1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3131 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 77) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3131

Mr. King — 3133

Sheriffs Act (Bill 56) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3133

Mr. Macdonald — 3134

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3134

Public Construction Fair Wages Act (Bill 83) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3134

Mr King — 3136

Mr. Gibson — 3139

Mr. Wallace — 3140

Mr. Nicolson — 3142

Mr. Macdonald — 3143

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3144

Division on second reading — 3147

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 63) .

Committee, report and third reading — 3148

Home Purchase Assistance Act (Bill 49) Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gibson —

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3148

section 5.

Mr. Nicolson — 3148

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3149

section 6.

Mr Nicolson — 3149

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3149

section 10.

Mr. Nicolson — 3150

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3150

section 12.

Mr. Nicolson — 3150

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3150

section 16.

Mr. Nicolson — 3150

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3151

section 18.

Mr. Nicolson — 3152

section 20.

Mr. Nicolson — 3152

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3152

On the title.

Mr. Gibson — 3152

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3152

Report stage -- 3152

Division on third reading — 3152

FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): With leave, Mr. Speaker, we, move to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 77, Mr. Speaker.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): It is with pleasure

that I introduce second reading of Bill 77, and as I do so, may I point

out to you and to the members that the Labour Code of British Columbia

has in all jurisdictions of Canada provided a significant advance with

regard to the regulation of labour activities within our jurisdiction.

It is a code which is being very carefully examined in many

jurisdictions. Some of the features of the code as it presently stands

are attracting the attention and the enthusiasm of other areas of the

province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it is a code. While it was hotly

debated in this Legislature during the period of its passage, it has, I

believe, provided an advance and been an assistance in the conduct of

industrial relations in British Columbia.

The code, however, Mr. Speaker, was not chiselled in stone.

Experience shows that there are some minor adjustments which are

required at this particular time. I am sure that as experiences gained

over the years there will be other adjustments in the code. Industrial

relations is a dynamic activity, certainly in British Columbia. The

laws which we provide for regulation of relationships between employers

and their unions and between unions and their employees will constantly

need to be watched carefully to make certain that the legislation which

we have is kept up to date and matches some of the initiatives — in

fact, some of the ingenuity — which is displayed by the parties who are

involved directly in labour-management relations.

Bill 77 is one of those minor revisions. It covers in only three minor respects

some changes in the existing code. I think it is important for the members to

realize that with these changes there is no essential departure from the original

purpose of the code. Aside from some very, very technical amendments which can

be dealt with in committee, there are three matters to which I would, address

the attention of the House this morning.

The first one deals with the area of essential services as provided

under one subsection of

section 73 of the bill. In its wisdom the

Legislature saw fit to identify those areas of our social activity

involving policemen, firemen, and hospital employees as ones which

should be singled out for special consideration when the disputes in

which they might be involved with their employers could produce work

stoppages. It is, however, important to recognize that the underlying

factor which was taken into consideration in

section 73 was not to

single out those three unions, but really to ensure that certain

services which are available to the citizens of this province be

maintained. It was specifically provided that where disputes might

present a serious threat to health and life, some special consideration

should be given to the resolution of those disputes. But still, there

were only three unions recognized.

Subsequent experience has indicated that in our concern for the

essentially of services to health and life, there are other unions

which may be involved. This is the outgrowth of continuing unionization

activities by the unions of British Columbia as it permitted in the

code. There is the possibility now with increased union activity that

other unions besides policemen, firemen and hospital employees' unions

can be involved in disputes, the consequences of which can present a

threat to health and life. Therefore one of the three areas which are

covered in this amendment is intended to ensure that the essentially of

services to health and life can be continued regardless of the union

which might be involved or the employer which might be involved.

I think we have to recognize that when we single out three

particular unions, we are also singling out the employers of the

members of those unions for special consideration under

section

Section 73, as the amendment proposes, will also, while continuing

the authority to designate essential services using the facilities of

the "Labour Relations Board, continue to provide for the cooling-off

period. It is extended from 21 days, as in the present legislation, to

40 days. This change results from the specific experience which we have

had recently in this province with regard to the dispute in our

hospitals. It was found during the course of that dispute that the

appointment of a special mediator could perhaps have produced a

resolution of the difficulties between the employer and the union

involved.

However, it's clear that the 21-day period is inadequate to allow

the assistance of third-party intervention to bring about the

resolution of the dispute. The consequence of that, Mr. Speaker, is that

[ Page 3132 ]

with the coming to the end of the 21-day period, those people who

are entitled to rely upon essential services are confronted with either

the resumption of a strike or, indeed, the resumption of essential

service designation. Neither of those prospects is one which the

government can treat lightly. Therefore, to provide some additional

opportunity to assist the parties in the resolution of the

difficulties, the amendment will extend that cooling-off period from 21

to 40 days.

It must, I think, be recognized that this amendment to

section 73 is

in keeping with the principle which has been clearly enunciated in

other legislation which it has been my pleasure to place before the

House this year. The purpose is that while ensuring that essential

services are maintained, the Department of Labour — the government,

through the Department of Labour — is facilitating the parties

themselves in reaching a conclusion to their dispute, settling their

collective agreements through the processes of bargaining.

The second area in which this bill seeks to change the existing law

is with respect to the conduct of strike votes in British Columbia. The

law presently provides that before any strike or lockout shall occur,

the members of the organizations involved, whether they be a union or

an employers' organization, must take a vote by secret ballot, but it

has never been spelled out in any way what that means.

There have never been any regulations to provide, for example, what

notice must be given to the persons who are entitled to cast a vote by

secret ballot. It has never been prescribed what procedure should be

followed in the event that the vote is conducted by a mail ballot as

opposed to one which is held at a meeting convened for that particular

purpose. It has never been clearly spelled out as to the question which

must be posed to the persons who are asked to make a choice as to

whether to strike or lock out or not. This shortcoming of the law is

one which has cast doubts about the effectiveness of the secret ballot

as is presently provided for in the code. Therefore the amendment

simply provides that the government may, by regulation, establish

specific administrative procedures to be followed in the conduct of

secret votes.

I would recall to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members those other

areas in which the secrecy of vote is deemed to be important. One, for

example, is the vote which takes place with regard to the election of

the members of this assembly, to all levels of government. Very great

care is taken to spell out the way in which that vote is cast, the way

in which those votes are counted, and the secrecy which surrounds that

most important activity. We believe that it is appropriate to approach

some of those same requirements in the conduct of votes which can have

a very significant effect upon the individuals who themselves are

casting the vote and also a very major significance on others who have

no interest therein at all but, nonetheless, may suffer seriously from

the results.

The regulations are presently being considered by the Department of

Labour, and it is my hope that when the regulations have been drafted

there will be an opportunity to review those regulations with the

representatives of employers' organizations and unions in British

Columbia who will be affected in the conduct of their affairs by those

very regulations. This was the basis upon which the code itself was

formulated and it seems appropriate that when dealing with regulations

which affect, or arise from, provisions in the code a similar process

should be adopted.

The consequences of non-compliance with those regulations is

something to which I'd also direct you, Mr. Speaker. Provision is now

being made, where there is a complaint with respect to the manner in

which those regulations are carried out, that the Labour Relations

Board be used as the forum to determine whether or not there has been

any non-compliance with those regulations. In assisting the Labour

Relations Board in that regard, the regulations may also make provision

for the invigilation of strike and lockout votes, but this does not

mean that the government is going to interfere by way of a

government-supervised vote into every strike or lock-out situation

which arises within the province.

If the Labour Relations Board, having adjudicated on the matter,

finds that there has been some impropriety, then specific provisions

are made in the amendments whereby the consequences of the improper

vote can be nullified and decisions made as to how the question which

is posed to the persons who are involved shall be resolved.

The third area to which we have addressed ourselves in Bill 77 is

the present provisions of

section 90 of the code.

section 90 has not

been often used. One of the reasons for the failure to use

section 90

has been some misunderstanding arising from the words of the code

itself as to the import of

section 90, and also a concern as to the

enforceability by the Labour Relations Board of such opinions as it may

give and such orders as may arise therefrom.

When considering the amendments to

section 90, consideration was

also given to the range of activities which may affect trade and

commerce by reason of labour disputes. The members will recognize that

the code already makes very specific provisions with regard to

picketing. The Labour Relations Board has, since the introduction of

the code, been able, to resolve many of the difficulties which

heretofore were experienced, and in fact, as the result of successive

decisions, has created a body of administrative law which has gone a

long way to resolving differences of opinion and problems arising

[ Page 3133 ]

there from in the range of picketing activity.

Therefore it has been determined at this time to look at other

activities which may affect trade and commerce in this province, and

that is the use of the so-called "hot declaration." Hot declarations

have never really been recognized under our laws; yet it is clear that

the consequences of the use of hot declarations can, in fact, be much

more devastating and much more widespread than even is the case with

picketing. It is therefore considered appropriate to bring that

particular activity under the aegis of

section 90 and therefore under

review by the Labour Relations Board if a case can be made whereby such

a declaration is affecting the trade and commerce in this province.

Again I must point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the adjudication on

this matter will be made by the Labour Relations Board. I look forward

to decisions by the Labour Relations Board on the question of hot

declarations of the same calibre and with the same result as has been

the case with regard to the decisions on picketing. The board, as I

indicated, is of course also being given authority under

section 90 to

ensure that its decisions flowing from that action can be enforced in

the manner provided with the code.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the outset, these are essentially

technical changes in the legislation — a fine tuning of the Labour Code

based upon experience to date. I am sure that the members will agree in

principle with this legislation and direct their attention to

constructive remarks designed to perhaps improve the amendments which

are being made during the committee stage on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, with those remarks, I move second reading of Bill 77.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): This bill, Mr. Speaker,

was introduced on Tuesday last and we were notified just prior to the

House sitting this morning that the bill would be called. I wonder if

the government would agree to an adjournment of the debate.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): We agree to adjournment,

though we do note that it has been on the order paper for some days.

The days are getting shorter, Mr. Member — there are only six months'

shopping days to Christmas from now, so we do hope....

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan wish to move the adjournment then?

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the government agrees that

since last last Tuesday is not really too much, I move adjournment of

this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

SHERIFFS ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is the first major

overhaul of the Sheriffs Act since it was first enacted by the B.C.

Legislature. It will modernize the legislation involving sheriffs so

that their role will be more accurately reflected.

By way of background, to the hon. members, the first Act was passed

by the Legislature in 1873, then consisting of some 24 sections and

with very little change until today.

In that first Act provision was made only for two sheriffs, Mr.

Speaker — one for Vancouver Island, including the Queen Charlotte

Islands, and a second for the city of New Westminster who had

jurisdiction over the New Westminster district, Yale district and the

Kootenay district. It wasn't really until 1888 that counties were

established.

The first major amendments to the statute were enacted in 1897 when

legislation with very interesting vignettes such as dealing with the

duty of citizens to aid sheriffs, the creation of posses, provisions re

false imprisonment, liabilities of sheriffs for escaped prisoners and

so on.

The second and final major amendments were introduced in 1918, at

which time those amendments had the effect of placing sheriffs' offices

in the counties of Victoria, Vancouver and New Westminster in the

position of civil servants.

Today we find that the sheriffs' former responsibilities continue to

extend to such things as order in court trials, the empanelment of

juries, service of court documents, processing warrants of committal,

seizure and sale of goods, ships and lands under court orders, plus

jurisdiction to arrest in the criminal sphere.

In December or 1973 plans were formulated to expand the role of the

sheriff, and at that time in B.C. there existed some nine sheriffs, 22

deputies and 49 sheriff's officers. The sheriffs were not only to

continue their involvement with civil causes but also take on the

further tasks performed by the police in the criminal courts, and to do

this effectively required a major reorganization of the system. The

first step in that direction was in 1974 when the Sheriffs Act was

amended expanding their jurisdiction beyond their bailiwick to the

whole of

[ Page 3134 ]

the province, and by proclamation all sheriffs were brought within

certain provisions of the Act, which, in effect, made them, for all

practical purposes, civil servants.

Today in B.C., Mr. Speaker, we have about 350 uniformed sheriffs and

deputies, and a budget of around $7 million. Their duties have been

expanded to cover increased court attendance responsibilities such as

the location and notification. of witnesses, maintenance of court

security for judges, witnesses and the accused — as well as escort

duties from lockup to court, court to remand centres and court to

correctional institutes.

The present bill therefore, Mr. Speaker, has been introduced to

better reflect the true position of sheriffs. No longer are they free

agents, but instead are public servants of the Crown and subject to all

of provisions of the Public Service Act.

The sheriff will now have provincewide jurisdiction. He's now an

officer of all of the courts in the province, a position that I might

say was true in practice in recent years but not in the legislation.

Fees for services are still prescribed by order-in-council and they

are included in the new supreme court rules, but they are now all

payable to general revenue. This bill itself, Mr. Speaker, again is a

companion statute to the amendments to the supreme court rules which

will be coming into force in the province on January 3, 1977. I would so

move second reading.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I'm pleased to be able

to say that this bill was passed through our caucus. As a matter of

fact, it passed through our caucus last spring and so you don't expect

me to get up and oppose it now, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, or prolong the

debate or filibuster the debate....

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have to get the cobwebs off it. (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: It's a very good bill and I'm glad it's going to be paid.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: The formation of the new sheriffs' service is

now running at a budgetary item, as the, Attorney-General says, of

about $7 million a year. I want to pay tribute first to Jeff Mortimer,

I think, who did the initial difficult job of the organization of the

new sheriffs' service, the training facilities and the training courses

and did a splendid job, and who is now no longer head of the sheriffs.

And there were many other people also involved in the school.

The other thing I want to say is that $7 million is a very good

investment for the people of British Columbia because it is relieving

police officers and other personnel in the justice system from those

clerical and service-of-summons and escort-of prisoners duties where

they would be tied up, and they would have to be replaced.

So the sheriffs' service has made a very significant contribution to

a better standard and quality of justice in the province of B.C. I am

sorry to be able to report that they are not a secret police. I know

that disappoints some people. They are basically a civilian body. I

have nothing more to say about the bill. I think it's a good one.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would move second reading

and just make one observation. When I was a student in law in the

sheriffs' office in Vancouver, there were four sheriffs and their names

were Turtle, Tuttle, Diggle and Bottle, which I think is something

truly out of Dickens. (Laughter.) I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 56, Sheriffs Act, read a second time and referred to Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am glad the House is in such jovial frame of mind on this lovely morning of June 25, Mr. Speaker.

Second reading of Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION FAIR WAGES ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of

the Public Construction Fair Wages Act, I think it is important that I

draw your attention to some of the consequences that have obtained

since the Public Works Fair Employment Act, which this Act will repeal,

has become the law in this province. I spoke a few moments ago about

the Labour Code of British Columbia and the advances made under it and

the extent to which it has contributed to the preservation of

industrial harmony in this province.

I also recalled to you, Mr. Speaker, and the members, that under the

Labour Code the right to unionize is enshrined. Similarly in this

province the right not to unionize is the choice of the employees. In

neither activity is the employer involved. As a matter of fact, the

provisions of the Labour Code make it quite specific that the employer

is expressly prohibited from engaging in activities which might

influence his employees one way or the other. This government does not

criticize the code in that

[ Page 3135 ]

respect.

However, under the Public Works Fair Employment Act, which is presently our law, the opportunity to

engage in one's activities when the government is involved, to tender

for Crown jobs, to avail themselves of the opportunity of doing work

for the Crown and its varied agencies, is limited, subject to some

loopholes to which I will refer, to those employers', whose employees

have utilized the opportunity which the law provides for them, namely

to unionize.

Now when you consider that you are excluding a person from carrying

on his livelihood, if he is a contractor of subcontractor — not by any

reason of any action or inaction on his part — you are excluding him

from an area of activity to which he has in the past and will in the

future be entitled to engage as a result of decisions made by his work

force. This, to the government, seems inappropriate.

The purpose of Bill 83 is to remove that impediment from proper

activities of persons engaged in the field of construction by giving to

them the right again to carry on their business, to undertake contracts

with the Crown or Crown agencies or contracts which are funded by the

Crown, notwithstanding that his employees have not organized themselves

into a union. Therefore it removes a discrimination against an employer

for reasons which are not of his making.

Now I mentioned that under the law that presently stands there are

some areas in which the obligation to be unionized does not exist. It

is startling to note as you look at the Public Works Fair Employment

Act on our books today that there are areas where you can escape the

obligation to unionize. That's where the government does not call for

tenders on a particular job or advertise the job publicly. — That seems

to the government to be a strange loophole whereby the government

itself, by not calling publicly for work to be done, can avoid the

obligation to use unionized contractors.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, there are examples, but I would.... I don't want to single out any Crown agency, but there was....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I will, if you want an example. There

was a situation last fall where work was being done by a Crown

corporation in the development of an industrial subdivision in one of

the northern areas of the province, and this required the use of

certain heavy equipment. The Crown corporation didn't call tenders for

the supply of that equipment or the conduct of the work that the

equipment would do, and in fact they made some private arrangements for

the supply of equipment. In fact they specified that they wanted

non-union trucks on this particular job.

Well, this situation is disturbing to the government, and I can

assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

who raised the question that it is equally disturbing to the unions in

this province — that possibility that the law can somehow or other be

circumvented. Well, it's not the government's intention to allow that

to continue.

But it is also not the intention, Mr. Speaker, for the government to

permit non-unionized employers to contract with the Crown or Crown

agencies, or to engage in work with respect to which the Crown provides

grants, loans or guarantees, to carry on their business by failing to

pay their employees wages and benefits which are equivalent to those

which other contractors must pay because they are unionized. Therefore

the bill, as the name indicates, is a fair-wage bill. For a contractor

to engage in such activities while it's no longer his obligation to be

unionized — because, as I say, that's not his choice — it is his

obligation and will continue to be his obligation to pay fair wages as

is specifically defined in the legislation.

To ensure that activities are not carried on which circumvent that

obligation, provision has been made for the director of labour

standards of the Department of Labour to carry out an adjudicative role

in such cases. If questions are raised as to whether or not any

particular contractor is paying fair wages as defined in the Act, it is

the director of the labour standards branch of the Department of Labour

who is charged with the responsibility of determining whether the law

is being followed.

There is another aspect of the bill to which I would draw the

members' attention now. I'll have more to say about it during the

committee meeting. That is that under the legislation which is before

you there is a specific requirement that the fair-wage concept be taken

into contracts entered into between the Crown, Crown agencies and

contractors. In the event that any Crown agency should fail to make

specific provision in such contract, it is deemed to be in that

contract. I trust that the members will not be offended because the

government is deeming such a provision to be in a contract between a

Crown agency and a contractor.

It goes further, however. As we all recognize, in many construction

projects there may be the principal contractor and a number of

subcontractors. Therefore the provision goes further to oblige the

principal contractor to ensure that all of the subcontractors, who may

be non-unionized, also have in their contracts the obligation to pay

fair wages. Again, if that obligation is not carried out, the

legislation deems that subcontract to include that

[ Page 3136 ]

same provision.

Now the reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is that the major enforcement

authority that the Crown has is to suspend payment in any case where it

is found that this Act is being breached. The government wishes to be

certain that if the breach is not the result of direct action by the

contractor but by reason of some failure on the part of a

subcontractor, the government can be certain that it can enforce the

power it has by withholding funds until the breach has been rectified.

If I may give to the members an example: a contract for the

construction of a health building of some kind might be entered into

and the financing of it arranged by contract between the Crown and a

hospital society. That's the principal contract, but there'll be a

series of other contracts flowing from that and the Crown wishes to be

in a position, if it finds that someplace in that range of contracts

there has been failure to fulfil the obligations of this legislation,

that it can enforce the obligation by suspending payment until the

breach has been cured, or to make other provisions. Members will note

that the power to suspend payments is discretionary, and I would assure

you that the reason for the discretion is that in some projects it

would be inappropriate to suspend all funds while a particular problem

is being rectified. The Crown is therefore taking to itself a

discretion so that funds can be made available to allow the work to go

ahead, but perhaps reserve by way of holdback, or other such means,

while the particular breach is being remedied.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the areas where the repeal of

the Public Works Fair Employment Act and the substitution of the Public

Construction Fair Wages Act will be of significant value to the

government and to the citizens of this province is with respect to

those activities which are carried out under funding arrangements made

by the Department of Housing. Experience under the present legislation

has shown that the Public Works Fair Employment Act has so reduced the

number of contractors who are available to do the work that it has

interfered substantially in the functioning of the tendering process

and the free market in that particular area of endeavour. The passage

of this Act, while ensuring that the employee will continue to receive

fair wages, will nonetheless increase the number of contractors who are

available to bid and to participate in the area of endeavour in which

the Department of Housing is involved and for which funds that are made

available by it will be expended.

Mr. Speaker, with those few brief opening remarks, I have pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 83.

MR. KING: I certainly am not surprised that this bill is

before the House. I must say that I thoroughly anticipated that the new

government would in fact eliminate the Public Works Fair Employment Act

and replace it with another statute, because when the Public Works Fair

Employment Act was introduced, I believe it was in 1972, we had a very

serious and a very clear-cut division of opinion between the then New

Democratic Party government and the Social Credit Party as to the

philosophy underlying the approach which our government had taken. So

fair notice was served and I thoroughly anticipated that the statute

would be eliminated.

I just want to review, Mr. Speaker, some of the thoughts behind the

Public Works Fair Employment Act which the statute before us is

replacing, and explain precisely what the rationale was for introducing

the former statute. I found, upon assuming the office of Minister of

Labour in 1972, that essentially the same approach was provided for at

that point as is contained in the new Bill 83 which is before us,

namely that the Minister of Labour basically had the responsibility for

setting fair levels of recompense and conditions of employment with

respect to public contracts. As one who believes in the collective

bargaining system, I found it personally repugnant that I, as a

politician, or indeed any other politician, should play God, should

completely deny the collective bargaining process as the best means of

developing and establishing the relationship between an employee and an

employer, that we should take unto ourselves the authority to designate

a fair wage and fair conditions of employment. By whose standard? What

is a fair wage? what are fair conditions of employment?

I suggest that any arbitrary authority by government or government

agencies to impose their will and their assessment of what is fair upon

the working people of this province is a repudiation of the collective

bargaining system and an arbitrary and unilateral philosophy which I

certainly do not agree with.

The minister has made a variety of points regarding the competitive

position of firms bidding for government contracts through public

tender. He has suggested that there has been discrimination or

preference given to organized firms. That is true, to a degree; that is

partially true. He failed to mention, though, that where no union firm

bids, as is very often the case in the house-building industry, because

there is very, very little organization in home construction in this

province, the government was quite free to award the contract to

whomsoever bid, whether or not they were organized.

So when he talks about loopholes, there were deliberate provisions

left in the current Act to recognize the realities out there: the

reality that very few organized firms were involved in home-building;

the reality that when a small government contract came up for bid in an

isolated area of the province,

[ Page 3137 ]

obviously there had to be some latitude in the Act with respect to

small family firms and partnerships bidding for that contract, because

it would be foolish to require the importation of a major unionized

firm from Vancouver or the lower mainland to do a small renovation job

on a public building in Pouce Coupe or in Golden. So these exemptions

were made as exemptions were provided for the construction of public

schools and hospitals and in the municipal area, where nevertheless

provincial funds are expended, They were left free to chart their own

policy,

But the underlying thing is that while the minister and his

colleagues over there express some cynicism by their comments and their

facial expressions about equality of competitive opportunity, they fail

to recognize that you are caught in that dilemma no matter how you

slice it. By the introduction of Bill 83, you are guaranteeing that the

unorganized firm — the non-union firm — is at a competitive advantage

in bidding for government contracts. He is at a competitive advantage

over those unionized contractors and firms which would like to bid on

and win government contracts, say, for highway construction and so on.

I'll explain that. Mr. Speaker, it should be recalled that when the

Public Works Fair Employment Act was introduced in this province, the

B.C. Road Builders Association openly and publicly endorsed that

statute and its approach and CLRA — the Construction Labour Relations

Association — tacitly and privately endorsed that approach, because

they recognized that through being unionized organizations they were at

a competitive disadvantage. I am going to tell you why: because fair

wages is not the only criterion for cost of labour. Up to 25 per cent

of the labour costs involved accrue from fringe benefits, from dental

plans, from pension plans, from medicare plans and a whole variety of

fringes that are normally and usually provided in a collective

agreement, which in no way appear in the provisions of this statute.

So we are looking at a situation where an unorganized contractor

bidding for a government contract of work, be it in the Highways

department, be it on a public building or any other realm — Hydro, the

railway — is in the happy position of being able to undercut the CLRA

contractors or the B.C. Road Builders Association contractors because

they have the built-in advantage of not having to pay any of the normal

fringes that go into the average collective agreement in the province

of British Columbia.

The minister wants to play God. He is a distinguished-looking

gentleman, the minister — very impressive looking, But I argue with the

right of any politician, no matter how distinguished looking he is and

no matter how judicious he is, to say: "I am going to seize for myself

the authority and the power to tell you, Mr. Worker, what a fair level

of wages is for your particular niche in society" through your agency,

through the director of....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The director of labour standards.

MR. KING: Yes, the labour standards director. Right. I've forgotten already.

Interjection.

MR. KING: For a lawyer, that's a very empty exercise. The

minister is taking the authority, delegating one of his departmental

mandarins...a mandarin, incidentally, whom I have the highest respect

for and who is a very capable man, an excellent individual. But I argue

with the philosophy and the right of any individual to arbitrarily

designate to workers in this province what is fair for them. How

patronizing and paternalistic! I wonder how the legal profession would

view such an arbitrary designation of what was fair and just for their

recompense by some outside intervener. I wonder. I wonder, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think it would be welcomed either by the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams) or the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) with

respect to their profession.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in the Supreme Court Act.

MR. KING: There's no arbitrary designation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You already passed that.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, there are other aspects to this bill

that I think are serious, and I want to outline precisely what the

government is doing so everyone understands it. I don't question their

right to move away from the situation we had, and I agree that there

were imperfections in the Public Works Fair Employment Act — it was a

difficult Act to administer. But the Minister of Labour failed to say,

also, that inherent in the new Act — and I see he's preserved it in

Bill 83 in

section 5 — was the authority of the Minister of Labour to

do something which I feel he does have a right to do, something which

he never had the right to do under the previous Social Credit

government, and that is to ensure fair practices of hiring. I am glad

to see the minister retaining that. I'm sure that virtually every MLA

in this House has had constituents complain of their inability to gain

employment on local projects because they were not a member of the

union. I respect a union's right to their hiring procedure, but I also

think that right must be balanced and weighted against the right of

local citizens to enjoy some

[ Page 3138 ]

employment opportunity on projects that reside at least within their particular district.

That was introduced for the first time in this province's history

under the Public Works Fair Employment Act. It's a good principle — one

that I hope the Minister of Labour will administer wisely and

judiciously, and one- that I hope he improves, because it had

weaknesses and failings in terms of the administration of it under my

stewardship. That was one area we were not able to bring into a sound

administrative practice. Nevertheless, the approach and the philosophy

is good.

I hope that the minister strengthens that, and in consultation — not

arbitrarily but in consultation — with the trade unions involved, with

the contractors involved and with representatives of the local area,

and is able to come up with some realistic and logical division of

employment opportunity between the trade union membership throughout

the province and the working people of the area where the project is to

be developed.

The Mica Dam was a classic case, and the new Revelstoke Dam that is

proposed is going to be another classic. We're looking at something

like 4,000 people who will be ultimately employed on that project, if

indeed it goes ahead. I think the city of Revelstoke, the Sicamous area

and perhaps even some of the Okanagan area, the immediate area, have a

right to expect access to some employment on a project of that

magnitude where public funds are involved.

Under the bill, which the minister has maintained, the provincial

Department of Labour for the first time in history was given the

authority to require that as a condition of obtaining the contract,

both the contractor and the union agreed, either through full union

membership or through work permits, to allow into that area of

jurisdiction a certain reasonable percentage of the local work force.

That was a progressive, forward-looking step, and one that I think is

supported by both the business community and the trade unions involved.

They see the reasonableness of it, That was inherent in the Public

Works Act and I'm pleased to see that it's retained. I hope the

minister does not diminish the importance and the aggressiveness with

which he administers that particular provision.

The main thing is the difference in philosophy here. Fair wages:

what are fair wages? I say that fair wages make up only a portion of

the cost involved to a collective agreement. I think the minister has

to acknowledge by his own departmental records that up to 25 per cent

of labour costs in the average collective agreement are made up of what

is commonly called fringe benefits, other than direct wages — travel

allowance, the whole thing.

Now you can say that it's unfair for employers whose employees are

not organized and lack a collective agreement not to be able to bid....

That's not quite true — they could bid, and if there were no bids by an

organized employer then, of course, they would be entitled to take the

contract. However, preference was given to the contractor with the

collective agreement between he and his employees. I think that's

pretty fair, really, when you view the fact that he would otherwise be

competing against a contractor with a 25 per cent cost advantage over

him in terms of labour costs.

The other thing about it is that inherent in the old Act was a

principle which in my view saved this province untold labour

disruption. I want to warn the Minister of Labour — and I hope the

House pays attention to this — that by the passage of Bill 83 the

Minister of Labour is going to buy himself a great deal of additional

labour problems in this province that will constantly be before the

Labour Relations Board in terms of picketing activities. What used to

happen, and what was eliminated by the Public Works Fair Employment

Act, was the whole question of a prime contractor obtaining a contract

on a highway as an organized firm and then employing non-union subs,

with the result that organizational activities went on on the project,

to organize those sub-contractors.

Usually there was resistance by the employer, and as a consequence

picket lines went up. Because some sub-contractor had a minimal

contract on the whole project and got embroiled in the labour dispute,

a picket line shut down the whole operation. This constantly happened,

because in many of these contracts there are up to a dozen

sub-contractors, all embroiled in the organizational struggles with the

unions, all embroiled in picket lines, legal or otherwise, which has

the effect of pulling the prime contractor and everyone else into the

dispute. We are going to see that kind of jungle warfare on the

property of construction sites in this province again. I think that's

retrogressive and I think it's foolish, but I predict that that's going

to be one of the consequences of the introduction of this bill.

The government is saying: "Look, it is unfair to exclude the

contractor that didn't have a collective agreement." Well, I say that's

partially true in a way, but we tried to provide some openings for that

guy in terms of schools, hospitals and municipal work. We provided the

opening that if it was a small firm composed of a family, a unit not

appropriate for organization, then he had every right to bid. If there

was no union contract the non-union firm had the right to pick it up.

Contrasted against that concern, and it's a valid one, is the

concern I have now for the completely competitive advantages these

non-organized firms have over their organized competitors. I say that's

discriminatory. You're eliminating what you conceive to be one form of

discrimination only to introduce

[ Page 3139 ]

another, and you're doing that while at the same time failing to

recognize that the organizational activity that takes place on these

major project sites once again is going to disrupt virtually every firm

involved.

When you're looking at highway construction, when you're looking at

dam construction, when you're looking at construction on the British

Columbia Railway or a power line for Hydro, you're looking at 10 or

maybe 12 different contractors that are involved. If the prime

contractor is organized there is no way that his workers are going to

stay on the site with an unorganized worker. It's as simple as that;

it's traditional in the building trade, in the construction industry.

We saw this happen for years, and that was one of the benefits of the

Public Works Fair Employment Act — it eliminated that kind of jungle

warfare on project sites.

We pay lip service to collective bargaining in this House.

Regardless of the party we belong to, we all say: "Yes, collective

bargaining is the best way of maintaining the relationship." Why then

should we not set a deliberate policy of giving preference to those

firms and those employees that have that basis as the system and the

mechanism of regulating their own relationship?

I know the Minister of Labour is well-intentioned and I know we've

got a basic philosophical disagreement here, but I want to make it very

clear to this House and to the government what lies ahead through the

course that they're charting, and I think it's a serious one.

I wish the minister would do a number of things with respect to the

changes he is making and offering to this House in terms of labour

legislation. One of the things that seems to be completely absent, as

far as I have been able to discern in reading in the press the comments

made by trade union people and, indeed, management people, is the

dialogue, the consultation. Where is it?

This legislation has been spun very quickly and I believe that the

minister has not had the opportunity to meet with the principal unions

involved, meet with the principal management groups involved. And it is

a partnership; it's a partnership in terms of their relationship. I

think it's tremendously important that the minister should not drop

legislation on this House, however well intentioned, without first

meeting and discussing for weeks, and even in some cases months,

because in terms of getting those people to understand what he's

attempting to do and cooperate with it, that's important. I want to

say, Mr. Speaker, that those parties have been involved in this game

longer than the minister has, or any other politician.

They live with the real world of labour law out there every day and

they have a lot to tell you that is worthwhile. If you take the time to

be warned by them, and have adequate dialogue with both parties, I

think there's a much better chance of coming up with a system that is

going to be workable — and that's really what we all want, no matter

which side of the House we're on, Mr. Speaker.

I completely disagree with the minister's approach in this regard.

No, that's a bit too strong — not completely; some of the things he's

done are fine. But the principle of the main approach in the bill is

one with which I disagree very strongly. And I'm not doing that just

because we happen to be sitting across the House. I don't think there

are many political points to be made out of industrial relations for

anyone. I think the only points that could be made out of industrial

relations accrue to all the people of the province in terms of,

hopefully, some better harmony and some better workability in this very

difficult area of human relations. It should never be forgotten that

that's precisely what is — human relations.

It's difficult to set down by statute something that regulates their

interrelationships, their actions and conduct, and ask them to accept

it — particularly if there's not been a great deal of prior dialogue to

the motives of the minister are understood, so his objectives are

understood, and the parties to be so regulated have an opportunity to

tell him where they perceive the weaknesses and the injustices to be.

I think this is something that the minister appears to be violating

and ignoring, Mr. Speaker. I think it's regrettable that this statute

has been introduced in the House as quickly as it has, where that kind

of dialogue was impossible in the time that it has been before the

minister.

The basic underlying philosophy of this bill I have to oppose, but

there are provisions in it which I am pleased to see the minister has

kept.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

happen, generally, to agree with this bill. It was part of the platform

of the Liberal Party at the last election to proceed along these

general lines and I support the principle, certainly.

I listened intently to the thoughts put forward by the former

Minister of Labour because I very much respect his approach to labour

relations in this province, and I tried in my own mind to understand

the points he made. The essence of the points he made and the concerns

he expressed was, if I could restate it — and I hope I'm doing this

correctly — first of all he expressed a concern with the government

playing God in terms of assessing what is a fair. wage,

I looked carefully at the definition in the Act, and while we're not

in detailed study, nevertheless I think this is an important

definition: "...fair wages means wages and benefits reasonably

equivalent to wages and benefits usually provided to workers for doing

work of a particular character or class or performing a particular

function in geographical areas where they

[ Page 3140 ]

are employed."

In other words, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the definition

makes it clear that whoever is setting whatever a fair wage might be is

really not playing God; they're relating it to what is happening in

other areas, in other job sites outside the government purview, in

which seemingly there is a kind of an objective standard — an objective

test — which must be met.

The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan went on to suggest that the

passage of this Act might in fact reverse the situation and give an

advance to non-union firms on government job sites. Again, I looked at

that question and considered the argument he made that non-union firms

may not pay the same kind of fringes as union firms have to do, because

these things have been negotiated more adequately in the collective

agreement.

But again, looking at the definition of what fair wages is deemed to

mean, it includes wages and benefits. It seems quite precise in the

definition, and therefore I would expect, and I think that the House in

passing this legislation should expect, that there should be no such

advantage allowed to non-union firms, and that the director, in

determining the wage which is a fair wage, will be required — and I

would suggest that it is the intent of the House, if it passes this

legislation, that he should be required — to include fringes in the

calculation of what is fair.

The third essential objection that the former Minister of Labour

raised I find a very serious one, and that is the objection that the

admission of non-union firms to mixed construction sites could lead to

jungle warfare because of the traditional solidarity of the building

trades unions in these kinds of questions. Obviously this is a historic

fact of life in British Columbia that the government, in the

administration of this Act, is going to have to take into account. We

may legislate here in this chamber but we also have to take into

account the realities outside of this chamber, and the reality, as the

member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) mentioned, is one that the

government will simply have to deal with.

I do not think, however, that this fact of life which must be dealt

with is of itself sufficient to prevent the Legislature from

articulating a principle which seems to me to be proper, and that is

the principle that the government should not put its thumb on the

scales on one side or another in terms of the organization or not of

employees in this province. I happen to be in favour of going the route

of a high percentage of organized labour in our economy. There are

people who point at the countries north and south of the border in

North American and say that the U.S. economy is much less unionized

than the Canadian economy and it's much more productive, and that that

proves something or other. I happen to disagree with that. I think that

a higher rate of unionization, as some of the European democracies have

proven very well, can lead to a kind of cooperation for productivity

that, in the end, turns things out better than they would have been

without the union involvement in the first place.

So I am in favour of a high degree of unionization and continuing

organization in the British Columbia economy. Nevertheless, I believe

that the government should remain as neutral and as distant as it can

in relationships between private parties.

It seems to me that this Act is an improvement on the relationship

which the government has with the private parties. It brings about a

situation where it neither encourages nor discourages organization in

projects that are paid for by the government. It withdraws what was, in

my view, an unnecessary invasion of the freedoms and rights of

employers and employees to organize or not to organize as they might

choose. The government should not exert a bias one way or another in

those areas.

The minister, in his opening remarks, made clear to the House that

in some ways this bill is a marked improvement over the previous

legislation in terms of extending protection to subtrades, and

maintaining and extending the concept of fair wages, which to me is the

right concept — fair wages and benefits — and a better operation of the

market system in the construction area because more firms are able to

bid. I would suggest to the House that this system has worked well in

other jurisdictions and there is every reason to believe that it can

work well here.

I would ask the Minister of Labour in his closing remarks, to

address himself to the very serious questions raised by the former

Minister of Labour in terms of the jungle warfare,, as he put it, that

could arise by the presence on traditionally union building sites of a

non-union firm pursuant to action that might be taken under this bill.

As I say, this is a question the government is going to have to deal

with in a very pragmatic way, but I do not think it impairs the

principle of the bill, which I intend to support.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I also support the

principle of this bill. In fact we made an attempt this session, in a

private member's bill, to bring the matter before the House prior to

the government introducing the bill.

I think it is the principle from which our support flows, and that

principle is freedom of choice. People in this province and in Canada

have a choice as to whether they want to be unionized or as to whether

they don't want to be unionized, and I think the opening statement by

the minister that in the present situation an employer either has the

right to bid on government contracts or not, depending on the choice of

the employees, which in fact leaves the employer in a disadvantaged

position.... I think the

[ Page 3141 ]

general comment of the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) that we

are not here on a debate on this area to win political points or to

claim that either side of the House has all the answers....

Lord knows, the labour-management problems are enormous and complex

and there is no political party or government that has all the answers.

So I strongly support the former Labour minister's (Mr. King'

s) comment

that we are here to try and make a very complex area of human relations

both workable and as fair as possible to both sides.

While I am very much impressed by the former minister's pointing out

one of the problems that may arise from this bill, which namely is the

employment of subcontractors who are not unionized on a construction

site which will readily lead to picketing and closing down of the whole

operation, on the other hand I see no reason why an employer should not

have the right to bid on government construction, which is being paid

for by the taxpayers' money — that's where the government gets the

money to pay for the construction. The employer who happens not to be

unionized has every right, in my view, to bid on that kind of contract,

which at the present time he does not.

Another point I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, is one that after

the present bill became law, it was not very long before I was

contacted by one of my constituents who was in a completely different

business — in the moving business. He has nothing to do with

construction. He came to me with a very disturbing complaint that he

had previously obtained contracts to move furniture from government

offices and other forms of contracts involved in the moving business,

and he had been told that under the Public Works Fair Employment Act

moving of government property could only be carried out by unionized

firms. In fairness to the government of the day, the matter was brought

to their attention and this unjustified application of the legislation

was corrected.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it's very dangerous, I think, if the

community at large gets the impression that only unionized companies

can work with the government by contract. We are only talking about

construction in this bill, and that was all, I believe, that' was ever

intended in the former bill. But the kind of society in which we live,

and the degree to which labour-management matters have a constantly

high profile in newspapers and media, can lead to many

misunderstandings. It would seem to me that this government, and any

government, should make it very clear that it believes in choice and

freedom of choice and that in something as important as awarding

millions of dollars worth of contracts provided for by taxpayers'

money, contractors, whether unionized or not unionized, should have

freedom to bid on the contracts. It is from that very basic and

fundamental principle that I view this bill. At the same time, I am

well aware of the fact that there is the potential for problems. The

two that see are the competitive disadvantage, as pointed out by the

former Minister of Labour, if, in fact, the very substantial cost of

fringe benefits in a unionized business are overlooked in determining

the definition of "fair wages." As the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson)

pointed out, the bill includes a definition. In the definition of "fair

wages, " the bill includes the words, "... wages and benefits

reasonably equivalent to wages and benefits usually provided to workers

for doing work of a particular character or class...." I gather — and I

would like the minister's comments when he winds up second reading —

and I take it from that that he is aware of the point raised by the

former Minister of Labour and that in the definition he is endeavouring

to stress the fact that the non-union employer, in paying his workers,

will be expected to have included in that wage some allowance for the

kind of fringe benefits which are included in the cost of employing

union employees.

The other point which I hope the minister will deal with in winding

up debate is the other obstacle which the former Minister of Labour is

very much concerned about and which he described as "jungle warfare"

on a construction site where there may well be subcontractors employing

non-union labour. That would seem to me to be the most distressing

possibility. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the details of

this problem to know whether that is as strong an objection as the

former minister pointed out. But I think in helping to inform all of

the members of the House just how valid that is, the minister should

perhaps deal with that at some length in winding up the debate.

The other part of the bill that I would like some clarification on

is the minister's statement that where some assurance about paying fair

wages has not been written into a contract, it will be deemed to be

included in that contract. The minister pointed out that the manner in

which the government would deal with this would be by suspending

payment to such a contractor or subcontractor who had in fact breached

the provisions of this bill. I'm just not quite clear, when the

minister introduced this bill, why that particular phrase, "deemed to

be included in that contract," is necessary when in point of fact the

government would suspend payment anyway, until such time as fair wages

were paid. Just to deem that an agreement is in the contract, or that a

clause is in the contract, seems to me very insignificant compared to

the government's commitment to suspend payment until in fact the

workers do receive fair wages. I'm not clear whether the minister meant

that the wage as defined in the contract might not be fair or there

just wouldn't be a clause at all dealing with a commitment to pay fair

wages in that

section 3,

[ Page 3142 ]

which the minister touched upon. I'd appreciate some enlargement on that point.

The question of hiring local help as far as possible is also a very

positive part of the bill, but I would certainly just have to

re-emphasize that the most important thing in a democratic society is

one's freedom of choice as to which party you support, or which church

you go to, or freedom of speech — it relates to freedom, period: the

freedom that you should not have governments, other than perhaps

through the law and order which they provide in the courts, dictate

anything to the individual, whether he be an employer or an employee.

If employees have a legitimate right, as indeed they should, to choose

by vote whether they want to be unionized or not unionized, I think the

legislation is an incredible invasion of the freedom of an individual

employer, as a consequence, to find that his rights to practise his

legitimate job or profession — in this case, his job as a contractor —

regardless of who the party is that is providing the contract. While

that has to be the fundamental point from which we start this debate on

this bill, I do agree with the former Minister of Labour that there may

be consequences flowing from the specifics of the bill which warrant

further study, perhaps, and further revision or amendments. On the two

particular points that I have raised and which the former minister has

raised, I would hope that the present minister can give us some

assurance of what action he feels he would be in a position to take if,

in the course of applying this new bill, these consequences do develop,

or whether in fact there are even amendments to the bill at this

present time that would be appropriate to correct these two potential

consequences.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I think I would be remiss

in my duty, Mr. Speaker, if I didn't get up and say a few words about

this bill. As former Minister of Housing I had a great deal of

experience with both the positive and maybe some of the more difficult

aspects of the present bill.

If I were to come into this House, having made the comments that

were made by the Social Credit Party or by the member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) during the election, I still think that I would have to take a

more moderate approach, because this bill is really a repeal bill. It

is really going back to where things were. I must say that things as

far as they were were certainly not good and they were not fair.

There's been a lot of talk in this debate about freedom of choice.

I'd like to relate some of the personal experience of the right-to-work

group that was organized all over the province by small independent

contractors that felt threatened by this bill. In spite of the

modifications which made its application as fair as we felt it could

be, these groups sprang up. What did they do to try and whip into line

some of the small independent contractors and subcontractors?

Mr. Speaker, I can tell this House that in the Creston area that

organization blackballed the one skilled mason in that area, a German

immigrant who brought skills which were badly needed in that area. They

blackballed that member because he refused to join this so-called

right-to-work group. The deprived him of his right to work. Two other

persons, very good friends of mine, took the expedient of joining,

although they didn't believe in what the organization stood for,

particularly after they recognized that one independent contractor in

the Creston area had been blackballed.

So what I'm saying to those members and the member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), who's getting a little exercised, is that this situation

should be looked at from both sides, Because I've certainly heard

enough of the arguments about what some of the unions have done, and I

don't think there's any paucity of that type of information or

expression of that. But certainly it is a two-sided thing. If the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is concerned, and if he's going

to take this kind of a measure, he should certainly recognize that a

complete swing of the pendulum is not going to be a positive move, and

I think it's going to create problems for them. I'd also like to dispel

some of the myths about the so-called high cost of union labour in the

housing industry.

One of the experiences which I had when I first became Minister

Without Portfolio — some plans had gone ahead where plans had been made

for construction of some duplex units. The land had been acquired. The

building permits were there and they had actually, I believe, been put

out to tender before I was Minister Without Portfolio. In came the

bids, and this was the summer of 1973. At that time, these were almost

unheard-of bids for residential home construction in greater Vancouver.

Union bids came in in excess of $40 per square foot — $40 and $44, if

memory serves me right. Non-union bids came in at about $32 and $34 per

square foot. Both sets of bids were unacceptable by that day's

standards.

My decision then was not to build and to look for something else,

and even possibly to dispose of the property. But the plans were there

and the approval was there and so we held onto it. During the

intervening time and by the next spring we had acquired Dunhill

Development Corp., and I asked Dunhill to find out how much it would

cost to do it — and I'm just talking about construction costs, not

about land costs — how much it would cost then, a year later, to do it

with union contracting, do it through Fisher Development, which was a

member of CLRA.

Again, going by memory, I think I'm quite safe in saying that the

costs were in the neighbourhood of $27 per square foot, which shows

what the actual

[ Page 3143 ]

costs were. Now, of course, there would have to be some sort of

margin for profit, but these are some of the things that are possible.

In trying to keep to the letter of the law, the Public Works Fair

Employment Act, other situations were encountered, and I might say, Mr.

Speaker, that in some areas construction went ahead with non-union

labour — certainly in Cranbrook, and I would hesitate to say whether it

happened in Penticton. But in a good many areas it was found that the

difficulty was not in the fact that the union labour for house

construction was so much more expensive, but that, in fact, very few

union construction companies were really skilled in framing

construction. So the difference in bids which we encountered in the

first instance that I cited today were not so much a problem of any

inherent difference between union and non-union work but the fact that

very few of the union construction companies are skilled in framing

construction.

However, development companies such as Daon Development, such as

Fisher Construction, a subsidiary of Dunhill Development — companies

like this can do it. They're not necessarily interested in bidding on

government jobs, especially small ones, or they weren't at that time.

So I would say also concerning the definition of fair wages that I

had the experience of interpreting and looking at what the Central

Mortgage and Housing Corp. used as a definition of fair wages — what

has been their guideline definition of fair wages — and I would just

have to say that they are totally out of line with what can be

construed as fair wages.

I think that there is a danger here and that it shouldn't be decided

by someone outside this House that the legislation is lacking in that

the definition of fair wages is not spelled out very definitely by some

index which is recognizable and seen to be fair. I would like to say

that if at every turn people were trying to look more to the.... And

that is the public servants who were helping to implement our

programmes. If there was a failing there — and I think there's a

failing in bringing in this legislation — it's that people are not

looking at ways in which we can make this work; they are looking at

ways in which they can find the shortcomings and therefore say that it

should be repealed.

I think the principle of implementing a public works fair employment

Act and implementing the Public Works Fair Employment Act as it

presently exists — this might seem an expedient. But I think this is a

retrograde step and that when one really goes onto the job sites and

sees the so-called conditions of fair employment, one will see workers

being exploited, one will see characteristically ethnic groups being

exploited, Mr. Speaker and see that they do not lack....

It isn't just a matter of pension benefits or dental plans; it's a

matter of wrongful dismissal and being subjected at a time when you are

perhaps newly emigrated to this country. We do have a dearth of skilled

people in many of the trade areas so we depend upon immigrant skilled

workers, but these people do often lack the skill of having a knowledge

of their rights in this country. There's no provision in here for the

protection of rights of workers, and the matter of fair wages is not

the only issue.

The only way that has been contrived to really protect the rights of

workers, whether they be immigrants new to this country or persons who

have grown up in this country, is through the rights of collective

bargaining and a collective agreement that embraces more than just

wages, embraces total conditions, and not just the so-called fringe

benefits but also working conditions. I can say that working conditions

and the attitudes of a great number of job foremen....

There are certain job foremen who've been around long

enough...you'll find certain job sites in which just about all of the

framers are perhaps German; you'll find another one in which perhaps

they're all Italian — and you'll find that these people are being

exploited, that some of these foremen are not held in high regard.

In just talking shop with some of the contractors, there'll be

discussions about certain foremen and their questionable ethics. These

people are exploiting people because they do not have the protection of

full collective bargaining. That's why, no matter what side of the

House I was sitting on, I wouldn't be able to accept what I think is a

complete shift of the pendulum — something which I think is far too

sweeping. Even if I embraced a conservative or right-of-centre type of

a principle, I still could not intellectually accept this in terms of

fair play.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just a few words on this bill, and I'll try to be to the point.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The old bill gave a break to the union-organized contractor on

government work. This bill, I think, gives a break to the unorganized

contractor on government work, because, while you have a provision for

fair wages, there are additional costs of grievance procedure and

administration of a collective agreement that are with the organized

contractor and not with the unorganized contractor.

Secondly, I think you've created trouble on the building sites, and

I think the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) made this point. I

think you're asking for trouble because you're going to have a scramble

to organize where a government contract is let on this building site

and on that building site — with one craft picketing and the others out

of work,

[ Page 3144 ]

and one trying to get a contract, the others not. I think you're buying trouble with this, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Thirdly, I don't think you can manage that thing about fair wages.

Are you really going to establish throughout the province of B.C., in

regions, really what amounts to a second minimum wage? Different

categories; different jobs. Before you've really done that, I think the

pencil will tremble in the hands of the director of labour standards. I

think you've inherited a problem in that respect, too.

I don't think there's been talk about freedom here. It seems to me

that we on this side are the supporters of freedom in this particular

exchange. After all, you are going to the employers who may be doing

government work, and you are telling them that we're going to impose on

you your wage classifications and your wage rates. Well, that's taking

something of freedom away from the private bargaining process.

Then, if you're going to be fair and you really intend to be fair,

in terms of those employees who are doing the work, you've got to

impose security of employment too — unjust dismissal protection.

Then you've got to consider seniority. Are you going to impose that

too? If you're not, you should. Then, if you go on from that, you've

got to say maybe this job should have a safety committee set up under

some kind of an agreement between the employees and the employer.

Impose that too, if you will, and when you've done all this imposing,

imposing, imposing, you've got a union contract. You'd be much better

to have left it to the parties to bargain that contract between

themselves. I think you're just inheriting a peck of trouble, Mr.

Speaker, to the minister.

I'd like to finally say that there have been speeches made in this

House — particularly by the leader of the Conservative Party — about

freedom. Now what is freedom in today's society? Is it the freedom to

be unorganized? If it is, I wonder how many people are embracing that

kind of freedom — only those who have to.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The lawyers? You don't have any trouble

finding a lawyer to act for the Attorney-General to represent the Queen

in the courts of this province who belongs to the Law Society of B.C.

You can say what you like — that is basically a trade union

organization.

The doctors make the distinction that they don't have to belong to

the medical association, but they really have their own union.

The pilots have their own union.

The hairdressers have tried to organize, but the trouble is not that

all of the members have to be part of their organization; the trouble

is they're poorly organized. They don't have the clout because they

don't have any disciplinary powers with respect to their members and

all of them do not have to belong.

So what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that in the modern society in

which we live the right to association of crafts and professions and

businesses is their protection. That is their freedom. The unorganized

people are exposed to undercutting of their rates, they're exposed to

unfair competition, and they try to organize as quickly as they

possibly can. So if the Minister of Labour listens to the bottom line

down on the back benches and he comes in with a bill like this because

philosophically everybody should have the right to be an unorganized

worker and work for a gippo, it sounds great, but we should be moving

the other way.

We should be moving in the direction of countries like Sweden where

it goes without saying that 90 to 95 per cent of the working

professional and business people have some organization. That is

freedom. That enables them to participate. That enables them to have

had some power, and along with the participation and the power there is

some responsibility within their own profession or trade and within

their own country. You find in a place like Sweden, which has actively

had the courage to go out and encourage people to belong to trade

unions and not been ashamed of it one little bit a strike record that

would make ours look sick like a running disease in comparison.

I don't think the government understands what freedom is about

today. Freedom is the right to belong to an association in your calling

and to participate democratically in that. All of the members of that

calling should be part of that association and they should have

disciplinary powers and they should bargain together about their common

problems and they should have some power in their calling and accept

responsibility at the same time. That is the road to freedom — not this

fragmentation of the working force into those who are organized and

those unorganized people who are exploited by the gippos.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to commend the members for their contribution in the second reading debate on Bill 77.

There is a difference of viewpoints between the members on the

government side and the official opposition on this bill. I thought

that the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the former Minister of

Labour and a person whose knowledge and experience in labour matters

commands our attention, dealt fairly with the matter. I particularly

appreciate him pointing out to all the members that this debate is

likely to be most productive if it is

[ Page 3145 ]

non-political, because there aren't political marks to be made out of labour-management relations in this province.

I only wish that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

has listened to what he said, because in his closing remarks he

certainly tried to make every political mark that he could. He made it

quite clear that the present legislation, the Public Works Fair

Employment Act, so far as he was concerned is intended to force the

workers of this province into unions. That's a political move.

He speaks so highly of the Swedish system. Yes, Sweden has made

significant moves in the field of social democracy, but there are other

countries in the world whereby the productivity of the workers is

greater than it is in Sweden and, in fact, greater than it is in North

America, and they don't have compulsory unionism at all — West Germany,

for example. West Germany has an entirely different system.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): And South Africa.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, in West Germany you

don't have to belong to a union. There is no closed shop, There is no

union shop in West Germany. They are to be looked upon as successful

workers in a highly productive national economy, one which is the envy

of all the world.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You talk about freedoms. Yes, I agree with

the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that fundamental to this

legislation is the matter of freedom. The first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald) would suggest that only the NDP are the supporters

of freedom. He suggests that we're going to impose wage decisions upon

employers and therefore the determination of fair wages upon employees.

But, Mr. Speaker, if you listened very carefully to what the first

member for Vancouver East said, the NDP's idea of freedom is to impose

unionization on both the employers and the employees of this province.

That becomes a different kind of freedom.

MR. MACDONALD: I said encourage.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, you would impose it — because you want

us to make sure that we give preference to all those companies which

have collective agreements. You only have collective agreements if

you're unionized, and therefore you want us to give preference to

unionized organizations.

You would withdraw from anyone who was not unionized the right to

engage in activities which involve the Crown and Crown agencies.

Well, there's the fundamental difference, and yet you know, Mr. Speaker,

it is strange: the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) pointed out that

there were circumstances under the present legislation where you didn't

have to be a unionized contractor in order to work, you know, because of the

family relationship in the kind of organization that wasn't appropriate,

but he didn't point out, as I did in my opening remarks, that one

of the exemptions is where the Crown or any of its agencies does not invite

tenders or give public notice or the work or public work. What a loophole!

Imagine a government which says: "We support the preference to

unionized organizations" and then provides themselves a loophole

whereby if you don't call tenders you can use non-union workers. Talk

about exploitation! Not only is it an exploitation of the workers if

that indeed is the case — because there's no provision for fair wages

in such a case under the present law — but really it's an exploitation

of the responsibility of government to deal publicly and openly with

government business, either by way of tenders or public advertisements

of the job.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan raised some questions

that I want to respond to. They were good points and I think that the

bill provides the answers for them. He suggested that the Minister of

Labour was going to play God, or someone was going to play God — the

director of labour standards. I would say that the member hasn't read

the bill. I'm surprised that he would say such a thing, because he

knows who the director of labour standards is and he knows the

facilities that are available to the director of labour standards with

the Department of Labour to determine — what fair wages and benefits

are in this province. There is no place where there is more research

being done into this whole subject than in the Department of Labour.

All of those facilities are available to the director of labour

standards.

If he makes an error in establishing his

schedule of fair wages,

then the read legislation provides that that error is capable of

resolution by the Board of Industrial Relations. But who is the Board

of Industrial Relations? It's composed of representatives of management

and of unions, and it also has people who have no relationship with

management and unions. They are the kind of people who will look and

address themselves to this particular problem. It is suggested that

this is somehow or other not as good a way as collective bargaining.

Talk about playing God! Has he ever been involved in the process of

collective bargaining?

Mr. Speaker, I'm satisfied that there are provisions in this

legislation which will ensure that fair wages and benefits which are

associated with wages can be

[ Page 3146 ]

assured to those employees who under our laws today make the free choice not to join unions.

If we want to go the way the member for Vancouver East says we

should go, then why didn't they in the Labour Code take away the right

of the workers to decide on majority vote whether they should go into a

union or not and just say that all the workers shall be in a union?

Then they would have solved their problem. It looks to me as if their

attempts were by the Labour Code to offer the opportunity of freedom of

choice to the workers in this province but by other legislative action

to slowly diminish that choice until finally they had succeeded.

I find it significant that the member for Vancouver East is nodding his head affirmatively.

MR. MACDONALD: I was getting bored.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Now if it is a matter of playing God, I

should also point out that one of the exemptions to the present Act is

spelled out in the Municipal Act. There the concept of fair wages has

been enshrined for years and was accepted by the previous government.

Who is it who has the final choice as to whether a fair wage is being

paid under a municipal government contract? It is the Minister of

Labour. Now if it's so offensive that the Minister of Labour is

involved, I would have thought that the previous administration would

have seen fit to expunge that from our statutes. But his was enshrined

in their own legislation, the Public Works Fair Employment Act.

On the question of fair wages and the consideration to be given to

benefits, I would like to make it perfectly clear that it is not the

intention of this government to allow employers whose workers are not

unionized to exploit those workers. That is the whole concept of fair

wages. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan spoke about the percentage of

the total compensation package in current collective agreements which

are related to benefits, and he said it was about 25 per cent. Recent

experience shows that increases being negotiated in collective

agreements for fringe benefits would put the fringe-benefit package at

about 50 per cent of the increases which are presently being

experienced. All of those changes will reflect themselves in the basis

upon which the director of labour standards must determine the

schedule

of fair wages.

It is suggested that somehow or other, by the exploitation of

workers, non-unionized contractors will have a competitive advantage,

but I think the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) pointed out

quite clearly in his remarks that the competitive advantage does not

flow from wages. The competitive advantage flows from other

considerations such as the skill and the ability to do particular jobs.

It's a productivity factor which gives to some contractors a

competitive advantage.

I see no reason why the hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis),

in projects which are carried out under his responsibility, should not

enjoy the consequences of non-unionized work forces giving that

productivity factor and hence the competitive advantage which that may

provide. The very fact that an employer has a relationship with his

employees such that those employees determine not to unionize may

itself indicate the existence of a relationship and an ability to

function together and to produce far more than otherwise would be the

case. That very relationship may, in fact, heighten the productivity of

that work force group.

Now much was said of the trouble that is going to be created by the

passage of this Act. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan talked about

picketing activities arising out of organizational activities on

building sites and the return to jungle warfare. Yes, that is a problem

and we will have to be certain that the laws, as contained in the

Labour Code of British Columbia, are effective enough to control that

particular activity. But what is the alternative? If the threat of this

kind of action by union leaders is sufficient to take away the right of

workers under the laws of this province not be be in a union, then the

jungle warfare wins,

Talk about who plays God in this province! Every time time union

leaders say, "you can't do that, " does the rest of the province have

to say, "okay, we give in"? Is that the way we are going in this

province? I don't believe that to be true. Indeed, the discussions

which I have had with union groups on the subject of the Public Works

Fair Employment Act indicates to me that there is in organized labour a

more responsible element than that.

Now there will be problems. I don't doubt that a bit. But what is

the situation that you face when confronted with the challenge of

organized labour? Do you always retreat? Is that all that is left to us

— to retreat?

MR. MACDONALD: Not if they're lawyers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do we always retreat? Well, the hon. first

member for Vancouver East always throws up the lawyer bit. I'm talking

about the workers in this province, not about the legal profession —

the workers! That only includes a very few lawyers in the workers. Let

me point out — and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan should give some

lessons to the first member for Vancouver East — what the situation is

in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, there is only 44 per cent of our work force organized.

[ Page 3147 ]

MR. KING: That's a terrible thing!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Revelstoke-Slocan says that

is a terrible thing, but the other side of the coin is that 56 per cent

of the workers in this province have decided not be be organized, and

that has to be taken into account too.

MR. KING: Rubbish!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's their choice.

MR. MACDONALD: They haven't had the chance.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Oh, come on!

MR. MACDONALD: They haven't had the chance!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Everybody has the chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: Bank employees? They'd be fired if they organized.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh well, you see, there we go, We're

permitted to stand up for the unions and let them harass society, but

then as soon as you suggest that somebody hasn't joined the union, the

answer is always given: "Oh, that's because they're being harassed by

somebody else." There is no proof of that at all — no proof at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you Minister of Labour or minister of industry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am the Minister of Labour. I recognize

the contribution that has been made to this debate by members from all

parties, including Revelstoke-Slocan, but I must say that the

contribution from the first member for Vancouver East has done nothing

to credit him or to assist in the understanding of this legislation or,

indeed, to promote industrial harmony in this province. There they

stand, the great friends of the B.C. Federation of Labour, although Len

Guy had some difficulty in getting that message. They don't want him on

their council — he got beaten by the $80,000 man.

AN HON. MEMBER: Money counts.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Suddenly the $80,000 man decided he wanted

to run for a position in the NDP. Who did he run against? He ran

against Len Guy. I think, as a matter of fact, that organized labour —

the B.C. Federation of Labour — has more friends on this side of the

House than they do in the official opposition.

Certainly it should be said quite clearly that free unions function

in a free society. That is what this government provides. But free

unions do not function in a society which is not free. I commend all

the members to take very careful cognizance of what was said by the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) during the course of the

NDP convention, that they shouldn't pay too much attention to the

matter of free collective bargaining because under the kind of control

that NDP would bring to our system, that free collective bargaining

would disappear. I think all union members and union leaders should pay

very careful attention to the clear indication of the direction in

which that party is going as far as unions are concerned.

I wish to say to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan that the question

of hiring practices, as pointed out by him in

section 5 of the bill,

certainly will continue to be a major concern of the Minister of Labour

and of the department. I recognize the steps that member for

Revelstoke-Slocan took when he was minister in this field. I understand

quite clearly the difficulties that he faced; I face the same

difficulties. But I wish to assure the House, if they are aware of what

that member did when he was minister, that we will continue in the same

direction.

I have had the occasion of meeting with union groups dealing with

specific problems. The members should be aware that the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan during his ministry took particular care to make

every arrangement he could to ensure that there was local hiring for

jobs throughout this province. That will be the continued direction of

the Department of Labour.

I would also like to say to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) with regard to conditions of employment — he referred to that

— that that is also covered in

section 5. There is no intention of this

government through this bill to allow any employer to exploit the

worker by reason of his ethnic background, his unfamiliarity with the

the province of British Columbia, The laws which provide for proper

conditions of employment will continue to be enforced by this

government.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Chabot

Jordan

[ Page 3148 ]

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

Wallace, G.S.

Gibson

NAYS — 15

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Levi

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 83, Public Construction Fair Wages Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 63, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1976,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the minister here. Which is

the proper clause in this bill in which I should ask the total

estimated cost in the coming fiscal year?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: I'll assume that it's

section 1 and ask the minister if he could tell us.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It could be dealt with at committee stage,

or as the hon. member knows, Mr. Chairman, my estimates are not yet up,

of course. It's covered in a block vote in the Housing department

estimates — so, as you wish.

MR. GIBSON: Well, if you could just give us a number.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May the Chair suggest that it's perhaps best discussed under the vote for the title?

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have some

clarification. This appears to preclude assistance.... A person is not

entitled to a grant or a loan unless.... I should say:

"A person who is in receipt of financial assistance

under the Assisted Home Ownership Programme Rural and Remote Programme,

or any other programme under the National Housing Act (Canada)

designated by the regulations, in respect of a residence is not

entitled to a grant or loan in respect of that residence."

I'd like to know why that does not conflict with the intentions....

I'm sure it doesn't conflict, but I'd like to know why it does not

conflict with the intentions of the policy in later sections and also

in publicity which has been released by the department.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wonder if the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, would go through that again, because I was distracted here. I'm sorry.

MR. NICOLSON: It says:

"A person who is in receipt of financial assistance

under the Assisted Home Ownership Programme, the Rural and Remote

Programme, or any other programme under the National Housing Act

(Canada) designated by the regulations in respect of a residence is not

[ Page 3149 ]

entitled to a grant or loan in respect of that residence."

Now under "The Affordable Home and How We're Helping It to Happen"

brochure, the department illustrates how the assisted home ownership

programme operates in British Columbia, how part (1), CMHC gives an

interest reduction loan, part (2), a $750 subsidy from CMHC and, part

(3) $750 from the province. I'd like to know from whence the subsidy

from the province comes then.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, since we're discussing the section,

Mr. Chairman, referring to the material that the hon. member for

Nelson-Creston has just identified, under 1, that money is from the

housing fund, the provincial housing fund — and we've taken the

arbitrary position on this side of the House that you will qualify for

one or the other, but not both.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that....

I haven't proposed an amendment or prepared one on this section, but

I'd like to bring to the minister's attention some of the difficulties

that led to giving persons a second chance, and this would preclude a

person from having a second opportunity.

Under the old home-acquisition programme, we found that persons

purchased homes specifically in Prince George.... The area I think was

a floodplain, which led to a resettlement programme, but at any rate,

homes were expropriated in that area by government action. I'd like to

ask the minister how he's going to rectify the injustice which could

occur if a person avails himself of the programme and then finds that

the Department of Highways, or some government agency, or B.C. Hydro,

expropriates property and not even through a job relocation action

these people are caused to move — by a completely external force — and

then are denied a second opportunity to take advantage of this

legislation. I'd like to point out that that's why amendments were made

to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act: in order to give persons the

opportunity for a second grant, although we didn't limit it. That was

certainly the injustice that we saw.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the former Minister of Housing

has made a valid point. We looked at this very carefully. I believe, in

second reading, it was the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) who spoke about no second-chance dealing — not with what you

have raised today, Hon. Member, but rather spouses...speece? (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, that's another point.

HON. MR. CURTIS: But where, to respond to your example, the

Department of Highways, or some other department of government, moves

in on a particular piece of property, then there will be expropriation,

and it's our contention that the loss of future benefits should be

taken into consideration in the expropriation.

I hope that we can work this section, or this measure, with no great

difficulty, but I do pay attention to the comments you've made about it.

MR. NICOLSON: The first member for Vancouver-Burrard isn't

here, but she also brought up a very good point in second reading. It

was also our experience that in the event of a marriage breakdown and a

divorce, in some cases.... It's not always the case, Mr. Chairman, of

some women who has been totally dependent upon her husband's source of

income. It might be, in point of fact, that the woman is perhaps the

more qualified person to actually earn an income. But we found specific

cases where the woman, once having made the decision to be independent

and the divorce having been finalized, was maybe starting out on a

career very successfully, with fairly adequate income, but was being

denied this because of a previous marriage from which she maybe

received no financial benefit.

I don't think it's right to depend upon a divorce settlement to

bring into account the possible loss of benefits under the new Home

Purchase Assistance Act, that things such as this should be taken into

account. Persons should be able to benefit when they strike out on

their own, even under a legal separation. I don't think that the abuse

is going to be that great compared to the very real moral principle

which is involved here.

I could cite a case — I wouldn't get too specific — but I certainly

could cite a case of a woman who was a legal secretary making fairly

good income who was denied, until amendments were made, a chance at the

old Home Acquisition Act because her husband had received it. She had

no benefit from the house in terms of her settlement. She was starting

out quite nicely, thank you, and coping with everything, including

looking after her family and making a reasonable wage, but was denied a

benefit that would not have been denied to any other family.

I think, for reasons such as this, there should be a provision for

the setting of regulations which would look into some of these very

special cases, which I'm sure Mr. Rounds and Marion Price in the

department would be fairly familiar with, and also the people on the

mortgage eligibility committee.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his comments on this problem, and

[ Page 3150 ]

it is that. I understand, from the early briefings I had in the

Department of Housing, that the eligibility committee had great

difficulty with the variations and the wide spectrum of separation and

settling problems where assistance had been granted.

We've chosen to take this route. If with experience we find that we

can narrow it down to two or three cases where clearly the assistance

can be rendered and rendered without any difficulty, without any gray

area, we will do so. But we have chosen, after great consideration, to

take this particular route, and I can offer no further comment than

that.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MR. NICOLSON: The interest rate under the old home

acquisition programme was listed at 8.5 per cent, I believe, with

forgiveness features of $25 per month for payments made on time. I

believe the effective interest rate, at any rate the one I retain, is

7.5 per cent. This will allow an increase on any mortgages given up to

current rate. I am remiss in knowing what the current rate of the

National Housing Act is, so what would the specified interest rate be

at this particular time — is it 11 or 12 per cent at this time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's 11 3/4 per cent at the moment. The

member may not be through with his comments, but if I may respond, the

rate can be varied by regulation, depending on circumstances, on

experience.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know if it's the

minister's intention to peg it to the rate under the National Housing

Act, which varies. It is your intention, okay. Thank you.

Now also part (3) of this: "The difference between the payment

required at the specified interest rate and the eligible payments shall

be called a deferred loan, which shall be credited to the mortgage

account and accumulate in a special account that does not bear

interest."

There are a few questions that might be raised under this section. I

think this is where we'll find the closest equivalent to the old home

acquisition grant, and I would like to know how this applies on older

residences, because in a later

section it allows classifications,

regions and all kinds of other things. Will persons with older

residences, who've been renting, be able to apply? Is there some

similar provision there?

Also, I see that this is a deferred loan, so any amounts.... I'd

like to find out how there are going to be deferred loans given. A

person might buy a new home with AHOP, for instance. I'm assuming that

he can get a $5,000 second mortgage. In computing that, how will he

qualify to get a deferred loan? Then at what time will the deferred

loan start to bear interest and be capitalized into the mortgage?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, no interest until the home is

sold. I should point out that this whole

section is modelled on the

former government's leasehold mortgage programme, and I would think the

member would be reasonably familiar, therefore, with what is intended

in this section.

I answered the other question with respect to the $5,000 mortgage. The answer is yes.

MR. NICOLSON: One other question: will this apply to older homes as well as new homes under any circumstances?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes it will.

Through you, Mr. Chairman — being very reasonable here today — to

the minister, I would ask the minister: will the requirements for

rental be prerequisite, or will it just be a first-residence

requirement?

HON. MR. CURTIS: We are dropping the requirement for rental.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the one

section of the

bill that I think is most objectionable. It's my impression that under

this

section it will be possible to create price limits, classes of

dwellings, regions within the province — at least this is the first

mention of such things, which are also gone into in

section 16. It

starts here in terms of specifying these things. I would just like to

have confirmed whether or not these limits are going to be the same

limits as defined under the Assisted Home Ownership Programme of the

federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only the Lord knows.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect, Mr. Chairman, this topic really should be dealt with under

section 16.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. NICOLSON: As I had read the Act, this

[ Page 3151 ]

elaborates a new approach, really, in this bill. It provides the

mechanism for settling regional price eligibility limits. The present

federal AHOP price limits are: Victoria $45,000; Vancouver, $47,000;

Cranbrook, $33,000; and Prince George region, $39,000, I believe. The

Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver reports the average price of 520

multiple listings in May was $62,694, a steady rise from $60,052 in

January.

It appears that the restriction to AHOP will prevent many buyers

from benefiting. Further in

section 16 it says: "... fix maximum and

minimum costs and sizes of residences for eligibility...." Now in the

release of the department we see some of the sizes which are specified

in the municipal incentive grant programme. I can only assume that the

incentive grant to municipalities is related to the encouragement of

the building of affordable housing.

Some of the eligible unit sizes are: a bachelor studio unit,400 square feet;

a one-bedroom apartment, 600 square feet, or 650 square feet for other housing

forms if there are one-bedroom townhouses being built or one bedroom bungalows;

two-bedroom, 800 square feet and 900 square feet in the case of a detached dwelling

or a townhouse-type other than what is called an apartment, which I would assume

to be a one- or two-storey central corridor-type of a unit. I think that here

we are imposing fantastic limits.

One would also wonder, under this'section, what the limits are that

you are envisaging for mobile homes. Are mobile homes to be covered

under this section? Are they to be eligible? Are you setting mobile

home limitations in the greater Vancouver area? Is that up to $47,000

for a mobile home? Are there going to be greater limits set in the

regulations that are intended here?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was tempted to say that this should have been dealt with under

section 12, but I won't do that.

MR. WALLACE: You're learning fast, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have to around here.

Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of this programme, the thrust of

AHOP, is to provide first ownership situations for individuals. We

could debate for the afternoon situations for individuals. We could

debate for the afternoon in a responsible manner whether the limits are

too severe in terms of price or in terms of size. We want to get people

into an ownership situation if that is their wish.

So with respect to the size that the member has spoken of, Mr. Chairman, they

are probably pretty small. But we have been conditioned, I think, in North America,

and certainly in this part of Canada, to think, as first homeowners — a young

couple just starting out — that we have to have virtually everything that is

eventually going to be put in place in our final home or the home in which we

raise our family — the three bedroom, four-bedroom, shag carpet, one and a half-

or two-bathroom home with a lot of amenities which probably you, Mr. Member,

and most members of this House, did not start with. That's really why the

limits have been set and why they've been set with respect to dollars and

size.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) — and I think this is

relevant comment on this

section — in second reading debate, Mr.

Chairman, said: "Who in this House, in this Legislature, would sell

their home for $47,000, or who owns a home costing less than $47,000?"

In response to that I would have to ask the committee, Mr. Chairman,

who in this Legislature needs the kind of assistance that this bill is

intended to offer. We're talking about two entirely different. clients,

if you wish to use the term.

MS. BROWN: In Vancouver.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In Vancouver, Madam Member, and in greater Victoria it is working, and it's going to work extremely well.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) quoted some figures. In

the period January 1, 1976, to April 30, 1976, residential sales in

greater Vancouver, according to MLS, were 1,701, of which, Mr.

Chairman, 443 were under $47,000. Now someone on the other side would

say that most of those are condominiums. Well, that's not correct. Of

the 443,136 were condominiums. The type of housing is there and we

intend to assist individuals to get into it, particularly the first

owner who is otherwise, in our view, destined to a lifetime of

undesired rentals. That's not what we want.

MR. NICOLSON: That's rather interesting. You said in greater Vancouver?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. NICOLSON: How far out? Abbotsford?

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the minister that I could see him

finding some of the projects which have already been initiated and

which he's converting from rentals into sales...I can see there being

some available units for them, but if they talk about 443 units, 100 and

some odd of which were condominiums, I think that that indicates that

there aren't very many of these units available. There are thousands of

the large condominium units available, as the minister is aware —

thousands of these units that he describes with one-and-a-half baths,

and shag rugs and covered indoor carports. I might point out that I

believe that the market value of my home in Nelson is probably still

under $47,000. It's under 800

[ Page 3152 ]

square feet and it has two bedrooms, so I understand what he's talking about with "starter homes."

I feel that this

section of the Act is the key to this Act and I

think that it's the area where it's really going to fail. If this

government continues to be involved in construction, and particularly

in the servicing of areas such as the Winch Park area, where hundreds

of acres of Crown land were opened up in Burnaby, this is going to be

irrelevant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. NICOLSON: There's a lot to be said about this section, really.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I get the feeling the committee would like the member and, me to leave the room. (Laughter.)

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

MR. NICOLSON: This allows payments to municipalities for new

homes which fall under the price limits set by the regions. It's

something that I initiated discussions with the UBCM some time ago, and

it's something which I would support.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, this rescinds the home

acquisition grant. Maybe this should have been raised under

section 12

too, but I would like the minister just briefly to assure me that

persons who build their own homes, when they put in a lot of their own

sweat equity, will not have their homes appraised as $40,000 and

$50,000 homes when in fact they only put in capital of $20,000-odd.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I can assume the hon. member

and the committee that the policy will remain exactly as it has been

under the Act which has been referred to.

Section 20 approved.

On the title.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it was indicated that this was the

place to talk about expenditures, but in the interest of passing the

bill through, we can do so in the estimates if the minister wishes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have the information — approximately $14.8 million is set aside for this programme this year.

MR. GIBSON: About how many homes would that assist? Or Shall I ask that in estimates?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's very difficult to judge, Mr. Chairman.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 49, Home Purchase Assistance Act, reported complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill 49, Home Purchase Assistance Act, be read a third time now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division!

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: the

opposition, earlier in the House during the sitting, once called for a

division when clearly no dissenting voice was heard, and there are so

few members in the House that it's pretty obvious that there was no

dissenting voice on this bill. Why is a facetious division being called

now...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: ...when there was a division called earlier and it was denied?

MR. SPEAKER: It's within the right and scope of any member to call for a division.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order: it was certainly not offered facetiously, not at all.

Bill 49, Home Purchase Assistance Act, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of

tabling the annual report for the Workers' Compensation Board for the

year ending December 31, 1975, with a letter of transmittal thereof from

[ Page 3153 ]

the vice-chairman. Connected therewith, I ask leave to table a

letter from the deputy comptroller-general dated June 25, 1976.

Leave

granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:08 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada