

Mr. Attorney General, you seem to have a great deal of

influence. I've gone to my wife and I've given her a decision

and she'll say, "Why?" By the time I get through explaining why

I've made that particular decision, sometimes I've changed my

mind. I know that every time I give her a decision, she's going

to say, "Why?" because that's the type of person she is. That

way we reason together rather than if I come in and say

absolutely this is my decision without having to reason why.

"Yours is not to reason why. Yours is but to do and die." That

seems to be what this board wants to do.

But in all sincerity, I think people are much more

responsible….

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Come on, show us some

leadership.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why do you support this amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: I support this amendment because I really feel

this is going to be…. (Laughter). Now listen, this is no

laughing matter, Mr. Attorney General. You said you're going to

be a sincere government; you're going to accept sincere….

I honestly feel that if this board would catalogue the

reasons for its decisions, we would be able to look back in

future years and be used by both labour and management as a

great vast storehouse of knowledge. I think it would go a long

way to helping to make this particular piece of labour

legislation work; I really do. I don't think that it's going to

work any great hardship; I think it would be a great forward

move to

[ Page 900 ]

have this library of decisions years from now. The sooner we

start….

That's what happened with the mediation board. They were to

build up a vast storehouse of knowledge so that when a

particular problem came up, they could go to it. If I remember,

I was in the House when the mediation commission was set up.

One of the purposes was to assemble facts and figures as to

what happened under their jurisdictions — how much this

particular company made, or how much they paid.

One of the prime functions of the mediation board was to

assemble a vast storehouse of knowledge so that when a problem

came up they could go to it. I think that recording the

decisions of this Labour Relations Board would assemble a vast

storage of knowledge. I don't mean just the decisions, but the

reasons for the decisions. I think it's a very good amendment

and in all sincerity I think the Minister is not being very

wise in not accepting it. I certainly support it.

MRS. JORDAN: I rise to speak in support of this amendment.

Carrying on from my colleague's statement, I think that we

often know and see that a board's or a judge's or a

politician's or a doctor's or a lawyer's or a teacher's

decision is often more readily accepted if it is a "no"

decision if the people know why. That is an application that

should apply to this board because people are going to go

before this board which is all-powerful and some of them are

going to get a negative answer or the portion of a negative

answer.

Their natural human reaction is going to be more positive or

more accepting if they can understand why that decision was the

way it was, and if it's "no," why it's "no." I think

we've all found as politicians that when we go back to our

constituencies we can't bring glad ridings all the time. We

can't put the roads where everybody wants them or the parks or

anything else.

HON. MR. LEA: Why? Why?

MRS. JORDAN: That's just it, Mr. Minister of Highways (Mr.

Lea); if we can tell them why the time isn't right, that other

areas of the province have priorities that must be considered

more, then they are much more accepting of what the decision is

and much more reasonable, I think, in their approach as they

continue to work for this objective. You usually get marching

mothers over cross walks, Mr. Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea),

if you can't give them a good logical reason "why not" that has

a human relationship. If you don't know that, you're going to

find it out.

I'd also suggest that a body as powerful as this body is going to be, from

which there is no recourse at all unless it steps outside the limits of its

own law, is in the long term going to be adjudicated as much by the reasons

for its decisions as, in fact, by its decisions. Its decisions are going to

have a profound effect on all our lives in British Columbia and, indeed, in

British Columbia's role within Canada as it influences other labour organizations

or extensions of British Columbia labour organizations, and as it influences

other people who work either in management or labour throughout Canada, because

undoubtedly it's going to set precedents.

British Columbia has continually led in many areas in labour

organizations and one assumes that this board will too. If it's

going to have such an influence on working people and business

outside the province, there also should be available, upon

request, the reasons for that decision. Then people can better

accept the influence that it's going to exert.

For the Minister to suggest that the board wouldn't have

time to do this or that its work would be impeded by such

requests I suggest is absolute nonsense. He himself is in a

position of extreme responsibility now and I would strongly

suggest that he doesn't write all his own speeches and all his

own legislation; he delegates. If we are to have such an

supremely powerful and important board in this province, surely

among all the expenses that this government is indulging in

they could afford to at least properly staff the board and buy

them a Xerox machine so that the decisions, which I assume

within the board will be in writing, can be copied upon proper

request and administered to the correct department.

I don't think you should charge but if you want to, Mr.

Minister, if you're worried about the expense encountered in

issuing or answering a request for written decisions, then even

charge for the Xeroxing. But to use this excuse that they

wouldn't have time leaves the Minister open to some suspect as

to his credibility.

I think the point made by my colleague is so valuable that

it must be reiterated. That is that because of the influence

that this board is going to exert, because of its all-powerful

role in our lives, the decisions it makes must be recorded. I

wonder, when we point out that this indeed was a practice of

the mediation commission, if this isn't why they're afraid to

incorporate such a statement within their own Act.

I don't think, Mr. Minister, you should be afraid of the

reasons for the decisions that this board makes. If they are

wrong, then it must be brought to the proper attentions and

those decisions in the future will be used in a better way or

contradicted. The value of building up a library of this type

of information can hardly be over-estimated.

There is a lack of decision recording, there is a lack of

human information and, in fact, factual information all over

the world in labour-management

[ Page 901 ]

relations. The effect of strikes, the effect of wage

increases — all of this should be part of the library that you

are trying to build up through this new Act. (Laughter.)

Well, to the teensy-weensy Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) — he has shown great restraint tonight and I want to show him

that I'm quite willing to accept great restraint. I think we

are trying to prove once and for all tonight that the Minister

and the government are, in fact, prepared to accept amendments.

If they don't accept reasonable amendments on these bills, then

we, of course, will have no other recourse but to go back to

other manners of attack. I would ask the Minister again to

accept this amendment and to let it be known to all concerned

and who are interested the reasons for the decisions of this

board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: We're getting close to home.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will allow the Hon. Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to continue to speak on the

amendment. I didn't see him out of the comer of my eye.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't standing, that's why.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, it's unfortunate

that the Minister is being his usual arbitrary self and not

willing to elaborate further with the exception of a few feeble

arguments on the question of publishing reasons for the

decisions of the board.

The Minister almost suggested that the board will have to do

the typing and the preparation of all these documents

themselves. There's such a thing as a secretary to the board, a

secretary who can take a little bit of shorthand. That's one of

the qualifications of the secretary, I presume, of the Labour

Relations Board. All it means is a little bit of typing. That

shouldn't be difficult, because this government in the last 14

months has hired over 8,000 civil servants. With that kind of

an increase in staff, certainly you could assign one, or maybe

two if necessary, to type the reasons for the decisions from

the Labour Relations Board.

I'm not going to repeat the arguments of the need and the

importance of giving reasons from decisions of the board. I can

see no reason for the board to fear publishing their reasons

because there's no right of appeal really beyond the realm of

the board. There should be nothing to fear. I just can't

understand why the government is not prepared to publish

reasons for decisions. This has been a long cry from the labour

movement for many years.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish that the Minister would stand up and

tell us why he doesn't want this vast storehouse of knowledge

to be kept in the Province of British Columbia? I'd like to

know why?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't use the word

hypocrisy in this chamber because I don't think it's too

parliamentary, but I would remind the official opposition that

one of the grave criticisms that the courts did heap on the

former Labour Relations Board was the fact that they were not

obliged to and indeed did not provide reasons for the

decisions.

For 20 years that group over there sat there and

administered the affairs of the province. They were the ones

that constructed and made appointments to the Labour Relations

Board, and not once during that period of time did I hear one

protestation from the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot),

who actually administered the office of Minister of Labour for

a certain period of time. Now it seems that there is a

new-found interest in the board becoming democratic and

revealing the reasons for the decisions. It sounds pretty

hollow. It sounds pretty insensitive and pretty hollow, in my

view.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's obvious that the board will,

insofar as is possible, give reasons for the decisions and

publish them. To suggest that we require the board to do so in

every case would be absolutely unrealistic, would unduly slow

down the procedures before the board and mitigate against the

working man which was the tradition of the former

administration. I oppose the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: I am surprised to hear the Minister of Labour

speak tonight. I am not going to call him a hypocrite; I'm not

going to call him a traitor; but I'm going to say this: I never

thought that I'd see the day in this House when a Minister of

Labour would stand in his place and attack a board of

government like he attacked the Labour Relations Board, attack

the former Deputy Minister of Labour, who has now been

side-shuffled at a higher salary, and attack the other

representatives on the board from management and labour. It was

a most disgraceful and unnecessary attack, Mr. Minister. There

is no reason for you, because you want to practice cheap

politics, to go ahead and attack an independent board which has

taken an oath of office. You know that full well. It is not

becoming for a Minister of the Crown to make the kind of

attacks you made tonight against the Labour Relations Board of

British Columbia. You should hide your head in shame.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that as usual

the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is twisting and

subverting the remarks that I made. I did not attack the board…

[ Page 902 ]

MR. CHABOT: You certainly did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: …that the former government failed to

require in legislation that the board publish their opinions.

And the vocal, hysterical Member for Columbia River is as

irrelevant and as wild as usual. He is inconsistent and

inflammatory as usual. No one really pays too much credence to

his wild protestations…

MR. CHABOT: They should all quit tonight, that kind of an

attack against the board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Your credibility is zero, zilch.

But I want to set the record straight, Mr. Chairman. I did

not at any point attack the integrity of the board; I attacked

the inconsistency of that government for failing to live up to

and be consistent with what they advocate now, the written

reasons and published reasons by the board. They never required

it in their era, and it seems pretty inconsistent for them to

do so now.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

[The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave

to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee further reports

that a division took place and asks to have it recorded in the

Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: On what section?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

section 12.

Leave granted.

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

to report that I tabled a partial answer to question 7 at 6 p.m. tonight, and

other information will be forthcoming. I want to table answers to questions

167 and 168.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise

on a point of personal privilege and speak for the opposition in relation to

the disorderly noisy and impossible conditions under which the opposition are

expected to debate the important legislation such as we tried to debate tonight.

The employees that are working in our offices this evening are using jackhammers,

and are working in competition to secretaries who are paid out of public funds

and who are there to perform a service which they cannot perform tonight because

of the noise, the dust and the flying plaster. Our telephones are not all working.

And it is not, Mr. Speaker, as if these employees are

employees of an independent contractor who is under contract to

do this job. They are, in fact, employees of the provincial

government, the Department of Public Works, and are under the

jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley). We feel, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to play our

proper and responsible role in debating the legislation, to

work nights and afternoons, which we are willing to do, we must

at least be extended the courtesy of having the use of our

offices and surroundings which are reasonably conducive to our

staff to work and to work ourselves.

We suggest, Mr. Speaker, in bringing this to your attention,

if the government wants to renovate the buildings in such a

hurry that they should plan these renovations around the

sittings or around the sessions, and if they wish to call

sessions or sittings then there should be enough communication

between the Premier of this province, the House Leader and his

Ministers to see the work of all Members of this House is not

disrupted as has been the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I think I have gained a very

complete knowledge of the problem. May I say that immediately

the matter was brought to my attention, I say immediately the

matter was brought to my attention by the chairman of your

caucus, I went down there, ascertained the problem and stopped

it.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Obviously, Mr. Speaker, she

hasn't been back to her office to find out that you have made

so much progress while all the hot air has been….

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, if this is the case after I tried

to introduce this into the House this evening, we appreciate

it. But the matter was brought up by our caucus chairman

earlier in the evening and it was not attended to. We

appreciate your attendance and we hope that in future you will

see that our offices are not disturbed.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that

questions of privilege relating to outside this chamber

actually are not matters that can be raised in committee. Under

the circumstances, when it was brought to my attention outside

the

[ Page 903 ]

Committee of the Whole House, I immediately took action on

behalf of all the Members.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw

resolution 16 standing in the order paper in my name.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:07 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada