1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 431 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Two river policy. Mr. Smith — 431

Oil and natural gas resources. Mr. Wallace — 432

Acceptance of Paish report on Prince Rupert.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 432

Unification of police forces in Capital Regional

District.

Mr. Curtis — 433

Increased charge to extended-care patients.

Mr. McClelland — 433

Vancouver sale of shares in company after bankruptcy.

Mr. Gardom — 434

Point of order

Amendment not printed in Votes and Proceedings .

Mr. Phillips

— 434

Mr. Speaker — 435

Mr. Gardom — 435

Mr. Speaker — 435

Routine proceedings

Motions

Adjourned debate on Motion 2. Mr. Hall — 435

Agricultural Credit Act. (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 435

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act. (Bill 38). Ms.

Sanford.

Introduction and first reading — 436

An Act to Amend the Real Estate Act. (Bill 29).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 436

Supplementary Municipal Assistance Act. (Bill 26). Second

reading.

Mr. Smith — 436

Hon. Mr. Hall — 437

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 437

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act. (Bill 28).

Second reading. Mr. Curtis — 437

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 438

Labour Code of British Columbia Act. (Bill 11), Second

reading.

Mr. Chabot — 438

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 441

Division on second reading adjournment — 443

Point of order

Admission to chamber when vote called. Mr. Richter — 444

Routine proceedings

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

reading.

Mr. Wallace — 444

Division on second reading adjournment — 448

Mr. Dent — 448

Hon. Ms. Young — 453

Mr. Gabelmann — 455

Mr. Schroeder — 459

Ruling

Motions to adjourn debate. Mr. Speaker — 461

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1973.

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce to the House Dr.

Peter Bullen, who is the Chairman of the Vancouver School Board and Chairman

of the Board for the Vancouver City College, a distinguished citizen of the

city in which I live and which partly I represent. Please join with me in welcoming

Dr. Peter Bullen.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it

is with pleasure that I draw the attention of the House to

another distinguished visitor in the galleries today, His

Worship Mayor Jim Quaife, the mayor of the City of Duncan.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from

Burnaby North, students from Alpha Junior Secondary.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'm

exceptionally pleased and honoured to see that in the House

today there is additional Gardom blood, apart from the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and that is that of my cousin,

the Reverend Cyril Venables, who graced us with prayers this

afternoon. I would bid him a very good welcome to the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: I wondered why it was you were in for prayers

today. (Laughter.)

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

today accepted with thanks for his services the resignation of

the Rt. Hon. E. Davie Fulton as Chairman of the Law Reform

Commission of British Columbia. A very distinguished Canadian,

and I thank him on behalf of all of us for all the services he

has rendered to the people of this province.

We have appointed pro tem , leading to the time of a

full-time chairman, Ron Bray, now of the commission, and some

new blood in the persons of Allen Abraham Zysblat of the

Faculty of Law at UBC; Peter Fraser, a lawyer of the City of

Vancouver; and Paul D.K. Fraser, also a lawyer of the City of

Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, further may I ask leave to file, now that

copies are available for all Members, the report of the Task

Force on Correctional Services and Facilities?

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

TWO-RIVER POLICY

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams) in his capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro. In this

morning's copy of the Vancouver Province newspaper Mr.

Cass-Beggs, the Chairman of B.C. Hydro, is reported as stating,

"That British Columbia only avoided a power shortage as in

Washington and Oregon because it has a two-river policy." Was

he indicating that the position of the government is now

different from what it was when they were in opposition and so

strongly opposed the two-river policy?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I would point out to the Hon. Member

Beauchesne , p. 148, the one that deals with this — and this is

becoming a habit — says: "A Member must not inquire whether

statements made in a newspaper are true." Now I don't

know whether the Hon. Minister wishes to answer this question,

but it should not be framed in the way of a newspaper

reference. I wish Members would try to avoid that.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. SMITH: It would seem to me that when a newspaper reports

some other person, a third party, and that is the only

reference we have at the time, is it not permissible to use

that reference when we're questioning a Member?

MR. SPEAKER: Beauchesne says, "No." And the reason

Beauchesne says that is because you have to take personal

responsibility for something you lay out in this House as a

fact. And you don't know it any more than we know it as to

whether the newspaper is accurate, although we always assume

newspapers are accurate. But nevertheless you have to take that

responsibility.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, what you want to do is try again.

(Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: Now we're in agreement, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister indicate to the House the position with

respect to the sale of power, from British Columbia to the

States of Washington and Oregon, if they are in fact faced with

this desperate

[ Page 432 ]

power shortage and require energy which may be surplus to

our distribution system at the present time?

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

There certainly are agreements now with the Bonneville administration, Mr. Speaker,

that deal with surplus energy with respect to our requirements, and that's ongoing.

That's applied essentially in situations different from the present one. I think

that's really all I can say at this time.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to ask the

Minister if he would indicate to the House how soon site 1 on

the Peace River might be going ahead, since there is such a

shortage of power anticipated in the future. Site 1 is there,

it won't cause any ecological damage, it won't do anything, so

how soon could we anticipate a start on that much-needed

project?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm pleased that the Hon. Member is

convinced that there'll be no ecological damage. Because our

studies are not yet complete in that regard. But certainly the

government is seriously looking at this stage at both site 1 on

the Peace and the seven-mile site on the Ponderey near Trail,

two of the major opportunities we face in the near future with

respect to development.

OIL AND NATURAL GAS

RESOURCES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): In the light of rather similar

problems which Alberta and B.C. seem to be having with the

federal government in regard to vital natural resources of oil

and natural gas, could I ask the Attorney General if there are

any discussions or negotiations going on with the Government of

Alberta? And, if there are not, to what degree is the Attorney

General prepared to set up such a meeting, either in Alberta or

in British Columbia, to exchange ideas on this rather vital

subject?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there have of course been

meetings between the Premier of this province and the Hon.

Peter Lougheed which have discussed this matter in a general

way. There have also been meetings at the expert level between

our energy board officials and experts from Alberta.

But essentially our problems are rather different because

the Alberta material, of course, flows to eastern Canada and

becomes a Canadian problem. We, in our part, will be

introducing legislation shortly in this House which will not be

of Alberta paternity.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question on that. Is the Minister telling

us then that he will not make any specific request to the National Energy Board

to ask them to invoke regulation 11 (

a) of the national energy Act to raise

the price at the federal level? Is this a final decision by this government

that we will go the provincial route of a provincial Crown agency?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as I stated the other day,

the provincial action will be taken, but there is supplemental

cooperative action that may be taken at the federal level and

that has been discussed in a very general way with the Hon.

Donald Macdonald.

ACCEPTANCE OF PAISH REPORT

ON PRINCE RUPERT DEVELOPMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Premier. May

I ask him whether the recommendations of the Paish report,

which he gave us earlier this week concerning the development

at Prince Rupert, have been accepted by the government; whether

the recommendations are now government policy and,

specifically, in the light of Mr. Paish's attitude that

Fairview and Ridley Island are not the sites that should be

developed and that further sites should be looked for, may I

ask him whether we can expect further studies to be

commissioned to look into other sites — in particular, the Work

Channel and Digby Island?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we accept Mr.

Paish's report as we accept all reports. They don't necessarily

become government policy. We have accepted the report and filed

it. We did not receive Mr. Davis' comments until September 17.

If Mr. Davis wishes to file his letter or gives me permission

to file his letter, I would be pleased to do so.

Mr. Davis has responded in his letter to Paish's statements,

and the matter stands there. We intend to discuss it further

with Mr. Davis. I have no further statement on that until I

have the opportunity of discussing it further with Mr.

Davis.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask as a supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, whether the provincial government is accepting, as its

policy and as its position, the conclusions of the Paish

report?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are accepting the advice of Mr. Paish

but there are questions raised by the Paish report that we

expect the federal government to respond to, and that is

exactly what we are waiting for.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought, Hon. Members, that this matter had

been disposed of in somewhat similar

[ Page 433 ]

terms yesterday and on previous occasions.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A supplementary question.

In view of what was said in the House yesterday, I would like a

clarification of the exact capital commitments to the province

with relation to the Prince Rupert port facilities. The Premier

said yesterday that there is no capital commitment with the

federal government as to the location of a coal port. Yet when

one looks at the agreement — the federal-provincial agreement

on page 5 filed in this House — it states in

part II(

I) that

"the Governments of British Columbia and Canada will share all

facets of port development of a natural harbour at Prince

Rupert."

Furthermore, while the Premier yesterday stopped at the word

"location" in his reply, on page 6, subsection (3) of the

agreement we find that the two governments agree that the

comprehensive joint programme for port development in Prince

Rupert, including the "location, size, type and timing, general

cargo and bulk commodity terminal facilities will commence

immediately."

HON. MR. BARRETT: General cargo and bulk loading are

different from a coal port, Mr. Member. As I tried to explain,

through you, Mr. Speaker, there has been a running dispute

between the federal government and the Government of British

Columbia as to the location of the coal port.

Now you may be the only Member of the House who is not aware

that Mr. Davis and I have been having a disagreement. But if

you are not aware of it, perhaps a glance through some of the

Hansards of last session and some of the reports that have been

tabled will show you the continuing friendly disagreement

between myself and Mr. Davis as to the location of the coal

bulk-loading port.

General cargo and container facilities are not coal loading.

So I want to explain that helpfully to the Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, relative

to the Paish report. I wonder if the Premier is aware of who

leaked the report to the press and whether he is proposing any

punitive action against the individual who released that report

to the press.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm not aware of who leaked the

report to the press. I find it unfortunate that the press is

able to read the report before federal civil servants are, but

that's not my responsibility; it is obviously the federal

government's.

I am disappointed when I read in the paper that the poor, unfortunate federal

civil servant wasn't even aware that the report had been sent to Mr. Davis.

I am full of love and friendship towards the federal government. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier seems to distinguish between

a bulk loading and a general cargo port. However, Howard

Paish's report, as I read it, did not. I wonder whether or not

there has been a decision arrived at for general cargo and

whether or not the delay is only in the case of the coal

port?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is an agreement in terms of general

cargo. The exact location is a matter of discussion because of

ecological matters. There is an agreement that general cargo

will go out of Prince Rupert. But the coal port, specifically,

is something that is separate and distinct from the agreement

we have signed with the CNR. We will not make a decision on the coal report until we are

satisfied that there will be no ecological damage as a result

of the placement of that coal port.

UNIFICATION OF POLICE FORCES

IN CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT

MR. CURTIS: Yesterday, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) made a statement with respect to

amalgamations and incorporations in the greater Victoria area.

May I ask the Attorney General if he has given any

consideration at all, or if he is giving consideration, to the

unification of police forces within the greater Victoria

Capital Regional District?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I have given no consideration to that.

I'll take it as notice.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney

General. Has he had any discussions with any police chief or

any chief magistrate in this connection in greater Victoria in

the past few weeks?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not in the past few weeks.

INCREASED CHARGE

TO EXTENDED-CARE PATIENTS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is for the

Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) and it has to do with a telegram sent to the Minister

from the Multiple Sclerosis Society. I would like to ask the

Minister if he has given assurances to that society that the

proposed increase to $5.50 a day for extended-care patients

will not be discriminatory and will not be in effect for

multiple sclerosis patients.

And, if I could ask a supplementary now, Mr. Speaker: would the Minister also

assure the House that consideration will be given in regard to other

[ Page 434 ]

illnesses which, while not terminal, do require long periods

of hospital care? Will the Minister assure us that this

"soak-the-sick" policy will not affect those kinds of

patients?

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

It is unfortunate that that Member hasn't been around here too long or he would

know a great deal more about soaking the sick. That's one of the things that

we are trying to get around at the very present time.

Now I have notified the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Mr.

Speaker, through you to that Member; I have notified them that

I would like to meet with them at the earliest opportunity.

What we are doing at the present time is taking a look at

whether or not this is the way to go.

This is the way that has been suggested to us by virtually

every community in the Province of British Columbia. That's not

to say that we have accepted it yet. We are meeting with all

types of different people that are afflicted with chronic

disease. But to suggest that this party is in that bailiwick

with that old party over there, who did nothing but "soak the

sick" over the years, is just too much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on the same

subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you've had two already, I understand.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it's on the same subject. I'm entitled

to another supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: You are not entitled unless the subject is one

that should be pursued.

MR. McCLELLAND: I believe it is one that should be

pursued.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, give your question and we will see.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister, when he was announcing this

new policy, made reference to 10 per cent of the number of

people who would not be on Mincome and who would be affected by

this policy. I would like to ask if those figures have been

revised or if there have been any figures, in deliberation,

with regard to the percentage of people who will be affected if

this policy is initiated, for intermediate care. Will it be

significantly higher than 10 per cent?

HON. MR. COCKE: We are not into intermediate care at this point. We

don't know what the numbers are exactly of people who are or are not on Mincome

for reasons of being handicapped or for reasons of old age. What we said in

the first place is that this will not be policy, and it isn't policy at this

point. There has been an announcement that we are looking into the matter, and

it won't be policy until such time as we are positive that nobody is going to

be hurt economically around this issue.

VANCOUVER SALE OF SHARES

IN COMPANY AFTER BANKRUPTCY

MR. GARDOM: To the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Some days

ago I drew to the attention of the Attorney General the very

scandalous situation of shares of a public company being traded

on the Vancouver Stock Exchange some 16 days after the company

has been declared legally bankrupt, and the Attorney General

indicated that he'd take the question as notice.

I wonder if he now has some information on the point as to

whether or not the stock exchange is prepared to guarantee

losses of any innocents. Also, is he prepared to inform the

House of what preventive measures he has in mind to prevent

such an occasion happening in the future.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Posthumous trading in shares is

deplorable at any time. Therefore, discussions are going ahead

between my Securities Branch and the officials of the Vancouver

Stock Exchange as to some method whereby they can most

conveniently be put in possession of knowledge of bankruptcies

immediately.

MR. GARDOM: That's hardly an answer to the second part of

the question, is it?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member realizes that he is

repeating his question of the other day.

MR. PHILLIPS: A point of clarification at this time, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it a point of procedure?

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of procedure, point of order. Looking at

yesterday's Votes and Proceedings , I noticed that the very,

very, very worthwhile amendment I brought in to Bill 9 has not

been printed in Votes and Proceedings .

Now, I had given notice to the Clerks that I would bring

that amendment in today, but the bill was called yesterday

before the amendment had time to get on the order paper.

[ Page 435 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Wasn't it dealt with by the House and voted

upon by the House?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, dealt with by the House but it is not

printed in Votes and Proceedings , and normally amendments are

printed.

MR. SPEAKER: The explanation is this, the amendment was not

printed because there was not adequate notice of the amendment

to be printed in the orders of the day.

The amendment was brought up by the Hon.

Member, I understand, in committee, and committee reports are not

included in Votes and Proceedings unless they are requested by the

committee to the House. And the only thing that was requested from the

Committee of the Whole House yesterday was the recording of the

division that took place in committee. Therefore, we would not have

in the records of the Journals of the House anything from committee in the way of amendments and so on.

Those occur in orders of the day when adequate notice is given.

Unfortunately that was a verbal amendment, I understand, from committee

and therefore wouldn't be printed.

MR. PHILLIPS: I gave proper notice. It was printed and laid

on the Clerks' desk. Then, in the future when an amendment is

brought up in committee, in order to have it in Votes and

Proceedings should we ask that it be printed?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, you would have to in a case such as that.

It is something to alert yourself for — where you know it is not

printed up in the orders of the day, you ask the chairman of

the committee to have this recorded in Votes and Proceedings

then we will get it there; but I cannot control that which

happens in committee. That is up to the committee itself.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll do what I can to help on that matter, to

set out a procedure that you can use.

MR. GARDOM: On the very point that you are mentioning, Mr.

Speaker, as a matter of practice I think it would be most

useful for the House, and certainly for the dissemination of

public information, that when amendments to bills are made in

committee the procedure that you suggested be followed

automatically whereby we would always have a record of an

amendment to a bill, because that is not possible under the

existing procedure.

In the past session I can remember in quite a few statutes, particular the

Land Act , there were two or three amendments which did not find themselves into

the Journals of the House but only, of course, were recorded in Hansard . The

point has been raised to me by various of the legal libraries in the Province

of British Columbia. The proposal would be of great assistance to them and to

the general public.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we have asked the legislative counsel,

who keep records of what transpires in terms of changes in

legislation, to keep a record of amendments and see that

something is reported on those amendments so the public can

gain the information immediately that there has been a change

in a bill proposed and passed in this House, either in

committee or in third reading.

Motions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on motion

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

government is still receiving information by virtue of the

debate already in the private Members' day last week. I was in

touch with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who

wasn't present in the House on the occasion of that debate, and

he assures me that the Treasury Board will be looking into the

question of tax reform. The government isn't prepared to

support this motion at this particular time, however, I think

it still should be left for people in the House to look at, and

I move adjournment of the debate again.

Motion approved.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

have the honour to present a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, There is no indication that we

are leaving motions. Sorry, no, it is quite all right. It is a

message bill, I understand.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Lieutenant-Governor still has some

authority around here.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Credit

Act .

Bill 44 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.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, are we introducing

bills now?

[ Page 436 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MS. SANFORD: All right.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I may point out, no. A message bill can

come in at any time when there is a break in any proceedings.

We are still on motions and adjourned debate on motion.

MS. SANFORD: Was there a call for introduction of bills

today? I didn't hear it.

MR. SPEAKER: Not as yet.

MS. SANFORD: Right. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It follows after motions, I believe.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to the

introduction of bills.

Motion approved.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

Ms. Sanford moves introduction and first reading of Bill 38

intituled

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 38 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE REAL ESTATE ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 29 intituled

An Act to Amend the Real Estate Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 29 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.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills in the hands of private Members.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr.

Speaker.

SUPPLEMENTARY MUNICIPAL

ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The principle of this

bill is to bring about a better balance for all the

municipalities within the Province of British Columbia with

respect to industrial assessments whenever and wherever they

may be located. I think it is a generally known fact that at

the present time inequities do exist and that because of

locations either geographic or some other favourable reasons

one municipality may be blessed with an abundance of industrial

assessments while another, because of similar situations, will

find themselves in a very unfavourable position with respect to

assessments being available to them — even though these

municipalities may be required, and most of the time are

required, to provide the services for the people who work for

the particular industries involved.

So the principle of this bill would be to strike a mean or a

level, taking into consideration the total industrial

assessment in the Province of British Columbia, and dividing

that by the total per capita population within all the

municipalities of the province. In that way you would arrive at

an average industrial assessment within the Province of British

Columbia.

We did some calculations and found that the average

assessment on a per capita basis in the Province of British

Columbia is presently $2,860. Now, we also found in looking

this matter over that there are presently 98 municipalities in

the Province of British Columbia whose average industrial

assessment is somewhat below the $2,860 level, which is an

average for all municipalities in the province.

We found that this happens most often in the smaller

municipality. For instance, it certainly does not apply to the

City of Vancouver or the City of Victoria because their

industrial assessment is much higher on a per capita basis, and

for that reason they would not be included.

By the same token, they do have other problems which are

pertinent and peculiar to their circumstance — and I can name

one, rapid transit or city transportation systems and so on — that other areas are not involved in.

The idea behind this would be to assess all of these

municipalities. As I have said, in looking over the statistics

that are available to us from the Assessment Equalization Act

and from the assessment commission we find 98 municipalities in

the Province

[ Page 437 ]

of British Columbia that would be affected. I would like to

name a few of them that I picked at random: Nelson, Revelstoke,

Chilliwack, Rossland, Armstrong, Fort Nelson, Merritt,

Cumberland, Dawson Creek, Sidney, Fort St. John, McBride. These

are all municipalities which have a lower industrial assessment

base available to them than the $2,860 average.

Now, the bill provides that these municipalities would

receive a per capita grant to bring them up to the provincial

average. I'd like to take as an example the municipality of

Fernie because I have the figures on it. The municipality of

Fernie has available to it on a per capita basis at the present

time, on the basis of a one mill assessment, $1.25. So there's

a shortfall. The difference between the provincial average of

$2.86 and $1.25 equals $1.71, and it is the intention of this

particular bill that the shortfall would be made up out of the

revenue of the province to that municipality at the rate of

$1.61 times the population of 4,422 for a total grant of

$7,150.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, on a point of order being

made.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Point of order. I've

been following the speaker closely and he just said that the

shortfall should be made up by a grant from consolidated

revenue. I think that offends standing order 67, Mr. Speaker,

and I wonder if you'd rule on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I can see from studying Bill 26, sections

3 and 4, that first of all there's a duty cast upon the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance which

would change their duties and increase the expenditure required

by the Crown. Secondly, in any event, there's a requirement

that the Minister of Finance

"shall in each year pay from the Consolidated Revenue Fund

to any municipality an equalization grant which…shall be

equal to the product of the population of the municipality

multiplied by the difference between an amount based upon a one

mill tax levy…as determined under subsection (1) of

section

3."

Now, this is altering the revenues of the Crown, it's also

altering the expenditures of the Crown and it's placing a

different obligation upon the Crown than presently exists by

law. In all those circumstances, a number of decisions

following standing order 67 have held that this would be out of

place in the hands of a private Member and must come in by

message, as I've indicated earlier. In this circumstance I have

no course open but to rule it out of order under our

constitution.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't intend to

challenge your ruling, but all I would like to say is that we

feel that it's a very worthwhile idea and would certainly

encourage the government to proceed along the lines that we've

suggested.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. I try to allow Members,

as far as possible, to explain their purpose so that the House

will know it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

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

about three years ago in the City of Victoria the chief

constable of the municipal police department initiated a plan

which I believe was then unique in Canada, perhaps throughout

North America, with respect to the engaging of law students in

universities in British Columbia as temporary police officers

or police cadets. The police cadet category was used

particularly because the young men were not yet 21 years of age

as is required in most police departments.

It has proven to be an extremely useful scheme, both for the

students involved and for the permanent members of the police

departments concerned, in order that they might have an

opportunity to closely associate with quite young men who are

going through the university system. It has also, I think,

brought two age groupings together in a manner which has proven

difficult, particularly where law enforcement is concerned.

As I said a few moments ago, the proposal was first tried by

Chief Constable Gregory of the City of Victoria Police

Department, and I believe it was in 1970. One year later, at

the conclusion of the university year, the same scheme was

introduced in the District of Saanich, and I have reason to

believe, in view of publicity in a number of journals across

Canada, that the proposal is being tried elsewhere in the

country.

I realize that at any point, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) will rise.

This amendment to the Municipalities Aid Act would suggest

to the government that by contributing relatively small amounts

of dollars to these particular police departments where such a

cadet programme using university students is introduced, they

would endorse the campaign and would see, perhaps, that it has

some of the benefits which I have just outlined. The dollars

involved undoubtedly are very small, but I suggest that the

concept, again introduced by a very well-known and respected

chief constable in the British Columbia area, has much to

recommend it.

[ Page 438 ]

HON. MR. HALL: …a dollar is a dollar. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty cents.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I am to take it from that remark about

a dollar that there must be something to do with money in this

bill. Bill 28 does require that the Lieutenant-Governor "may

prescribe to the Minister of Finance how much he shall in each

year pay from consolidated revenue.

It also follows from that that it would be out of order in

the hands of a private Member to impose any obligation upon the

Crown other than by message. Therefore it is out of order under

standing order 67. I so rule.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public

bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

11, Mr. Speaker, the Labour Code of British Columbia Act .

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): It's a good thing we have

some amplifiers outside. To hear what's taking place, there

appears to be a bit of anxiety on the part of the government to

rush this through the House…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no.

MR. CHABOT: …before interested parties will have an

opportunity of expressing their attitudes and opinions on this

new direction and most critical piece of legislation to be

introduced in the House during the current session.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's committee stage.

MR. CHABOT: In discussing the principle of the bill, there

are many broad principles included in the bill, and there are

many questions that come to mind relative to the legislation. I

see that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is not in his

seat. I had hoped that he would be in his seat to hear some of

the questions that I might put to him relative to the functions

and the administration of the new labour code of British

Columbia.

We see in the labour code that the board shall publish general policies that

are formulated. The question that comes to mind, of course, is: will the board

also publish guidelines that clearly indicate what an appropriate bargaining

unit is? I think it's very important that we know whether the board is going

to define what an appropriate bargaining unit is.

We see in the bill that the board has the power to treat

individuals, corporations, syndicates or associations as one

employer. I'm wondering in the administration and in their

decision on the treating of these various groups as one

employer, whether they'll be establishing a precedent, such as

has been established many times in courts, that will reflect

future decisions by the board relative to the amalgamation of

certain corporations, organizations and individuals which they

consider to constitute one employer.

We see also some vague terminology in the bill called voting

constituency. I hope they're not referring to my constituency,

but rather about an employer when they're talking about voting

constituency. It appears to be a very vague term and it appears

that the administration of this voting constituency will be a

nightmare.

Its application and the determination of what constitutes a

constituency will be very difficult to administer, because

within the voting constituency it takes 35 per cent of the

workers signed up with a union in order to get a unit

established.

Further on, we notice that the board has the power to decide

whether that unit is appropriate or whether certain segments of

that constituency are appropriate for a collective bargaining

unit. It's going to be very difficult, in my opinion, for the

board to determine whether a segment of the voting constituency

represents 35 per cent of the members who have decided they

want to become part of a union and part of a bargaining

unit.

We see all through the Act, very clearly spelled out, the

powers that are given to the board. But there is one very

significant change in the Act relative to power, and that is in

the matter of technological change. And those powers are

conferred upon the Minister; the Minister has all the powers

when it comes to the question of technological change.

We see that, because of a technological change it appears to

me at least, the collective agreement is no longer in force

because of the dispute of a technological change. It appears

that there will be a proliferation of disruptions, a

proliferation of lockouts, strikes and picketing, which I don't

think is in the best interests of labour peace in the

province.

We see new terminology in the legislation and that is an

"ally" — an ally of a struck plant; ally of an employer; and

the determination and the

interpretation of who an ally is

rests only with the board. The burden of proof as to whether an

employer is an ally rests strictly with that employer.

I can foresee a substantial increase in picketing in the

province because of this terminology. It will then be necessary

for the employer to justify before the

[ Page 439 ]

board that he's not an ally of the struck employer. I can

see a wide expansion of picketing and interruptions in various

segments of our economy in the province. It will be necessary

for the employer to appeal to the board to justify that he's

not an ally in these situations.

In the bill we see some new terms which I haven't had

sufficient time to examine. However, I have examined other

labour codes across this country and, in the limited amount of

time that I've had to examine these other labour codes, I

haven't found the words "professional strikebreaker" being

included in any of these other pieces of labour legislation.

Certainly the matter of professional strikebreakers, which in

my opinion has never reared its head in British Columbia, could

be handled without the usage of this word as in the

interpretation of the Act, I know that there has been established in one of the

provinces of this country a professional strikebreaking force.

Maybe the reason for the inclusion of this terminology in this

particular Act is the experience of that particular province.

It is very clearly an inflammatory term, really, which could

best have been covered without the usage of the words

"professional strikebreakers."

We see in the legislation that a matter which the Premier

said was one of high principle with him has been covered. In

the throne speech there was the question outlined by His Honour

that the sanctity of individual religious beliefs would be

protected. Subsequent to that, the Premier stated that it's

always been a matter of high principle with him to protect

individual religious beliefs.

When one looks at the

section dealing with that in the

legislation, one has to conclude that this statement is less

than honest, because it does not cover the concern, it does not

cover the apprehensions that people of strong religious beliefs

have. I believe….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must say on a point of order

that I don't think a statement made by any Member attributing

to another Member a statement "less than honest" is really

acceptable. I would ask the Hon. Member to avoid that

expression.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it if it offends

you, but really….

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a question of that. It offends against

the rules. I'm never offended at anything.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, if it offends the rules I shall and

I will withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. CHABOT: But one has to question the statement of the

Premier that it is a matter of high principle with him. He has

received a fair amount of correspondence from people who

object, not only to belonging to a union but object to

financial contributions to unions as well.

I cannot understand the reason why the government would not

protect the rights of individuals who have strong religious

convictions. There has been no hesitation in the Provinces of

Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan to include, as the Minister

would say, a comprehensive

section dealing with this very

matter.

Yet we see in British Columbia, despite the statements of

the Premier, that they are unwilling to deal with a matter that

is of concern to so few people in British Columbia.

Certainly you could have copied in this legislation many of

the sections of the Labour Code of Manitoba. Certainly you

could have copied the sections which they have dealing with

individual religious beliefs. They have a good

section that

deals with the problem; so does the Province of Saskatchewan,

another socialist province. But the difference in the socialist

provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba is that they believe in

protecting the individual's religious beliefs.

In British Columbia, we merely pay lip service to this

matter. Yet when we look also to enlightened England, when we

look at their industrial relations Act of 1971, they have a

section that clearly spells out and clearly resolves the

concern of those people, those few people basically who would

be affected in British Columbia.

If you will bear with me for just one moment, Mr. Speaker,

it's a very short

section and I'll read it to you. I would hope

that the government would reconsider that part of the labour

code. If they don't like what they see in Saskatchewan and

Manitoba, why don't they go to England and institute the

following section?

"Any worker who conscientiously objects both to joining a registered trade union and to contributing

to its fund, under the terms of an agency shop agreement, may

offer to pay an equivalent contribution to a charity. If there

is a dispute with the union as to whether the worker's

conscientious objection is genuine, which charity should

receive the worker's contribution, the amount that should be

paid, the dispute may be referred to an industrial tribunal

whose decision is final."

What's wrong with inclusion of a

section of this nature? I

receive numerous letters from individuals who are concerned

about participating or belonging — and when I say

"participating" I am talking about participating in a financial

way — towards a trade union. And in each and every case they

haven't only

[ Page 440 ]

stated that they are opposed to belonging to unions, but

they have stated that they are opposed to contributing

financially to a union. All they ask is that the dollars be

redirected to a charity, and not necessarily even a charity — they are willing, I am sure, to make a contribution to help

sustain the costs of the administration of the new labour code

of British Columbia. They are willing to direct their dollars

there. It doesn't necessarily have to be to a charity, but

their concern is the contribution to a union. I hope that this

government will bring in an amendment to this

section so that

they can have enlightened legislation such as there is in

Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Now, the legislation certainly has broad ramifications, as I

said yesterday. I believe it is a genuine attempt on the part

of the government to improve the labour climate in our

province. There are many of the sections that can be best

discussed in the committee stage, where we can have a full and

wide opportunity to establish the intent of the government

relative to the implementation of various sections. Therefore,

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve any further comments for the

committee stage of this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in rising to

discuss the principles involved in this pretty lengthy and

complicated bit of legislation, may I first say that our party

intends to support the legislation at this reading. We feel

that the climate that we have had of labour unrest in the

province has been a tremendous disadvantage to the Province of

British Columbia. We feel that the Minister has acted correctly

in attempting to rectify many of the problems that have

occurred in past years.

In addition, I would like to compliment him on the

legislation that he has brought forward. I have compared it

with the Ontario Act, upon which it is modeled, and in the

areas which are similar, I think in many cases the Minister has

managed to find wording superior to that of the Ontario Act.

Now I realize, of course, that it is not his personal efforts

in this area of improving the grammar, and sometimes tidying

the legislation up, but he has found people to do this for him,

and I congratulate him on it. It is a fine bit of work, in

terms of a very detailed bit of work, and in principle we find

it possible to support it.

Having said that, of course, I will now come to buts,

howevers and whereases. We do find that there are a number of

things in the legislation which cause a good deal of

concern.

First of all, and this will be discussed much more in the committee stage,

is the apparent withdrawal of appeal to the courts. I know the Minister has

talked about this in his introduction to the bill, and I realize that he has

put forward comments on this. More will be said by us at the committee stage

on this aspect of the bill, and more will be said by other speakers of our party

on this particular proposal.

The second point I would like to mention at this time, which

has been mentioned before and which we will mention again, is

the phoniness of the conscience clause contained in this

legislation. If a man does not wish to belong to an association

he generally objects equally strongly to contributing money to

its support. The provisions which allow for an equivalent

amount of money to be turned over to a charity are, we feel,

good ones and we would urge that at the committee stage an

amendment to this effect be put in by the government.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most important aspect as we see it,

of course, is the opportunity for the labour court or the

labour board — whatever we want to call it — to have a person

on the spot with great dispatch to attempt to settle any

differences or difficulties that arise. We think that in this

instance by using such a person it may be possible to get the

two parties together, and it may be possible through more

flexibility and certainly more speed to get some sort of

settlement, although we expect to hear a great deal more from

the Minister on this in the committee stage.

The bill which the Minister has brought in has a number of

aspects which we find to be questionable, but most are in

matters of detail, or matters clause-by-clause, and we will go

into it later. But the point that I want to comment upon most

at this time is that perhaps what is needed in British

Columbia, in addition to new legislation, is a new climate of

labour relations. The Minister himself has made this perfectly

clear and the Premier has as well. Other Members have talked

about it. You can work with bad legislation; it's done in many

parts of the world and yet things still work adequately. And

you can have the best legislation in the world, but as the

Minister pointed out the other day unless both sides are

willing to make it work it won't work. That probably is the

area where we feel the handling of this bill has been most

unsatisfactory.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to suggest that the B.C.

Federation of Labour is the only organization that should be

thought of — far from it. But the fact is that the B.C.

Federation of Labour and other labour organizations have not

instantly warmed to this bit of legislation. They have real

questions which they are raising, they have concerns, and they

want to consider it. Next week in this city — next Tuesday, I

believe — right after the long weekend the B.C. Federation of

Labour are going to have a meeting here to put forward their

amendments, put forward their changes and put forward their

proposals, after having considered the bill.

Now, what I find to be totally incomprehensible is why it's

necessary to try and jump the gun on all these organizations,

some of which — and I'm

[ Page 441 ]

speaking specifically of the Federation — have stated that

this legislation may well create more labour trouble than we

have had in the past. Now, in the abstract, looking at the

words of the bill, the Minister and I can say, "Gee, it's a

better bit of legislation," but if the B.C. Federation

of Labour, a fairly important body in the labour field of

British Columbia, says that they think it's worse than

previously, what in heaven's name is the enormous need for

speed to get this wretched thing rammed through this

Legislature?

I have been quoted, and I have a few quotations around here,

as saying that we generally favour the bill, and I've mentioned

the numbers of the areas of concern which we are going to

discuss in the committee stage. But what beats me completely,

unless it is simply that lingering, festering bad blood between

the premier and the Federation of Labour, which goes back some

way, is why this legislation has to be introduced in an

inflammatory way. Why is it, for example, that I have had no

opportunity as the leader of an opposition party, and I know

this to be true for the Social Credit as well, of sending

copies of the bill out to people in the labour field, as well

as in the management field, and asking them for their views — this through correspondence? It's not just a question of not

receiving a reply; in some cases they haven't even received our

initial letter asking for this information. Now what possessed

the government, what possessed the Ministers of the Crown, in

this instance…?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's of critical importance. We waited

over a year for this legislation.

MR. CHABOT: He's a railroader.

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

That sounded parliamentary. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He's a highballer too, it's pretty

obvious. What possessed him to bring in legislation in this

way, to push it forward in the Legislature as fast as possible

and to insist that it be discussed by this Legislature in

principle before we have had an opportunity of consulting with

the many people in society who are, of course, individually

affected because they are either one party or the other and,

just as important, the public itself — the third group always

ignored in labour management disputes but who normally get it

in the neck and bear the brunt of the problems concerned?

Why has it not been possible for this debate to be delayed? Is it simply because

the Premier wishes to settle a few old scores with the federation, wishes to

show who's boss in the province? Or psychologically, perhaps, he needs building

up. I don't know. But why is it that he's done it this way? He is creating the

very problem which defeated the previous legislation which was brought into

this Legislature with such high hopes — at least high hopes by the government

of the day when they brought it in.

Now we know that that legislation theoretically could have

worked and the previous speaker has indicated so. He said it

was bad blood. He said that it was not bad legislation; it's

just that people wouldn't let it work.

Now we know that to be the case and we know this legislation

essentially is another attempt. There's nothing in this, as the

Minister himself admitted when he brought it in. He said,

"Chief, we're going to have to amend it later on; it's not the

final answer; it's just something we're going to be working

with until we fix it up and improve it."

Okay, fine, it is to a degree draft legislation which you

brought in. You want to get it in and then you're going to

change it later on. Fair enough. And I've given the Minister

credit for bringing in detailed legislation which made a great

deal more sense than that of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich), which I was complaining about yesterday.

But in heaven's name, why is it necessary to start your

legislation off on the wrong foot? Why is it necessary to bring

it in at this time, to have this bit of legislation, so

important to the future of British Columbia, so important to

every one of us, be they labour, management or the general

public at large, even the small pensioner who of course can be

affected by a strike as much as anyone, why is it necessary for

all these people to have their hopes for a better labour

climate in British Columbia jeopardized by incompetence in the

handling of this bill? I don't know.

I raise this. I suggest to you that the reason is simply

because of a vendetta which has been built up between certain

people in the Federation of Labour and now certain people in

the government, in particular the Premier. This sort of

childishness, when you're dealing with labour relations in the

Province of British Columbia, is probably the major area of

concern, certainly of this legislative session and quite

possibly of this Legislature's whole life of three or four

years, whatever it turns out to be. Why was it necessary to

start off so badly?

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to pursue this indefinitely, but

it seems to me that what we've seen is that this very first

step is a wrong step, a step in the wrong direction in the

handling of this bit of legislation.

Now I know that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is

not the House Leader and I appreciate the fact that he

undoubtedly is not responsible for forcing this into the House

at this stage or indeed

[ Page 442 ]

previously. I can give credit to the Minister. He wanted to

get his initial statement on record in the Legislature and he

did that a short time ago. Then his debate was adjourned by the

Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and it was a

sensible proposal for the Minister to speak first and then to

have the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've been listening for quite

some time with some concern. We're supposed to be debating the

principle of the bill and not the expediency or otherwise of

how a bill is put in or whether it was advisable to put it in

or not. The subject of the bill has to be the subject of

discussion. It follows that it must be on the principle of the

bill that the debate takes place. I would urge, after that long

preliminary by the Hon. Member, that we now deal with the

principle of the bill itself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I respect your views.

I'm simply talking about the statement of the B.C. Federation

of Labour, and I quote from the Daily Colonist of Wednesday,

October 3: "The Federation's statement called for King to

introduce amendments" — and they go on to say — "the

potentially disastrous implications" of this legislation.

Now what I'm trying to suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the

manner of handling of this legislation is somewhat important.

Indeed, I think it's very integral to the whole concept of

bringing forward labour legislation. The approach taken has

been such that I myself don't believe that we are doing our

very best to encourage labour peace in British Columbia and get

this legislation accepted, any more than the previous

legislation was accepted.

I don't believe it's possible for us to have this type of

legislation accepted by the rank and file of union membership,

by the employers' associations, by large numbers of small

employers who are pretty busy people. They want to look at

legislation that obviously may be critical to them; these

people want to have an opportunity of looking at this

thing.

MR. SPEAKER: The proper place to debate that would be on a

motion to adjourn the debate or some such place that deals with

the order of business. Here we're concerned with the principle

of the bill itself. I would ask the Hon. Member somehow to come

around to that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate your

comments. Therefore, I will put forward in my name now a motion

to adjourn this debate for the reasons that I've stated and

what I'll continue to discuss, if permitted to talk about the

motion, for a moment or two. I will put forward a formal motion

to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has made a motion that the

debate on Bill 11 be adjourned until the next sitting of the

House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will be doing that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You are doing that now?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if I'm given the opportunity to

explain the reasoning for my motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought you had done that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps it's crystal clear to you, Mr.

Speaker, but your genius is probably greater than most of us in

the room. I don't know whether anybody has understood my

point.

If I might just restate this thing and then put the motion

on the floor, my point is this: this legislation, if it's to be

effective, if it's to change the climate of labour unrest in

British Columbia, the province which has the worst record by

far of any in Canada, it has to be acceptable to both sides.

The manner of proceeding in this debate, the manner of

introducing this legislation has not, in my mind, been the best

process that could have been followed to have this legislation

properly accepted.

My motion therefore would be to adjourn, Mr. Speaker, and

allow the government to wait until such time as the Federation

has had its meeting, until such time as the employers' council

and other employer groups have had their meetings to discuss

the legislation; to delay this until such time as they've had

an opportunity to inform us, face-to-face, which they're

entitled to do as we are their legislators and

representatives.

This has not yet happened. We are debating a bill in

principle before we've had a chance for the public to make

their views known. Therefore I move adjournment, Mr. Speaker,

of this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is whether the

debate on second reading of Bill 11 shall be adjourned to the

next sitting of the House. All those who support the motion and

vote "yea," please stand.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: He tried to sneak in while I was out of the

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, be seated. All those

[ Page 443 ]

who oppose the motion and vote "nay," please

stand.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, be seated.

HON. MR. HALL: If you weren't ready to speak, why did you

stand up?

CLERK: Voted "yea": Chabot, Richter, Smith, Fraser, Phillips, McClelland,

Morrison, Schroeder, Bennett, Anderson, Williams, Gardom, Wallace, Curtis. Fourteen.

Voted "nay": Hall, Macdonald, Barrett, Dailly, Nimsick,

Stupich, Hartley, Calder, Nunweiler, Brown, Sanford, D'Arcy,

Cummings, Dent, Levi, Lorimer, Williams, Cocke, King, Young,

Radford, Lauk, Nicolson …

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Mr. Clerk, I don't think the Hon.

Minister Without Portfolio stood.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): I was

informed that I had been paired after I got in the House. I

would like a negative vote recorded but I was not clear on this

point. Was I paired or was I supposed to be out of the

House?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I think that was an error, not

mine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A rule of our House is that if a

Member comes in, the Whip corrects the statement of the Clerks

of the House and no Member can be seated on the affirmative or

negative vote both. You must vote; you cannot abstain.

I take it that the Hon. Member is asking that his vote be

recorded as opposed to the motion. Is that correct?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

MR. CHABOT: The pairing arrangements. We are destroying the

whole concept of pair arranging. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: There is no such rule in the House. By a courtesy only

is extended the right for absent Members to have pairs in the House. There is

one rule in the House that must be observed and that is that a Member must vote

when he is seated in the House. I have asked what his vote would be. I can conduct

the vote over again so that it would be ascertained. Do you wish me to conduct

the vote over again?

MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that it is not

possible for a Member of one party to pair with a Member of

another party? Is that what you are suggesting?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't suggest things; I state things.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, you don't always state things.

MR. SPEAKER: I state, as a rule of this House that must be

observed, that a Member sitting in this House must vote either

for or against any proposition.

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether there was an

arrangement between the Member….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated

so we may conduct a vote.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Chabot

Richter

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 35

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

PAIRED

McGeer

Lea

Jordan

Strachan

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Recorded, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

[ Page 444 ]

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a

point of order. It was my early understanding when I first came

into this House that when a vote was called for recording, no

one left the chamber or entered it.

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct. Did someone leave the

chamber?

MR. RICHTER: We were standing on this side of the House when

the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) came in the

door.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Before the vote was called, he was in

his seat; before I called for the "yea" votes he was in his

seat. I saw him there but I was puzzled at the fact that his

name had been mentioned in pairs. But it is not my duty to draw

that to the attention of the Whips.

MR. CHABOT: Don't pair with the socialists; you can't trust

them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This unquestionably has to be

one of the most important bills which this House has debated in

a long time. Let me make it very clear early in my remarks that

the Conservative Party strongly supports the concept of trade

unionism. We believe that the trade union movement has made a

contribution to society and to an improved standard of

living.

But the question which faces society is the balance of power

between management and labour; the balance of power and the

techniques which are to be used when that balance of power is

disturbed or when disputes arise.

I'd like to say that this party will want to offer a

temperate approach, as the Minister suggested. This is no time

for partisan politics; it is a very complex issue of vital

importance to the whole of the province. I think the government

has made a sincere attempt to grapple with some of the problems

and we will try, as a party, to be as positive as we can be in

this great goal of solving the problem of labour unrest and

dispute.

The bill has some considerable merit. There are some points

which we think are very good. There are some points we think

are very bad and there are some points we are not sure about, I

feel that if both sides clearly recognize at the outset the

sincere attempt that the government has made and they are

prepared at least to give the board a fair and frank and honest

opportunity to fulfill its intended role, then there is hope

for a fruitful and enlightened era in labour relations in this

province.

On the other hand, if either side flies off in some kind of tantrum over either

a potential or actual shortcoming of the legislation without appreciating the

overall potential for good in the bill, then an opportunity for progress in

labour relations will be lost and many serious disruptions in the economy of

the province will continue to occur. It is from that basic standpoint that the

Conservative Party hopes to offer constructive criticism.

We listened with interest to the Minister's remarks

yesterday. While we see the philosophy behind the dramatic

removal of the courts entirely from the scene, we have to raise

the strongest possible objection to the bill on this one point.

I will try to explain myself clearly.

The delegation of extensive power to the new board, without

the right of appeal, inevitably places the complete and total

onus for success of the new legislation on the chairman and

members of the board. The obvious intent, as the Minister said,

was to take the courts out of the whole picture and put the

total responsibility onto the new Labour Relations Board. Since

that is the government's concept, then one can perhaps

understand why they have given the board so much power.

I recognize, Mr. Minister, that you have given the board no

power to impose sanctions, and I respect that. But just because

the board cannot impose penalties does not mean that one or the

other party before the board might suffer considerable harm of

economic, social or various other ways without being actually

fined or imprisoned.

In that situation there is absolutely no mechanism whereby

the individual can seek to appeal the decision of the board — as far as I can determine in researching this matter. I might

say I'll have a little more to say about the haste with which

the bill is being debated….

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's committee stage, so there's a long

time yet.

MR. WALLACE: That's true, Mr. Premier. But I'm just going to

try to touch on two very basic points and we'll cover all the

detail in committee.

The implication seems to be that the courts were either

disinterested or ineffectual in previous situations. I

understand that at one time the courts did not well understand

labour disputes, and this is a point the Minister made — there

was at one time a blizzard of injunctions. But I think the

record shows that in recent years that has diminished very

considerably. The court, indeed, has a wider awareness of the

essence of these disputes.

To get back to the point of the power which is given to the

board, and I have to go into some detail in this because this

is the one point on which if we cannot have amendments — and we

will seek to bring in amendments — then this party would have

[ Page 445 ]

oppose Bill 11 unless we can be assured that the very

central point which I hope to make is remedied. Because the

board not only has exclusive jurisdiction, it has the power to

determine the extent of its jurisdiction and its ability to

interpret points of law.

Any other judicial body, or quasi-judicial body, or any

court in the land, whether it has powers to sanction or not,

does not have that power without at the same time allowing the

party before the court some avenue of appeal. It's just that

simple.

There is no way that this party can accept the power given

to the Labour Relations Board unless the party or parties

before the board have some mechanism of appeal.

It really disturbs me that a government which professes to

be very concerned about the democratic process, the natural

process of justice and defence of the individual, should bring

in a bill of this nature and give this kind of power, this

absolute power. I'm sure that with all the goodwill in the

world, the Members of the board will try to use that power

wisely, but, Mr. Speaker, the history of mankind is that we're

all human and we all make mistakes.

The implication in this bill is that the Labour Relations

Board will make no mistakes and therefore there will be no need

of an appeal. Now this is just so unacceptable and unreasonable

that I feel sure the government will reconsider and build into

the bill, as we now have it, some mechanism by which a person

who considers himself aggrieved can appeal the decision of the

board. Because not only can they not appeal the decision, but

there is no appeal mechanism if by chance the board has

misinterpreted the law, misinterpreted their terms of

reference.

Of course, their terms of reference are so absolute, and

they have such absolute power that it's very difficult to see

if there's anything they cannot do. It seems as though they

have such extensive powers that it's very difficult to imagine

how one could appeal successfully even if the appeal mechanism

were there.

The discretion which is allowed to the board, I think, is

far in excess of what is reasonable. I would question whether

in fact there is any other board of this nature in existence

that has this power and also denies the interested parties the

right of appeal.

I think, as I've said already, that our whole system of

justice is based on the fact that even judges are human and

fallible. They're highly trained; they're impartial; they're

well intentioned and well motivated, but the highest judge in

the land can make a mistake or he can misinterpret the law or

misapply the law. It's such a fundamental concept, in my

understanding at least, of the democratic system of government

and the process of natural justice that the party shall always

have a chance to appeal the decision made in a court.

Surely this is, although the Minister has tried to say this is not, a labour

court. The fact that it's been given so much power and has legal representation

on the board, and that the chairman is a renowned and highly skilled lawyer,

proves beyond all doubt that it is indeed a labour court. I think that as such,

it should be viewed in the same light as any other court which hands down judgments.

Just to say that because this particular court cannot hand down penalties, I

think, overlooks a tremendous amount of other harm which the court by mistakes,

human mistakes, can make and in making such mistakes can do an individual or

a union or an employer a tremendous amount of harm. And such a party has no

right of appeal.

In fact, it would be my impression from talking with members

of the legal profession that this bill is unconstitutional and

likely very soon after it is passed there will be a dispute in

which the constitutionality of the bill will in all likelihood

be challenged. I hope it is because I, just personally, in no

way could support this bill unless we have an amendment which

brings in the right of appeal.

As the premier interjected a minute ago, we can talk at

great length in committee on many of the sections, and I'll

just quickly talk on one or two general points.

The composition of the board: again I think even finding the

very best people for the job that you can…. I'm a little

surprised that at least eight of the board are already tagged

with one or another realm of experience which in the public

mind would identify them clearly either with labour or with

management. It's my feeling — personal opinion — that we should

have gone the whole way and appointed four or five judges

trained in labour and regard them all as impartial people with

experience in the total field of labour and management. But the

only person who is really totally and clearly not tagged with a

labour or a management label is the chairman, and he's an

academic. I'm not totally convinced that the academic kind of

person is the best man to handle this, but I am very willing to

admit that this is an innovation by the government which we

would be interested to watch and support the concept.

Let me make it plain, Mr. Speaker, I'm not reflecting on the

personalities concerned. I am just saying that the set-up on

the board clearly distinguishes that there are four and four of

the eight Members, and the chairman is the only one who has no

clear previous connection with either side of the

labour-management situation. The word "court" of course implies

neutrality and objectivity, and I have to say that because of

the way it is composed I think that that concept is in some

doubt at this point.

The tremendous power also given to the board helps the board

to decide on the

interpretation of the definition, There are

some interesting new phrases such as "professional strike

breaker" and "ally" that are included in the bill which we will

discuss in some

[ Page 446 ]

detail later. Nevertheless, just to take one quick simple

example: supervisory personnel have always been in a position

where they continue work during a strike. If you read the bill

carefully, one could easily assume that supervisory personnel…again, in their wisdom and judgment, this absolutely

powerful board could decide that supervisory personnel are

strike breakers. The premier shakes his head, and maybe so.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not professional strike

breakers.

MR. WALLACE: But the fact is, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in the bill.

MR. WALLACE: The point I'm trying to make in general terms,

Mr. Speaker — and I didn't want to get off onto specifics — was

just to say that the fact is that the power to decide who is a

strike breaker rests completely and totally with this board.

Now, it may be the premier's impression, and certainly not his

intention that supervisory personnel will be strike breakers,

but how do we make out if the board decides this?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's defined in the bill.

MR. WALLACE: It is defined. But it doesn't exclude

supervisory personnel.

The whole question of the power of the board is to

interpret, make it so. To the point I made earlier in my

remarks, and probably I didn't make it clear, was that the

board has so much power it has the power to decide the extent

of its own jurisdiction which includes its extent to interpret

the

definitions for itself. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I don't

really think that it's safe enough that the Minister or the

Premier have that

interpretation. It's a question of two

things. The board has been given the power to decide

everything, including the

interpretation of the

definitions.

And again, there's no right of appeal and I just took that

quick example in passing. The question of ally, the word "ally"

concerns me a little bit also.

I am trying to put forward these points so that we will all

have a thorough look at this bill in trying to ensure that the

board will not make that kind of mistake which will create

additional problems which don't exist at the present time. At

least when B.C. Telephone goes on strike the status of the

supervisory personnel is clearly defined. I'm just saying that

under this new bill it's susceptible to other

interpretations,

and that

interpretation made by the board has no avenue of

appeal.

Section 33, I think, certainly has to be the most crucial

section of the total

bill. It says "to determine the extent of its jurisdiction" and "to determine

any fact or question of law necessary to establish its jurisdiction." That is

a complete and total right to the board to define its function and to feel free

and to be free to interpret any question of law in determining its jurisdiction.

I don't think, really, that there is any other body in the

land, a court or otherwise, that has that kind of power. As I

said earlier, just because they do not have the power to put

somebody in jail or fine them, all this other power has some

tremendous ramifications, and I am sure the Minister will admit

this.

Another point the Minister mentioned along the same lines

was that he anticipates that the labour board would give

reasons for its decisions in writing. Now, Mr. Speaker, surely

to goodness there should be no other suggestion, if we are

dealing with matters of this importance. Once again, when a

court in the land, an official court or a judge, hands down his

decision, it is just a matter of natural justice that he gives

his reasons for the decision.

You are shaking your head. Well, this is where we must

differ. The Minister shakes his head and I feel that…I

stand corrected, perhaps, but it was always my understanding

that when a judge makes the important step of deciding on

somebody's future or fate, whether it is civil or criminal, he

at least gives the reasons. And in a court of this magnitude,

where the ramifications are so far….

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Of course he

does.

MR. WALLACE: Well, maybe, Mr. Speaker, I can take another

tack. I don't really feel that whether I am right or wrong

about the judges or the courts of the land is the point. My

point is that this is such a vital function that this Labour

Relations Board is carrying out. It is given total power and

there is no right of appeal. Surely to goodness when you get a

decision from the board it should be in writing and the reasons

should be clearly stated. I can't think of anything more

straightforward than that.

Anyway, I am speaking longer than I had intended. The fact

of the matter is that there is one other particular

section

which — I think it is

section 70 — I feel also must leave a

person of objective mind puzzled. It reads something to the

effect that where we are talking about representation votes,

the statement is made that where the board considers that a

representative vote would not accurately represent the feelings

of the numbers, the board can decide whether to certify or not

certify. I find it, Mr. Speaker, just a staggering thought that

here we have the board, in effect, telling the workers what is

good for them and what is not good for them. I thought that was

the last thing that this government was planning to do.

Now again the Minister shakes his head and we can

[ Page 447 ]

go into it in detail in committee, but…oh, no, it is

section 43. A correction, Mr. Speaker:

section 43, and I'll

quote: "Where the vote is unlikely to disclose the true wishes

of the employees, the board may certify or refuse to certify

without directing that a vote be taken."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If there is intimidation you can't have

a free vote.

MR. WALLACE: But there again, Mr. Attorney General…in

other words, you are saying that votes really don't mean

anything and that the Labour Relations Board is so anointed and

so all-holy and all-understanding that they know better than

the employees they are supposed to be helping.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In that narrow case of intimidation….

MR. WALLACE: Oh, one shouldn't draw up views based on the

narrow exceptions, Mr. Attorney General. I think that that's a

pretty far-reaching premise you're making that because

sometimes this may appear to be the case, you would give the

board this power to disregard a vote, or to tell the workers

that the vote did not really say what it appeared to say.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, as I said at the beginning, Mr.

Speaker, I am only interested in trying to bring these points

forward.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: For one year? I don't really care whether it is

for one day. I think that it is one man, one vote. If there is

some reason to suspect, as the Attorney General has suggested,

that the vote is rigged or that it is inaccurate, there has to

be some other mechanism than just having the power given to the

board, in their wisdom or otherwise, to decide what is good for

the workers. I would suspect that this is the kind of issue

about which the B.C. Federation of Labour is probably

considerably unhappy, and should have more opportunity to talk

about it.

The last point I should probably try to make is also the very surprising point

— or, at least, what seems to me to be a contradiction of government policy

in regard to the first collective agreement. The Minister and I have talked

personally at great length about the Sandringham strike, and I am aware of some

of the difficulties. But it seems to me that the government has always said

that it is opposed to compulsory arbitration; yet the power which is given to

the board to impose the terms of a collective agreement is, in effect, a form

of compulsory arbitration. No question about it.

I haven't got the

section word for word in front of me;

we'll go into it in committee reading. But the fact is that the

bill imposes a form of compulsory arbitration where collective

bargaining has failed in the case of a first agreement. I think

I would like to hear more debate about this. And that relates,

with respect, Mr. Speaker, to so many of the other points. I

sat up till 3:30 on Tuesday morning; I went to bed at 2:30

this morning, reading this bill. It's just a fantastic bill in

complexity, in detail. It has 153 sections, and I have the

additional problem that I have no legal training.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, it is a bit of a handicap trying to

explain exactly what some of the language means. But anyway, I

certainly just have to make the point that I think we are

entitled to more time to study the bill. I think that a bill of

this complexity and the public reaction which has been

provoked, I think, should make us respect the system.

I appeal to the Premier, seriously and without any partisan

political idea of making political yards. I'm just saying to

the Premier that I feel, with the holiday weekend coming up and

the statements that have been made publicly and the obviously

intense feeling of many people, particularly in the labour

movement, that we really should adjourn the discussion at the

moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: We have only got — tomorrow is Friday morning — three hours; we have a long weekend. We are not short of time,

Mr. Premier. There is really no limit. I really feel that

everyone would like to have more time to know more about this

before we get to committee stage.

MR. WALLACE: With that, I would move, Mr. Speaker, that we

adjourn this debate to the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): The point of order is that there

must be intervening proceeding before the same motion for

adjournment can be put.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is in order. In any

event I am not going to stand in his way. The motion before the

House is that this debate

[ Page 448 ]

be adjourned to the next sitting of the House. Is that

correct?

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

to the motion to adjourn….

MR. SPEAKER: There is no debate on motions to adjourn under

our rules. It is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, while we are waiting I think I

should draw your attention to standing order 16, which deals

with divisions. It makes it clear to Hon. Members that until

the question is actually called after waiting for all Members

to appear, up to the moment the Speaker calls and states the

question and asks the Members to stand, Members are entitled to

come in the House. At that moment the Sergeant-at-Arms has

instructions that no Member is permitted into the chamber at

the time the Speaker is starting to state the question. Nor may

you leave until the division is recorded if a division is

called for.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Without raising a point of order at this

time, it might be useful if the effect of standing order 34 was

canvassed in relation to the motion that we are now

considering. Possibly the Speaker could consider that matter

and give a ruling at a later time.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I can say right now that we would not

be able to end this debate by adjournment at 5:55 p.m. unless

there was a right of some Member on his feet at that time to

move the adjournment of the debate. Therefore I take it that

any Member can move adjournment of the debate at any stage in

the proceedings. If he loses, of course, he exhausts his right

to speak. So there is a penalty involved in moving the

adjournment to debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: We might lose the Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Not until the next election.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

McClelland

Anderson, D.A.

Richter

Morrison

Williams, L.A.

Smith

Schroeder

Gardom

Fraser

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Wallace

NAYS — 36

Hall

Cummings

Skelly

Macdonald

Dent

Gabelmann

Barrett

Levi

Lockstead

Dailly

Lorimer

Gorst

Nimsick

Williams, R.A.

Rolston

Stupich

Cocke

Anderson, G.H.

Hartley

King

Barnes

Calder

Lea

Steves

Nunweiler

Young

Kelly

Brown

Radford

Webster

Sanford

Lauk

Lewis

D'Arcy

Nicolson

Liden

AN HON. MEMBER: Record the division.

MR. DENT: Mr. Speaker, after listening to two or three

Members from the other side of the House commenting on this

bill, and since we are under second reading to debate the

principle of the bill, and since it seems from their comments

that I could not learn what the principle of the bill is by

listening to them, I have decided just to restart by reading

just a few comments or a few sentences first that I think would

delineate the principle of the bill, and then I will address my

comments to the principle of the bill.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

The Labour Code of British Columbia Act seeks first of all to repeal three

existing pieces of legislation — the Trade-unions Act , the Labour Relations

Act and the Mediation Services Act — and establishes a new code of labour relations

for British Columbia. The first salient point of the principle of the bill is

that it is a new code of labour relations for British Columbia.

Then it goes on to comment: the philosophy of the new

legislation emphasizes preventatives rather than punitive

action; the code looks to solutions rather than sanctions or

punishments; it has expanded collective rights but protected

individual rights; it endorses free collective bargaining but

legislates in the public interest.

The most profound change of the labour code is a greatly-reformed Labour Relations Board — and we could add the word,

greatly-reformed and strengthened Labour Relations Board. The

changed board will have comprehensive powers to deal with the

problems of industrial relations, including the laws of strikes

and picketing. The jurisdiction of courts to give injunctions

in labour disputes is removed.

To assist the Labour Relations Board in achieving industrial

harmony, a new function has been created in the person of a

special officer. He will become an instant arbitrator-trouble

shooter with power to deal

[ Page 449 ]

with the root causes of labour disputes rather than their

symptoms.

The labour code strikes a balance between the economic

powers of labour and management by restricting the right to

picket but expanding the right to communicate information by

other means.

These words delineate, in a sense, the principle of Bill 11. I would just like to make a few comments about how we can

assess the principle of this bill. After all, this bill is

going to affect every single person in the Province of British

Columbia. It may even be pathfinding legislation on the North

American continent or even on a worldwide basis in some

respects. Therefore, it's important that we make an assessment

of it based on some higher, broader principle, and that's what

I will attempt to do first of all.

I was in the ministry in the Anglican Church for a number of

years. In training for the ministry, we spent four years at

university in the Anglican college studying theology. My hon.

friend who is on the government side but on the other side of

the House (Mr. Rolston) and who is in the United Church

probably took lectures from the same people that I did. The

Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) undoubtedly dipped

into this soft subject as well: the general subject of moral

theology.

If a person elects to be an atheist, that's fine, I don't

mind, it's a free country. They have a basis of making

judgments too. It's based upon what you might call the highest

human morality they can devise or that they can construct in

their own minds. It's this kind of basic thinking that we have

to do around the principle of this bill in order to make some

kind of judgment about it.

My thinking and my studies led me to develop the following

philosophy. Every human being has, in my judgment, a basic

moral responsibility to every other human being, present and

future — in the past to some extent, too, inasmuch as we honour

people in the past. But mainly in the present and in the

future.

This means that we have to have a worldwide view of man. It

means that we have to have a future view of man. We have to

consider the effect now all over, and we have to consider the

effect in time into the future. That's the first

requirement.

The second one is that it is the responsibility of man, according to my understanding

of moral theology, that every person must have a creative, positive and constructive

view towards every other person. In other words, they must seek their highest

good.

These are common sense sort of things you might say; they're

basic things; we don't need to mention them. But I think it's

important that we mention them, that we understand them and the

implications of them. I just want to repeat them again. We must

be concerned about all men for all time and we have to seek

their highest good.

This is not an option in the sense that once I do this, I

have this responsibility; before I become a Christian or before

I become religiously accepted and then I have a different view

afterwards, maybe only towards my fellow believers. I'm sorry

the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is out because I feel

that this is one of the errors of the previous government's

thinking, or at least some of the Members' of the previous

government thinking; that there are two standards, one for the

saved and one for the unsaved, so to speak. One for the

unconverted and one for the converted.

There is one standard for all men, saved and unsaved,

converted and unconverted.

MR. CHABOT: What's your attitude on the conscience

clause?

MR. DENT: I'm coming to the conscience clause. It applies to

everyone. No one can opt out on the grounds that they are now

saved and therefore this doesn't apply to them in quite the

same way, or that they are an atheist and therefore it doesn't

apply to them, or for some other reason. Everyone has the same

moral obligation. I repeat them again: to all men, for all

time. That means all races, everyone.

As a Christian socialist, therefore, I'm committed ideally

to the kind of an economy and the kind of a society where

people will voluntarily work for the benefit of others and for

all others. I presume that this will be the case in heaven. I

imagine that's a definition of heaven, or even Utopia if you

want to use a non-religious term: a society in which people

actually work for each other's benefit, from each according to

his ability to each according to his need.

Oddly enough, that last statement was made by a Marxist or a

Communist or something and yet it's really a Christian

statement. "From each according to his ability, to each

according to his need."

Now, obviously, we're not there yet. We're not at this ideal

situation, because I'm convinced if we were, this bill wouldn't

even be necessary. We wouldn't

[ Page 450 ]

need legislation like this at all. In fact, the legislation

would be wrong if we had arrived at that point in time. If

heaven was here, if benevolence was the law of the land or the

law of the world, we would not require this particular piece of

legislation.

We are faced with a mixed economy. There are elements of

this law of benevolence in practise. I think it's exemplified

by much of our legislation and by legislation of other

governments that things are done because they're worth doing

for people and for no other reason, because we're concerned

about people and they're worth doing for people. This is the

very essence of the moral law; that we must do things because

they are worth doing, because they need to be done for

people.

On the other hand, there are things which we recognize are

done for purely selfish reasons. So in this sense we have a

mixed economy: we have part of our society that's working on a

benevolent basis and part of it that's working on a selfish

basis. In this selfish part of the economy or our society are

adversaries — large forces working; the multi-national

corporation whose aim is profit; the large trade union whose

aim is to benefit their own membership and not necessarily

anyone else; the farmers' organization whose interest and aim

is to better the condition of the farmer and not necessarily

anybody else.

But as it happens, all of these organizations do benefit

other people. There is something of, you might say,

benevolence, either accidental or deliberate, in their

operations. But nevertheless, they are adversaries in the

marketplace, in the selfish part of the economy.

Recognizing this, then, we must bring in legislation. It's

the responsibility of government and of the Legislature to

bring in legislation to regulate that part of the economy which

is not operating according to the benevolent law.

I wish it wasn't necessary. As a Christian, I wish this bill

was not necessary. But it is necessary.

The principles, as they're outlined in the statement I read

at the beginning, involve certain ideas that are worth looking

at. One of them is prevention. It was mentioned the other day

by one of the Hon. Members that a doctor is never called into a

health matter until a person is sick; the idea of prevention is

not really his department. He's trained to deal with sickness,

not with the prevention of sickness necessarily, although he

may become interested in that part of it by taking public

health courses and things like that. But there's so much truth

to this.

As a Christian socialist — I'll just drop the word "Christian" and say as a

"socialist" — as I understand it, our concern should be for prevention. I'm

very happy that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is implementing certain

programmes that are going to do just that. They're going to be as equally concerned

about prevention as they are about the cure. That's according to the laws of

benevolence. We must be concerned with people before they get sick so that they

won't get sick.

There are some people who consider any form of preventive

measure as a form of meddling, involving yourself in their

private business, but I don't consider that meddling if it's

done properly. If you are concerned with prevention, say among

certain types of diseases among young people, it's not meddling

in their lives or in their affairs to try to take measures to

prevent illness or sickness. The principle can be

justified.

Similarly, in this Act the principle of preventiveness is a

very sound principle and necessarily will involve a tribunal or

a body given the responsibility of administering this Act. In

this case, the Labour Relations Board would be interested and

involved in what is happening in the organizations involved in

the economy or affected by this Act before something actually

goes wrong. It's how they do it that is going to be

important.

The second point of the principle that's been mentioned is

balance. There are many who feel that only business people can

be trusted to make decisions about the economy because, after

all, they are trained in business practice, they have business

heads and minds, they can understand the principles of

economics. Therefore, they should be the ones who make the

decisions about economic matters.

On the other hand, there are those in the labour movement

who, rightly or wrongly, feel that business has had a go at it

for over 100 years, let labour have a go at it now, let them

make the economic decisions, let them be trusted to make these

kind of decisions.

Well, if it actually came to a crunch between the two I have

to admit that I would be prepared to accept that latter course.

In other words, if it's a choice between letting business make

all the decisions or labour making the decisions, at this point

in time I would be prepared to let labour have a go at making

these decisions.

However, the aim of this bill is not to do either one of

those two.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no.

MR. DENT: The aim is to have the decisions made in a

balanced manner so that there is input from business, there's

input from labour, and there is a method made of preserving a

balance among the forces involved — at least in the

administration of labour-management relations, a critical

thing.

This, again, is a very big subject — relating it to the

[ Page 451 ]

overall principle of benevolence I mentioned at the

beginning — which one would have really to think about a great

deal. But, viewed from my point of view, I feel that all people

ultimately can be trusted, providing they are affected by a

spirit of goodwill as individuals.

Some Liberal might jump up and say, "Well, that's a

definition of a Liberal." Perhaps in that sense maybe the

Liberals have a point. I wish they had some other points as

well, but at least in matters of being prepared is one good

Liberal point.

MR. GARDOM: Charity begins at home.

MR. DENT: It's also true that everybody can be motivated by

selfishness and greed, and that is a statement that's justified

by the Holy Scripture, not to mention common sense. It's summed

up in the words, "For all have sinned and come short of the

glory of God." "All have sinned." That's the equalizer, the

fact that we are all equally capable of selfishness, greed and

guilt, and therefore no one group can make any claim to either

being totally motivated by goodwill or totally motivated by

greed.

The balance principle recognized this, in my judgment. It

recognizes the redemption of man, the fact that people can be

properly motivated whether they are involved in business,

involved in trade unions, involved in professions, involved in

any other organization. I reject the class-worker idea that one

class must always be right and the other class must always be

wrong.

The third point involved in the principle here is the idea

of an adequately empowered tribunal or administering body and

the terms of reference that are given to this body in terms of

its duties. This is going to be a subject for much debate, I am

sure, especially when we get into section-by-section debate. I

am not totally satisfied that every power given to the board

should be given to the board, or the way it's set up. I'm going

to be studying this a great deal, and perhaps in committee I

might even object to some of the sections in the committee.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no.

MR. RICHTER: Not likely.

MR. DENT: But I may not too; I may be satisfied with them

all. Certainly they are worthy of a considerable amount of

study as to powers this administering body of this Act is going

to operate, and what they are actually going to do. But the

need for one, to me, is unquestionable.

The principle, I believe, is designed to say that it's necessary to have such

a body to adequately administer this kind of legislation because of the very

complex nature of our society, because of the very large forces involved in

the whole process in our society.

However, they almost have to come straight down from heaven

and to be sinless to do the job properly. I suggested it.

It's going to be extremely difficult for these people on

this board. I daresay any combination of people would be

unsatisfactory in some way and it remains to be seen whether

the choices made are wise choices. But the principle is that

this body come into being and that they have the responsibility

of trying to administer this Act. That I support.

There is a third principle, and that is the protection of

individual rights. This is a very tricky business in this

modern day and age because every organization has a certain

position power-wise and so on in society, whether it's big

companies or the professions or big business or the farmers,

the teachers, or whichever group. I've belonged to two or three

of them and they are all very jealous of their power and their

position. They naturally don't want anything done that will

weaken their position for compromises in relation to the other

groups in the marketplace of the economy.

Since we are not at this ideal point of being motivated by

benevolence and goodwill, then every institution must fight for

itself because nobody else will. That's really what it comes

down to.

I believe that it's the responsibility of the labour

movement to fight for its rights in case these powers may be

reduced or eroded to a point where they can no longer

effectively perform their job on behalf of their membership. I

believe it's also the responsibility of other institutions

serving their membership to act likewise. It's going to happen

anyway so we might as well recognize that that's the way it is.

But they will, in fact, be fighting for their position because

that position is important in terms of what they can deliver to

their membership, and, as they see it, to society as a

whole.

Over the next few weeks we are going to be listening to a

great deal of comment from these organizations and I think we

should listen carefully to every word they say.

I do not wish to be a party to anything that's going to put

into the hands of management more power which may reduce the

strength of organized workers in this province. I believe

organized workers in the groups are too weak. I think if we

gave a weapon to management then I would have to take a second

look at it. It's just not the case. It's been said that labour

is too strong. That's nonsense.

The closer I work with the labour groups in the province,

the more I realize they are fighting an uphill battle against a

very strongly entrenched and very powerful group. Therefore, I

would not be in favour of handing them a weapon. But I don't

believe that this bill does this. If it can be shown to me that

[ Page 452 ]

does, then I'm going to be looking at it very carefully. But

individual rights in a struggle among the groups is going to be

difficult to protect in that kind of situation. Where each

group is trying to get one inch higher than the other,

individuals get lost in the shuffle and they lose out.

But there is a matter, in my judgment, of bona fide

religious, conscientious objection. I think the classic case in

history was the case of St. Peter. Peter, one of the Apostles

or disciples of Christ, when he was arrested by the Sanhedrin

shortly after the crucifixion of Christ, shortly after the

Ascension, was told that he was not to preach in the name of

Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem. This was the ruling body of

the day. This was the law of the land if you like, and he was

informed that he was not to preach in the name of Jesus. So he

promptly went out in the street and broke the law; he preached

in the name of Jesus.

He was hauled back in before the ruling body once again, and

he was asked, "Why did you do this? Why did you deliberately

disobey our commands?"

He said, "Should I obey God or should I obey man?"

A euphemism could be, "Should I obey my conscience or should

I obey a human body if I think they are wrong?"

There are labour leaders whom I know personally today, who,

on matters of conscience, have gone to jail because they

believed that the matter for which they were fighting was that

kind of a case. Like St. Peter, they stood firm on their

consciences. These are men who can sleep at nights because

they've got clear conscience; they stood on what they really

believed in.

On the other hand, there are others who have gone to jail

for quite different reasons on matters of conscience: Jehovah's

Witnesses have gone to jail or to the concentration camps — Mormons. I could name every religious group on the spectrum

practically, and every other — even non-religious groups,

atheists that have been persecuted because they were atheists — on the matter of conscience.

But what individual right comes down to is a recognition

that it is possible for a society to exist and follow the will

of the majority or of larger groups, but still make provision

somehow for individual matters of conscience — and accept

that.

On that basis I support that particular section, or this

principle in this bill, and everywhere else it appears in terms

of the labour ombudsman, and so on.

However, I would point out that it is not only a matter of religious conscience

to opt out of membership in a trade union. It may be a matter of religious conscience

by some Christians to require everybody to belong to a union. Now you might

say, "Well, why would that be?" Well, in a case where the large institutions

which I have mentioned already are muscling each other, and each one is trying

to get one inch above the other group and get a little bit more strength so

that they can put the other side down, or win a fight, then if a person opts

out of the process on a matter of conscience, it could well be that this process

could result in the erosion of the strength of one side and result in the victory

of the other side.

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense, nonsense.

MR. DENT: I say that that's a possibility because I know of

at least one situation where to some degree this is being

attempted, where individuals are being replaced as they leave

by people who, you might say, think differently. In some cases

some pressure is being applied to encourage people to leave the

place of employment so that others may be hired who have a

different point of view.

So this whole thing of matter of conscience can be abused,

and I can understand labour people actually defending this on a

matter of conscience — the requirement that people belong to a

trade union.

History has shown that this fight, this whole matter of

fighting for the rights of workers, for the well-being of

workers, is a very tough row to hoe and an uphill battle and,

in order to win this uphill battle, sometimes it is necessary

to compromise individual rights to a certain extent in order to

gain a greater good.

However, I have to ask myself this question again. In terms

of the other principle, the other point of the principle, the

balance of forces: would having this religious conscience

clause result in any change in the balance? Well, under certain

conditions it would; therefore, when we come to consider the

bill point by point, then we could discuss those.

But as the

section is now, in terms of this principle as it

is now drafted, I would support it as being consistent with the

principles of the bill — this religious conscience

section as

it is now drafted. I do not think it constitutes any threat or

danger to the trade union movement, in my judgment. However, if

they can show me otherwise, I will be prepared to take a second

look at it. But I believe that there are sufficient safeguards

in it to prevent that from happening.

We have to come back to my original point: while much of our

economy and society is motivated by benevolence, a great deal

of it is motivated by greed and selfishness. Every side is

fighting tooth and nail to get more of the money for themselves

and more of the power for themselves. In that massive power

struggle — the giants of the big corporations, the professions,

that trade unions and other large groups — anything that will

give an inch or give some strength to one part of that section,

without also giving equal strength to the other, is wrong, in

my judgment, in terms of our legislation.

[ Page 453 ]

But as long as we can show that individual rights can be

defended without interfering with the balance of forces in

terms of what people are entitled to get out of our economy,

then so be it.

Now I close with one point. There are many, many aspects to

this bill, but I just want to sum up with this point: I

consider this bill to be an interim measure. I have faith that

as we keep saying in the Lord's Prayer, "Thy will be done on

earth as it is in heaven," maybe if we apply ourselves…. I realize everybody dies off and we are replaced by

new people that are selfish and so on. But if we really pray

and if we really work and if there is real progress that takes

place, then we will get closer to that beautiful day when our

society and our economy is motivated by the highest principles

and the highest morals of benevolence.

Then this Act will be unnecessary. In the meanwhile, I

consider it to be a necessary Act, and I consider it to be a

good Act.

Thank you.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): I rise to

support the principle of this bill with great vigour, because I

think it is the finest piece of comprehensive labour

legislation I have ever seen.

I have been active in the trade union movement since 1958 — that's 15 years. I joined the first union that I belonged to in

1947. It was the American Federation of Radio Artists, which is

now known as AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio

Artists). I joined it before television; that's how long ago it

was.

The next union I belonged to was the Communication Workers

of America. I was a teletype operator for United Airlines.

Subsequently I became an airline stewardess for that company

and became a member of the Airline Stewards and Stewardesses

Association.

We were quite unhappy with some of the things we thought our

union was doing or, rather, what we felt they weren't doing,

and a group of young women and myself got together and

organized our local. We had a paper local in our base before.

It only existed on paper. It did not exist in fact. We ran for

the offices and we were elected. I served as president of that

local and subsequently held executive positions in that union — executive board positions.

Later I became a member of the Office and Technical

Employees Union, of which I am a member in good standing today.

I have held an executive board position in that union.

So I am very, very familiar with the trade union movement,

just about all aspects of it. I have served as grievance

chairman; I have served on a system board of adjustment, which

is a board that hears grievances, as a union member. So I have

had quite some experience in the trade union field.

As you can see from the kinds of unions I have belonged to,

they are principally unions that have a majority of women as

members. As a result of that, there are features in this bill

relating to the organization of women that I find most

satisfactory, most helpful — wonderful things that can happen

under this legislation.

More and more our economy is going into the service sector.

The primary-producing sector of our economy is reducing with

regard to the amount of labour required. It is becoming less

labour intensive. It lends itself to automation very easily.

The secondary sector is also lending itself to increased

automation.

The one sector that is growing is the tertiary or service

sector, and this is where you find a great many women employed.

And this is where you find the greatest amount of exploitation

of women workers.

This is why I feel this Act will help so much in organizing

women. Now we have seen year after year in my own union, in

other unions, in the Sandringham situation, the Shoppers Drug

Mart situation and in countless other cases where the employer

put every obstacle possible in the way of organizing.

The

part I like about this is that it will help to organize

women in the service sector. It will help to organize women in

offices, in the clerical field. And believe me, down there in

the Bentall Building and all those lovely towers in the West

End, they are just waiting to be organized — and in the banks

in this province, too.

There have been barriers, Mr. Speaker, to organizing women.

When you have to get 50 per cent plus one of the people in the

bargaining unit to sign a card indicating that they want that

union to represent them. That's what it says on paper.

What it actually means is you have to have 65 to 70 per

cent. And it's extremely difficult because as the situation

exists right now, if the employer gets one breath, one hint

that there is an organizing drive going on in his establishment

and he finds out who the ringleaders are, out they go.

Fast.

MR. CHABOT: Unfairly.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker, they're not discharged

for an unfair labour practice. They're discharged because they

smoked on the job; they came in two minutes late from lunch;

they left one minute before 5 o'clock; they were one minute

late getting in in the morning — that's why they're fired.

They have another device that's even more clever. They take

your job, divide it up and give it to four other people. They

just phase it out and you're laid off because there's no work

for you to do. That happened to a personal friend of mine — and

she was one of the ringleaders in organizing an office.

[ Page 454 ]

They have all kinds of clever devices. In many cases that I

personally know of, we knew that a majority of the women

workers in the establishment wanted a union. But they were

afraid to put their name on a card for fear that it would fall

into the hands of their employer and they would be out the

door. And, Mr. Speaker, a lot of these women are not young

women; they're over 35; they're over 45; and they are the sole

support of their families. They can't afford to be out of work.

They can't afford to go on a job market because there are no

jobs out there for people of that age, men or women.

So with a 35 per cent requirement for asking for a vote of

certification, it makes it so much easier to organize these

women, to give them the opportunity to vote on whether they

want a union or not. That one point I think is very, very good

for women in this Act.

There's been a great deal of talk about arbitration or an

enforced contract on the first agreement in the event the

employer or the union does not make an agreement after the

union is certified.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is wonderful. Because we wouldn't

have had Sandringham — in fact I call this the "Sandringham

clause" — if we had had this.

Three years those women have been on that picket line,

walking that picket line. Even the employer said it was a good

contract, he was willing to sign it, but he didn't want to take

back the strikers. I'm sorry, that's not good enough.

This way, when you have a requirement that a newly-certified

employer must show good faith in bargaining and a union must

show good faith in bargaining, the requirement is on them to

come up with an agreement. Because they know if they don't come

up with one, the Labour Relations Board has the power to impose

one. I for one doubt very much if that power will ever be used.

It will not be necessary, because both parties know they're

going to have to negotiate and they're going to have to come to

a first agreement. So I think that is just great, particularly

for women units, because this is where it breaks down.

Shoppers Drug Mart was a perfect example, where they kicked

that ball back and forth between the courts and on appeal and

everything else because Shoppers Drug Mart tried to hide their

true ownership. They avoided signing an agreement as long as

they possibly could. That is why I feel that usually where

women are working for companies that have branches, that have

large resources, the companies can hold out on a strike for

years, literally years, and break the strike. So on a first

agreement to have this kind of requirement, and it is only for

a year, will put the onus on both the union and management to

get together and sign an agreement that is equitable to both

parties.

Another feature I like about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it outlaws discrimination between wage

rates for men and women. No longer will we have negotiated

rates by unions and management for the same job — one rate for

women and another for men. That's specifically forbidden in

this Act, and I think that is the best feature of all. There

will be no discrimination in wage rates.

Another feature I like about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the

ombudsman section. I have run across situations in the trade

union movement where, in my view, a union was not treating a

member properly, was not servicing the member properly. I have

had situations where a member's grievance was not handled by

the union. Or if it was, it was done in a very desultory manner

and just sort of shoved around and lost under a stack of paper

until the time limits in the agreement ran out.

I have seen one particular situation I'm aware of where a

women was fired from an establishment, a very good woman. She

had been with this company for two years, she has no black mark

against her record at all, had never had any criticism — in

fact the owner had praised her highly and had promoted her

because of her skills. Suddenly she was bounced out the

door.

She went to the union and asked the union to file a

grievance. They refused.

She subsequently came to me and I checked with the union and

I said, "You've got to file a grievance. The person is

entitled."

So eventually, very reluctantly, the union filed a grievance

and then promptly said, "Well, you've lost it. We lost the

grievance for you." We dug into the case a little bit deeper

and we found out the problem lay with the manager. The manager

wanted her replaced so he could put his girlfriend in that

job.

This woman that I'm speaking of was 47 years old. The

replacement was 23 and very attractive.

But this woman had been an excellent employee and they had a

great deal of difficulty coming up with some reason for firing

her. They finally got her, I think, for having her back to the

cash register while she was on coffee break instead of her face

toward the cash register so she could keep an eye on it. And on

that basis they fired her.

The union, when the organization to which I belong began to

kick up a fuss about it, as much as told her: "You are now

blacklisted throughout