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)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 687 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon

sitting Statement Use of microphone cut-off button. Mr. Speaker — 687

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Specifications of government aircraft. Hon.

Mr. Strachan — 688

BCIC capital expenditures. Mr. Gardom — 689

Safety of Hope-Princeton Highway. Mr. Wallace — 689

Bicycle trail on Vancouver Island. Mr. Curtis — 690

Cost of site for Shaughnessy Medical Centre. Mr. McGeer — 690

B.C. Rail strike. Mr. Chabot — 690

Greater Vancouver Transit Authority. Mr. McClelland — 690

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act (Bill 76).

Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 692

Motion

Motion to adjourn on matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Phillips — 692

Mr. McGeer — 693

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 693

Mr. Smith — 693

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 694

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 694

Routine proceedings

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

stage.

Mr. Chabot — 694

Hon. Mr. King — 704

Hon. Mr. King — 696

Mr. Gabelmann — 705

Mr. Chabot — 696

Mr. Steves — 707

Hon. Mr. King — 697

Hon. Mr. King — 708

Mr. Chabot — 697

Mr. Williams — 708

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 698

Hon. Mr. King — 709

Hon. Mr. King — 698

Mr. Steves — 709

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 699

Mr. Phillips — 710

Mr. Wallace — 700

Mr. Chabot — 715

Hon. Mr. King — 701

Mr. Phillips — 716

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 701

Hon. Mr. King — 717

Mr. Chabot — 702

Mr. Williams — 718

Mr. Williams — 702

Hon. Mr. King — 718

Hon. Mr. King — 704

Division on

section I — 718

Mr. Wallace — 704

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, a couple

of weeks ago the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver — Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) asked for a special welcome for the person that

had said the prayers that day: his uncle. Today I'd like to ask

the House….

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Cousin.

HON. MR. LEA: Cousin? He looked younger. (Laughter.) I'd

like to ask the House today to give special welcome to the

Reverend James Manly who said the prayers for us today. I'd

like to also mention the fact that he did run before me in 1969

for the New Democratic Party in Prince Rupert.

It was said before in this House, Mr. Speaker, that the

people had a direct link with people up there, and I'm sure

we've also had that on this side of the House. And we've had

our prophets. I think it was the Reverend Manly that paved my

way to being the Highways Minister, and I would give special

welcome.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to draw to the attention of the House that we have with us

today a former Member of the Legislature who sat in the Social

Credit benches from 1952 to 1972 — over 20 years: Cyril

Shelford, the former Member for Omineca.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the

House on behalf of all of the Members a group of students from

the Prince of Wales High School in Vancouver, their motto

being: Ich Dien — I serve. And I would particularly like to bid

welcome to their teachers Mr. Dean Hull and Mr. Chris

Harris.

Mr. Harris bears the unique distinction of being married

last Sunday. Well, that in itself is not a unique distinction.

But Mr. Harris and his bride were married at the top of Mount

Garibaldi, 8,700 feet high. I think we'd all like to wish them

an extremely long and happy married life.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to

welcome one of the most prolific speechmakers this Legislature

has ever known. His longest recorded speech was, I think, 12

minutes. He was a great favourite of all of us for the many

years that he was with us in this House: Ray Eddy, the former

Member for New Westminster.

Mr. Speaker, like all MLAs I have schools in my district. I'd like the House

to welcome Mrs. Cristofoli with a group of students from the Mary Hill Junior

Secondary School who are now in the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed with the other

business: you asked me to study the question of the use of the

microphones in this chamber. I'm unfortunately unable to give

any definitive view of the situation at the moment until all

the facts are ascertained.

I do point out that at the present time there has been and

always has been while the machines were here a cut-off button

for both sides of the House in the console with the operator in

the chamber, who is an employee of the House. There is also a

cut-off button at the Clerks' table for the Chairman of

committees and one at the Speaker's desk.

I point out as a fact that these cut off every microphone of

the Members all at once — simultaneously. Up until now they have

been used only when a Member is on his feet when the Speaker

has risen, so far as the House is concerned, and have been used

twice in the term of my office. On both occasions when a Member

would not sit down, when asked several times to do so and the

Speaker was on his feet, I've used it with great

forbearance.

The matter of permission for this to be in the House and the

other houses of parliament throughout the land, I have not yet

ascertained. I am trying to find that out. In the meantime,

therefore, I hope that you would appreciate the fact that

either the Chairman or myself will be greatly strained before

we would push the button without first explaining to the House

the purpose of this.

I may say that all the rules of parliament, including our

own rules, make it clear that a Member must resume his seat

while a point of order is being stated, whether by the Speaker

or by another Member. The Speaker must always be heard in

silence when he rises to intervene: the Member speaking should

immediately sit down; I'm quoting from May on that point. And

in the Encyclopedia of Parliament it says, "No Member may

remain on his feet if the Speaker rises to intervene or give a

ruling." In Ottawa and other parliaments there's been

occasion for expelling a Member who stayed on his feet when the

Speaker has risen and is standing at his place at the desk.

Under the circumstances, I will give all the facts I can to

you about the situation, and perhaps the House may want to

decide what to do about sound systems. Thank you, Hon.

Members.

Oral questions.

SPECIFICATIONS OF

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

[ Page 688 ]

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yesterday,

Mr. Speaker, I was asked a couple of questions and I informed the House I would

get the replies for today. The first question had to do with the awarding of

a contract for the purchase of two aircraft for delivery at sometime next year.

The Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) asked the question and asked for the

tabling of the specifications. He mentioned a particular aircraft. It is my

understanding that that particular aircraft didn't meet the specifications and

is unpressurized.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that

there was a public advertisement placed in the Journal of

Commerce July 30, which reads:

"Notice: a survey is being conducted to ascertain

availability and prices of aircraft suited to meet the

following projected requirements.

"Canadian certified aircraft designed with two turbo-prop

engines, pressurized cabins, fully instrumented to airline

standard, full de-icing, short-field landing and takeoff

performance, 8- to 10-passenger capacity plus two crew members,

single-engine fully-loaded ceiling of at least 12,000 ft, two

camera locations plus adaptability of the aircraft for

photographic or ambulance duties.

"Further details to bona fide participants are available

upon application to be submitted without delay to T.L. Vardy,

Chairman, Purchasing Commission, Parliament Buildings,

Victoria."

There were six submissions made as a result of this ad: one

from North American Rockwell in Calgary; one from Leavens

Brothers in Mississauga, Ontario; one from OMT Aircraft,

Washington, D.C.; one from Air Search Aviation in Rexdale; one

from Field Aviation in Vancouver; and one from Atlantic

Aviation, representing an Israeli manufacturer of aircraft. But

there was no submission from the Otter people. And so with

that, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table these documents — the

specifications that were asked for.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The next question that was raised had to

do with the calling of tenders for the claims centres for the

insurance corporation. As was announced in the press, tenders

were called and the award was made to the Commonwealth

Construction Company. The procedure followed is known as

"project management method" and has become a common procedure

used by private developers in Vancouver.

In addition, I understand the provincial Public Works

Department is going to be using this procedure for constructing

the British Columbia office building in Vancouver, scheduled to start late this fall — according to

the best information we have. The procedure was recommended by

Arthur Allen, ICBC architectural consultant, as the safest and

best method for obtaining quick quotes.

Under the project management method the Commonwealth

Construction bid of $531,453 is the total payment to be made to

Commonwealth for both overhead costs and their profit margin as

general contractor for the 11 claims centres involved. That is

a fixed amount.

The balance of the construction costs will cover the actual

cost involved in sub trades and materials. The sub trade

tenders will close October 26 at 4 p.m., and they have been

called by Commonwealth and ICBC jointly. The successful sub

trade bidders will be picked jointly but will be paid directly

by Commonwealth Construction as general contractor.

Commonwealth Construction, in turn, will bill ICBC for 100 per

cent of sub trade costs. Commonwealth Construction will bill

ICBC for 100 per cent of the charges made by materials

suppliers — and that is going to tenders, too — such as Great

West Steel, which was the low bidder for the steel contract,

and Conforce Gulf and Bordignon, the three main suppliers in

Vancouver which were awarded the contract for supply of

pre-cast concrete for the 11 buildings.

Thus it can be seen that, in essence, the project management

method telescopes the time needed to get a project underway.

Instead of the various bidders for the general contract calling

tenders individually among the sub trades, to incorporate those

figures in the general contract tenders — and remember when

that's done there is always a percentage added onto that by the

general contractor — this method permits the general contractor

to bid for the work on the basis of their charge, plus whatever

is the lowest trades' bid.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And there were 14 bids supplied; 14

people bid on it. The bids were divided into three separate

groups to allow the smaller contracts to participate.

Commonwealth Construction were the low bidders in every one of

the three groups, and Commonwealth are doing the job of the

clearing and the contract work on a straight cost basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there any supplementaries flowing from that

extensive answer?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS. (South Peace River): I would like to ask

the Minister of insurance (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 689 ]

Strachan) if the site preparation work that is presently

going on was bid on or did the Commonwealth Construction just

bring somebody in to do it? And why the urgency? You've had

since the spring session to get this work underway. Now there

is a great rush to get it underway, Mr. Speaker, to have. But

the work presently being done on site preparation, did it go to

tender, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, that was part of the….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That is part of the original bid that was put in.

The firm that gets that bid gets that job at absolute cost. That went to tender.

That was part of the responsibility of accepting and going to tender.

MR. PHILLIPS: Were there site preparations on all 11 sites

in this tender?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The package was there. That was part of

the Commonwealth acceptance in the contract, at 100 per cent of

cost. Not cost-plus; 100 per cent of actual cost.

MR. PHILLIPS: In other words it didn't go to tender. You're

paying them what it costs.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly. It's the same thing….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! No speeches.

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

the Minister: in view of the fact that a Canadian aircraft is

available at half the price and which virtually meets all of

the specifications tabled by the Minister, I would like to ask

the Minister whether he or the purchasing commission made an

effort to get in contact with that Canadian manufacturer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's the notice. There's the

specification. You say virtually all….

MR. McGEER: Yes or no, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't want the civil servants of this

province flying around this province in unpressurized aircraft

when there are mountains to fly over. And there's a

specification in there that calls for pressurized aircraft.

And almost meeting specifications isn't good enough. Isn't good

enough.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And they didn't even submit a bid.

BCIC CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

MR. GARDOM: I think we're getting a pressurized Minister

this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

The Minister was talking about the B.C. Insurance

Corporation and I'd ask him: what has been the capital cost

expenditures to date of the B.C. Insurance Corporation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a question on the order paper.

MR. GARDOM: And it's been there since September 19.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Questions which are on the order

paper cannot be asked in question time. See page 148 of

Beauchesne .

SAFETY OF

HOPE-PRINCETON HIGHWAY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, now that the

Minister of Highways has been back in town two or three days, I

wonder if he could tell us what additional precautions will be

taken on the Hope-Princeton Highway, 8.5 miles east of Hope, to

try and prevent the recurring accidental deaths in that

region?

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, we've been in touch with the

sergeant in charge of the Hope detachment. That

section of road

comes under his jurisdiction, and he says that that corner,

where a number of accidents have happened, doesn't pose an

undue problem — other corners on that highway pose the same kind

of problem. Although there have been frequent accidents they

are usually from excessive speed, according to the accident

reports, going down the grade too quickly. It is well-signed,

although I've asked to have the department look at the signing

to see whether we can't improve upon it.

The accident that happened…. I would like to deal with

what we are going to do first as an interim measure: it's an

18-in. concrete guardrail that's in place, and this will be

replaced with a 27-in. high concrete guardrail. Also we'll put

warning signs up for people who may be walking in that

vicinity, but it's rather unusual for people to walk there

because it isn't a place where people would normally walk. It's

out of town, 8.5 miles.

The individual accident that happened — the person who fell

over had stopped, had walked off the

[ Page 690 ]

travelled portion of the road and consequently fell over. But

that is not the usual type of accident that happens there. It's

people in their motor vehicles having the accidents.

I haven't all the figures in of how many accidents have

happened there. You mentioned 17, Mr. Member, but I can't

verify that as yet. This is an interim report and we'll

continue to look into it and report to the House.

BICYCLE TRAIL ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

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

the Minister of Recreation and Conservation: has any final

decision been made by his department with respect to the

establishment of a bicycle trail along the old CN right-of-way

on southern Vancouver Island?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Member, we are in the final stages of a feasibility study

on that. I expect it will be on my desk in approximately two

weeks.

COST OF SITE FOR

SHAUGHNESSY MEDICAL CENTRE

MR. McGEER: To the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker:

with respect to the Shaughnessy B.C. Medical Centre site

announced by the Minister of Health Services (Hon. Mr. Cocke),

what will be the cost of acquiring the land of that Shaughnessy

site for the provincial government?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

I'll take that question as notice.

B.C. RAIL STRIKE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I direct my question to

the Minister of Labour and director of B.C. Rail. On September

17 he announced he was pleased that agreement had been reached

and full resumption of B.C. Rail would take place on that date.

We find the railways again strikebound and that management has

laid off 450 train crew members. Is the layoff of these train

crew members conducive to labour peace, and when does he expect

the resumption of services of this vital and essential

transportation link?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it appears the Member

for Columbia River is confusing two situations. There was a settlement concluded

with the United Transportation Union on the B.C. Railway some time ago. Subsequent

to that, negotiations were under way with the shop craft unions and they have

undertaken a strike on that property.

The tie-up that accrued from that strike by the shop-craft

employees is responsible for any lay-offs that may be involved

at the present time. Employees do have the right to respect

picket lines.

With respect to the possibilities and the prognosis for a

settlement, I can only report, Mr. Speaker, that officials of

my department are in constant touch with the parties and are

exploring a number of avenues in the hopes of bringing about a

resolution to the dispute.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. It is my understanding

that there are 10 or 12 agreements not yet ratified and I was

wondering whether it was possible we would be looking to 10 or

12 separate shut-downs in the B.C. Rail over the next couple of

weeks.

HON. MR. KING: Well, as usual, Mr. Speaker, the Member is

consistent. His information is faulty. There are not 10 or 12

agreements yet to be ratified. There are two outstanding

agreements and certainly, I hope, I wouldn't take the

pessimistic view that the Member for Columbia River takes that

a strike will evolve in all of those contract negotiations.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I was very disappointed in the Minister

of Labour's answer because…

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: …he informed the House that basically the

railway was going to be strike free….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! No speeches, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, I want to know exactly how the

negotiations on the British Columbia Railway are coming along.

I want to know exactly how long the Minister of Labour intends

the strike to go on. I want to know today.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Labour is

not on strike so I have no intention of giving an indication as

far as the negotiations….

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: The negotiations are coming along very

well.

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSIT AUTHORITY

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I would like

[ Page 691 ]

to address my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and since I have a number of supplementals, I will ask them all

at once, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: Kindly avoid too many, will you please?

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to ask the Minister what the

Greater Vancouver Transit Authority is? Under what authority

does it operate a transit system in greater Vancouver? Who is

the director? And under what Minister does that responsibility

lie?

AN HON. MEMBER: Look it up in the book.

MR. SPEAKER: If this is information otherwise available it

shouldn't be in the question period.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it isn't or I wouldn't ask the

question.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we'll find that out, I presume. Are those

questions available and the answers available, Mr.

Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the Speaker in this House?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There is

no regional district authority on transit. They don't have that

function within their letters patent. They do have a committee

dealing with transit problems.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, on the buses in

Vancouver, it says "These buses are being operated by the

Greater Vancouver Transit Authority." Who is that transit

authority?

MR. SPEAKER: That can be settled somewhere else.

MR. McCLELLAND: Not in this House, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Not today. The Hon. Minister of Labour….

Yes? A point of order?

MR. WALLACE: I wonder if you could give us some guidance on

some of the structure of the question period. The Hon. Minister

of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Strachan) means to give us the

information that was asked, but I would have thought that that

kind of answer could very readily be tabled with the House. So

that we may not have five minutes out of the 20 minutes taken

up in this manner in the future, could we have some guidance

from the Chair?

MR. SPEAKER: I might say that only because of the nature of

the answer, I didn't interrupt. I don't expect that Ministers

will give speeches any more than I expect that Members will

give speeches. They are entitled to make a full answer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, it is my presumption,

and correct me if I am wrong, that oral questions require oral

answers. It wouldn't be a very fruitful question period if we

got all the questions orally but were not permitted to give

answers. I am sure the opposition would be upset with that

ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): There is a very sensible and

straightforward mechanism for getting around this and that is

to revert to statements on motions, which we often have, where

a Minister can put information forward which does not abuse the

rules of the House regarding question period.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take this matter up. I agree that there

is a method that is used in other Houses, and the Hon. Member

has just drawn attention to that, where there is a lengthy

statement, a Minister may obtain the leave of the House — and

usually it is given, as far as I have noticed — to make his

statement, if it is a lengthy one, so it doesn't take up the

time of question period. There is a rule that the Ministers

don't take up the question period in lengthy answers that can

be reduced to the nutshell of the answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the same point, I would refer you to

yesterday's pink sheet in Hansard in which the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) in a supplementary question,

made judgmental statements about a particular aircraft. The

only way I could answer that particular kind of question,

couched in that language, was to tell the whole story and

surely a question of that kind cannot be allowed orally and in

the records, unless the answer is also orally and in the

records.

MR. SPEAKER: May I advise the Members that the reason I

didn't stop the Minister was precisely that yesterday the Hon.

Member, in asking his question, went over in detail all the

things about an aircraft that made it important that the public

know precisely, as soon as possible, the answer to those

questions. That's why I didn't. I agree that a ministerial

statement is the proper way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's perfectly adequate for us on the

opposition side to receive a ministerial statement which is

simply time taken out of the question period considered as

something apart. Therefore the question period would be

preserved

[ Page 692 ]

and we would have the opportunity of questioning the

Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure all the Members will try to observe

it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think, if we are going to have any rules

of the House, I would ask your ruling. It is my understanding

that a question period is a time for answers as well as for

questions.

However, if the proposition is that the House is to

entertain 15 minutes worth of questions and then the Ministers

make note and ask leave of the House the following day, we

would be busy answering the 15 minutes of questions and an hour

of asking leave for statements and the House itself has not

instructed us to go in that direction.

It is my understanding that a question period means simply

that a question is asked and a question is answered and I

cannot understand why the opposition, certainly not for

political purposes, would ever ask for a question period in

which they do not want any answers, just questions be

asked.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is clear under our present rules

that the purposes of questions and answers are that you obtain

an answer then if possible, and then can follow with a

supplemental that bears on the thing being asked.

We have, in other Houses, a notice of questions and that

allows the Minister time to get the answers that are needed

without being caught by surprise on some matters. But this

House has chosen, up until now, to do this without notice. It

therefore takes a little more latitude on both sides of the

House, to see that it works properly. I'll do what I can to

assist.

Introduction of bills.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I have

a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it has precedence,

DEPARTMENT OF MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from Hi s Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Mines and

Petroleum Resources Act.

Bill 76 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.

MR. PHILLIPS: I beg leave of the House to adjourn the House

to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member state the matter?

MR. PHILLIPS: It is now obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the

stoppage of work on the British Columbia Railway system is

undeniably causing extreme hardship — not only because of the

damage to the general provincial economy — but of quite

specific damage to the major forest operations along the

railway route.

In view of the fact that the recent Statistics Canada

figures show a greater increase of unemployment rate within the

Province of British Columbia than any other Canadian province,

it is imperative that this House discuss immediately ways and

means whereby this disruption to the British Columbia Rail

service can be immediately solved.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. I point out that the

preliminary consideration that I have to give to the question

is whether there is urgency of debate that cannot be met in

some other fashion. I point to the orders of the day which

deals with the Labour Code of British Columbia Act which is

scheduled by the orders of the day to be debated.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The labour code Act is finished. That's

right.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your remark with

regard to the labour code Act and it has been through second

reading for over a week now. But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker,

the farmers in my constituency are dumping their grain on the

ground, while the dairy farmers on this island are crying for

feed and within three to four days, the entire lumber industry

in the Cariboo and in the Peace River area, and in the Member

for Prince George's riding will be closed down throwing

thousands of people out of work. This government assured us a

few days ago….

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member, would you be seated for

the moment, please? I had failed to recollect that the labour

code Act is still up for a committee stage and therefore the

whole subject of labour relations is still before the

House.

It follows, since it's on the order paper at that stage,

that it is available for debate on this particular subject as

well as all subjects that deal with the administration of the

Department of Labour, the question of lock-outs, strikes and

other disruptions of

[ Page 693 ]

the work force caused by labour matters.

In the circumstances, it cannot be argued, in my submission,

that the means are not available to the House to debate this

urgent matter so far as the urgency of debate is concerned.

It's always of great importance to the province as to whether

there is a tie-up or an emergency transportation situation, but

in this House, the Speaker's duty is to determine whether

there's a means whereby the House can grapple with the problem

in debate. It's my understanding that on the orders of the day

this matter is ordained to be discussed.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the

fact that the bill you mentioned has already passed second

reading; there are no individual clauses in that bill dealing

with the B.C. Rail strike. Because of that, the Members are

going to have great difficulty raising the subject in

committee.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon we did have a considerable

problem with the Chairman of the committee with regard to what

he considered irrelevancy in debate. I think, quite apart from

the specifics of the particular bill there is a generality

being practised in debate which would severely limit the

opportunities to deal with this question. Therefore, the Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is quite correct in

suggesting that there's not only an urgency in debate but this

is the only opportunity to take it up.

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with the Hon. Member in his

interpretation of the sections of the labour code, which is a

complete code covering all labour in British Columbia.

Particularly, it does include those who work in Crown

corporations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to not

describe the motion as either frivolous or mischievous because

yesterday, as you recall, during the question period not a

single question was asked about the strike at that time, which

had been going on for 24 hours. We are now, I think, into the

third day of the strike. The Minister has indicated that he is

involved in bringing together the two parties. The emergency

situation as described by the Member is not that great at this

time; it certainly can become an emergency. It is not an

emergency at this time; it can become one.

I'd like to point out to the House that the government is

very aware of the need to move and to bring this matter to a

suitable conclusion, but I fail to see what possible good a

debate in this House would have on negotiations that are taking

place separate from this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Premier, my only consideration at this

stage must be, under our rules, whether there is a means available for a debate on a matter

of urgency. I submit at the present time on the orders of the

day, as I've ruled before and Speakers before me have ruled,

there is a means to debate under certain sections of the bill

in committee.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier just wondered why there wasn't a

question during the period yesterday. Previously, the Minister

of Labour had advised the House that….

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, just a minute, the Premier had his say;

I'm certainly entitled to mine. The Minister of Labour advised

this House that he was dispatching one of his men the day

before over to Vancouver to look into this and I expected

results. That's why we didn't. You have the majority over

there: you should have settled this strike before this.

You've bungled the operation of the ferries; you bungled

the operation of the railway; you're bungling the economy of

British Columbia. There's been a fantastic railway boxcar

shortage since you passed your legislation passing the 5 per

cent tax. It is urgent, and I certainly don't want to be

condemned by the Premier for not asking the question

yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: You see there an example of why you really need

a cut-out button.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier can have his say, but I can't have

mine.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it would

seem to me that the whole matter of whether there is an urgency

in debate and whether this can be handled at some time during

the present sitting of the House really lies with the Premier

and the House Leader of the government. There are many pieces

of legislation on the order paper in committee stage, Mr.

Speaker, including Bill 11. We have no knowledge of when bills

will be called in committee or when bills will be called in

second reading. So I submit to you that, while the bill is on

the order paper, it does not necessarily follow that the debate

will take place on the labour code this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: All I can say is that the order paper says that

it is proper that it be called today because it's on the order

paper for today. Consequently, it's up to the House Leader to

determine whether it will be the order of business today and

that depends on the other business of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, further to

[ Page 694 ]

the point of order, I think it would be perfectly acceptable

to the opposition if we got a commitment from the government

that Bill 9 would be stood down and the labour Code would be

brought forward. In addition….

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I might add, Mr. Premier,

made the ruling before your previous statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I think in fairness to the House that if

there are any points of order that bear on the question and

assist the Speaker, I'm willing to hear them, providing they

are not speeches.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right, Mr. Speaker, then there are two

points I'd like to make to you at this time. I would assume,

Sir, that your decision of a few moments ago, which, as I just

mentioned, would be acceptable under certain circumstances,

would be instructions to the committee Chairman that discussion

of the strike would be permissible at the committee stage of

discussion of Bill 11.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it's obvious that I cannot make

statements in a vacuum or in theory. The situation has to

present itself to the Chairman; he has to decide at the time on

the particular

section whether it's in order. I can't do that

for him, nor would I attempt to do so.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you for your attempt to clarify

the point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I've made my ruling on it, I've listened

urgently to everyone, and I think that my ruling is still

correct. I so rule.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, that would be perfectly

acceptable. Could we ask, then, that the government, to deal

with this problem, would bring forward Bill 11 instead of Bill

MR. SPEAKER: One may only hope.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: (Mike not on.) …it's in my heart, but I'd

like to challenge you.

MR. SPEAKER: Wait a minute, before we get to that, there is

no appeal on standing order 35, and the decision is to that

effect. You are asking for leave and the opinion of the

Speaker, and the Speaker gives his opinion. In that sense, it

isn't a ruling and that has been so determined.

I'd also like to say that the reason I give you so much

latitude in talking to me about a point of order is in the hope

that you'll come up with some authority that will assist the

Speaker, because I don't like the idea of appealing from

decisions of the Speaker. I think that the Speaker is there to

hear every good, reasonable, sound argument. If you've got a

citation to give me, please give it to me; but don't insult me

by then, when not giving me one, challenging a ruling.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly had no intention of

insulting you as the Speaker, I'm not like the Premier who

wants to insult people in this House. If I give you that

impression, I certainly want to withdraw it and I stand

corrected. I'm disappointed that you don't consider this matter

urgent enough to discuss it in this House.

Orders of the day.

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

proceed to public bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Premier, this is Wednesday?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe it will have to be by motion. I'll

have to put the motion to the House. Shall we proceed to public

bills and orders?

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA ACT

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

chair.

section 1.

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

Section 1, Mr. Chairman,

is the

interpretation and is basically the guts of this bill.

There are some

interpretations that should be questioned. Some

of the exemptions for the protections or the inclusion of this

code leave me with a great deal of concern.

It has been an established socialist policy or platform that those people employed

in agriculture would be included in any future labour code and would be protected,

on the question of minimum wage as well as organizational purposes. Just last

August 4 we found that the new labour policy, as

[ Page

695 ]

expounded by the socialist party, was to include those

people who are employed in agriculture; yet we see there's a

very definite exemption here. Those people have been excluded

and not afforded protection, the people whom the socialist

party said, if they elected, they would protect.

We also see in the

interpretation some thoroughly repugnant

and inflammatory descriptions, one of which is "professional

strikebreaker." This is one which, as far as I am concerned, is

anticipating what might come in the future. I'm sure that this

kind of description, or this kind of effort on the part of

people, could have been covered through language other than the

definition "professional strike-breaker."

I'm wondering if the Minister would give us an

interpretation of what he defines as a professional

strike-breaker because, as I look at the

interpretation, it

appears to be fairly broad. Probably any decision brought down

by the board could be interpreted to include certain

supervisory personnel, or certain management personnel. I'm

wondering whether there is any danger, if those people whose

business it is to ensure that the good conduct in the carrying

on of the business of a particular enterprise continues to

function, can or might be classified as professional

strike-breakers.

I think one of the most critical

definitions here, and one

of the ones that is of the most concern to individuals out

there, is that of "dependent contractor," because

there's no definition there that separates the dependent

contractor from the category of employer.

Many of the associations, particularly in the lumber

industry, are concerned with the ultimate results of the

interpretation. This bill is all based on the

interpretation

and the administration by the board. It's all very flexible

legislation, but there is concern that it might not be properly

defined by the board.

One association had this to say about the

interpretation of

"dependent contractors:"

"This clause of

interpretation could very well be open to much misinterpretation. We take it that this

clause refers specifically to individuals who do not employ one

or more employees. Any person who employs one or more employees

is referred to in the Act as an employer. If the foregoing is

not correct, then there would be very few contractors in B.C.

who would not be referred to as dependent contractors.

"What he is confusing is a reference to the type of agreement

under which the individual performs his work or services. Conceivably this could

widen the spectrum of dependent contractors to include individuals who would

not normally be classified as contractors. A possible inequity in this clause

is pointed out in the following example:

"We have two owners of salvage logging trucks. In the first

instance the truck is equipped with a Rainey loader, which

allows one man to do the full operation of loading and hauling,

and the second truck is equipped with cable and tongs, which

requires the hiring of an employee. The two trucks are carrying

out identical work and each owner has signed identical

contracts. However, in instance number one the owner is a

dependent contractor, and in instance number two he is an

employer. We believe that this clause could be clarified as to

its intent."

I think it's most important that the Minister at this time

gives a clarification of what a dependent contractor is and

what an employer is.

There is a situation, because we know full well that the IWA

are not criticizing the Act. They in fact might have asked for

the inclusion of this dependent contractor clause in the new

labour code of British Columbia. Because it wasn't too long ago

they had this to say, relative to independent contractors in

the province, and this is from an

article in the Vancouver

Province, Wednesday August 22, 1973:

"Resources Minister Bob Williams was severely criticized

Tuesday by IWA incoming president Jack Munro for a lack of

action over controlling independent contractors in the forest

industry.

"Munro told delegates to the 36th annual convention of the

western region of the union they should work harder to defeat

him (Williams) than they did the Socreds if he doesn't take

action."

Well he hasn't taken action but it appears that the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has taken action. They went on:

"(Mr. Munro) warned a major confrontation is in the offing

if the situation is not resolved. The union wants independent

contractors to sign a memorandum of agreement with locals where

they are working. The union wants the terms of the Coast master

agreement to be applied to these contractors and claims IWA

workers suffer because of the operation of independence.

"The courts recently ruled against a Port Alberni local of

the union in favour of contractors working without having to

have such an agreement.

"Munro said: 'Bob Williams is destroying the effectiveness

of the working people by promoting the small operators.' 'We

have to get a hell of a lot rougher on these employers and

these employees.' "

they referred to them as "employers."

"Munro also said the Union has to tell the

[ Page 696 ]

government it is not prepared to let the situation continue. 'We have to organize contractors or eliminate them.' "

That's a statement from Jack Munro, the now president of the

IWA, relative to independent contractors in the forest industry

of British Columbia. I think it could be defined, really, what

constitutes an employer, what constitutes an independent

contractor and what constitutes a dependent contractor. If you

have an individual who has a substantial investment in

machinery and equipment and employs people he can't, in my

opinion, be classified as a dependent contractor.

For instance, let's use an example within a tree farm

licence. If you have within the framework of that licence 10

independent contractors, of which six are just owner-operators

of a single piece of equipment, could they conceivably further

on in the Act — I believe it's

section 48 — could they

conceivably because of a desire to become part of a union, in

turn affect the determination or the direction of the other

four, the other four who might have a substantial investment

and might have a substantial payroll as well? They might have

anywhere from two employees to 200 employees.

I think it's very important that this be clarified, because

there is concern, apprehension, and fear out there in the

forest industry of B.C. today. There are literally thousands of

small independent contractors who are very concerned about the

lack of

interpretation put upon the dependent contractors

clause in this legislation. I am wondering if the Minister

would be willing to say whether really the clause was put in

there for the sake of assisting the IWA to organize those

members who are independent contractors today.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised a

number of points. He referred to the exclusions under the Act

of agricultural workers specifically. I would point out, Mr.

Chairman, that this classification of workers has been

historically excluded from the Labour Relations Act during the

tenure of the previous administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't make any promises.

HON. MR. KING: We found, upon taking office, that there was

no research data available to determine a mechanism for

inclusion of this particular group of workers nor any realistic

method of enforcing the provisions of the Labour Relations

Act.

I do expect that my department will be studying, over the coming months, not

only the agricultural workers or sections of that industry but certain other

groups that have been traditionally excluded also, such as the professions and

domestics and so on. But at the moment, due to any lack of activity whatsoever

in that direction in the past, there is absolutely no information available

on the numbers of people we are looking at or anything else.

The question of the professional strike-breaker, I think is

quite clear. The Member refers to that as "inflammatory." I

don't think the wording or the intent is inflammatory, unless

someone deliberately attempts to make it such.

The clause reads," 'professional strikebreaker' means a

person who is not a party involved in a dispute whose primary

object, in the opinion of the board, is to prevent, interfere

with, or break up a lawful strike." We do have such

organizations in this country although, thankfully, not in this

province. The wording "primary object," I think, is a

significant one. In other words, they have no part or no

relationship in the dispute that is taking place.

So under those circumstances it's inconceivable that

supervisory staff, or indeed employees of the struck plant or a

branch plant, could be construed as being professional

strikebreakers. That's distortion not only of the intent, but

the wording of the definition of professional

strikebreaker.

With respect to the dependent contractor definition, the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) spent all his time

worrying about the independent contractor in the forest

industry. What the Act simply seeks to do is to recognize that

all contractors are not, in fact, independent. There are

certain contract situations wherein the contractor more closely

resembles, in his relationship with a parent company, an

employee.

We simply empower the board to recognize that

differentiation between a validly bona fide independent

contractor and one who is dependent upon another company. This

is certainly recognized in other jurisdictions; it is not a

response to some plot, as the Member would infer. It's

consistent with legislation in other jurisdictions, and I think

that it poses no great danger to the bona fide independent

contractor in this province.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister, in his usual way of speaking and

usual cynical attitude, went on to say that I was suggesting

that there were things here that were wrong, and so forth. All

I want from the Minister is a very clearcut answer — it's

that simple. He said here just a few moments ago on the

dependent contractors that within certain contract situations,

those dependent contractors that more closely resemble the role

of the employee than the role of the employer, then they shall

be included.

Now I gave him a situation that could…and then he said

that the board will establish just what his position is. Will

the Minister tell me whether a dependent contractor or an

independent contractor

[ Page

697 ]

who employs one or more employees will be classified in the

role of employer? I am using the tree farm licence situation

because that is where the concern really is. I'm sure you

realize that that's where the concern is.

I'm sure you realize you've had representations from the IWA

to include such a clause within this labour code. We want to

know very clearly whether an owner-operator with one piece of

machinery where there are 10 as a hypothetical figure,

independent contractors within the tree farm licence, and six

are owner-operators — will they in turn affect the direction

and the destiny of the other four that employ probably anywhere

from 2 to 200 men? Would they be classified? Would they have

some bearing on the destiny of those other four that are

basically employers?

I think it's a very simple question: whether the Minister's

interpretation of an individual who employs one or more is that

he will be classed as an employer.

HON. MR. KING: You know, he seems to enjoy posing

rhetorical, rather cynical questions, and he seems very

sensitive about receiving any cynicism in reply. Certainly

references that he read to pressures that might have been

exerted on other Ministers are not particularly appropriate on

this debate of the labour bill. But, at any rate, I'll try to

respond in a rational manner to questions that are posed in the

same vein.

I pointed out that the board will have the power to place an

interpretation upon any contract situation. If we want to

extend the Member's question beyond the forest industry, one

can readily appreciate that every worker with a power saw,

every worker operating a particular type or piece of machinery

that he happens to own, could well be included in the

independent contractor classification. That's certainly not the

situation.

The complexity of the forest industry and construction are

such that individual situations have to be looked at, and some

tribunal has to be charged with the responsibility and the

jurisdiction for making a determination as to what, in fact,

the precise relationship is — independent or dependent. In

making those kinds of judgments, the board would certainly

grant to the contractors involved a full opportunity to make

any representations that they chose to make, and there would be

a full hearing on a classification.

To try to rationalize all the complexities of dependent and independent contractors

not only in the forest industry, but in the whole scheme of industry in this

province, in legislative language is pretty unrealistic. Some agency has to

be charged with the authority to make that determination. This is simply what

we seek to do: give the board the power, based on the evidence before it, to

make such an adjudication.

I should point out that appeals from the board's panel

decisions to the full board are available also.

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister's saying that the

interpretation is very vague and purposely vague so that a

definition can be brought down by the board. This is a very

important point. I think the Minister should be able to tell us

very clearly just what is a dependent contractor and what is an

employer. It's a very simple question.

I was just going to ask you whether you would interpret as

an employer a man who employs one or more employees. Very

simple. Would that be classified as an employer? Or could he

possibly be classified as a dependent contractor? Because this

dependent contractor clause would not apply necessarily only to

the individual who owns a truck and a chainsaw or something of

that nature. It could go on to a grocery store within a forest

district and there could be room for organizational purposes

there.

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

Member that that consideration would not be the sole

consideration. Certainly if a company sought to escape the

terms of a collective agreement with the bulk of its employees

by financing and contracting out some of the work that was

traditionally done by their certified bargaining unit, whereby

the person who is doing the contract had no capital investment

in the equipment, or very little capital investment, then there

would be a question, in my view, before the board as to whether

he was a bona fide independent contractor.

Due to the wide variation of circumstances in cases like

I've outlined, I suggest that it's unrealistic and impossible

to try and define every complex relationship that the board

will encounter. With the opportunity for those people affected

to take advantage of representations to the board, I see no

fear of the rights and interests of small independent

contractors being violated in any way.

MR. CHABOT: Later on in

section 1 in the

interpretation, you

do define an employer. I'm wondering whether the definition of

the employer under

section 11 would be relevant or appropriate

for usage in the definition of dependent contractor. Could you

apply that definition of employer to that of dependent

contractor? It's on page 2 — the middle of page 2: "

'employer' means a person who employs one, or more than one,

employee, and includes an employers' organization." Could that

interpretation be related to the question of dependent

contractor?

HON. MR. KING: The difference is, Mr.

[ Page 698 ]

Chairman, that if the dependent contractor — or if the

contractor, I should say — is found to be a dependent

contractor, then he becomes an employee. As such, if he did

have employees working for him, there would not be a proper

employee-employer relationship. I would suggest that in those

cases not only he but his workers would be employees within the

meaning of the Act.

MR. CHABOT: One last question, Mr. Chairman. Could an

independent contractor within the tree farm licence, who has a

substantial capital investment and who employs one or more

workers, be classified as a dependent contractor or an

employer?

HON. MR. KING: Well, I would say that if he had a

substantial capital investment and had the other trappings of

independence and employed — well, no matter how many people he

employed, he would be categorized as independent. That

classification as to whether he is dependent or independent

does not hinge on how many employees he happens to have. It's

on the question of his relationship with the parent who he is

contracting with.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I've listened to the Minister

with some interest and some concern. It appears in this

definition of that

section that, while we have the definition

of dependent contractor, we have nothing which indicates what

might be an independent contractor. I have heard what he had

said with considerable interest, but I don't really believe

that he's indicated clearly enough for me, at least — and

undoubtedly for the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

as well — what the distinction happens to be.

Now I appreciate that he said that it's pretty unrealistic

to define these things. I wonder why he has bothered, then, to

put the dependent contractor definition in the Act. Under the

circumstances, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the many

representations we've had from groups within the province who

are independent contractors — some of whom take contracts which

theoretically would make them dependent — I wonder whether the

Minister would consider deleting that clause dealing with the

dependent contractor altogether from the definition

selection.

It is pretty simple for us here, perhaps, to talk about the

independent and the dependent and to talk about

definitions,

but out in the field, on the logging roads of British Columbia,

it takes on a somewhat different complexion. We know full well

the battle that's been waged in the Alberni area and the

memorandum of agreement which owner-operators have been asked

to sign by IWA, local 1-85.

The agreement, Mr. Chairman, to refresh your memory, is

six-point; it is fairly simple. It goes:

"

l) It is agreed that all employees of owner-operator

contractors will become members of local 1-85, IWA.

"2) Owner-operator contractors who operate their own

equipment will pay to the local union a monthly fee equivalent

to union dues paid by local union members.

"3) As required, IWA members will work with owner-operator

contractors signatory to this agreement within the jurisdiction

of local 1-85, IWA.

"4) It is understood by both parties that the application of

seniority shall be within the employee group of the

owner-operator contractor signatory to this agreement.

"5) It is agreed that the provisions of the Coast master

agreement will apply to the owner-operator signatory to this

agreement and to his employees.

"6) It is agreed that the local 1-85, IWA, will provide

stickers for the equipment of the owner-operator contractor

signatory to this agreement."

This has been, as you know, Mr. Minister, fought, not

entirely successfully, by the owner-operators. What I see

coming in by reason of the definition

section and, of course,

the subsequent clauses dealing with the dependent contractor,

is that we will simply be providing the legal vehicle for the

type of IWA activity to take over the owner-operator in the

first industry — which, of course, is an IWA objective.

IWA obviously have their own reasons for this. I am not

questioning their motives from their point of view. But I am

saying that owner-operators have a different point of view, and

I think we should recognize it here in the Legislature, to be

even-handed. And I think that we should, Mr. Minister, in

dealing with this whole question, either define the independent

or strike out the definition of dependent. This, of course,

involved a certain number of consequential changes: in

section

1 you would delete the definition of dependent contractor in

its entirety; in

section 1, line 12 you would delete all words

after "employment" in that subsection.

Mr. Minister, unless we have an explanation which is more

satisfactory than that given so far — and I appreciate the

complexities that you talked about — I will be putting in an

amendment to that effect on the floor.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the point the Member

raises is essentially the same point that the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised. He questions the reason for

including an

interpretation of "dependent contractor" and not

including a definition of "independent contractor." It is not

the purpose of the new labour code to deal with licensing or

the right of businesses to

[ Page 699 ]

operate. I think that would properly belong in some other

legislation. What we are simply seeking to do is to allow the

inclusion of all employees, per se, in a certified bargaining

unit. The question is whether or not contractors more closely

resemble an employee in their relationship with the parent.

In the Alberni situation you referred to, are all the

contractors employed by MacMillan Bloedel indeed independent,

or are some of them, in essence, employees of MacMillan

Bloedel? If they are, and indeed are dependent upon MacMillan

Bloedel for their operation, then they are escaping the

certification rights of the trade union in that kind of

circumstance. It is essential, in my view, that someone be

empowered to make that determination.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that Ontario has a similar

provision which is a little more all-inclusive, as a matter of

fact, than the provision contained in this bill. I think there

are, all told, four jurisdictions in Canada which have a more

compelling and more all-inclusive provision with respect to

contractors than is provided for in this Act. So I can't see

any benefit in defining an independent contractor. Certainly if

he is independent, there is nothing in this Act which would be

of any relevance to him in terms of that kind of

determination.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the difficulty arises, Mr.

Chairman, in that most of the owner-contractors are, of course,

single-unit people. They may indeed, as the Minister has

mentioned, be under some sort of connection with a company. I

don't know whether it might be the company having guaranteed a

bank loan or something for the purchase of construction

equipment or logging equipment, or something of that nature. It

could, of course, be a relationship such as that, and I

appreciate the Minister's words.

But it still does not get over the problem we have talked

about, both myself and the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot), in terms of the need to either define the independent

or strike out the clause dealing with dependent contractors.

The fact is that later in the Act, Mr. Minister — and, of

course, we can't talk about later sections except in somewhat

guarded terms — but later in the Act we find tremendous

conflicts where these people are considered employers for some

purposes — read the Act; they're employers — and if you read

the Act a different way, they're employees — or at least they

are dependent contractors.

So to try to overcome this difficulty I would suggest that

what we do — in particular to take care of the specifically

British Columbian view, or the British Columbia problem — is to

simply do some deletions.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, just for your own private information, that this

is not something that has come up from one or two individuals. It's been a consistent

criticism of the bill by the independents — the Western Independent Log Haulers

Association, the Central Interior Loggers Association. The various other people

who have been to see me on this have all indicated the same concern on this

section.

Really, I cannot see that there would be any difficulty, in

view of the fact that the board can go and define "employee"

itself. I don't see why we should be under any disability for

lifting the whole clause "dependent contractor" and, of course,

lifting in additions the lines: line 12 and subsequent to the

end of that subsection dealing with "compensation to a

dependent contractor for furnishing his own tools…."

Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the

explanation, which I feel is not entirely satisfactory on this

point, I would so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is moving amendment to

section

1? I would point out to the Hon. Member that he must hand in

the amendment in writing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I understood I

had done so previously and that that is where this came

from.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. This is only….

MR. ANDERSON: I will rewrite it out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You could use your copy of orders of the day

and put your name on it if you like.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well that seems somewhat foolish. I'll

have to tear the thing up. Do you not have a copy in front of

you? I can sign it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we should establish right at the

beginning that each committee Member has the responsibility to

hand in their amendments in writing at the time that they make

them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I simply ask what happens to those

that we have already signed, which have been handed in and what

garbage can they wind up in so I can go and retrieve…?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My counsel advises me that what you put in

writing is a notice of the amendment. What we want now is the

actual amendment that you are moving.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, okay. I'll defer to the Hon. Member

from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and bring this up at a separate

time. With 10 pages on the

[ Page 700 ]

order paper dealing with amendments, I think we're going to

have paper coming out of our ears, if you ask us to

re-submit.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the order paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's on the order paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Motions are treated the same way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you wish to do it that way, I can. I

think it might….

MR. CHAIRMAN: The procedure, Hon. Member, is evidently the

same as it is for any motion, and that is that any motion must

be handed to the Chairman or the Speaker in writing at the time

that it is moved, and signed by the Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, if by unanimous

consent the House can do anything it likes, perhaps it would

solve everybody's difficulty and make the consideration of

these amendments much more expeditious if we accept the order

paper by unanimous consent for this type of….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not going to hold up the procedure.

However, I would point out that in committee it is not

permissible to suspend the rules; only in the House is it

possible to suspend the rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we'll write out the….

HON. MR. KING: On a point of order. Am I to understand that the Member

is seeking to introduce an amendment which has not been registered or filed

on the order paper?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): No.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it's on it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It's on the order paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Watch out or you'll be on our side.

HON. MR. KING: I'd like to know what the Chairman's ruling

is.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's on the order paper, Bill. It's on

top of page 21.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's important that we establish the procedure

properly now. I would refer the Hon. Members to standing order 50: "All motions,

except the motion to adjourn and the previous question, shall be in writing

and signed by the mover before being debated or put from the Chair." I think

that's clear. It's just a matter, if every Member is prepared at the time they

wish to move their amendment, it's a simple procedure to hand in the written

or typewritten amendment signed by that member. Handwritten is adequate.

I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he obtain an extra

copy of orders of the day, mark the

section that he is going to

move and sign his name to it.

MR. WALLACE: The whole of

section 1, Mr. Chairman, is

perhaps much more vital to the bill than I think is being

emphasized. The Minister himself has stated that great

responsibility falls on the board to carry out its functions

under the tremendous scope of power given to it. If this is the

case, and if the board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine

the extent of its authority, then indeed

section 1 takes on

very great importance inasmuch as the

definitions included in

section I must be unmistakably clear.

I wouldn't wish to repeat the speech of the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) or the Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) on that particular definition of dependent

contractors, but I do think it cannot be said too often that if

this board is to have such tremendous power — and the Minister

has admitted that that is the whole concept, that the courts be

removed from the whole scene of labour management disputes — such a board as the one envisaged will in fact have literally

unlimited powers to do its job.

Nevertheless, that job must be done within the

definitions

section 1. Therefore it seems very clear that we should know

exactly what the

definitions of the different terms mean,

whether its collective agreement, dependent contractor or what

have you.

When I spoke in second reading of this bill the Minister

shook his head when I referred to "professional strike-breaker"

and I referred to the potential or possible

interpretation of

"supervisory personnel." The definition of "professional

strike-breaker" means a person who is not a party involved. Now

I submit that some supervisory personnel are not members of a

collective agreement, but perhaps they could be interpreted as

being strike-breakers.

Now I'm not saying that I'm right, and I'm not saying that

the Minister is wrong. I'm simply saying that there is a lack

of clarity in that particular definition, which of course will

be open to the

interpretation of the Labour Relations Board,

from which

interpretation there is no appeal.

Mr. Chairman, two or three of these terms particularly

concern us greatly, because of the lack of

[ Page 701 ]

clear definition. And when you combine that lack of clarity

with the tremendous scope for the board to interpret what these

definitions mean, I think there is some room for extending the

definitions. Or perhaps in the case of the one we are now

debating, "dependent contractor," possibly we could

delete it and leave the board to interpret the difference

between "dependent contractor" and "independent contractor" on

its own merits.

As has been pointed out earlier this afternoon, it seems

only right that if we are going to attempt to define a

dependent contractor and the difference between that and an

employee, we should to try to define what an independent

contractor is. I know this is difficult, through you, Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister. I'm not denying that. I think that

he's making a serious attempt to clarify the situation but I

don't think it is adequate.

Therefore, with these comments I would move the amendment

standing in my name — and I have a signed copy, Mr. Chairman. I

will just read it: "To amend by deleting the portion of

section

1 beginning with the words dependent contractor on the 20th

line and concluding with the word contractor on the 28th line."

So moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order. I do believe that the Hon.

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) had already

moved his amendment. It was simply a matter of providing it to

me in writing.

MR. WALLACE: It's the same amendment. Surely we're not going

to spend hours in this House splitting hairs, Mr. Chairman.

Let's get on with the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it's agreeable with the Second Member for

Victoria, we'll accept the amendment of the Member for Oak

Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Is the amendment accepted, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.

MR. WALLACE: Speaking briefly to the amendment, I feel that

the definition lacks clarity and does not make it easy for the

Labour Relations Board in fact to give a sound

interpretation.

For that reason we feel it would help

section 1 and the whole

intent of this bill if we deleted that definition. That is the

purpose of the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment

put forward by the Member for Oak Bay.

I just want to outline to the Members of the House that obviously, if a contractor

does not meet the classification of dependent contractor, then it naturally

follows that he would be an independent contractor. Why in the world you would

want such a definition spelled out in legislation is incomprehensible to me.

I want to explain to you what the practical application of

your amendment would produce. It could produce a situation

where an employer, who is seeking to escape the provisions of a

collective agreement with his employees, could use a ruse to

finance some of his work force or additional workers unrelated

to his company, to finance the provision of tools and equipment

to them, and set them up posed as independent contractors and

hence cut into the work that is due to the employees of his

with whom he has negotiated a collective agreement.

By so doing, he could precipitate pretty major reductions in

the trade union work force that has an historic right to that

work. This would be a ruse which has been used before and one

which I frankly would not think that the Hon. Members of the

opposition, if they understood the intent, would be prepared to

lend themselves to.

Now that's the kind of situation we can get into where every

individual with a power-saw, indeed, could be set up as an

independent contractor. That's the kind of definition which

could certainly mitigate against the legitimate interests of

trade unions. I think that should be recognized.

Now obviously, as I pointed out before, all of these are

types of relationships which we experience across the board in

this province, not only in the forest industry, but certainly

in construction.

In fishing, for instance, canneries may well finance a

fisherman with a boat and tie him down with a contract which

makes him rely completely upon them for his very right to exist

and do business in that industry. What is independent about

that? What is independent about him? And that could be a

method, and has been a method indeed, of seeking to escape

their obligations under a collective agreement which they have

signed, presumably in good faith, to represent the workers.

The amendment that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

moves is one which would allow for the continuation of this

kind of bad-faith situation. It's one that would mitigate

against the best interests of the workers in this province and

I reject it out of hand, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's no way we can accept that we are

attempting to put forward a ruse on behalf of certain

companies.

HON. MR. KING: No, I didn't say that. It's not that at

all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What is happening is that we have a board

set up and they have a role.

[ Page 702 ]

Now all the arguments that have been put forward by the

Minister appear to me to be arguments which might well be valid

were the board not in existence; but there is a role for the

board to determine what are employees and what might be phony

ruses to get around the Act. That is the point I want to

make.

It's not a question of our putting forward a hypothetical

situation based on fishing — and I am not sure of the scope

that this Act has over fishermen. I am not trying to put

forward this type of argument in favour of ruses. We are simply

saying that there is also, on the other hand, tremendous

problems that could arise — problems which have been foreseen

by the independents, problems that we think could best be

solved or at least be mitigated, could be reduced, by having

this

section struck out.

I am not saying that the board will have no function at all

in determining what is an employee, what is an employer. These

are defined in the Act. I am saying that they will have a role

to play and they will be able to get through the ruses that may

be employed. But I don't think we are starting out on the right

foot by granting a definition in this Act which can only cause

trouble in the future because of the conflict between these

people who are on the one hand owner-operators but sometimes

employers, sometimes considered employees. I think this

dependent contractor clause simply adds to the confusion and

potential difficulty rather than reducing it.

MR. CHABOT: Speaking to the amendment, I am sure that the

Member for Oak Bay wasn't suggesting by his amendment that he

would be inclined to protect the spin-off companies of

companies that have collective agreements with workers. I don't

think that was the intent of his amendment but the Minister

attempted to say it was.

I realize there are problems in this connection where a

union becomes certified to represent a particular company and

there is a spin-off company established to avoid the collective

agreement that exists between the workers' representative and

the employer. These spin-off companies set themselves up to

avoid the responsibility of a collective agreement. But that

isn't the concern with the amendment that has been put forward.

The real concern is the

interpretation of the dependent

contractor.

One can readily say that within the tree farm licence — I

keep going back to the tree farm licence, because an

independent contractor can be within the tree-farm licence or

outside of one as well. Within the TFL, he is entitled to cut

30 to 50 per cent of the material on that limit, but then he

must in turn direct the logs to the company that holds the TFL.

He is, in my opinion, directly dependent upon that holder of

the tree farm licence in order to get this contract. Now this

is the situation.

Really, I think there should be a clear-cut explanation. If

the Minister is primarily concerned about this business of

companies which have collective agreements with unions and

which establish spin-off companies, then he should spell it out

and he should put in legislation in language that will clearly

define his concern. But don't put language in the legislation

that will create fear and apprehension out there in those

thousands of independent contractors in the logging industry in

British Columbia.

You'd better believe you haven't given a clear definition.

You have failed to allay their fears. They are fearful of this

legislation and they want to know, really, if you would be

inclined to give these people, the owner-operators, an

opportunity to join, either a union or an association. What

would be your attitude in that respect? These people were just

asking you to give them the opportunity to join either. It is

unfortunate that the Minister is unwilling to give out the

clear definition what a dependent contractor is and what his

attitude and his

interpretation of this part of the Act is. I

wonder if the Minister has had representation, direct or

indirect, by the IWA for the inclusion of this

section in the

Act, or something similar to this.

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

amendment, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the Member for Columbia

River need have any doubt. Of course there will have been

representations from the IWA with respect to this particular

clause. As a matter of fact, there were meetings with the

Minister on this very problem during this past year.

However, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Minister to

reconsider his rejection of this amendment — and it does not

have anything to do with the IWA problem at all. You are

placing in a definition, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, what can only lead to confounding the vast problems

which you are already laying before the Labour Relations

Board.

You mentioned the possibility of an employer using a ruse by

financing certain people in his work to acquire equipment then

enter into so-called contracts to make them independent but

which made them really in fact more dependent upon the employer

than if they had been an employee. That kind of activity, Mr.

Minister, is expressly prohibited under your unfair labour

practices section, which we will come to in a few moments.

But as well as that, Mr. Chairman,

section 34 of this Act — and again I don't want to transgress on subsequent sections — gives the board just the very clear and simple responsibility

of determining who is an employee and who is an employer.

That's all you need. By adding the definition of dependent

contractor, and using the words that you use, saying that "a

person in a position of economic dependence upon," or

"under an obligation to perform duties for

[ Page

703 ]

somebody who was in an employer relationship," that

the person who more closely resembles an employee casts upon

the board a very serious decision-making responsibility with

regard to whether a person is in or out of this particular

definition.

Also under

section 34 the board has power to determine what

persons are bound by a collective agreement. If we have a case,

Mr. Chairman, where an employer did enter into a so-called

contract with an individual who had some equipment to do some

work and, as a consequence, then said that person is not an

employee of his and needn't be bound by the collective

agreement, the decision in that respect is the board's decision

under

section 34. But by putting in this definition of

dependent contractor, you give them the opportunity to raise

the argument and create the problem for the board simply

because you spell out in various ways what really is the

escape.

You can be as certain as we are standing here debating, Mr.

Minister, that there are people in this community who will wish

to seek the loopholes in this law. And by putting in this

definition, you provide them with one, because all they do is

come before the board and say "By reason of the relationship

between me and the man for whom I work, I do not closely

resemble an employee at all,"

You also, Mr. Chairman — and this is the point made by the

Member for Columbia River, and I wish to reinforce it — can put

an individual in the position where he could classify perhaps

as a dependent contractor under this

section but still qualify

as an employer.

I appreciate examples can be abused, and I don't raise the

example for that purpose, but take the position of an

individual who owns three trucks and he has three truck drivers

and three swampers. Maybe he drives one of the trucks himself.

He may be in the position where the teamsters union might have

those truck drivers or swampers as members of that union and he

in a position under a multiple-employer certification to

bargain collectively for that group.

Yet another union could well argue that, by reason of the

relationship between the man who owns those trucks and the

person who contracts with him, he's really a dependent

contractor because he is totally, absolutely, economically

dependent upon that relationship. Then you're going to create

an argument which is only going to lead to further inter-union

jurisdictional problems all because this is here.

Now, if that

section comes out, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that no offence

is done to the direction in which you're heading at all. You still leave it

up to the board to decide whether a person in a particular position, whether

he owns equipment or not, is an employee and whether, by reason of his relationship

with the employer, he is bound by a collective agreement. That is a clear, simple

decision — not an easy one, but clear and simple — for the board to make. By

leaving this definition in, you only provide the loophole that we hoped in this

House for once and for all was beginning to close.

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

observation. I appreciate the Member's good intent, but I

question whether his argument would be welcomed by the very

people who he's trying to serve.

It's the kind of situation where the board would make a

determination as to whether an individual was an employee

within the meaning of the Act. You fail to recognize the

distinction between an ordinary employee who owns no equipment

and that unique situation, which I think should be recognized

in legislation, where the employee has some interest or some

ownership in equipment that he may operate in the course of his

employment.

It is a dissimilar situation, and I don't think that

contractors who have any investment whatsoever would welcome

the prospect of being included as an employee per se. I think

they would certainly welcome the status of a dependent

contractor as distinct from an employee within the meaning of

the Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just a couple of more brief comments, Mr.

Chairman. May I first of all say to the Minister — and I'm sure

it was a slip of the tongue — that I serve no one here except

this House and this committee. Any arguments that I may have

occasion to put forward in this or any other legislation are

put forward in discharge of that responsibility only.

If I may, however, deal with the subject that the Minister

raises. The very fact that you have this category established

in this Act does not preclude the Labour Relations Board from

exercising any other decision-making powers it may have and

still find the person to be an employee or an employer as the

case may be. The thrust of my argument was simply that you are

opening up the statute for abuse, and, by removing "dependent

contractor" and making a minor amendment to the subsequent

section which deals with dependent contractors, you accomplish

the purpose without giving the opportunity for escape.

I have no question that the Labour Relations Board, when

dealing with particular problems, will have no difficulty in

determining who is properly an independent contractor and who

is properly to come within the classification of an employee. I

think that will be relatively easy, but this definition being

here will make it more difficult rather than more easy.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WILLIAMS: Moving on to another matter dealing with

definitions, we have for the definition of employee all the

breadth that the Labour Relations

[ Page 704 ]

Board could ever require in discharging its responsibility,

but we have certain exclusions to the definition of

employee.

One which I find troublesome is the exclusion of a person

who is employed for the primary purpose of exercising

management function over other employees. Now again, I think

there will be no difficulty on the part of the board in

determining whether a person is or is not exercising a

management function. But I quarrel seriously — and I have an

amendment — with casting the responsibility on the board of

determining not only what is a management function but

determining whether that is the primary purpose for which the

person is engaged by his employer.

This again opens up this legislation for question and

argument before the board. If a person discharges a management

function, then truly he should not be an employee within the

scope of this legislation. That decision is a clear one. I'm

not interfering with the matter of who is supervisory or

non-supervisory, whatever the case may be. Management function

is all that the board need determine, and there are clear

ground rules in every company, there are clear and easy

examinations that could be made by the board and the staff of

the board to determine whether or not any particular individual

does exercise the management function.

But as soon as you say "primary purpose" then you put

another element into the equation, or puzzle, if you like, that

the board must wrestle with. It creates, as I say, another

opportunity for argument. I think that the task of the board

would be made easier and those people who must deal with the

Act would know better what their rights were if the words

"primary purpose" were deleted.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment

standing in my name to the definition of "employee" in

section l(l)(i), by deleting (

i) in its entirety and

substituting, therefore, the words, "exercises management

functions over other employees; or?" I so move. I would point

out to the Hon. Clerk that there's another amendment on that

same paper and I'd like to reserve my right to include

that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment

put forward by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

The new definition of employee, I think, seeks to assist the

board in making a clear definition of an employee. In the past,

the criterion was as to whether or not the supervisory

individual possessed the right to hire and fire, or was privy

to confidential information of the labour-relations nature. But

this was a practice or a precedent that was more or less

established by the board without any clear definition of the

terms.

I think the wording of this Act has been very carefully thought out and I think

it will be of great assistance to the board in determining the main function

of the supervisory individual. There's no question but that shift bosses in

mines, for instance, have been found to be employees by the old board and have

been included in collective-bargaining units.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that there certainly is an

increasing interest by middle-management groups in obtaining

the benefits of trade-union representation. I think that this

House should recognize that interest where it does not unduly

conflict with the interests of management in providing that

recognition and that protection to management people.

The term used in the new definition, "primary purpose,

" I think, achieves that very nicely. Accordingly, I

oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support

of the amendment. In my earlier comments this afternoon I

talked about simplicity and clarity in definition. This is why,

I guess, this

section is attracting a fair amount of

discussion, and rightly so.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound makes it so

beautifully clear: "exercises management functions over other

employees". But

section l(l)(

i) in the bill states: "for the

primary purpose of exercising management." "Primary" is a

relative word; who decides what is primary and what is

secondary and what is cursory?

It seems to me, as a layman in the labour field, that "the

fewer words you have the better" would seem to be a very

logical approach. There are mightier and worthier people than I

who have said that you should never use two words if one will

do. I just think that this amendment serves that purpose very

well and clearly states that you're excluding people in a

management capacity. You do it in an unmistakable way in clear

simple language,

whereas the bill which the Minister has, in

subsection 1, could introduce an element or a need for

interpretation which need not exist.

God knows, this board will need to have as few…. Any way

in which we can reduce the requirement that they should have to

make

interpretations — rather than have it clearly spelled out

for them to interpret what is in the bill — I think is of the

utmost importance.

Their powers are going to be stretched to the Nth degree

anyway to interpret a lot of things which really are their

function. But if there are certain

definitions so that they

don't have to struggle to interpret, then I think this House

should do its utmost to make these

definitions unmistakably

clear. For that reason, I support the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: I don't want to get into too

[ Page 705 ]

much of a debate on this. I recognize the sincerity of the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), but I would put to him the

proposition that I don't know whether he's trying to attack the

union I belong to or not.

I would just use as an illustration the type of role that a

locomotive engineer plays. It's supervisory; he supervises the

crew each and every trip, as does the conductor. If we come to

that tight determination of anyone exercising a supervisory

role, then certainly we'd exclude many employees from the right

to union organization who have historically enjoyed that right

for many, many years. I know that's not the intent of the

Member for Oak Bay, but I want to illustrate to him that the

simple exercise of the supervisory function is certainly, by no

stretch of the imagination, an adequate yardstick for measuring

this complex kind of question.

I think that with the kind of board we have, which has the

wherewithal, which has the background and expertise to conduct

hearings and receive evidence, we can be assured that each

complex situation can be assessed on its own particular merits

in a much more effective way than the Members of the House

could draft out in legislative terms.

Amendment negatived.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Chairman,

section 1, I'd just like to preface my remarks by saying

that in the election campaign of last year I made a number of

very specific promises to the residents of North Vancouver. I

thought out very carefully what those promises were. I made

sure that none of them were unrealistic, and I made sure that

none of them were promises that I didn't feel we couldn't keep

within a reasonable period of time.

For that reason, I'm forced to vote against

section 1. I'll

tell you why, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of parts of

section I that I feel could be strengthened, and I intend to

discuss those parts. But those parts wouldn't, by themselves,

force me to make a decision such as I have been in the process

of making. It is, quite frankly, a very serious one and a very

important one for me to make as a Member on the government

side.

Mr. Chairman, the

section that I refer to, that I campaigned

very specifically and very loudly on, is the

section relating

to agricultural and domestic workers. Mr. Chairman, it's my

view that we don't need a study to include these categories of

workers in the labour-relations legislation. I think that it's

been demonstrated in other jurisdictions and it's been

demonstrated on the farms and in the farm industries throughout

this province that, in fact, farm workers can and should be

covered by labour legislation. I think the same holds true for

domestic workers.

I understand that the Minister and I have a disagreement about that. I respect

his view, I'm confident that the results of his study will lead to the inclusion

of these groups under collective bargaining, but I cannot vote for a

section

at this time that excludes those people.

Mr. Chairman, I think that I have some to talk about farm

workers. I grew up on a farm in the Okanagan, a farm that

doesn't make much income and a farm on which my parents had to

hire assistance — sometimes, on a full-time basis, for eight

months of the year and, at peak-period hiring, as many as four

or five additional employees.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the apples and pears and

peaches that were picked by those people should be sold to the

public in Vancouver or Edmonton on a cheaper basis because we

were underpaying those workers. Those workers should not be put

in the position of having to subsidize the consumers in the

rest of the country. That principle I just cannot accept. It's

my view that if an operation — whatever kind it is, industrial,

farm, or whatever — cannot survive by paying adequate wages,

then, Mr. Chairman, that operation doesn't deserve to

survive.

There are in British Columbia a great many people who are

working in farm-related industries and who are working in large

groups. This does not just cover the single employee who might

work for a certain length of time, for a few weeks or a few

months or a few hours in each day. This legislation is

excluding a great many employees who work in non-direct farm

situations, in some kinds of farm-related secondary industries.

I think that is unfortunate that they are not included in the

legislation.

In my view, the legislation allows for the creation in the

farming industry for a kind of union that would exist across a

great number of farms. Because of the fact that in other

sections we allow for one person to become part of a unit and

allow that one person to join with one other person working for

another employer, we could find ourselves with a very

satisfactory union structure situation in the farming industry.

Mr. Chairman, I think that if we force these kinds of issues by

making sure that workers in all areas have their fair rights,

then the employers in those areas will, too, as a result, have

more fair rights. But at the moment the public is not aware of

how unfairly those kinds of employers are dealt with.

As far as domestic service goes, Mr. Chairman, I don't have

the same kind of experience with that but I have a simple

philosophy about this question: a worker is a worker is a

worker, for whomever he or she works. As far as I'm concerned,

they should be included in the legislation. And as I said,

because of that particular part of

section 1, I must — I don't

like to have to do it, but I must — vote against

section 1.

I want to talk about a couple of other parts of the

section

that I think could be improved, from my point of view and from

the point of view of the

[ Page 706 ]

people who elected me in North Vancouver. I've had a great

many discussions with them and I haven't taken this step

lightly. The

section relating to picketing, Mr. Chairman, I

think is needlessly stringent. It effectively eliminates the

possibility of legally marching in front of Super-Valu, asking

consumers not to purchase, in this instance, California

grapes.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what position I will be in as a

member of the public and as a Member of this Legislature when,

following passage of this legislation, I participate in a

Super-Valu picket line protesting the use of California grapes

in that situation. I will clearly be in violation of this law,

Mr. Chairman.

I intend, if that issue is still alive, to participate in

those kind of picket lines. I obviously then will be in

violation of this law. So will a great many other people in

this society.

Mr. Chairman, a law that does not command the respect of

people in our society cannot work. It is absolutely essential

that groups to whom this legislation is being applied respect

this legislation. Unfortunately, the

section on picketing which

relates to another

section later in the legislation is, in my

view, a

section that will lead to refusal to obey the law. I

find that unfortunate because if you break the law once, it's

easier to do on another section, and the whole thing then grows

into….

I'm not suggesting that it will grow into the kind of

disrepute that the Socred legislation grew into, because there

are no parallels with that iniquitous legislation. But it's a

danger, Mr. Chairman, that I think we should be very, very

careful about.

The other part of this

section that I wanted to discuss was

the definition of professional strikebreaker. Mr. Chairman, in

the debate on second reading on principle I made some comments

about another

section relating to compulsory arbitration and

the fact that that's not the way to solve the Sandringham

dispute.

There were some comments made both by Members privately to

me, and by reporters — particularly in the Vancouver Sun — saying, "Well, how else do you solve situations like

Sandringham?" Mr. Chairman, there's a simple solution in

solving problems like Sandringham and it's this: you outlaw

scabbing. Mr. Chairman, I cannot use the words "professional

strike breaking" because I believe that's scabbing. To

strike-break is to scab and there is no better word in the

The strike at Sandringham would have been over in weeks if

that company was not allowed to hire scabs, or strike breakers

as they are referred to legally.

Questions are then raised about the balance of power in our society. Effectively,

the large industrial operations in this province are unable to hire strike breakers

or scabs because of the nature of their operations, because of the complexities

and because of the numbers involved. We have, in a non-legislative way, effectively

outlawed, in an indirect sense, strike breaking in those large industries. And

no one dares complain about the lack of economic balance.

Mr. Chairman, the area in our society where there is immense

economic imbalance is in the service industry, in the areas

that we must organize over the next few years: areas like

Sandringham, areas like Shoppers Drug Mart, areas like Nu-Life

Nutrition, areas like A.B. Dick, areas like Dominion Motors in

Vancouver. The list of unresolved disputes goes on and on and

on. Those disputes could all have been solved and settled

within weeks had there been provision in legislation to outlaw

strike breaking.

In my view that will begin, and only begin, to rectify the

imbalance that now exists in the economic power of, on one

hand, George Weston or some large insurance company that owns a

private hospital, and on the other hand on the job, a group of

defenceless and inexperienced workers, more often than not in

those industries, Mr. Chairman, women.

It's our responsibility to make certain that they can

resolve their strikes quickly and fairly, and the way for us to

do that is to give them the same power that we give to the

large sawmills and pulp mills and other complex industrial

operations in the province. The solution is not to allow

scabs.

Mr. Chairman, the definition of "professional strike

breaker" does not come to grips with that problem because the

definition talks about a group that is organized to do strike

breaking specifically; it does not include someone who just

comes in off the street asking for a job during a strike.

For those reasons — and I've tried to be brief; I've

outlined them as clearly as I can — I am not particularly happy

with this section. I am happy with a great deal of the section;

I'm not happy with those specific parts of those specific

contents.

I'm also not happy with something that is, in my view,

omitted from the

definitions or from the list of things covered

section 1. That's the entire question of the fishermen's

right to be covered by this legislation. I appreciate the fact — and I understand it, I think, quite clearly — that there are

constitutional difficulties. I appreciate the fact that the

Minister (Hon. Mr. King) has suggested that if the

constitutional difficulties are resolved in the province's

favour, then this legislation under another

section later on

would allow the fishermen to be covered. I'm not absolutely

persuaded that that's the case, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me simple to do what they did in Nova Scotia,

and that's to include a

section specifically including

fishermen under the jurisdiction of this legislation. If the

federal government wants to take us

[ Page 707 ]

to court on this question, let them go ahead; I d on't

believe they will. I think we should just put the

section in,

include the fishermen under our legislation, and be done with

it.

As I said earlier, it has been a difficult decision, but

there are some matters, as loyal as I am to my caucus, with

which, unfortunately, I am not able to go along. Thank you.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Chairman, I too have to rise

in opposition with this clause.

MR. PHILLIPS: The track gets wider.

MR. STEVES: I cannot support a clause, Mr. Chairman, which

in my opinion encourages class discrimination and rules out

teachers and professionals on one hand, and farm workers,

domestic help and people like that on the other.

Further, I'm a bit concerned, as the previous speaker, that

we have not specifically outlined the rights of fishermen in

this Act.

Interjections.

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

not interrupt the speaker.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Chairman, in my riding, I and our party made

a lot of promises to the fishermen, and, as I mentioned

earlier, the fishermen constitute a very large portion of the

work force in my community.

I am concerned that, due to the dispute between federal and

provincial jurisdictions being challenged by the canneries, by

the companies, it could be possible that the fishermen are not

included under federal law.

A tiny province like Nova Scotia and other cast-coast

communities have included fishermen specifically in their

labour codes, not necessarily in the manner I'd like to see

them included, but at least they are included and protected in

some way.

I mentioned in the earlier discussion on this that the

fishermen in my riding had been organizing and carrying out

collective bargaining since 1893. They've had a long tradition

in that particular community of bargaining and negotiating for

the price of fish. I am very much concerned that it is not

spelled out that they are included under

section 48 as

dependent contractors, but personally I would like to see

it spelled out so we know for sure that they are included and,

if the federal Act is found to be not workable and the ruling comes

against the fishermen, they would be included in this Act we are

discussing today.

The second point I would like to make deals with domestic workers and agricultural

workers. Like the previous speaker, as most of you are aware, I too have been

involved in agriculture much of my life.

The neighbouring farm to ours only four years ago had

Chinese help working for 65 cents an hour. These people were

brought in from Vancouver by someone who had bought a truck,

picked up people, brought them out to the farms to work, and

took 10 cents an hour from what they earned for his wage for

bringing them out there. They put in long hours a day — 12, 14

hours a day — for very low pay. My area is no longer a farming

community but I doubt very much if these people even now are

getting more than a dollar an hour — not much more at any

rate.

But, in effect, we do have in our farming community some

degree of near slave labour. I find it very sad that we should

be enacting legislation that denies the right to our farm

workers of something that we have championed in the past for

workers in places like California. Many of us here in this

House have supported Caesar Chavez and his Chicano workers in

California for their just fight for decent wages in the United

States. Here we are faced with not giving the same rights to

our people here in British Columbia, just a right to allow them

or organize. We're not saying that they're going to have things

overnight; but just give them a right to organize.

Another example I'd like to give is horticultural workers.

In my riding, one greenhouse operation, for example, has 12

employees. It varies from time to time, but we'll say 12

employees on the average. Up until recently they've been paid

$1.50 an hour; they've just got a 10 cents an hour raise to

$1.60 for some of them. Some of them are still only getting

$1.50.

Most of these workers are immigrants. The long tradition in

agriculture has been to attract immigrants to the province and

to the country to work for low wages. We lead them on with the

"land of milk and honey" idea; they come over here and find

that they have to work for low wages until they find their way

in the community and get a job elsewhere. And so then, more

immigrants come in and work for these same low wages.

I know one person who worked for this particular company for

a number of years and had been interested in trying to organize

to get higher wages, but, of course, there was no legislation

previously that would allow this person to do so. Now we are

not giving them permissive legislation either. This person left

and went to work for another employer also in the horticultural

business, also having greenhouses, and got a job doing the same

work for $3 an hour.

So we have a position where one operator is able to pay $3

an hour and the other is exploiting the workers and paying them

only $1.50, and its major profits are coming from that

exploitation. Some

[ Page 708 ]

people have suggested that it may harm the farmers; I'd

suggest that maybe even a greater harm is already being done to

the farmers.

In my own position, when we were farming, we refused to hire

coolie workers, to use the term not as a discriminatory one but

as one that basically describes a type of work situation that I

think is deplorable. We refused to hire the low-paid workers.

One of the reasons why we ended up going out of business was

because we would not hire at that low level of pay; we would

not exploit workers to that extent. I think there are probably

many other farmers throughout the province who've been

struggling on, trying to pay decent wages, trying to mechanize

so they wouldn't have to hire people at low wages, or trying to

find some way that they could decently treat their

employees.

I think that in the case of the two horticulturists whom

I've mentioned, if the workers in the first one were allowed to

organize and had gotten higher wakes, then that particular

greenhouse operator would have been faced with several

decisions: first, he would have to stop undue exploitation of

his employees — he would have to either accept lower profits or

expand his operation to increase production to higher levels;

or he has the other alternative of becoming competitive with

the people who are paying higher wages. The final alternative

is to go out of business. I think enough of the agricultural

firms in this particular business would be able to survive.

There may be a few that might have to go out but I think there

would be a very few.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that it's with a lot

of thought and misgivings that I've taken this stand. It's very

difficult in the backbench in the government; I think it would

probably be difficult for opposition Members to vote against

the stand their party has taken. When you have a principle such

as this, I think you have to stand up and, on a clear

conscience, express your feelings even if it means voting

against the government in this matter.

The principle that I see here is that we are maintaining

what I would consider as class legislation brought in by the

previous government and previous governments both here in

British Columbia and in Ottawa. I cannot accept that we should

bring in this kind of legislation in the name of the NDP.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few

observations in light of the points that were made by the past

couple of speakers.

I would suggest to the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) that he have another

look at

section 1 pertaining to the definition of employee and he will find

no exclusion, either for fishermen or for people involved in horticulture. I

would suggest perhaps that the Member read that

section again and he could have

perhaps shortened his speech considerably. There is no prohibition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Closure! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: There's no prohibition in the Act. There is

nothing that would exclude fishermen or, indeed, workers

involved in horticulture.

I would just make this observation: with respect to farm

workers I have stated publicly, and I reiterate now, that my

department, m cooperation with the Minister of Agriculture's

department, is embarking on a study which will attempt to

determine more information in the agricultural sector so that

we might include and extend the benefits of trade-union

representation to broader areas of agricultural workers.

One of the problems, though, is the fact that at this

particular session of the Legislature we are not only dealing

in the main with labour legislation but also pretty significant

assistance to agriculture. I think it's incumbent upon this

government to live up to their word, to extend a helping hand

to the people involved in agriculture so that they might be

better able to afford competitive prices for labour costs with

the manufacturing sector. I'm sure that once the government has

introduced and passed the provisions which the Minister of

Agriculture has put forward, many of the obstacles to providing

fair and adequate wages in the agricultural sector will have

been eliminated.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would say it's perhaps somewhat

ironic that Members on that side of the House are suggesting

that

section 1 and the

interpretations are too all-encompassing

and too sweeping and broad, and at the same time we're having

other suggestions that those

interpretations and

definitions

are too narrow and restrictive.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the Minister is

getting the message: your

section is no good. This side of the

House finds cause to complain and so does the other side as

well.

I would like, however, to turn to another one of the

definitions. It was one which was mentioned by the Hon. Member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) in the course of

his remarks. I wish to express to him my congratulations; he's

following in a tradition that has come with Members from North

Vancouver-Seymour on labour matters: separating from their

party on matters of principle, on which he and the Member for

Richmond (Mr. Steves)-have just spoken. I applaud them. That's

what we're here for and I hope it will never change.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour dealt

with the matter of professional strike-breakers. I agree with

his

[ Page 709 ]

comments with regard to probably what the normal appellation

of a strike-breaker is. I think it's very fitting. However, I

am concerned again at the task the Minister is placing before

the Labour Relations Board by including in the definition of

strike-breaker a decision where they have to decide what the

primary object of a person might be.

I think it's quite clear and simple that people who are

engaged to come in and interfere with the strike or disrupt

lawful activities carried on by unions and their members in

accordance with the provisions of this Act is not to be

accepted by any person in this province who wishes to have some

sort of labour peace. But there are people who are bona fide

employees of an employer who may be on strike, and who, by

nature of their responsibility as such employees, might fall

within some person's view of interfering with a

strike.

I would think that at this particular stage we should make

it absolutely clear to the Labour Relations Board, when

considering matters as to whether a person is or is not a

professional strike-breaker, that a person who is a bona fide

employee of an employer who is on strike, that there should be

no question that that person carrying out his responsibilities

does not f all within the classification of strike-breaker.

The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour said that in common

parlance a scab is the name that you call a person who engages

in these kind of activities. It should not be applied, however,

to a person who, properly employed, is carrying out his

responsibilities.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the

amendment standing in my name on the order paper, a copy of

which you already have, by adding to this definition the words:

"but shall not include a bona fide employee of the employer

whose employees are not on strike, when engaged in the

performance of his duties as such employee."

I can appreciate in the Sandringham situation that what is

going on there was a strike by employees who had no contract.

Therefore, it might be concluded that bona fide employees of

that employer would be exempted under the amendment that I

propose. I make this amendment, recognizing that in this bill

which is before us now we have a clause whereby the Sandringham

situation is not going to develop again because there will be a

collective agreement. Then the strike that takes place will be

a lawful one and the definition of whether an employee is bona

fide under those circumstances will be no problem to the

board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have a copy of the amendment?

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I sent up an amendment with regard to "employee";

that's the same sheet.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment

put forward by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Williams). It's really irrelevant and redundant and

contributes nothing to the

section which defines professional

strike-breakers. Indeed, it could result in a determination on

the possibility of the board allowing a struck company to hire,

during the course of or after the initiation of a strike, a

person who did meet the classification of a professional

strike-breaker.

What is a bona fide employee? One could argue under that

type of language that a bona fide employee was one who had been

hired after the initiation of a strike. As such his primary

purpose may indeed be that of interfering with the progress of

the legally-constituted strike.

I suggest that the definition of professional strike-breaker

is very clear, the intent is very clear and I oppose the

amendment put forward by the Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I must extend my congratulations

to the Hon. Minister. There is no question in my mind, Mr.

Chairman, and I am sure there will be no question in the minds

of the Labour Relations Board, that an employer who goes out

once the strike is in progress and hires a new work force is

not hiring bona fide employees. The Minister's mind is more

devious, I suggest, than that of the very worst employer that

we could ever have in the province, the employer who makes

every attempt to frustrate the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't agree with the Minister and I

appreciate that his refusal to accept the amendment is

virtually conclusive. I was startled to hear him suggest that

my amendment was redundant. If redundancy is a criticism, then

when we come to some future sections of the Act, we will have a

great debate, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment negatived.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I don't wish to get into an

argument with the Hon. Minister, but I would like to draw one

thing to his attention and that is with regard to the

definition of an agricultural worker.

In my opinion, horticulture is a part of agriculture. If you

have a greenhouse or are doing market gardening, that is

horticulture. If it is not, I would hope that these workers — the horticultural workers and the market garden workers, would

be included under the Minimum Wage Act and could expect an

[ Page 710 ]

increase in wages as well as orchard workers, dairy farm

workers and other groups as well.

HON. MR. KING: Horticultural workers were defined under the

previous legislation and specifically excluded from the former

Labour Relations Act. I understand there is a legal

determination as to the term "horticulture" vis-à-vis

agriculture and it is clearly defined as a separate industry.

Accordingly, that particular definition has been dropped from

the exemptions under this legislation.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister of Labour

define what is meant by horticultural workers? Is that strictly

greenhouse workers then, or would that include market gardeners

and other people in produce work?

HON. MR. KING: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this could

include certain greenhouse workers, possibly people who grow

trees for reforestation and that type of thing. But I haven't

got a legal definition of the whole….

MR. STEVES: This would not include the market gardeners I

was mentioning, then?

HON. MR. KING: The which?

MR. STEVES: The market gardeners, the Chinese labourers and

so on, growing cabbages….

HON. MR. KING: I don't think so.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am certainly pleased with the Speaker's

ruling that we could have the opportunity this afternoon under

this legislation to debate the present strike on: the Pacific

Great Eastern Railway. I am also pleased that the Premier

recognized the urgency of that strike and brought forth this

afternoon the Labour Code of British Columbia Act, Bill 11, so

that we would have the opportunity to discuss the strike on the

British Columbia Railway.

Mr. Chairman, collective bargaining should begin

immediately. The Premier should move with all haste and, if

necessary, bring the parties involved in this before the

Legislature in order that we can have a full-fledged debate on

the strike on the British Columbia Railway. If that strike is

allowed to continue, Mr. Chairman, indeed the entire economy of

British Columbia will be in more than jeopardy, because the

entire industry of the north part of this province will grind

to a complete halt.

The industry of the north, Mr. Chairman, has been plagued during the last nine

months by a shortage of boxcars. The lumber industry was hit by probably the

fatal blow on Monday morning when the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. Mr. Williams) arbit