1977 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4131 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Surrey Dodge ICBC claims. Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4131

Mr. Cocke –– 4131

Routine proceedings

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1977. Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading –– 4132

Oral questions

Energy outlook hearings. Mr. Macdonald –– 4132

Rental assistance applications. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm answers –– 4133

Ability of PREP offices to handle income assistance recipients. Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm answers –– 4133

Seattle-Victoria jetfoil service. Mr. Wallace –– 4133

Payments to MacMillan Bloedel and Canadian Forest Products. Mr. Levi ––

Cost-of-living increases for senior citizens. Ms. Brown –– 4134

Assistance to Railwest employees. Hon. Mr. Williams answers –– 4135

Presenting reports

Law Reform Commission report on tort liability of public bodies. Hon. Mr.

Williams –– 4135

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates.

On vote 203.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4136

Ms. Sanford –– 4136

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4139

Mr. Lea –– 4140

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4140

Mr. King –– 4140

Mr. Wallace –– 4144

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4147

Ms. Brown –– 4149

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4153

Mr. King –– 4155

Mr. Gibson –– 4157

Mrs. Wallace –– 4160

Appendix –– 4163

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education) : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

SURREY DODGE ICBC CLAIMS

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brought to the House some information that was completely new to me with respect to Surrey Dodge. He stated that Surrey Dodge owed $2,500 to ICBC on another policy entirely - that is, an Autoplan fleet policy -at the time ICBC paid Surrey Dodge $1,850 in settlement of a general insurance claim. I said yesterday afternoon that I would check this information and report back to the House. This is my first opportunity to make such a report, since the information was not available to me by the time the House adjourned last night.

The member was correct, Mr. Speaker, in that ICBC files did show an account receivable from Surrey Dodge of $2,430.66 under the Autoplan fleet account of Surrey Dodge Ltd. at the time the claim was paid. Mr. Speaker, the NDP set up ICBC so that general insurance would operate independently of Autoplan. It had never been the policy to check on Autoplan funds owing before paying a claim under general insurance, providing the general insurance premium had been paid.

Thus when the claims coverage committee authorized payment of the Surrey Dodge claim, payment was issued from the Surrey claim centre without cross-checking the Autoplan fleet policy. I have not been able to determine why this information was not obtained in the original report I tabled with this House. Whether the policy of not crossing general insurance and Autoplan accounts was correct will be reviewed by the board of directors at their next meeting.

The corporation has today obtained an opinion from Mr. E.T. Cantell, superintendent

of insurance, that it would not have been legal for the corporation to deduct

the Autoplan premiums due from the general insurance claims. I will table this

letter with the House. Mr. Cantell indicates that it is his instant view that

such a course of action would have violated

section 19 (

l) of the Insurance

Act. The corporation would first have to have obtained a judgment against Surrey

Dodge for Autoplan funds owing. Mr. Cantell states: "It is important to

remember that any other course of action would jeopardize a policy holder entitled

to payment of insurance money upon the happening of the event against which

he has sought to protect himself by a contract of insurance."

As I explained to members during estimates, the complete files of Surrey Dodge will be made available to the public accounts committee along with any other documents the members wish to have for their next meeting on August 2,1977.

In view of

section 12 of the Automobile Insurance Act, I'm not at liberty to table the files themselves with the House, since that would make them public documents. Nevertheless, all of the material will be available for complete scrutiny by the members. Any employee of the corporation will be present for questioning at the request of the committee.

The Surrey Dodge file is in the hands of the RCMP so that any criminal matter can be referred directly to them for investigation. The general manager assures me that all proper steps will be taken to recover any moneys owing to the corporation by Surrey Dodge.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster) : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand what the minister is saying. I'm very pleased that he is going to make all vouchers available. I just want to ask that all correspondence also be made available at the time - that is, any correspondence pertaining to the billings of Surrey Dodge. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that there was widespread knowledge of the amount owing.

My last statement, Mr. Speaker, is that what Mr. Cantell says is quite true; you would be contravening the Act unless you got a judgment. That is everybody's right to get a judgment and they should have had that judgment at the time they paid the claim. There is no reason why the claim should have been paid under those circumstances.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt) : Mr. Speaker, visiting in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Yvonne Andrews. She is accompanied by a friend from Wellington, New Zealand, Sheila Dryden. I would like the House to make them welcome.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture) : Mr. Speaker, visiting in the gallery today is Mrs. Emma Challen, who is the mother of my secretary. Mrs. Challen is a native-born Victorian and this is the first time she has been in the Legislature. With Mrs. Challen is her granddaughter, Laura Tischer, who is visiting Victoria for the first time from Calgary. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan) : Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to give a very warm

[ Page 4132 ]

welcome to guests of my well-known and much admired secretary, Mrs. McCubbin, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Stirling and their sons Michael and David, who are from Kelowna, the constituency of the Premier.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment) : Mr. Speaker, two constituents -from the municipality of Richmond are in the gallery today. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Alex Bulinger and Mr. Warren Heard.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development) : Mr. Speaker, sitting in the Speaker's gallery today are David Radler and his wife, Rona. Accompanying them to Victoria are David's parents from Miami Beach, Florida, Herb and Dina Radler. They are visiting Victoria for the day only and I hope the House will join me in giving them a warm welcome.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition) : I'd like to add my welcome to the Radlers in this House. I'd like to point out that Mr. Radler is doing a good public service on the British Columbia Development Corporation, a corporation established by this government and thoughtfully carried on by the present administration.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South) : Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to see the Vancouver South contingent who were able to get here today. In the gallery are Mrs. Nora Bylander and Mrs. Ivy Bradbeer, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General) : Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart I would inform the House of a very serious tragedy that occasioned in the province earlier this morning. I just learned about it before coming to the House. I received a telephone call from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and apparently seven crippled youngsters drowned in a flat-bottom boat at Lake Cowichan. I don't have specific particulars as yet but I do know that all members would wish me to express our deepest sorrow and prayers for all those involved and concerned.

Introduction of bills.

CREDIT UNIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Mair, Bill 80, Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1977, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

ENERGY OUTLOOK HEARINGS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. The B.C. Energy Commission announced energy outlook hearings throughout the province of B.C. some time ago. My first question to the minister is whether these public hearings have indeed been postponed on the minister's instructions for a period that can't yet be determined, possibly put off until the middle of the fall or possibly next year. Was that your instruction?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications) : Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy. It was considered by cabinet advisable to begin an inquiry, if in fact one is held, later in the fall or in the spring.

MR. MACDONALD : Since B.C. Hydro's electrical energy demand projections have been considerably higher than those of the B.C. Energy Commission, have there been representations from the chairman of B.C. Hydro to the government with respect to cancelling the energy outlook hearings of the Energy Commission?

HON. MR. DAVIS : No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no such representations.

MR. MACDONALD : On a supplementary, has there been a management survey consultant's report ordered for the B.C. Energy Commission, which has some 36 employees, including secretarial, and if so, who did the study and how much did it cost?

HON. MR. DAVIS : As I recall, Mr. Speaker, a very small study was commissioned. I'll get the particulars as to what firm carried that out. I do know it is completed and I do know that it was a minor study.

MR. MACDONALD : On another supplementary, I ask the minister whether the government, under his direction, is not simply undercutting the B.C. Energy Commission on the basis that all energy decisions in this province are going to be made in future by the chairman of B.C. Hydro as an energy czar for the province of B.C.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The supplementary question is irregular. It's argumentative, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD : Well, Mr. Speaker, it is an important point because I see the Energy Commission going down the drain under this government, and all

[ Page 4133 ]

the decisions coming from Robert Bonner.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD : The minister wants to answer.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Regardless of whether you consider it an important point or not, it is an irregular question and is out of order.

RENTAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATIONS

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide answers to oral questions.

Firstly, they are all very brief except one, and I'll table it. The first is from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) with respect to the applications sent out for people requesting assistance with respect to rentals. Our experience indicates that advance issuance too often results in loss of forms and, as a consequence, we delayed distribution of these forms until mid-June. The response to date has been quite extensive, but recognizing that some individuals might not be able to meet the July 15 deadline indicated on the forms, we have extended the application period to July 31.

Therefore an eligible recipient who applies prior to July 31 will receive the appropriate rental overage benefit for the month of July. If the application is too late for computer processing, retroactive payment for July will be initiated in August. Anyone making application on or after August 1,1977, must comply with existing policy for qualification for rental overage benefits.

ABILITY OF PREP OFFICES TO

HANDLE INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

There was a question from the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. The member asked if any recipients of income assistance were being turned away from PREP, offices in Vancouver. A memorandum was issued by job finder Debbie De Marco, who works from the East Hastings Canada Manpower Office. The memorandum, which was issued only to three Vancouver Resources Board offices in the area, indicated that due to holidays a regular number of clients could not be handled.

However, subsequent to this unauthorized memorandum, a summer student with extensive interviewing experience was hired. Records for the office during this period indicate that, in fact, the volume of clients assisted increased and there was no reduction in services as was suggested by the hon. member.

In response to a question from the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , the hon. member filed the information suggesting that the provincial rehabilitation employment programme staff had referred to Mr. Greg Parker in Ladysmith to an employer who failed to provide the stated compensation for the work. The information received by the hon. member was in error. The applicant was referred by the office of the Community Employment Strategy in Nanaimo, which is a federally funded and operated programme.

The final question was from the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , and because it is rather lengthy I think perhaps there is one place on the order paper I should file the response to it.

SEATTLE-VICTORIA JETFOIL SERVICE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay) : To the Minister of Energy and Transportation. Since traffic on the Princess Marguerite last month was down 18 per cent, and since the Washington State Ferries has announced its intention to initiate a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria, and since the Washington ferries director, Mr. Andreas, has stated that he has not yet contacted the British Columbia government, will the minister be taking any initiative to expedite an early meeting with representatives of the Washington State Ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly interested in any plans that Washington State Ferries may have to serve Victoria, among other points, including those on the Puget Sound. I note, however, that the jetfoil proposal, if in fact it is taken up by Washington state, would not be operative for at least two years.

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Speaker, when the minister and Mr. Gallagher, the general manager of B.C. Ferry Corporation, recently rejected a proposal by Boeing to initiate a joint jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle, did the minister at that time have any knowledge of plans by the Washington State Ferries to develop a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, I certainly never rejected the possibility of the Boeing Company or a combination of firms including the Boeing Company operating a jetfoil or jetfoils between Seattle and Victoria or other points in the United States and Victoria. All that I could have been quoted as saying is that B.C. Ferries is not immediately interested in buying a jetfoil or jetfoils.

MR. WALLACE : Since the Princess Marguerite provides transportation for a larger number of passengers at lesser cost than the jetfoil service, but

[ Page 4134 ]

takes twice as long, does the minister have any concern that a jetfoil service would further reduce the passenger utilization of the Princess Marguerite, with consequent economic and employment repercussions?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, it could reduce the traffic on the Marguerite somewhat. I think, however, jetfoil service and the Marguerite service are, to a large extent, complementary. I did say earlier that the jetfoil competition, if in fact it arises, is at least two years away.

PAYMENTS TO MACMILLAN

BLOEDEL AND CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard) : To the Attorney-General. Last Thursday I asked the Attorney-General if he was prepared to.... I'm sure he's listening.

MR. SPEAKER : To the hon. Attorney-General.

MR. LEVI : Yes. Attention! Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Attorney-General if he was prepared to initiate an inquiry into the matters concerning the unauthorized payments in respect to MacMillan Bloedel and Canadian Forest Products. Is the minister in a position to reply at the moment?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General) : No, I'm not. I'll take your question as notice.

MR. LEVI : Oh, because I wanted to add something, Mr. Speaker. In order to assist the minister....

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, I just interrupt you very briefly to say that if it's to add information, fine; but if it's a supplemental question to one on notice, it would be improper.

MR. LEVI : It's information, Mr. Speaker. Last week, during the question, the minister seemed to indicate that he had not received certain letters which I think would assist him.

There was a letter sent by Mr. Paddy Neale, a copy of which went to the Attorney-General on May 3, relating to this matter. I would ask him if he would like to get a copy of the letter sent in reply by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) in which he stated: "Since the instances of irregularities referred to are all Criminal Code matters and do not fall within the jurisdiction of my ministry, any comments which might be made by this government will have to come from the Attorney-General."

Does the Attorney-General have a copy of that letter?

HON. MR. GARDOM : No.

MR. LEVI : I'll provide him with a copy then.

MR. BARRETT : Well, don't you guys get together?

SENIOR CITIZENS COLA INCREASE

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard) : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for answering one of the questions which he took as notice ...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN : ... and to ask whether he is ready to answer the question which I put to him on June 14 and again on July 5, about the cost-of-living increase which the federal government introduced on July 1 for senior citizens over the age of 65. 1 asked whether the Ministry of Human Resources was going to give a similar increase to people between the ages of 60 and 65. The minister took that as notice on June 14. I'm wondering if he is ready to answer that question now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I don't recall taking that as notice. As a matter of fact, I think I responded then, as I must now, that it is a matter of policy.

MS. BROWN : I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister know that serial letter 544448 from his office, dated July 20, went out saying that the government was not going to give this cost-of-living increase to people between the ages of 60 and 65? Does the minister know what is going on in his department?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I believe you stated your question.

MS. BROWN : The minister doesn't know what Dianne Hartwick is doing in his office. The minister doesn't know what the PREP programme is doing.

MR. SPEAKER : Will the hon. member please take her seat?

MS. BROWN : Does the minister know that the serial letter went out saying that. he was not going to be giving this?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!

[ Page 4135 ]

MS. BROWN : He wants to take over the Vancouver Resources Board and he doesn't know what is going on in his department.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, you've asked your supplemental question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, these serial letters are sent out every quarter to inform the offices with regard to the cost-of-living increase which is granted federally and which is passed through. The hon. member has placed an

interpretation on the letter that doesn't exist in the letter.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat) : Do you have a supplementary, Norm? Mr. Speaker, I will defer to the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. LEVI : I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. The minister indicated that he is not aware of the serial letter that goes out. But surely there has to be an approval by the minister of an expenditure of money. Did you not approve it?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI : I'm asking him; he's the minister now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I don't know. Obviously the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, was not listening, and I will repeat again. I certainly was aware of the serial letter that goes out every quarter to advise the offices of the pass-through of the federal increase, the cost-of-living adjustment. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, as I stated, put an

interpretation on the letter which doesn't exist.

MR. LEVI : Am I to take it, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is saying that all quarterly increases will be passed on without reference to his office? Is that what he is saying?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, I didn't say that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member again is saying something which wasn't said previously. These quarterly increases are brought to the attention of the ministry and they are dealt with as they have been for the last several years in a similar manner.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files answers to questions 13 and 73.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tables a letter.

Hon. Mr. Phillips files answer to question 75.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt files answers to questions raised during his estimates.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the report of the Law Reform Commission of B.C., Tort Liability of Public Bodies.

ASSISTANCE TO RAILWEST EMPLOYEES

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour) : Mr. Speaker, I didn't want to take the time in question period. I would like to have the opportunity to make a brief response to a question posed by the Leader of the Opposition.

With regard to Railwest, a question was asked of me by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) originally, about assistance being afforded to the employees of that organization. Then the Leader of the Opposition inquired if I would file a copy of the agreement. I said that I understood the agreement had been signed in the last seven or 10 days. I find in one respect I was right and in another respect I was wrong because there are two agreements. The agreement in which the Ministry of Labour was involved with Canada Manpower was an agreement dated and signed June 22,1977.

It was an agreement which resulted from a request on behalf of the union to Canada Manpower for certain assistance to be made available to employees who were considering relocating themselves at that time. That agreement is in my possession and it is being sent down to my office. I'll be happy to lay it on the table so that the Leader of the Opposition can review it.

The second agreement, which is the Canada Manpower Mobility Incentive Agreement, is an agreement between the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration and the company in which the Ministry of Labour was not a party. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we were not a party. I am finding out that information. At any rate, the information I have is that that agreement was signed July 21. A copy is not presently in my possession, but I have asked to have it made available. I will table that as well.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 203: minister's office, $131,284 -

continued.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Ministre de Travail, vote 203.

[ Page 4136 ]

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre) : I would ask the Attorney-General to kindly consult his Larousse de poche for the correct pronunciation of "Minister of Labour" en.francais.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Last evening the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) addressed some remarks to the House. She posed one specific question and I will have the response to that directly. However, 'she made some other general comments and I would like to have the opportunity of responding very briefly to them.

In regard to the Vietnamese fund, the decision was a government decision. It was announced by the Premier, as it properly should be. It was not as a result of any pressure placed upon the Premier by me or indeed by any other minister, but it was one taken after careful consideration by the government. I do not believe there is any difference in the position taken by me and the hon. Provincial Secretary with regard to what the government's obligation was in regard to that fund.

The hon. member was kind enough to suggest that I was being trampled upon by other ministers of this government. I assure you that is not the case. Just as the hon. member does, I look forward to debating legislation which will be coming before this House without offending the rules, Mr. Chairman.

I would like, however, to correct some of the impressions which were left by the member when she was talking about the unemployment situation in this province. It is typical of some commentaries that attention is paid to the numbers game of percentages of unemployed. I think it is a negative approach and it overlooks completely the positive results with regard to employment which we are currently enjoying in British Columbia.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert) : What do you do when you are in opposition?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : She referred to statistics produced by the Ministry of Labour, as we do each month, and I am referring to the most recent issue of the labour force statistics, June, 1977. In dealing with employment growth, which I suggest is a more positive approach to this problem and one which indicates quite clearly the confidence that is being restored to this province under this government, I would quote from the report.

"Employment growth over the past 12 months remains strong.

B.C.'s 4.3 per cent increase is well above the national average of 1.9 per

cent, a margin that has been retained from the last month. Unemployment remains

at its level of the previous year; but as can be seen from the statistics, national

unemployment has risen way over 16 per cent. Ours is remaining static. These

trends are common to the three western provinces, whose labour market performance

has generally exceeded that of the nation as a whole.

"Total employment in the province was up 15,000 persons over May of this year, an increase of 1.4 per cent of the work force and an increase of 45,000 persons over one year ago.

MR. LEA : That's not good enough.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS :

"Employment totalled 1,000, 100 persons during the month of June. The total employment appeared to increase most significantly among men, up 13,000, and among younger workers, up 10,000.

"With regard to performance in various sectors of the economy, in the manufacturing sector employment showed an increase of 4,000 persons over the month of May, but over the previous year experienced the largest increase - 17,000 persons over June of 1976.

"In the service sector, the only significant increase during the month was a 7,000-person increase in transportation, communication and other utilities group. Compared to one year earlier, the clerical, sales, service and other primary occupations have all shown increases in the 11,000- to 13,000-persons range, while the number of persons employed in processing occupations has regretfully fallen by 8,000 persons."

Mr. Chairman, no one in this nation can be satisfied with these employment figures, but to suggest that the actions of this government have not been effective is to deny the statistics and to fail to relate the importance of those statistics to the results which are obtained throughout the rest of this country.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox) : To go back over the minister's first comments with respect to the decision on Vietnam, I indicated yesterday that I was pleased with the position the minister took, as was quoted in The Vancouver Sun

article some months ago, and I indicated that in that same

article the Provincial Secretary indicated that, no, the government did not have a responsibility to honour that commitment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : An obligation.

MS. SANFORD : An obligation, all right. An obligation, a responsibility - they're virtually the same as far as I can tell, Mr. Chairman. But it was during the discussion of the Premier's estimates that we

[ Page 4137 ]

raised this issue - the day that the front page story appeared which seemed to give conflicting statements by two ministers within that government. It was because the opposition on that day, during the estimates of the Premier, pushed and pushed to find out where the Premier stood. Did he feel the government had no obligation, or did he agree with the Minister of Labour, who said: "Yes, I do feel we have an obligation to honour the commitment that had been made by a previous parliament."?

That announcement was made that very afternoon during the discussion of the Premier's estimates and what I said yesterday, Mr. Chairman, still stands. It was because this minister was prepared to come out and support the concept that the Premier, in fact, was shamed, through questioning by the opposition at that time, into saying: "Yes, I do feel that this government has a responsibility." He was responding that afternoon to pressures from the opposition which stemmed from a news story at that time. But I'm pleased the decision was made and I'm pleased the minister took that stand at that time.

I compliment him for it, but I just wanted to go on record as pointing out how the whole thing came about.

Mr. Chairman, the minister this afternoon - and I'm afraid that governments are inclined to do this -was trying to tell us that 8.3 per cent level of unemployment is indeed showing that British Columbia is in good shape, that the government is doing a fine job, and that that is acceptable. I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Chairman, how the lineups of unemployed, particularly among the young people, continue to grow to the extent where actual jostling and fighting for position in a line so that they can get a job in this province is taking place. That is unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.

That situation can be thrown right back on the shoulders of the provincial government in terms of the actions that they have taken, particularly in their approach to economics during the past 18 or 19 months.

Mr. Chairman, it's a bleak winter for the people of this province. If we have levels of 8.3 per cent unemployment at this time, you can be assured, Mr. Chairman, that this winter the lineups are going to be even longer than they are now.

There is one thing that I would like to mention this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, with respect to other comments that the minister made. You know, I don't envy any Minister of Labour in any government across Canada, or the world for that matter, because it's one of the most sensitive jobs that any cabinet minister can undertake. In this province, Mr. Chairman, it's a far more difficult job than it is in many other jurisdictions, because in B.C. we've had a volatile labour-management relationship for years and years, and the minister is aware of that. The minister also knows how essential it is that the climate be right for that very sensitive procedure called collective bargaining to take place.

Now this minister, Mr. Chairman, we had assumed had a lot of stature within his government. He seemed to be on top of the situation. He seems to have control most of the time and we've noticed that he's been given some quite important positions within cabinet, such as chairing the committee that heard the appeals on the Revelstoke dam.

We notice that people within cabinet are very often going to that minister to confer with him, to get his opinions; they value his opinions. That is why we cannot understand and we cannot accept the fact that other ministers are treading on his direct jurisdiction at this time. They are pushing him around, Mr. Chairman, and he is remaining very silent on the whole issue.

We have the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) both moving in and saying that the Labour Code shall not apply. Here we have sitting there the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the administration of the Labour Code and who knows how important it is that the sensitive climate between labour and management be maintained out there. Yet he is being pushed around to this extent.

The minister said we can talk about bills that are on the order paper when they come up for discussion. But, Mr. Chairman, this is his direct jurisdiction that is being interfered with. I think the minister should have some comments at this stage about the Labour Code, one of the most important pieces of legislation in this whole province, being set aside on behalf of other ministers. I'm not going to dwell on it and I'm not going to talk about the legislation that is on the order paper.

If this minister is to be successful, he must show that he is strong and that he is not prepared to have other ministers enter into his jurisdiction and push him around and tramp all over him. I'm afraid that is what is happening, Mr. Chairman.

I have an example of another minister who is intruding into his jurisdiction and the Minister of Labour is not saying anything about it.

We had an announcement, some time ago, by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , concerning the Council of Public Sector Employers.

MR. LEA : The Minister of Finance - who's he?

MS. SANFORD : The Minister of Finance made this announcement ...

MR. LEA : What does he look like?

MS. SANFORD : ... about a sector that is going to be set up of all of those who are employing people in the public sector.

[ Page 4138 ]

MR. LEA : He's a sheep in Wolfe's clothing.

MS. SANFORD : It is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, that in this morning's Vancouver Province we have the mayor of Vancouver saying that the provincial government, as announced by the Minister of Finance, is setting up a new provincial bureaucracy, which he is opposed to because he sees it as a possible threat to the autonomy of municipalities in labour relations matters. That's in today's Province.

Labour relations matters under this Council of Public Sector Employers announced by the Minister of Finance - where is the Minister of Labour on this? Why is he not speaking out and expressing his concern about the possible intrusion of this particular council into the jurisdiction of labour-management relations? He is very silent on it. I'm wondering if he has the clout in cabinet that we originally thought he had. I'm wondering if he is still sitting there, prepared to be pushed around by this minister, that minister and the other ministers.

This council, as announced by the Minister of Finance, is intruding into the jurisdiction of labour-management relations, according to the mayor of Vancouver. I haven't heard the minister say anything about this. Perhaps the minister has not even seen the coverage in the paper today about this. But I doubt that, Mr. Chairman. He probably knows about it.

I am wondering what has prompted the mayor, Jack Volrich, to make those comments in the paper today. Is it that the Minister of Labour does not have the clout in cabinet to ensure that there is no intrusion on his jurisdiction and that he has had to go to the mayor of Vancouver and say: "Please speak out on this. We need someone to speak out because labour-management relations are being interfered with again by yet another minister within that cabinet."? I wonder if that is how the whole thing came about.

In the same article, Mr. Al Keylock, who is the acting director of this council, says that the organization is purely voluntary, that there is no money set aside by the provincial government on this and that there are to be eight staff people. I don't know how they are going to be paid. That is also in direct contradiction to the working paper that was presented to the Minister of Finance, of all people, on this particular issue. The working paper suggests, under a

section called "funding, " that the budget will probably have to be in the order of at least $250,000 and that there will be at least 50 people required to operate this Council of Public Sector Employers.

This is a council, Mr. Chairman, which the government is setting up - while the minister is sitting silently, not even taking an interest in it, so it seems - in order to hold down the wages of people who work in the public sector. That is what this council is all about. It will probably grow to a staff of about 50, as is recommended in their working paper on this issue.

It will probably cost $1.25 million in order to ensure that those people working in the public sector now will have their wages kept down once the anti-inflation programme is no longer in place. The minister has said that he is not keen to have an anti-inflation board as such set up in this province. He told us very clearly that it would be unworkable and disastrous. Yet here we have a Council of Public Sector Employers which is being set up by this government, announced by a minister other than the Minister of Labour, which is set up to keep down the wages of working people employed in the public sector.

. Mr. Chairman, the climate under which all industrial relations take place in this province is extremely important, and I am afraid that the climate can very easily be destroyed. The former minister worked very hard to establish that climate by bringing in the best possible labour legislation so that the whole collective bargaining process could take place without interference. He was able to establish the confidence of both the employers and employees in this province, which is an absolute essential ingredient if we are going to have labour peace.

I am afraid that this minister through his colleagues and his adopted caucus is allowing that climate to be eroded and destroyed. It's happening. People out there are afraid. Just look at what has happened under the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . Look at the way in which the public employees there have been treated and what kind of morale they have at this stage because of the way they have been handled, because of the industrial relations carried out through that minister. Then we have the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) ; then we have the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) ; then the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) - all of them. Then we have the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) laying off those people on the ferries and again causing a very low morale within the employees on the ferry fleet. It's happening time and time again.

The people out there, the public, are now wondering what kind of clout this Minister of Labour has in this province. Why isn't he speaking out? Why isn't he protecting the rights of workers under the Labour Code? Why is he allowing these other ministers to intrude upon his jurisdiction in that way? Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's good enough for the Minister of Labour to simply say: "Oh, we'll discuss that on whatever bills are on the order paper." I hope the minister is prepared to get up and give us some indication that he still has some strength and clout in

[ Page 4139 ]

that cabinet.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : The member for Comox suggested that she didn't envy any Minister of Labour. Well, I think she should. This is a challenging responsibility and one which I enjoy very much. It gives me the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to work with such distinguished officials of the ministry as Deputy Minister James Matkin, who is seated behind me on the floor, and beside him, Assistant Deputy Minister Frank Rhodes, who is responsible for the total administration of the ministry. I hope that Associate Deputy Minister Azad of the manpower division will be able to be here later in the afternoon.

Yes, the member for Comox is correct that industrial relations is a very volatile relationship, and I respect very much the advances that were made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) when he occupied this portfolio in dampening some of the strong feelings that those relationships had developed. Many of the programmes which he had under consideration or had initiated have been brought to fruition and improved upon under my ministry.

In addition, we have also embarked upon programmes which are specifically designed to calm the climate which is so necessary for proper industrial relations practices to be carried out. That will be the policy of this ministry, and nothing which I will do as minister will change that direction. In the fullness of time we will realize industrial peace and harmony for the better advantage of the economy of this province for all people - workers and employers alike - only if we are able to achieve that kind of relationship.

I would like to remind the member for Comox, if she could care to take it into account, that there is developing in this province a new relationship between employers and employees as represented by their trade unions such as we would not have seen half a dozen years ago.

I had the pleasure, with my deputy minister, of attending a meeting of the Skeena Manpower Development Committee in Terrace a few weeks ago. This is an organization that was started with a small nucleus of employers' representatives and employees' representatives to see whether they couldn't come together around the same table and develop an area of communication which previously had not been existing in that part of this province. They were quite frank to admit that at the first meeting the tension was pretty high.

After successive meetings, they found that it was possible to communicate one with the other; that there was a recognition of similar problems; but more importantly, that there was a recognition of the importance of resolving those problems other than through the means of industrial dispute. Great advances have been made. Many more advances must be made. But at least there is the ready willingness on the part of both sides - if you want two sides - in that area.

The member talks about the council of public sector employers. I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the initiation and subsequent activities of the council of public sector employers are on a voluntary basis, and they will not carry out any responsibilities which are contrary to the laws of this province.

Indeed, that is not their function any more than in the private sector organizations of employers, or organizations of trade unions, who join together for the purpose of mutual benefit are allowed to function outside the laws of this province, contrary to the Code, or in the case of the public sector, as far as the government service is concerned, contrary to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. That is fundamental to the formation of the council.

I haven't seen the remarks of His Worship, the Mayor of Vancouver, but if he believes that the council is in any way an interference with the responsibility of the mayor and his council in labour relations matters, then I hasten to assure him that is not the case. Not only is it not the case, but if any move were made in that direction it would not be permitted by the Minister of Labour, nor indeed by the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Chairman, the member shouldn't be surprised by the formation of a Council of Public Sector Employers, because there is already in existence a similar grouping of public sector trade unions. As a matter of fact, I understand that the public sector trade unions have indicated a willingness to sit down with the council of employers in order that there may be a clear understanding of what their respective roles will be in the public sector.

So, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the hon. member that she need have no fears about what this council may do. It is a place for the exchange of information and not one which will have any role in collective bargaining or the resolution of industrial disputes.

Lastly, I would like to say that the member insists that the Ministry of Labour is somehow or other the keystone or the cornerstone of the entire government and that every decision of every ministry somehow or other impinges upon the Ministry of Labour. That is not true, and the member knows it.

MS. SANFORD : I didn't say it either.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : With regard to decisions which are made - and they are government decisions - all cabinet ministers are involved in the making of those decisions. They are not made as a result of trampling over anyone or pushing anyone aside. That may have been the case with some cabinet ministers in the days of the NDP government, but it certainly is not the way in which this government functions.

Specifically, last evening the member asked me

[ Page 4140 ]

how many young persons were registered with the youth referral service operated by the Ministry of Labour. The answer to that is, as of this date, the total number registered is 32,351. Those young persons may be referred to either Phase I or Phase 2 of the employment programme. To date, 15,900 such young persons have been referred and have found employment.

MS. SANFORD : Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us how many more students are likely to be employed. He says they have 15,900 now and 32,000 applicants. How many more are likely to be hired with the money that was made available? We must recall that initially the government put in $15 million here and then added another $7.5 million because the situation in this province is so bad.

The other points I would like to make, going back to the Council of Public Sector Employers, is that the least the government can do with respect to setting up this employers' council is to consult with the people involved.

In this same

article that was brought to my attention this morning, in the Vancouver Province, we have His Worship Mayor Jack Volrich saying: "We expected to be consulted, and find it regrettable that the provincial government chose to ignore the municipalities in setting up this bureaucracy." They have not even been consulted. No wonder they are concerned about intrusion into labour-management relations as far as the GVRD and the municipalities are concerned. What goes on?

The minister tries to indicate to us that these are decisions that are being made, and that it's a voluntary thing and they are having a lot of work being done in terms of research and involving people and finding out, and yet we have the mayor of the largest city in British Columbia saying: "I wish we were consulted." I hope that the provincial government takes note of the fact that Mayor VoIrich is unhappy about this situation and that he would like to be involved and consulted. Again we find this government steaming ahead, without consulting the people that are going to be affected by the decisions that it's undertaking.

MR. LEA : I suppose the Minister of Labour's job is somewhat like that of a fireman: there's only one time that a real test can be applied, which is when there's a fire or when there's a problem that really calls upon the skills of a good Labour minister. I hope that when that occasion arises this minister will stand the test. I know that he's gone around, as the firemen do, filling bottles during the course of time between fires, but we haven't really had a fire yet. But the time will come - I'm sure we all hope it doesn't -when that does happen, and I just hope this minister can take that kind of heat.

There's one area that I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions on, and that's the summer employment programme. I'd like to first of all ask the minister whether within the last month he's had a report, internal or otherwise, in his desk on that programme, and whether there's anything in that report that would indicate that not all is well administratively, that maybe money has gone to employers where it should have gone to other employers, or whether there is maybe'25 per cent overspending or underspending.

But first of all let's just deal and see whether the minister has a report on his desk that he may have had done that he's read within the last month that would indicate that not all is well. Before I go on with any further questions I'd just like to ask the minister whether I'm even close. Has there been any report in his desk that would indicate that not all is well administratively with that programme?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Chairman, first of all, maybe the Minister of Labour is like a fireman, and all firemen are tested when there's a fire, but like all good fire departments I think that the best work is done when there are no fires, and they actively carry on work of prevention and education'to ensure that that test is never reached, because the consequences of the supreme test can be pretty severe.

With regard to the youth employment programme, I have not had a report. We operate as part of the youth employment programme an assessment group, as we did last year. The report was critical of some aspects of the programme which was run during 1976, and as a result we made changes. I can't tell if the report this year will be critical, because it hasn't been completed, but, like all of these programmes, we're looking for criticism and for competent assessment so it can be approved. I have no report down on my desk but I know the assessment group is functioning.

MR. LEA : Has the report that was done on the programme for last year been made public?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : No.

MR. LEA : Will it be? Could it be tabled in the House during your estimates, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : No. It's an internal report with regard to administrative matters only. It deals with the functioning of personnel in the Ministry of Labour and with personnel in other ministries, and it's not one which I will table.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan) : Mr. Chairman, I've been listening very closely to the minister, and certainly I want to associate myself

[ Page 4141 ]

with his remarks regarding the excellence of the staff in the Ministry of Labour, not only in senior positions, but certainly it is my experience that personnel in the entire department were extremely competent and extremely enthusiastic about the jobs that they were doing. I'm glad to hear that that is still the case.

My colleague, the member for Comox, has discussed with the minister the whole rather intangible area of an adequate climate in which healthy industrial relations can function in the province, and the minister has commented on it too, Mr. Chairman. Certainly it's my strong belief that there has to be an attitude created within which industrial relations can function with some spirit of security in terms of the rights of the people involved - both trade unions and employers groups.

In my view, that certainly is a key prerequisite to making any advances in what the minister indicates is his goal of bringing about a situation where there is relative industrial peace. I don't think the utopian goal of complete industrial peace will ever be attained but certainly there is a great deal of improvement to be striven for.

I was interested, Mr. Chairman, in the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , if I can depart for just a moment to set an example for the Minister of Labour in terms of how important it is for ministers of the Crown, no matter which portfolio they preside over, to not only be the custodians of the jurisdiction designated to them, but to indicate very demonstrably to their client groups, as it were, that they are prepared to protect the integrity and the jurisdiction of the portfolio which they have been appointed to administer. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Forests was very concerned about budworms eating up the forests. He was prepared to mount a major attack on those budworms and to poison them. His cabinet colleagues were more concerned about the environment and they shot the minister down. But did that stop the Minister of Forests? No way. He's out there waging verbal warfare on the budworms, determined not to rest until he sees their complete demise.

Mr. Chairman, what we have with respect to the Minister of Labour are incessant attacks upon the rights of working people, as expressed through their trade union organization, by various of his cabinet colleagues, without one utterance from the Minister of Labour to indicate that he will stand against unwarranted and questionable legal incursions into his jurisdiction; that he will be in reality the defender of the rights of working people and management organizations as well. I think, Mr.

Chairman, that it might help just to read some significant sections of the Labour Code which the Minister of Labour has just finished stating he will defend the integrity of. He indicated that if the charges of His Worship the mayor of Vancouver are true, then the full weight of the minister's office and the Labour Relations Board in terms of protecting the spirit and the concept of the Labour Code law would be brought into play.

Section 2 of the Labour Code confers certain rights upon people. That is the very essence of the law governing industrial relations in this province.

Section 2 says: "Every employee is free to be a member of a trade union and to participate in its lawful activities." That is a basic foundation. Similar rights are given to employer groups. Every employer is free to be a member of an employers' organization and to participate in its lawful activities. There are certain key sections of the law surrounding industrial relations, giving basic rights as the foundation of industrial relations in the province.

Section 27 of the Labour Code deals with the objectives and the underlying philosophy of the law which the Minister of Labour administers. I think that it would be appropriate to read part of that at least, Mr. Chairman. It says, in giving powers to the board to actually be the administrative apparatus of effecting the Labour Code law:

"The board may exercise the powers and shall perform the duties conferred or imposed upon it under this Act in accordance with the following purposes and objects:

"

a) promoting effective industrial relations in the interests

of achieving and maintaining good working conditions and the well-being of the

public.

"

b) encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees.

"

c) promoting conditions favourable to the orderly and constructive

settlement of disputes between employers and employees and between employers

and trade unions as the freely chosen representative of employees.

"

d) securing and maintaining industrial peace and furthering harmonious relations between employers and employees."

I want to ask the Minister of Labour how he squares those objectives; how he squares his responsibility to defend those principles that are law in the province of British Columbia against the abolition of certified trade unions, against the abolition of successor rights to certain trade unions in the province in direct contravention of the rights given to them in the Labour Code of British Columbia. How does he square that? And how does he explain his silence on these matters?

It's true that in most cases his colleagues in the executive council are the offenders. But, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Labour will stand silent for his colleagues running over the principles and rights of the law that he is sworn to uphold, can trade unions and management groups in the province have

[ Page 4142 ]

any confidence that the minister will grant them the full measure of the law against incursions from anyone else, whether it be a private organization, employer or trade union? The minister has remained silent; he has allowed the law that he administers to be thrown out the window, denying statutory rights to the workers that are conveyed on them in the Labour Code of British Columbia. He has allowed the function of the Labour Relations Board, which is a creature of his government responsible for applying the law under the Labour Code of British Columbia, to be circumvented.

He has allowed their integrity to be insulted and he remains silent. Yet he stands up in the House and pays lip service to the objectives of the code.

You can't have it both ways, I suggest, Mr. Chairman. The minister either has to have the intestinal fortitude to stand against unforgivable incursions into the law - contempt for the law that he is sworn to administer - by his political colleagues as well as anyone in the private sector, because it's wrong. It's certainly ill-advised and unnecessary. I suggest that it is going to run counter to his stated objectives of bringing any stability, any harmony and any confidence in the climate for industrial relations in this province. Unquestionably so. The trade union movement is in a state of panic today.

Certainly they are in a state of panic, when you see ads taken out in the daily papers in the city of Vancouver expressing tremendous fears. Perhaps somewhat hysterical. But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that those hysterical fears of the trade union movement could be assuaged greatly if that minister would stand in defence of the integrity of the law which he is sworn to uphold. He has completely forsaken the responsibility that he has to protect the rights of working people in the province.

I want to remind him of

section 2 of the code again. What does it say? It's a basic start and prerequisite for all of the law contained in the Labour Code. It says: "Every employee is free to be a member of a trade union and to participate in its lawful activities." And yet here's the Minister of Labour - and he should be the Minister of Labour, for the rights of all working people to freely bargain collectively - standing anemically silent, Mr. Chairman. He allows those rights conveyed in the code to be completely wiped out. I don't know how he can even look at himself in the mirror in the morning, much less call himself the Minister of Labour. It's a very, very anemic performance.

One of my colleagues asks: is this man going to be strong enough to stand in the face of real tests when it comes to volatile industrial relations in this province? My God, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) had more commitment to the budworms than this minister has to the working people of the province of British Columbia.

He had the gumption and the gall to get up and disagree with his cabinet and colleagues. He wanted to kill the budworms because they threatened the forests he was sworn to protect and husband.

Here we have a Minister of Labour who, with the law contained in the code that he administers that grants certain basic, fundamental rights to trade union people and to working people in this province, sits there with his head in his hand and allows the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to take legislative initiatives which simply thumb their noses at this law and wipe out all of the hard-fought rights of working people for years, I think he's a disgrace, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know; perhaps it's ignorance. Perhaps the reason he lacks any commitment to working people has something to do with his own life experience. I don't know. That's one thing. We are all hung up by our backgrounds to some extent. But I find it unforgivable when the minister displays a shocking ignorance of the law that he is designated to apply and uphold. He's a lawyer, Mr. Chairman. He is well trained. He is certainly a legislator of long standing; he has been in this House for many years. He has had great political experience in a variety of parties, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps that's what makes it easy for him to forget the rights of working people.

What was most unforgivable to me was when the Premier, the Provincial Secretary, the Attorney-General, and old.... Not Leather-lungs but the minister of industrial development - what's his name?

MR. BARRETT : He can't recall.

MR. KING : They all attacked the rights of working people to function in their freely chosen trade union. The Premier's line was: "Well, in the case of a labour dispute, workers should not be allowed to go out and get another job." That was his contribution. Not a very well-educated analysis by any means.

MR. BARRETT : Then the companies should stop making a profit.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : That's what your party supports, isn't it?

MR. KING : We've got to start cutting back on the hours. We've got to start cutting back on the collective agreements and start working people longer hours. There was the Liberal defender of private contracts suggesting that we should interfere with those private collective-agreement contracts and start requiring working people to give up what they have won through collective bargaining - the right to work

[ Page 4143 ]

shorter hours.

It wasn't just the workers' decision; that was a joint agreement entered into between their employer and the employees. Did the Minister of Labour stand up and say: "Keep your cotton-picking nose out of my department. I'm here to protect the rights of working people."? No, he didn't.

MR. BARRETT : No way.

MR. KING : In fact, he added some fuel to the fire, Mr. Chairman. He said in a statement that the trade unions were going to have to be more responsible in revealing the financial accounts of trade unions in the province. He said it should be subject to greater public scrutiny, or some such statement. He was thinking about legislative action to make financial accounting by trade unions more public and more accessible to the public.

Mr. Chairman, he was apparently completely ignorant of

section 143 of the Labour Code he administers. I'm going to read it to him. I think the deputy was away at the time and probably no one was able to bring it to the minister's attention. Perhaps if they did, he has subsequently forgotten. I want to read it to him, Mr. Chairman, so he will understand that if only the Bar association was required to account publicly like trade unions and employers organizations, perhaps there wouldn't be the public criticisms of those ivy league institutions that there is today.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, hon. member. I think the member is aware of the fact that the administrative action of the ministry is open to debate, but necessity for legislation or matters involving legislation are not properly debated. As long as the member is only going to make a passing reference it could be permitted, but to make a general debate out of it would not be proper.

MR. KING : Thank you for your assistance and tolerance, Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly not discussing any legislative initiatives that should take place; I'm simply reminding the minister of the parameters of his administrative responsibility. In order to carry out that responsibility effectively he should know the law that he is sworn to administer.

Section 143 has this to say:

"Every trade union and every employers organization shall make available free of charge to each of its members before the first day of June in each year a copy of the audited financial statement of its affairs to the end of the last fiscal year, signed by its president and treasurer or corresponding principal officers. The financial statement shall contain information in sufficient detail to disclose accurately the financial condition and operations of the trade union or employers organization for its preceding fiscal year." On it goes.

The obligation to fully reveal to members of the organization and to the Labour Relations Board is already inherent in the law which the minister advises. Yet he's out on the hustings, apparently interested in not letting the reactionary statements and admonitions of the Premier and the Provincial Secretary and other members of that disparate lot over there outstrip him.

He was apparently interested in enflaming the . climate a little bit himself by advocating more stringent regulations of free employees organizations, blissfully unaware that the law already required that the full financial accounting be undertaken. If that is a sampling of his approach to creating a better industrial relations climate in the province of British Columbia, then I must say, Mr. Chairman, I fear for the future.

It is interesting that in this regard that right in the magazine, The Provincial, published by the B.C. Government Employees Union - many of them work for the minister in his own department - is the BCGEU general fund statement of revenue and expenses for the year ended March 31,1976. It is there for the world to see. I wonder what the minister meant when he intimated that there might be some legislative initiative to get into the internal workings of trade unions more than is now the case. It is either ignorance or some other motive which has not yet been revealed.

But I am genuinely concerned. If I have been somewhat harsh with the minister, I suggest that it is not nearly as harsh as the treatment that working people in this province have received at the hands of that government thus far. In terms of the operation of the department and his handling of disputes are concerned, I have no criticism to this point or very little - at least for the current year. But I want to say that everything hinges on confidence that the climate and the structure of industrial relations is going to be preserved.

If there is to be any confidence, then that minister has to learn and has to recognize that he is the one on the seat; he is the one with the responsibility for either defending the rights and obligations of employers and working people or he is not worth the title of Minister of Labour in this province. There is great fear and great concern out there in the public at the moment. Who next are going to lose their rights? Who next is going to be arbitrarily certified by a stroke of the legislative pen?

Who next is going to be denied successor status, the right to pick up union certification should the employers change? What about the employers organizations? Is the employers' council safe? I am sure that Bill Hamilton is extremely concerned about the motives of this minister. I know that the FIR,

[ Page 4144 ]

that large agency that bargains for the forest industry, is frightfully concerned about what the minister has in mind for them. I don't know whether he has any decertification plans in mind there or not, but I say this: the trade union movement is quite correct when they say that once the precedent of stripping away rights that have been hard won and accepted both by employers and trade unions is established, then no one else - no organization - is safe. I think it is absolutely incumbent upon the minister to get up and make a clear statement in terms of what he proposes to do to protect the integrity of the laws that he has the obligation to administer.

MR. WALLACE : This debate on the estimates of the minister, I think, is one of the more important ones that we will hold this session. Although it started off on a rather humourous note, Mr. Chairman, my secretary was given a message last night that after the House Leader completed the debate on Education he went into Labour. I found that very interesting, considering his genetic inheritance. At any rate, this isn't an afternoon when there are enough members in the House to appreciate my attempts at humour, obviously. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I notice you're smiling.

Perhaps it is not a good debate in which to make a sexist joke because I want to talk about human rights, and it's that kind of smart-aleck remark I have just made that gets me into trouble.

I appreciated the minister's introductory remarks last night because it gave the members of the opposition some brief outline of the work of the various branches of the minister's responsibilities. I happen to differ a little bit from the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) because I believe that this minister is doing a good job as Minister of Labour. But, as in any summing-up on a minister's performance, I have to admit that there are areas where I have reservations.

It seems to me we have a measure of labour peace in our province at the present time, which in some respects, I believe, is the result of wage and price control, Mr. Chairman. I also fear that it may well be the lull before the storm in the face of decontrol, which the federal government seems determined to implement. That's why I have personally tried to follow the intentions of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) very carefully in question period and at other times, because I'm not sure that this government is prepared to deal, either in the area of employment and labour-management relations, with the very potential risk that exists if the decontrol period is not well managed. That might be a euphemistic way to talk about decontrols when what we really mean is that we will be back to square one, where everybody will be trying to get a bigger share of the pie than they deserve in the absence of legislation to control the situation.

I would agree, in part, with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) that the philosophy of this government in the area of labour management is causing concern. One cannot but understand why unions in British Columbia are fearful in the face of recent legislation introduced by this government. The Social Credit convention left the impression that it was only the clout and the prestige of this minister, together with the Premier, that pushed back some extremist points of view within the party ranks at that convention.

The labour debate at the Social Credit convention, and the legislation which is yet to be debated in this House, must inevitably leave the trade union movement apprehensive. I choose the word "apprehensive" as the most accurate feeling that I get from the various statements made by union representatives and comments from the media.

I know that this minister has a very sensitive perception of the fact that balance in management-labour relations is the crucial factor to be achieved, whether he's the minister or whether this government, or any other government, is in power. Unfortunately, certain trends in this government leave the impression that to date this government is anti-union, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that there appear to be strong anti-union elements within the ranks of the Social Credit government -elements which the minister is having a hard fight to control.

This is for the simple reason that the minister's own personal convictions about how labour-management problems should be handled are much more moderate and middle-of-the-road than those which have been expressed by other members of that government.

I welcome the minister's assurance to the member for Comox this afternoon on re-commencing debate on his estimates that any fears that he would favour anti-union legislation need not give us concern; that he, in fact, does acknowledge the great importance of balance.

Mr. Chairman, to be more specific I would also like to say that there is apprehension by the employers in this province as well. I want to quickly touch on one or two reasons and examples of why employers are also apprehensive. It relates, in some measure, to the function of the Labour Relations Board which is essentially set up to replace the courts. This is a fundamental thrust of the Labour Code which was debated at great length when it was first introduced and when this minister sat on this side of the House.

I want to illustrate the kind of situation which gives employers great concern, and I would cite the Adanac Lumber Co. in Burnaby. I'll be very brief. The minister may wish to go into more detail. There were 33 employees....

[ Page 4145 ]

AN HON. MEMBER : There were 36.

MR. WALLACE : The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) interjects that the figure is 36. I'm talking about the principle here; let's not nail me down to numbers. Out of the 36 employees, approximately I I who were truckers and yardmen wished to be unionized. They succeeded in becoming unionized and subsequently passed a strike vote by six to five out of the I I employees. The long and the short of that was that there was a strike because of the wishes of six people employed at that particular company, and yet there are 36 employees, of whom 25 were not in a union and didn't want to be in a union.

There was a strike and all the unpleasantness. In fact, a certain amount of vandalism- took place. The point I am making is that I strongly support the right of employees to seek to be represented by a union. I have never opposed that and I happen to think that unions have contributed a great deal to the continuing improvements in our standard of living and to battling for and attaining many of the rights that, in my view, workers have every reason to seek.

But the other side of the coin has to be regarded equally strongly. If majority rule is, as it should be, such a fundamental thing in our democratic system -and it is in this House and it is in all levels of government - then is it right that six individuals working in a plant where there are 36 employees should be able to bring upon that particular place of employment this kind of hardship when the reasons for the action of the six and the hardship imposed does not coincide with the feelings and the wishes of the other 25? That seems to me like a very strange example of democracy in action at the local level.

In this case there was great trouble. I don't want to go into great details on this particular issue but I think it symbolizes the principle I am trying to raise. There was some crossing of the picket lines and there was some real hardship. For example, one of the six who had initially voted to strike returned to work after spending some time on the picket line. I respect this man whose name is Mr. Basiuk - I hope I have pronounced that properly. He said he returned because it no longer made sense to stay out when the majority of the employees were obviously opposed to a strike. And that makes great common sense. But the next paragraph should strike fear into all our hearts.

The result of this decision, he said, was that the top of his convertible was ripped, the tires slashed, the transmission fluid poured on the vinyl interior and sugar dumped into his gas tank. We can all understand people being thwarted in their wishes and we can all understand the heated aspects of this kind of relationship where within the law those six workers were exercising their rights to vote in favour of a strike and to go on strike. But here again we have the real danger of a vocal and militant minority imposing difficulty and real hardship on a significant majority, in this case six out of 36.

The second kind of situation that employers must be very apprehensive about relates again more to general principles than any one specific case. It relates to the way in which the Labour Relations Board is not obliged in its proceedings to record in writing the testimony given by witnesses under oath. This practice quite clearly makes it impossible for anyone to review statements made by either the witnesses or the members of the panel.

In this particular case I am referring to the Haven Hill Retirement Centre in Penticton where verbal evidence was given before the board that the reason for employees being dismissed was that they hadn't shown up for work. Now I don't know whether the work week is getting so short, Mr. Chairman, that it's hard to keep track of how many days people should show up, but at any rate the cause as articulated by the employer was that the employees had not turned up for work and they were dismissed.

At the hearing before the Labour Relations Board, the chairman of the panel made a verbal statement which included the fact that those employees had not reported for work. But in the written decision which actually ordered reinstatement of four employees with back pay, no reference whatever was made to the verbal comment from earlier on which recognized that the dismissed employees had failed to show up for work.

This kind of situation, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, does not promote the kind of balance and the stability and the confidence of either unions or employers. The unions are not happy. In fact, they are apprehensive at the trends which appear to be developing in this government for the reasons I have mentioned. Employers feel that when they witness examples, such as the one or two I have mentioned, they run real risks of not getting what to them appears to be justice.

It brings us back to this fundamental thrust of the Labour Code, that the only appeal to a Labour Relations Board decision is appeal through another panel of the same authority.

I know that the minister, as a lawyer who is extremely knowledgeable in the basic concept of the judicial system that there should always be appeals, must, I would conjecture, sometimes wonder if there is adequate protection in the Labour Code for individuals such as the matron of the Haven Hill Retirement Home who, at my last inquiry, was willing to go go jail rather than be treated in the unfair and unjust manner in which she considers she was treated.

And that particular lady apparently sought to find out about appeal mechanisms and the panel chairman, Jack Moore, was asked - and this press report I am quoting is the Penticton Herald, December 16 of last year:

[ Page 4146 ]

"Panel chairman, Jack Moore, when asked whether an appeal

was possible, said that the decision can be appealed through the Labour Relations

Board and a new panel would be asked to reconsider the case."

Here again, Mr. Chairman, talking in basic principles, I think it's unlikely that the public or, indeed, employers, would have much confidence in a system that when the authority decides that in a case where the workers have to be re-employed.... Does the employer expect to get very much different treatment from another panel of the same authority? And if, let us say, another panel held a hearing and contradicted the decision of the first panel, surely we're all aware of the lack of credibility that this would bring to the Labour Relations Board.

In other words, I am saying that we must begin to look at appeal mechanisms and we must ask the minister to review the methods by which the Labour Relations Board presently carries out its duties - in good faith, I am sure. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any wilful intention by the Labour Relations Board to do other than what they consider best. But none of us gets it right all the time and the members of the Labour Relations Board are not infallible either. It brings back to mind again this basic concept I have mentioned so many times in this House. It's not just a question of having a process and saying that justice has been dispensed; it has to be seen to be dispensed.

Now I just want to move on very quickly, Mr. Chairman, to the area of human rights because I happen to think that this province has very good legislation dealing in the area of human rights. But I'm also concerned that there never has been a time when government at all levels has had so much to do with the conditions around the life of the individual. There is an ever-growing risk in our society that human individual freedoms and rights can be eroded and distorted. I think that we need to be extremely vigilant.

I also would like to ask his response as to whether or not the existing human rights branch and the various officers dealing with complaints have sufficient authority on a wide enough scope in their terms of reference. I just want quickly to suggest that there are areas where the human rights legislation does not, in fact, have wide enough terms of reference.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

In cases where the human rights branch investigates a complaint and refers the matter to the minister, it is still optional for the minister to determine whether a board of inquiry should be held. I want to make my opinion clear. I don't necessarily believe all cases that have been referred to him in the past were accompanied by a request for a board of inquiry. I'm not suggesting that at all.

But what I am saying is that it would seem to me that where the officers within the human rights branch reach the conclusion that a board of inquiry should be held and recommend the same to the minister, I think it would serve the system greatly if it was automatic that the minister set up a board of inquiry.

I understand that in 1976, 26 cases were sent to the minister from the branch and 10 of those resulted in a board of inquiry being held. The biggest area of complaints, I understand from the statistics, relates to sex discrimination in employment. In 1975-76 there were 167 such cases out of a total of 575.

That brings me to the next point, Mr. Chairman, and that is that there are only nine human rights officers in the whole province. What happens in practice when human rights complaints are first registered or brought to the branch's attention is that half of these complaints are investigated by industrial relations officers who primarily are employed in other branches of the ministry, such as the labour standards branch.

It is the feeling of people in this field to whom I have spoken that the industrial relations officers are not primarily employed for this purpose of going into the complaints based on the human rights legislation. They are not as attuned and as aware of that field. They have their more immediate duties to fulfil - the duties for which they were employed in the first place.

It is the feeling -and it was expressed quite recently in a letter to the local press - that in fact a lesser level of priority is given to the complaint when it is investigated by an industrial relations officer rather than a human rights officer.

My statistics, as I understand them, Mr. Chairman, are that 55 per cent of the complaints since 1976 were handled by IROs. I wonder if the minister would care to say whether there is the prospect that we can bring in more human rights officers to deal with that specific responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate knowing how many minutes I have left. Could I find that out?

MR. CHAIRMAN : You have five minutes, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE : Thank you. I mentioned a moment ago that the question of sex discrimination against women seeking jobs and obtaining equal payment for doing similar, or substantially similar, work done by men seems to be the area that creates the majority of the problems. I think the minister would take encouragement from the Abbotsford case where three women who were acting as clerks were found to be doing substantially the same work as guard-dispatchers and the decision in that case was that they should receive the same rate of pay. I think that is a big step forward.

[ Page 4147 ]

1 couldn't agree more with the minister that the human rights branch is a vehicle for education in this field and mediation more than any kind of adversarial authority. It seems to me that we still have this tendency to stereotype men and women in their jobs, although, Mr. Chairman, I might say I was fascinated to hear about the female bouncer who got bounced. I'm referring to the case in Ontario quoted in the newspapers today where this young lady, who I think is quite tall and quite hefty, was employed as a bouncer in a club.

She has just recently been relieved of her employment and is contesting the fact that she has lost her job because she is a female rather than the fact that she failed to prove she could be an efficient bouncer. It's cases of this nature which show that women want to be given the equal opportunity to demonstrate whether they can or can't do a job, and that if they are given the opportunity and do the job which involves similar responsibilities and similar risks, then they should be paid in a way equal to men.

Mr. Chairman, my time is running out and rather than fracture my speech, if that's the term, I would prefer to sit down at this point and return to human rights a little later.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Chairman, I have some brief responses to some of the questions raised by the member for Oak Bay. I'll go in reverse order, if I may. On the question of human rights, the member suggests with regard to the appointment of boards of inquiry that it should be automatic if the staff of the human rights branch recommends a board of inquiry. If that is the case, Mr. Member, I'm sure you would agree that you don't need the minister at all. We would just pass the whole decision as to whether there should be a board of inquiry to the branch. We could eliminate the minister's responsibility entirely.

It has been suggested that the decision should be made with regard to boards of inquiry by some person other than the minister because the minister will be influenced by political considerations or considerations other than those which should be the case in the human rights areas. The question is: if the minister doesn't do it, who do you find who does do it? Do you give it to some other person or group of persons, who, in turn, are appointed by the minister or by order-in-council?

So when a question is asked - "Did you choose those because of their particular bias?" - it's a difficult problem. I want to assure the member that it's not one that's being ignored. Other jurisdictions use other techniques.

While it is not our intention to open the Human Rights Code this year for amendment, I hope that in 1978 it will be. We are concerned not only with some administrative problems associated with the code but also with some different approaches which are emerging in the subject of human rights as a result of experience in other jurisdictions. For example, a study has just been concluded in the province of Ontario after some considerable time, and officials of the ministry are embarking now upon a careful examination of the proposals of the report called Living Together, the new federal legislation, and other initiatives which are taken elsewhere.

We can't ignore the subject of human rights. It is becoming more and more prominent in wider and wider ranges of activity. The United Nations has, of course, been involved in this subject for many years and the subject of human rights is a matter of current importance in the discussions between the President of the United States and leaders of the USSR - a very, very serious matter of international relations. I just don't think we can allow ourselves to ignore it.

On the question of boards of inquiry, however, I think the use of the boards of inquiry should be kept in proper perspective. The member quoted some statistics in 1976: 26 cases were referred and I I were appointed. In fact, that's not the distinction that's made. You have to recognize, Mr. Member, if you look at the code very carefully, that a complaint file is never closed. There's no mechanism whereby a decision is made to close a file unless there has been resolution of the complaint. It's always open. This may be a drawback.

The figure you mentioned was 26. There were 26 cases that year for which no settlement had been reached. They may have recommended for or against an inquiry; no settlement had been reached. Of those, I I went to boards of inquiry. Some of those cases, indeed, are still under investigation.

As I said last night, the essential approach of the branch and of the code is mediative. It's not a penal statute, although there is the right under the statute to proceed by way of fine for breaches of the provisions of the code. That is not the direction in which the branch prefers to go, and we're having greater success that way.

Now with regard to the use of industrial relations officers, yes, they are used. We have 11 professional positions in the human rights branch. In fact, there are 12 persons involved because, on the recommendation of the Vancouver Status of Women, I think, three years ago, there was a suggestion that some positions should be made available for persons who could take only part-time work. As a result, one of the 11 positions was split into two half-day positions because it would give us one extra person and because it also affords the opportunity for qualified people who can't for various reasons work a full day.

They work half a day, so we have 12 people. They are concentrated in those areas of the province where a majority of the complaints arise.

The total number of cases presently before the branch is 354. That's about 30 cases per worker. That may seem to be high, but it certainly compares

[ Page 4148 ]

favourably with the caseloads of many social workers. It certainly compares most favorably with the number of cases of people who are skilled investigators in the mediation service.

Now the industrial relations officers are used in the human rights field principally in the outlying areas where the number of complaints which could arise would not really justify maintaining a human rights officer full-time in one of the outlying areas of the province. We do have some who cover significant areas, but principally they're located in the major centres. The industrial relations officers assist.

Now they are trained, skilled investigators, and principally the work is investigative in nature. In difficult cases, the human rights officers or senior members of the branch work with the industrial relations officers in the course of investigation and in the assessments which are made.

Yes, I would like to have more members in the branch. My budget request so indicates. But with the restrictions that Treasury Board imposes upon the establishment of this ministry - in fact, all ministries - we have continued the hiring level restrictions that were enforced by the previous government. At the moment, I'm not able to increase that staff. I look forward to the day when I will be able to do so.

You mentioned the subject of equal pay for work of equal value. That was a decision of a board of inquiry. It was the first case that had come before a board and it would appear that, in that instance, a decision was reached which was quite a proper one. We were pleased to have that precedent to use because, hopefully, it will enable settlements to take place in other cases without having to go to a board of inquiry, which is time-consuming and expensive. On that subject we believe that equal pay for work of equal value is a better proposition than that which is contained in the federal legislation, but I suppose that yet remains to be seen.

You have raised questions with regard to industrial relations matters. You talked about appeals. Yes, the code provides for appeals from one panel to another panel of the board or to the full board. However, there are appeals by way of review by the court, and there have been a number of them. Recently, and I suppose most significantly, by way of certiorari, there has been an appeal taken in the matter involving the union and B.C. Hydro with regard to pensions and so on. This is still before the courts and I don't want to discuss it.

But in fact there are cases where appeals have gone to the court through the matter of review, which is an appropriate step with regard to an administrative tribunal. There are, within the area of appeals within the board, the opportunities for a second look at the decision. Indeed, many important cases resulted in a distinct variation.

The hon. member raised the question of recording evidence under oath. I was not aware of that specifically. I think that it is a shortcoming in the board's procedures and I am quite happy to refer that matter to the chairman of the board and ask him the basis upon which such procedures are followed. I think it is most unmodern, particularly when you are taking evidence under oath to which you may have to refer with some care. There should be the opportunity for a verbatim transcript to be available when it is required. It's done here; it's done in our committees; it's done in the courts.

While I don't wish to take any action which will make the Labour Relations Board appear to be more of a court than is presently the case, I think the institution of this procedure won't bring that about.

You raised the question of the situation at Adanac Lumber where six employees casting a vote were able to affect the rights of 25 other employees. This is always a difficult problem in labour disputes. I am not sure how I can satisfy the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and at the same time satisfy the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . He would see no difficulty in it at all.

The appropriateness of the unit is always the difficulty. In the case of Adanac it is very clear - six employees affecting 25 - but you can apply the same relationship in other areas. We had a significant example last year in 1976 with the continued strikes on B.C. Rail where relatively small units of employees in the total work-force, even though the rest of the work-force was organized, were able to impede those other employees from carrying on their duties and getting paid.

This is a matter of ongoing concern with regard to industrial relations, and the Labour Code of British Columbia has made a very significant advance in that respect. That's this question of the formation of councils of unions. Of course, there is one presently under consideration with regard to B.C. Rail which will prevent the fragmentation of that work-force and therefore the ability of a small group to interfere inappropriately with the rights of others.

We had a similar situation at Simon Fraser University when a segment of their work-force, by a very narrow vote, went in favour of a strike and put some 700 people out of work. This is a problem which we are continuing to review and the council approach at the moment appears to be the best direction.

The Minister of Labour has under the Labour Code,

section 57, considerable authority in this regard, but the decision and the final analysis is made by the Labour Relations Board. It has been the practice of the ministry to encourage such processes at the request of the trade unionists who are involved. In the final analysis, joining together in a council requires the members of that council to function together and function very well. If they enter into the process at the beginning voluntarily, then the possibility of it coming out with success at the end is

[ Page 4149 ]

more likely.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) made one of his good speeches. I must say that he reads very well; he read the Code very well. I want to assure him that I listened most carefully and it's my recollection that his reading was accurate. He speaks with a well-known hyperbole. Like some very skilful lawyers, if he has a weak case, he shouts. That was the position that he was putting before this committee this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. He was castigating the minister in a personal way, referring to my background, of which he has no knowledge whatsoever.

If he had, I don't think he would have made the remark. If he hadn't done any more investigation than that into the matter, then I can't give much credence to what he has to say. He suggested that I was idly standing by while the law was being destroyed. He is saying that the government was having contempt for the law.

MR. KING : That's right.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Well, there's been no legislation passed in this House; there's been no action by any ministry of the government which has contempt for the law, unless, of course, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan would suggest that the legislation which he introduced and piloted through this House and which he had the occasion to amend from time to time because it was inappropriate is somehow or other chiselled in stone, never to be changed again. If it is, that's a new privilege that the government had that I didn't recognize, but I'm sure the member didn't really mean that.

As the former Minister of Labour, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, well knows, industrial relations is one of the most dynamic fields in social endeavour that we have before us for consideration, and the laws and the processes which are used to address those dynamic situations must constantly be under review and reconsideration. For him to suggest that somehow or other because any particular government brings any particular law and it's passed through this Legislature it's never to be changed, is entirely new to the parliamentary process that we have in this country.

I have to conclude that the member wasn't really very serious in what he was saying, except perhaps when he suggested that the trade union movement was in a state of panic. Mr. Chairman, if the trade union movement is in a state of panic in this province, it is because of incautious remarks such as those which were made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. I trust that he will not let it be said outside this chamber, or even let his words be heard outside this chamber, that he would suggest any activities which would cause the trade union movement to panic.

I recall how they panicked when he was the minister on a number of occasions, but we were able to calm that situation and restore a sense of balance in this province.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like to support some of the statements made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, specifically as they apply to the 1,400 employees of the Vancouver Resources Board. I'm not going to discuss legislation which is before the House, but certainly those 1,400 workers would appreciate hearing some statement from the Minister of Labour as to the collective agreements which they are presently involved in and as to the sanctity of those agreements. I certainly agree that it seems the Minister of Labour has allowed the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) and certainly the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to intrude on his territory. He is not coming to the defence of the people whose fate, quite frankly, is in his hands. So if he wants some statement to be made outside of this House, certainly the 1,400 people in Vancouver who work for the Vancouver Resources Board would like him to make a statement outside of this House....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, that requires legislation that is now before this House.

MS. BROWN : This statement requires legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN : No, I'm sorry - Bill 65.

MS. BROWN : No, I'm not discussing Bill 65. I'm discussing the Minister of Labour.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes, hon. member. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN : I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering who is looking after the rights of working people in this province, quite frankly. Does the Minister of Labour protect people, for example, who seek employment at Woodward's?

AN HON. MEMBER : No.

MS. BROWN : Has he seen the kind of questionnaire that people who went -to apply for employment at the Richmond branch of Woodward's stores have to deal with? This has nothing to do with Bill 65. This is referred to as a short form medical questionnaire, Mr. Chairman, which asks 61 of the most intimate medical questions about a person's life that it is possible to ask. I wouldn't dare read any of them into the records, quite frankly. I'm shy about this kind of thing, Mr. Chairman. Questions about piles and hemorrhoids and blood in your urine and this kind of thing. I wouldn't think of reading into

[ Page 4150 ]

the record, and it really gets worse.

Now who do people turn to who apply to Woodward's for a job and get this short form questionnaire to fill out which goes into things like: "If any member of your immediate family is deceased, briefly outline the person, the age at death, the cause of death, the year of death, the length and duration of illness preceding the death."? And then it says "expand." I had no idea that the people who work in Woodward's stores were in such excellent health. They had nobody who had died. I mean, what happens if somebody in your family dies? Does Woodward's stores refuse to hire anybody whose family has a person who has died at any age or from any cause whatever?

Who sees these forms, anyway? What kind of assurance of privacy do these employees have? Why the family history? Should this form be filled out by a doctor or shouldn't it, if it is needed for insurance purposes? Why is it going to the personnel department? Who vets these forms? Is it a professional, a medical person or a lay person? Does the Minister of Labour know or care at all? Does the Labour Relations Act cover this?

AN HON. MEMBER : The Provincial Secretary.

MS. BROWN : The Provincial Secretary covers this, does she?

Mr. Chairman, it goes on and it says: "As a candidate for employment at

Woodward's you will participate in a rigorous screening programme."

That is true. It says it may take up to six hours in total, which is fine. Then

it talks about the preliminary screening and then the first indepth screening

and then the medical screening, then the aptitude screening, then the second

indepth screening. It says finally: "You understand that we can make no

guarantees or offer of employment, " after you have gone through all of

this information. "Your receipt of this notice has improved the odds, however,

in your favour, but opportunities are restricted. To you personally, good luck

and much patience. Sincerely yours, N.R. Smith, project manager."

What I am specifically asking the minister is: who sees these forms? What is done with this information? What assurance is there that after you have spilled your guts and answered 61 really intimate personal medical questions, half of which I don't even know about myself, quite frankly.... I couldn't get a job at Woodward's because I wouldn't be able to answer half of these questions about my past and my present and if I've had St. Vitus's Dance. I didn't think people still had St. Vitus's Dance. So what happens if I have St. Vitus's Dance? Does than mean I can't work at Woodward's stores?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health) : You'd have to go work

at Arthur Murray's.

MS. BROWN : I like the Minister of Health's statement that if I had St. Vitus's Dance I would have to go and work for Arthur Murray's. But quite seriously, I would very much like some kind of reassurance from the Minister of Labour about these forms and some information as to whether people who are refused employment as a result of this medical form have some recourse. Does Woodward's have to hire people who are handicapped, or are they exempt from the kind of legislation that covers other people who are encouraged to hire people?

Also could you give me some information about the business of the family history, all of which works into the human rights thing? I don't know whether the minister sees this as part of the responsibility of his human rights department or not, or whether it is covered by the Labour Relations Act, but I would certainly like some answers to that.

There was a letter in the Colonist dated July 15 about the shortage of human rights officers. By coincidence on the same day I received a clipping from the Northern Times which said:

"Northwest British Columbia has just lost its only human

rights officer. This means that residents of the huge area from the Yukon border

south to Ocean Falls and between the Charlottes and Fraser Lake will now have

to go through Victoria if they want to lodge a complaint based on the B.C. Human

Rights Code."

I don't know whether this is accurate or not, Mr. Chairman, so I'm really raising the question with the hope that the minister will be able to tell me that it is inaccurate and that in fact Bill Parkinson, the only human rights officer for the northwestern

section of British Columbia, has not been relieved of his job.

It goes on to say, to make matters worse, that the northeast part of the province hasn't got a human rights officer either. Now who is taking care of the kind of complaints that people in the north have? They won't be getting one until the fall. Prince George headquarters for the northeast has been without a human rights officer since May of 1976.

As this letter in the Colonist of July 15 pointed out, Jack Kehoe, a member of the board of directors of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, in discussion on CBC radio, said that problems were being caused by a critical shortage of human rights officers who administer the Code in British Columbia.

The minister did mention that he had 11 and a half officers, but obviously that is not enough. It certainly, doesn't cover the needs of the people in the north. Maybe he'd be able to give us some more information about that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it really doesn't matter where you look anytime you start to talk about the

[ Page 4151 ]

impossibility of equal pay for equal work and why it is that women always end up at the bottom of the pay scale. The answer invariably comes in that it is because of the lack of training, that many of the jobs that are better paying jobs are just not open to women because they haven't got the skills and they are not trained for it.

Realizing this, women have started to try to get into the apprenticeship programme. I don't know anything on earth that are as hard to crack as the apprenticeship programmes in this province. I have been talking about this for years and years. I know the minister is going to get up and say, "Well, it was that way with the previous administration and the administration before that, " and on and on and on it goes. I accept that this battle to get into the apprenticeship programme didn't begin with the appointment of this minister to the Labour portfolio. But he now has the ability to put an end to this, and very little is being done.

My informants assure me that under the Haney apprenticeship programme there are 12 women in each course - which is just a drop in the bucket, quite frankly, for the Haney programme. These are two-month courses that give experience in carpentry, which is great, skill trades, painting, et cetera, and it gives them an opportunity to demonstrate their skill in these areas. But after the women graduate out of this course, I've also been told, the department has not been able to place any of them in any jobs in any of the regular apprenticeship programmes. I'm talking about the women in Haney.

Once they get out of the two-month course at Haney, in trying to get them into their regular apprenticeship programme there just hasn't been any success.

I'm wondering whether the Ministry of Labour is doing an evaluation of this programme, and if we're going to find some really aggressive and vigorous acts on the part of that department in terms of getting more and more women into these apprenticeship programmes. There are 678 females out of a total of - get this Mr. Chairman - 13,178 apprentices. Now if you take out of that 678 figure all the women who are apprenticing to be hairdressers, barbers and dental assistants, you have less than 0.07 per cent of women in other programmes. It's really bad. It really is bad.

Quite frankly, I don't think that in putting these figures together you should include the women who are in the jobs such as hairdressing, barbering and dental assistant, which is where women have been all along anyway. Really, when we talk about training and getting into skilled trades in terms of increasing their salaries, what we are talking about is getting into plumbing, getting into the electrical trade, into some of the skilled trades like painting, carpentry, bartending - where the real money is - not into dental assistants or hairdressing.

The department is responsible for this. The department can go out, Mr. Chairman, and introduce its own affirmative action programme in the area of apprenticeship training and really embark on an aggressive, vigorous programme for getting more and more women into the skilled trades.

Manpower is doing its little token job, Mr. Chairman, of leaving one position open in a number of these programmes, leaving one slot open for women in each of its apprenticeship programmes. That's not good enough. They're doing their little token thing. But, really, it's the provincial government that we look to for some real action in this area, not Manpower, not the federal government. They have no understanding of it.

The Minister of Labour did, if one had the time to go back and read some of his old speeches when he sat on this side of the House. He was one of the people who always spoke in support of women's rights to enter into all kinds of fields. Right? I remember those speeches, not verbatim, but I remember that he was one of the people who always said that women should be given an opportunity, if they had the ability and the skills, to move into these fields where the real money is being made.

I anticipated, and I'm going to continue to anticipate until he proves otherwise, that he is going to be the key that cracks the apprenticeship programme [illegible]. I'm really going to lay that trip on him because it still is too tough. Out of 13,000, 678 is just not good enough. I hope my figures are wrong, but I got them from his department. I'm not going to stake my life on it, but those were the figures I got.

Along the same line, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring up again with the minister the whole business of labour legislation covering domestics and farm workers. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is not here or he would immediately inform the House that this is a recycled speech. Indeed, it is a speech I've been making since 1972. I've been introducing private member's bills into the House since 1973 asking that domestics and farm workers be covered by the labour legislation in this province.

They have to be covered by things like the Payment of Wages Act, the Minimum Wage Act, holiday legislation, and these kinds of things. That is the only way these people are ever going to have any kind of job security and make any kind of decent wages. Over and over again we are told it would be hard to enforce; you can't cover domestic workers because most of them are transient and they don't work Very long in a job, or one thing or another. I would suggest that maybe we could look at it in the same way we look at fishermen and apply the same kinds of rules.

I understand that any fisherman who sells his catch to be resold or for public consumption is considered to be an employee and therefore is covered by a lot of this piece of legislation. Maybe the same thing can be done for domestic workers.

[ Page 4152 ]

I personally cannot buy the argument that people do not like the inspectors coming into their house to check whether it's safe or not. That makes the home safer for all of us. We are always being told that one of the most unsafe places in the world to be is your home, especially in the kitchen. I think it runs second only to your bathroom. In fact, more people die violently, and otherwise, in their homes than die anywhere else. So the argument that nobody is going to like to have their houses checked out in terms of it being a safe place to work is not a valid argument. I just don't accept this.

Certainly in terms of payment of wages and vacation pay and seeing that these people make at least a minimum wage, I think that if not all the labour legislation then at least those basic ones should be covered. They should be covered by Workers' Compensation too. There are all kinds of studies that show us that one of the most unsafe places in the world to work is on a farm, yet people who work on farms are not covered by the Workers' Compensation legislation.

I want to bring to the minister's attention, which I'm sure he has seen, this legal resource book for farm and domestic workers which is published by the Labour Advocacy and Research Association. They got some of their funding from the Attorney-General's ministry - the Legal Services Commission gave them some of their funding.

Has the minister seen this?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : No.

MS. BROWN : I'd be very happy to share my copy with the minister, Mr. Chairman, but in fact it's very inexpensive and I think it would help if his ministry got a couple of copies of it so that at least his deputy would get a chance to read it sometime. It covers all of the legislation from which they are excluded and some of the rights they do have and some of the ones which they don't. I am going to reintroduce my private member's bill covering domestics and farm workers by labour legislation. I don't really want to do that.

The reason I haven't done it until now is because I'm hoping the minister is going to introduce legislation, or some kind of amendment to the Labour Code, to say that it now covers domestics and farm workers.

One other point I have, Mr. Chairman, is the Maternity Protection Act. It is, without question, the worst Maternity Protection Act in North America. It really is terrible if one does a comparison of it with the Canada Labour Code, or the labour codes of Nova Scotia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Ontario, you name it. I shouldn't say North America because I don't want to bring the United States into it. I really haven't done a comparison with Mississippi, or Georgia, or Texas, or any of those states, but this is certainly true as far as Canada is concerned. It's an old piece of legislation.

It goes back to 1966, and it has been amended a couple of times. Basically it is the same Act as in 1966. It is quite possible the minister will say that pregnancy hasn't changed since 1966 and if it was good enough in 1966, it's probably good enough in 1977.

But it wasn't good enough in 1966 and there are a number of the other provinces which have demonstrated by their amendments to their Acts that ours is really quite far behind and it's not good. Let me tell you an interesting thing it does. What the Act says, Mr. Chairman, is that no employer is allowed to fire a person because they're pregnant six weeks before they deliver. In other words, you can fire her any time up until six weeks before she's due to give birth; but once she's into that final six weeks, you can't fire her. I don't understand this. Pregnancy is not a six-week affair; it never was. No, it takes a little bit longer than that, even in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, the Chair has no wish to interrupt you, but if you're suggesting matters involving legislation it is not permissible under this debate.

MS. BROWN : This is not legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN : You're speaking of a bill, hon. member.

MS. BROWN : The Maternity Protection Act of 1966 is an old thing which has been in this province since 1966.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I fully understand that, hon. member. Matters involving legislation or requiring legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, only the general responsibilities of the Minister of Labour. Please continue.

MS. BROWN : Okay, the general responsibility of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Chairman, is to first of all recognize that pregnancy takes longer than six weeks. It's not possible to have it done and over with in six weeks.

MR. LEA : What about the Socreds?

MS. BROWN : I don't know what your experience in this field has been, Mr. Chairman. Mine has been that it can't be done in six weeks. So I am suggesting to the Minister of Labour....

AN HON. MEMBER : Have you tried?

MS. BROWN : I have tried.

He should take into account really that a person who becomes pregnant should somehow be

[ Page 4153 ]

protected, not necessarily by legislation but by whatever way he sees fit. A person who becomes pregnant should be protected from arbitrary dismissal strictly on the grounds that they are pregnant. That is the first thing.

The other thing that I would like the minister to take into account, Mr. Chairman, is that when a person leaves the labour market as a result of giving birth to a child, that person should be able to return at least to the same job she had before - I was about to say he or she, but I guess it's just she isn't it? - or at least to a job at a similar level of wage. In other words, she should not be penalized in terms of her wages, in terms of promotion or any of these things, simply because she has been out of the labour market for 17 weeks or whatever as a result of her pregnancy.

The other thing I am suggesting to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Chairman, through you, is that even 12 weeks is still not good enough. In fact, what most of the other provinces have is a 16- to 17-week maximum that a woman is allowed to be away in terms of either before or after the pregnancy. Probably he should look at this or maybe there shouldn't be an arbitrary time at all because, in fact, some women are quite willing to return to work within days after they've had normal births and other women would like to stay out of the labour market for eight weeks or nine weeks, as the case may be.

The Unemployment Insurance Commission permits up to about 15 weeks of benefits. But give or take, I would like to see British Columbia look at it in a more flexible way. In other words, the law ... I mustn't say the law. In other words, the Minister could arrange it in such a way that women who want to return immediately to the labour market can do so, but the women who want to stay away from work a bit longer should be able to do so - maybe up to eight weeks at most.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, everybody gets a six-week checkup after they've had a child. The baby gets a six-week checkup and so does the mother. It's usually at the point of that six-week checkup that the mother will discuss with her doctor whether she's ready to return to work or whatever. So six weeks is a bit too soon; I think eight minimum, and it could probably be longer than that.

The other thing I'd suggest is that a woman shouldn't be forced to stop working an arbitrary number of weeks before her child is due, Mr. Chairman, simply because - and I'm not discussing legislation now - it's been arranged in such a way that she has to stop working six weeks before the delivery. In fact, some women, as long as they're physically fit and willing to work right up until three weeks or four weeks - whatever - should be permitted to do so.

So what I'm really suggesting to the Minister of Labour is a lot more flexibility

in terms of whatever arrangements are made around the whole business of women

working and women becoming pregnant and leaving the labour market to have children.

So if I can run through these very quickly -and I'm not discussing legislation

- there should be a guarantee of at least 17 weeks leave in all.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, would you explain to the Chair how that could be accomplished without legislation?

MS. BROWN : If I were the Minister of Labour I would try and work it out some way, but I'm not the Minister of Labour so I really haven't thought about it. What I am suggesting to the Minister of Labour is that if he can do it without legislation, he should take these things into account.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes, I think we can accept that, hon. member. The Chair has no wish to interrupt you, but if it involves legislation it is clearly out of order in this debate.

MS. BROWN : Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to make a couple of general statements about pregnancy and working. I hope the Minister of Labour is l