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)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 463 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

reading.

Mr. Schroeder — 463

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 464

Mr. Gardom — 465

Hon. Mr. Radford — 469

Mr. Williams — 471

Hon. Mr. Lea — 474

Mr. Phillips — 476

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 479

Mr. Barnes — 483

Livestock Production Act (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 485

Domestic Animal Protection Act (Bill 48). Hon. Ms.

Young.

Introduction and first reading — 485

Department of Housing Act (Bill 49). Hon. Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading — 485

Government Computer Privacy Act (Bill 60). Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 485

An Act to Amend the B.C. Railway Act (Bill 6 1). Mr.

McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 485

An Act Respecting the Fluoridation of Water Supply (Bill

62). Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 485

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1973

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I'd like the House to welcome Mr.

John Temple, MP, JP, from Westminster, Mother of Parliaments,

who is a guest in the Members' gallery. Many of us met with him

yesterday and spent a very pleasant evening with him.

We also have in the gallery Dr. Richard Beek, professor of

Nordic languages who is now a resident of British Columbia, and

who for many years has been noted in that field.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

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

11, Mr. Speaker.

LABOUR CODE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

M R. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned

last evening we were reiterating our concerns that we find in a detailed study

of the bill. I'm aware, Mr. Speaker, that we can't get involved in a section-by-section

study of the bill and I commit myself to doing that in committee stage.

However, there are some concerns that we did not get to in

last evening's consideration. We talked about those things that

have concerned all of us, and every speaker who has been to his

feet has expressed his concern about the lack of appeal — I

talked about that last evening. We talked about the inordinate

powers that are given to as few as one man, a man who has

powers to appoint himself to panels — to be the only member of

a panel to make decisions binding upon the panel and upon the

board. We talked about that last evening.

We talked about the conscience clause which has been a matter of some concern

to many who have stood. Some have even dared suggest that the conscience clause

is a phony clause or it represents a phony excuse. I take severe exception to

that. But at least the conscience clause, in part, is included in the bill.

I think it only goes half far enough. It only excuses membership — or it allows

an exclusion of membership. It still demands that the union dues, or the fee

for membership, be paid to the union involved. This does as much injury to the

conscience of the one who is the conscientious objector as the membership itself.

It's not a matter of the dollars that he takes home….

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Render unto Caesar….

MR. SCHROEDER: I'm amazed to hear a man of the cloth….

Interjections.

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

proceed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Calvinists and the Wesleyans are going

at it again. (Laughter.)

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to sit down with the

Premier one evening and perhaps clarify the position there. I

think this is the second time he's referred to me as a

Calvinist and I'm afraid he's as unaware of my position in that

regard as he is unaware of many other things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd give him an Old Testament….

MR. SPEAKER: We're not supposed to be proselytizing here.

Would the Hon. Member press onward?

MR. SCHROEDER: There are two other areas of concern. One has

not yet been mentioned in the House and I'd like to draw it to

the House's attention and hope that we can be given some

assurance that what we suspect is not true. And that is that

there is an absence in this bill of that

section which formerly

precluded the donation of funds, normally belonging to a union,

to a political party. Did I communicate?

The Act, as it stood prior to today, did not allow for funds

to be converted from union funds to become political funds.

This, I have to report, happened in the last election. And I'm

wondering if it is for the reason that the teamsters union has

already been levied an additional $27,000 to be transferred

from union funds into the political coffers of the NDP. I'm

wondering if it is for that reason we don't see that

restriction in this particular bill. I wonder. I'm just asking

the question. I would like the Minister in his closing remarks

to allay our fears in this regard, and if not in the closing

remarks, at least satisfy the Members opposite, these Members

opposite….

[ Page 464 ]

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

Impossible.

MR. SCHROEDER: Oh, you think that's impossible, do you?

The second area that's of concern to us is a little phrase

in one of the sections. I know it's been there before, but

nonetheless it still causes a concern today, and that is the

"condition of employment." Membership in a specific trade union

is a condition of employment.

I see in one

section where the bill will allow the

employment of one, who for conscience sake, cannot belong to a

union. But I see that the Act does injury to the individual who

does not wish to belong to a union, but who does not have a

conscience, per se, regarding belonging to a union; he just

does not wish to belong to a union. Now, if we allow membership

in a specified trade union to become a condition, or to be a

condition of employment, we are discriminating against,

perhaps, as much as 49 per cent of the employable public. I see

where this is an injury and I wouldn't like to see it supported

or at least sustained by

an Act that we call the Labour Code of

British Columbia Act.

In committee I will have more questions. Some of them are

not as embarrassing, some of them are more embarrassing. But I

hope that when committee stage comes we will not be so much in

a hurry to get through this bill that the Members on this side

of the House will not be given ample opportunity to ask the

questions that are upon our minds. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I don't think I could let this bill go through without having something to say

on it. I think the reception of the bill is indicated by the amount of words

that the opposition is trying to inject into the bill. I think if you went over

the history of the labour legislation of this province, this is the dullest

bill that has ever gone through the legislature as far as opposition goes. I

remember….

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I know. This is a reflection of what the

opposition is criticizing.

Other labour bills that I've watched go through this House

over the years have created a great concern on the opposition

side. But this bill is being accepted as a real honest attempt

to solve the problems.

I remember, when the Social Credit brought in their legislation, that we did

a real job on those bills because they were retrograde legislation, and that

gave us plenty of ammunition to fight those bills. But this time the opposition

seems to be scrambling for anything at all to say about the bill. I don't know.

I'm sure I could do a better job than they are doing right now if I was over

there. (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You're out, you're

out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now you are out. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Maybe you haven't had the experience that

some of us have had in opposition. I'm very disappointed in the

opposition, to tell you the truth, because they haven't said

enough really to make it interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll get some more today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, I think there was a reason. But you

haven't got a reason and that is why you have nothing to

say.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): We're better suited

to be government. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: You've just proven you're consistent

failures.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Labour has had a long road over the years;

they have had many ups and downs. They made advances in

legislation over the years and they were gaining ground, but in

the last 20 years we saw a continual chipping away of the

privileges that labour had fought for over the years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Continual erosion of rights.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They eroded those rights. They built up a

wall of suspicion between the employer and the employee to such

an extent that it is difficult to break that down. And you are

not going to break it down very easily.

I have had a number of cases where I have discussed problems

with management and I always tell them: try to involve the men,

the employees, in your operation; involve them in the

management of your operation; try to have communications

between them so that when problems come up, either for

management or for the union, they know what each other is

doing. I am sure that if this were done we would break down a

lot of the suspicions that exist between management and labour

today.

This bill, I feet, is an honest effort to try to bring

[ Page 465 ]

the two groups together and integrate them to some extent.

And to me that is the only way we will be able to have real

peace between labour and management in this province.

In the outlying areas there is a place where something might

be done, too. It is difficult to have men stay in these

isolated places. You have big turnovers in employment in

isolated areas.

Maybe the negotiating between the two parties has got to

give greater consideration to more time off because I notice,

according to the pattern of some wildcat strikes, they usually

happen on Friday rather than the middle of the week, which

gives the employee a long weekend. Maybe once a month they

should arrange for a Friday off so that they would have a long

weekend and be able to get out to the cities and enjoy

themselves a little bit.

MR. CHABOT: You live too close to Alberta.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And maybe we should consider some sort of

bonus for people who will go out to these isolated places to

work.

But this bill we are discussing today will give the labour

relations commission a chance to investigate in all these areas

so that maybe they can bring out and solve problems before they

happen. I believe that is one of the main objectives.

As to the conscience clause in the bill that you are all

talking about, I think a lot of people, as somebody said

yesterday, don't want to vote even, but they have got to pay

their income tax. So I say in this case that people, whether

they want to belong to a union or not, should pay their way for

the results that they get.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are too intelligent a man to use that

comparison.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Now, I am sure that this bill is going to

go through…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …because I am sure that you are all

going to vote for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got that notion, have you?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've got a notion that it is going to go

through because I think you are all willing to give it a chance

to work.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Just a hunch, Leo.

Just a hunch. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Its a good hunch, too, that you will give it a chance

to work and we will hopefully have a better climate for management and labour

in the Province of British Columbia for a long time ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made better speeches over here.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear so

many government Members espousing and attempting to justify

various positions and factions of the labour movement which

they represent — and it is difficult for them; we appreciate

that fact. And I think you've got to say that it is a difficult

bill, too.

The last speaker talked about involvement, and other

speakers today have talked about participatory democracy, Mr.

Speaker. It's very peculiar to me, in the case of this

legislation which is so important and so new for the Province

of British Columbia, that the government has not seen fit to

permit labour, to permit management and, more particularly, to

permit the third partner, the general public, to have their day

in court before this bill gets through second reading.

It has been ramrod legislation. I must confess to the

government it is the only bit of legislation they have

attempted to ramrod, or even really had ready, I suppose, to

get along with. Maybe that's the reason for the urgency because

the rest of their legislation is still in the "waxworks" across

the street.

During the many statements that have been given so far

concerning this bill, everyone has advocated that we should be

moving into the consultative area and out o f the confrontative

area in the field of labour-management relations. It is clear

that this bill is a step towards that and, to that extent, I

certainly commend the government for bringing it in.

There are very, very obvious aspects of accord, and I'm not

going to deal at length with those today; but I do wish to

emphasize certain areas wherein I find extreme difficulty of

acceptance. And the comments that I'm going to be making this

morning are the same as everyone else is making in this House

and will continue to make, I am sure; they are going to be

advanced in calm. It is most necessary, for the economic health

and stability of the province, that that particular approach be

taken.

I don't want to hearken too much into the past, because I

don't believe in looking back; but the very calm that the NDP

are espousing with this bill, it would perhaps have been a very

good thing if they had exercised some of that calm themselves

when we had other labour-management bills before this House in

the past. Because if a party ever tried to incite the attitudes

and postures of one

section of society in a labour-management

field, I can certainly accuse the socialists of doing that,

without any question of a doubt. And that is not just my

accusation; that is the accusation of the general public. This

isn't a political

[ Page 466 ]

statement; that's the accusation of the general public. But

the Minister, in his lexicon of assessment concerning the

legislation and within its own terminology, we find something

that has been almost startling in its absence and that is

comment or statement about the interests of the public, the

third partner. True, this is a labour-management bill. But for

the third partner, Mr. Speaker, the silence has been

deafening.

It is the fervent hope of every one of us and of the third

partner, the general public, that management and labour will

get along, and if they will, true, so will the third partner,

that is, the party of the third part, the general public.

But if management and labour refuse to get along and if we

run into confrontation instead of consultation, then the public

will suffer. And what of it? We don't find any rights or

remedies or redress with this legislation for the general

public, and I say that that's not good enough. Good intentions

are one thing, but bad actions can be occasioned and, if they

are Joe Q. Citizen once again will suffer. He, in my view,

should not be denied recompense, and that should be spelled out

within the legislation.

If there are illegal work stoppages, illegal strikes,

illegal lockouts, and damages result from them to the innocent

third party from those kinds of breaches, then that third party

should be entitled to redress, and that redress should be

spelled out in this legislation instead of being left out. It's

absolutely deleted at the present time.

It's all very fine for the Hon. Minister to talk about cures

over penalties and to say that it's curative legislation and a

curative approach over a punitive approach, but you cannot

cure a dead patient. Maybe the patient should have the right

to go to Mayo or another forum. Perhaps he should have the

right of appeal as was very eloquently argued by the Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) yesterday. Or perhaps, if the patient's

illness becomes a danger and a damage to the public at large,

he — the patient — should have to endure a prescribed treatment,

or what have you, or certainly pay for the damages that he's

caused the third party.

Now we don't find those safeguards and we don't find those

protections within the legislation. Sure, it's experimental

legislation; that's okay. But I say that the public are tired

of taking every kick in the shins and they certainly are

entitled, at least, to experimentation to have some rights

themselves. I say it's an abrogation of this bill not to

enshrine and provide those rights.

It's pretty obvious that we are going to have professional around-the-clock

hand holding, and that's going to be expensive but, hopefully, not so in the

long run; we'll see about that. But it very much remains to be seen if just

the existence of this board can produce results. Sure, we all hope that it will

get off the ground and that it's going to do the job it's supposed to do. But

it certainly has the capacity, in my view, to be grounded, for if management

or labour make concentrated efforts to see that this board will fail, fail it

will; and it will be finished, de functus , and it could well end up being strangled

in its crib. And we could run into the disruptions of old right back on our

doorstep with, once again, the third party suffering and — once more, I repeat

— without an opportunity to have redress which should be provided statutorily

within this legislation.

Philosophically the government has not one bit come to grips

with this public interest issue in this bill — not enough, in

fact, nothing. Well, that's not fair to say nothing, because

I'm sure thought has been given to it. But if the thought was

given to it we do not see any results of the thought. There is

no proper indication of protections for the third party. I do

not feel that they should be hurt and damaged by the illegal

acts of anyone. It's contrary to the basic concepts of law.

That perhaps is the very greatest weakness in the

legislation.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) yesterday raised a

very valid point too, and it was pooh-poohed by the Premier at

the time. He very validly asked: "What is bargaining in good

faith?" What is bargaining in good faith? You know there may be

many subjective opinions, many subjective judgments or

attitudes and conscience, concerning that.

We have had a lot of talk about conscience here, and very,

very divergent views as to what end a person may take according

to the dictates of his own conscience, and how that may or may

not conflict with society as a whole. Is it bargaining in good

faith to advance one's own economic interest against the seal

of society and to the economic damage of society? Is that

bargaining in good faith? I would very much like to hear the

Minister's comments on that question when he closes this

debate.

The bill attempts to abrogate, in fact, doesn't attempt…but does abrogate very basic rights. It abrogates access to

the complete independence and impartiality of the judicial

system that has enjoyed some 900 years of experience through

literally millions of fact situations. You know, it's an old

phrase but it's illustrative: I think that by denying this

right of appeal, without any question of a doubt you've "thrown

the baby out with the bath water" and you've initiated vague

substitutions of alleged complementary powers to a court, plus

the absolutely unbridled power to make any ruling concerning

any law dealing with the

interpretation of the Act. You have

given that power to 10 people to act individually or in

concert.

Holy smoke, look at the permutations of divergence that you

can have there; they're limitless.

[ Page 467 ]

They're autonomous unto themselves without regard to

established precedent at all — that's clearly enunciated within

the bill. They're autonomous unto themselves without regard to

established principle. Do you know what's arrived? We've

arrived into the double standard of law in British Columbia.

We're going to have one law for management and labour,

determined as 10 people may divergently determine it, and we're

going to have one law for the rest of the people, I don't think

that's right.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, it isn't right.

MR. GARDOM: That's what the bill says, my friend, though. Oh

yes, it does. I've read the bill many times, and I wish that

I'd had more time to read the bill.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Well, you're a lawyer….

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Well, you people can caterwaul away; it's your

right to do it. How long have you people had the bill? You've

had it a great deal longer than the opposition have, and I

haven't heard statements advanced, except for one Member, the

Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), showing any

type of a different posture or attitude to any of the clauses

contained within it. We're certainly finding those out from the

general public as every day and every hour goes by in B.C.

"Solidarity forever" — sure, that doesn't go ahead and

necessarily produce good legislation, my friend; make no

mistake of that.

Dealing again with appeal: why don't you use your own Act as

a precedent? Under the arbitration

section there is the power

to proceed to the supreme court on a stated case. There is the

power to proceed to the court of appeal under the provision of

the arbitration provisions within this very bill. Why not go

ahead and extend those very same rights with the leave of the

board to people who are dissatisfied with board decisions?

What's wrong with that? I would like to know what's wrong with

that; I can't see anything wrong with it.

There's not any definition or guidelines or parameters or perimeters — call

it what you will — for this board to act within defined precedents and procedures.

It has total power to create that whichever it wishes to, when it wishes to,

and how it wishes to. Let's hope it won't, but it can throw all of the existing

labour legislation, the existing common law of the field of the management-labour

relations that have been developed over a few hundred years, into absolute confusion,

and ignore all of them totally. It is certainly going to be a bonanza for the

labour lawyers and specialists in the field of labour-management relations,

and they're going to be chuckling all the way to the bank over this bill. That's

going to be pretty darned clear.

I said earlier that there's no appeal but to themselves and,

as I've mentioned, in my view, this violates one of the

concepts of natural justice. You know, I remember very, very

heated and very emotional and very, very valid arguments in

this House — particularly by the Minister of Mines (Hon.

Nimsick), who just sat down a few moments ago. When he was

sitting in opposition he talked about the woes of the Workmen's

Compensation Board, and how long it was that there was no

appeal but unto itself. What's happened now?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: What happened to those lessons? What's happened

to your posture there? Are we going to cut out appeals to

Workmen's Compensation Board too?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If you come over I'll show you the file

I've got from the WCB right now.

MR. GARDOM: It's pretty difficult for you people to be

consistent on these very points. As I said, the board has the

capacity to make law and to make it's own law, to enact law and

enact its own law, as and how it wishes to. I think this is

fractionizing the legal system. It may accept any form of

evidence that it wishes and, what weight can be given to it — even that's not spelled out — hearsay twice or thrice removed?

I am happy to see in one

section that the technicalities are

removed insofar as an adjudication or presentation to a board

is concerned, They are taken out. That's a very good thing;

getting to the straight logic of it is okay. But you've got to

get to the logic again according to accepted rules of

evidence.

What about the denial of natural justice? Is the route to

the court totally eroded? A Member in here indicated that the

bill could well be ultra vires , and it well could. I think any

attempt to deny the right of the courts to issue prerogative

writs — which almost started in the days of the Magna Carta in

1066, and was later developed by Henry Il — I think any attempt

to deny the courts of those rights would be

unconstitutional.

Those are very historic protections of individual rights.

That's the concept behind these prerogative writs, protection

of individual rights. This is an ignoring of individual rights

rather than protection of individual rights.

It can formulate policies, but where are the teeth? My

friends say that these policies will have to be followed. It

can formulate policies to the left and

[ Page 468 ]

more policies to the left — maybe one or two to the right to

balance — but where, indeed, is the power to see that these

policies will have to be followed or enacted? None whatsoever.

They're just going to float around in mid-air, I suppose.

The board has the right, Mr. Speaker, or it may on its

application of others, to file with the court cease and desist

orders and then they can become court enforced. But they also

give the right, Mr. Speaker, to the court to issue injunctions

if serious danger to life or health results, but even then not

on an ex parte basis.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if you happen to have a person who is in

a situation of experiencing danger to his life or to his

health, is it reasonable to suggest that he can die in the

doorstep waiting for the process server to serve the process?

Surely to goodness, under those circumstances, there's

absolutely nothing wrong with ex parte injunctions, absolutely

nothing wrong under those circumstances.

On the essential side, the government has covered in the

legislation fire, police and hospitals; these appear to be the

only

definitions. In those situations the employees have the

right to request binding arbitration. But the right's not given

to the employer. I say, why does that have to be a single-sided

coin?

It's a specious argument to suggest that employers in those

situations perhaps couldn't lock out so they shouldn't have the

right to opt for arbitration.

Is the definition of essential services broad enough, in

view of the request and the need and the demand by the public

today, in view of the terrific complexity and interdependency

of society? Should not these perhaps be broadened to include

ferries? I think pretty well any of the general public who

experienced the last ferry strike on Vancouver Island would say

yes. They'd say you've not gone far enough; you haven't

protected us one bit.

Should perhaps not Hydro be included? Can all the lights go

off? Is it not fair to suggest that that could be defined as an

essential service?

Technological change. You've mentioned that and this seems

to be welcomed in all parts of the House, but it's not defined.

You say, "Boy, it's pretty difficult to define that," and indeed it is difficult to define it, Mr. Speaker. Change in

the size of the wheel — is that going to be a technological

change? Who knows? But a law, Mr. Speaker, to be effective, has

to be concise, it has to be certain, it has to be clear and it

has to be capable of being enforced. This does not pass that

test whatsoever.

Under the "special officer" concept, we've almost got a mini-mediation commission

back in our hands, and that certainly didn't work. It's peculiar to me why these

fantastic powers could only be granted to a single individual. Even the government

side have all thrown up their hands and said, "Tell us, who could that person

be? Where could we find a person with those qualifications?" They seem to be

unable to come up with an answer for that, so perhaps maybe from their own illustrations

and observations it would be an improvement if they enlarged that and perhaps

had three.

I welcome the suggestion of the Industrial Inquiry

Commission. This will give the public, I do hope, for the first

time in British Columbia the right to independent disputes

between management and labour, so we don't have these

wildly-conflicting statements, these apples-and-oranges

arguments, a great big advertisement on one page of a newspaper

and another on the other side, and the statistics absolutely

being as apart as black and white.

Within this inquiry commission, I certainly hope that it

will do many, many things to develop industrial harmony and

peace, conduct workshops, train arbitrators, and frame

collective agreements. I hope it encourages as much as it

possibly can profit-sharing arrangements.

The committee of special advisers to review legislation

appears to be an interesting step. Perhaps it's somewhat of a

duplication of the Industrial Inquiry Commission, I don't

know.

One thing did strike me rather strangely in the bill, Mr.

Speaker, as to why thought was given to the appointment of just

a Construction Industry Advisory Council. This must be a very

extreme indicator that there are a lot of problems existing in

that particular area. This is one way, perhaps, to provide a

little bit of a buffer, to perhaps have them sit tight for the

time being before the government can effectively come to grips

with those problems and offer advice and counsel. I don't think

there's any indication of what the government proposes to do,

except that they say we can establish this council dealing with

one industry and one industry only. True, it has the right to

establish them for other industries, so are we to expect that

they will be establishing one for fisheries and for mining?

Ombudsman. Fine and dandy; good idea. But do we need just an

ombudsman for labour, or as the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) suggested a few days ago, he's going to have an

ombudsman in the jails? Why don't we have an ombudsman for the

whole of the province, which is something that everyone in B.C.

wishes? The NDP argued about it, they platformed on it, they

ran on it, and still they have not established it — still

without any kind of a logical reason or excuse from any

government Member, backbench, frontbench or middle bench, as to

why that hasn't come into being.

We should find in the bill, Mr. Speaker, greater protections

for the public interest and the right to claim damages for

illegal work stoppages. We should find more defined and better

cooling-off periods. I

[ Page 469 ]

think we should find an expansion of those three essential

services. The general public is fed up with one thing, Mr.

Speaker: they're fed up with 25 people putting 10,000 out;

they're fed up with 2,500 people putting 100,000 out. They

don't think that's right.

There should be proper rights of appeal. I think it would

have been a very good thing if even within this legislation

there had been suggestions that there be a uniform contract

date with the province.

Finally, before closing, I'd like to mention something about

the modus operandi of this board. No one knows, as I said

earlier in my remarks, the dimensions of its basic ballpark.

This government, Mr. Speaker, is board-happy, it's

commission-happy. We have the Land Commission, we've got the

energy board, the marketing board, the labour board, we've got

rules and regulations and red tape, and we're creating

bureaucracy left, right and centre. But we don't have any

established rules or established procedures.

What we need is a uniformity in this, much the same as the

supreme court rules and the county court rules. We need an

administrative procedure Act in the Province of British

Columbia so we'll find that all of these organizations act

according to certain basic and very straightforward

philosophies. There are about eight in number:

There be a notice of hearing and that be given to all

affected;

Particulars of allegations be furnished;

There be a proper hearing in public and the right to call

and subpoena witnesses and examine and cross-examine and

maintain a record — the right to counsel if desired;

Decisions that are to be rendered must be rendered by those

who did the hearing. Abolish absentee decisions;

Reasons for judgment must be published. I believe that's the

one item of the five that I've mentioned so far that we find

within this legislation;

There be a proper right of appeal to a properly-constituted

appellate body and not to the trial judge which you've got

here;

There be a simple form of application to the court if an

administrative tribunal refuses to exercise its statutory

power. That's not within this legislation. This board is

totally autonomous and can say, "No, we won't act." They can

take that position, according to the legislation you've given

them. You say, "Let's hope they won't." I say, "Let's hope they

won't." The public says, "Let's hope they won't." But they can,

and I say that protection should be built in.

And eighth, these administrative tribunals throughout the

province should have the right to incorporate and spell out

their own detailed rules.

Another point: we still don't have the right to sue a government in B.C. I

say the concept that a government can do no wrong is a concept that should have

gone out with the divine right of kings. We don't have a bill of rights; we

don't have those democratic checks and balances against the fantastic power

of this state.

There's no right for management or labour or the public

against this board. This board is an agent of the government;

if it commits any wrong for which it should be legally

responsible, it should have to face its own day in court.

There's no need for it to be fireproof. It's got the power of

government behind it to defend any frivolous or vexatious

proceedings; there's no need for it to be fireproof. But it

should have to face its day in court too.

Mr. Speaker, in this bill we find that the government has

delegated the power to determine the economic future,

livelihood, destinies and vocational pursuits of the majority

of B.C. citizens under this board, and it is an awesome

responsibility. There must be very hard and determined efforts

on the part of management, on the part of labour, on the part

of government, on the part of all political representatives to

see that it does work. And without that, in my view, it will

not work.

But this government, Mr. Speaker, could be assured of its

better success if better and more defined guidelines were

advanced and the public interest was better protected.

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

rise to speak on this bill with much feeling and emotion. Like

my colleague on the left, I have been a member of the trade

union movement since I was 16. In total years, I have been a

member of the trade union movement for 27 years. I have been

involved in nearly every position within the trade union

movement right from the shop steward level to the top of the

ladder of the negotiating committee. In the last four years

before I became a Member of this Legislature I was a full-time

paid labour official.

I suppose I am a product of my environment. My grandfather

on Vancouver Island was involved in the early struggles of the

miners' union and was involved in the Dunsmuir dynasty problems

of that time. My father was also an early organizer in the

miners' union on Vancouver Island. So were most of his

family.

I can remember the time that two of his brothers were killed

in the mines because of unsafe conditions. They lost their

lives approximately two weeks apart from one another.

I can remember my father coming home from work with a

blackened face and having to wash in the kitchen. I can

remember, again, the first time that he came home with a clean

face; that was the day when they felt they really had won

something when they won the right to have a washhouse and have

a shower before coming home from work.

Also, in the political field I suppose I am a product

[ Page 470 ]

of my environment. I happen to have the fortune of having

been born on this Island and having lived only a mile from the

Hawthornwaites, the Same Guthries, the Parker-Williams, and the

late arrival, Mr. Strachan, lived a little further up the

road.

MR. CHABOT: He's going down the road, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't hold your breath.

HON. MR. RADFORD: This bill, Bill 11, can bring harmony and

reduce conflict in the complex labour relations field of this

province.

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

mentioned that the public is concerned in this area. We are

concerned about the public's feeling and we feel that this bill

will lessen that conflict which the public is concerned

about.

There will always be a degree of conflict between labour and

management. The problem our government has to solve is how to

bring in the machinery to reduce that conflict. Perfection

cannot be obtained in any labour relations bill. Labour

relations will never satisfy all parties, including government.

Bill 11 is not Utopian legislation. We do not liken it to a bed

of roses, because there probably are a few thorns among those

roses.

I believe our government has paved the way to a more

harmonious industrial relations climate in Bill 11. In this

bill we have attempted to bring back the balance of power

between the two parties. Collective bargaining or negotiation

is the process of power using power, and every effort should be

made to obtain an equal balance or an equilibrium in that

field. Take bargaining power away from either management or

labour and you have an imbalance which can lead to overwhelming

problems and sometimes chaos.

There were no shortcuts taken in the drafting or drawing up

of this bill, Mr. Speaker. The labour advisory committee

travelled throughout this province and heard many submissions,

studied many facets of labour relations throughout other

provinces and attempted to use the best of those

legislations.

The labour code has many new innovations. I suppose one of

the most important is that now we have a full-time Labour

Relations Board. This has long been advocated by labour and by

some people in management. We have a board now that can deal

with the problems on a full-time basis, not on a part-time

basis, as was the case in the past.

One of the most important keys to the success of this bill will be on the shoulders

of this one-man board. Success can be obtained only if labour and management

decide to think positively and give the board a chance with some hope and trust.

The success of this bill will also depend upon the judgment and diplomacy shown

by the individuals on the new board. I am confident that the people selected

for this important and difficult task are capable. The board has been given

the needed flexibility to solve all aspects of many problems, especially those

problems before they reach a critical stage which many of them do. This is the

problem. One of the most prevalent problems is that once we get into conflict

between management and labour and the longer it goes on, the deeper entrenched

both sides become with philosophy and problems and face-saving criteria. This

is the real problem and that problem has to be solved before we reach a critical

stage.

"The board shall make all its decisions in proceedings under

this Act available…for publication." This is

section 23.

This was never done in the past.

"The board shall publish all general policies formulated…and all amendments or revisions." This was never done in the

past. The board has to make policy and certain decisions as it

goes along as to procedure. These decisions and revisions will

be published periodically as they go along.

The bill also requires union contracts to contain a clause

concerning technological changes. Some contracts already have

this but many do not. Technological innovations have been one

of the greatest causes for wildcat strikes. Many new

technological innovations being brought in to the working area

cause job change, workload increases, different wage

classifications, more responsibilities and, oftentimes,

boredom. It is in this area, we hope, that the technological

clauses will prevent, to a large extent, future wildcat

strikes.

The bill also provides for an appointment of a special

officer to deal with wildcat strikes. For years labour and

management to some degree have been advocating that disputes

should be taken out of the courts, especially in the areas of

the ex parte injunctions. We all realize that, in the past,

either party — and in most cases it was management — could call

upon the judge at any time asking for an injunction and the

injunction would be granted by the hearing of only one side of

the situation.

Certification votes will be granted by reduction to 35 per

cent the number of workers a union must sign before a

certification vote can be called. Our party and the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) have stated many times that we would

like to see a more organized work force in B.C. The recent

figures of the organized in B.C. is approximately a little over

40 per cent. The approximate number of organized workers in

Canada is 33 per cent. So you can see that the labour force is

not the majority, it, is not the strong hand that many people

criticize them as having.

I would call on the labour movement, Mr. Speaker, to take

advantage of the new innovations of the certification process

and go out and organize those

[ Page 471 ]

unorganized. An association is needed in every organization — even the full-time business agents that work for unions are

organized and have a union.

Before coming into this Legislature I was the president for

the CLC Representatives Union, which is a small organization

spread across Canada. We had a union or an association, and we

went through the same hopes as the union organizer against

management. Believe me, it was no different. As a matter of

fact, it was much worse dealing with the top labour union in

Canada than it was dealing with many of the management people

with whom I've dealt in the past. The same acts, the same

charades, the same situation took place, only maybe a little

worse, because we both had the experience.

Provisions are also being made where supervisory employees

will have the power to designate industry-wide bargaining units

and include sub-contractors within bargaining units. This isn't

entirely new. Supervisors in the building trades union have

most always been allowed to organize.

The certification process will be speeded up, and this is

largely due to the 10-man board. In the past we had a

part-time board that could not deal with and could not handle

all the certifications. Consequently certification applications

were months and months behind, which caused problems and

conflicts on the job. It allowed management to get in — and

that was their right to get in and try to disorganize the group — and in so doing caused real conflicts within the labour and

management field.

Police, firefighters, hospital workers and others will have

the right to strike or decide during their negotiations to

accept voluntary binding arbitrations.

There has been considerable discussion about the conscience

clause which allows those who object to joining a union on

religious grounds to opt out, except that they must pay their

union dues. I believe this is only fair, Mr. Speaker. After

all, these people, as has been reiterated by the past speakers,

are paying for a service. I've worked with these people with

the Christian Labour Association of Canada and have been

involved with them in the north, and I respect them for their

courage of their convictions. I respect those people.

I believe our bill goes a little further with the Rand

formula than the legislation on conscience clause in Ontario,

Saskatchewan and Manitoba which says that the workers can give

to an organization of their choice, can opt out. But do you

know, Mr. Speaker, that in Ontario in two years only eight

people opted out because of the conscience clause? In

Saskatchewan the total is zero and in Manitoba the total is

zero. So for those people on both sides of this question I

would say that that example shows that there is really no

worry.

Bill 11 will also establish a labour ombudsman to hear individual complaints

and make recommendations on unfair treatment by management, unions or the board

itself. This ombudsman thing isn't a new situation. Federally we have a labour

ombudsman with the Canadian Labour Congress who is stationed in Toronto, and

he also is allowed to hear complaints from management and labour unions. But

I believe by bringing the ombudsman system into B.C. we have regionalized it

and made it more accessible for the workers in B.C.

Where in the opinion also of the ombudsman satisfactory

action has not been taken of his recommendations, he will send

a copy of his report to the Legislative Assembly, or he will

publish them in a manner that he considers advisable.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on further and discuss many more

important facets of this bill. Many of them have already been

discussed.

I would, however, point out that many of the criticisms that

have come forward on this bill have been hypothetical

arguments. Many of the arguments have been reading into the

bill what might happen or could happen. I would welcome a

meeting with the B.C. Federation of Labour or any organization

to discuss any of these problems in the future.

It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, to write into the bill words

that will deal with and handle all things. I don't think we've

heard any of the speakers from the government side say this was

a perfect bill. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has

stated that he welcomes constructive criticism. We welcome any

complaints from any organization or groups. We are not a rigid,

pompous government, Mr. Speaker. We will listen and act on any

constructive recommendations. The government needs and invites

input into solving the very sensitive and complex problems of

labour relations. We 'need the involvement of everyone.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill can bring harmony to

the arena of conflict between management and labour.

Unfortunately neither this bill alone nor the words within it

will be the salvation to this complex area. It will be the

attitude towards the legislation by management and labour that

will determine its success.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I don't know,

Mr. Speaker, if I'm getting farther away or if you need new

glasses. (Laughter.) Or maybe it was the delightful events of a

few hours ago that cause you to peer as you do. Anyway, I thank

you for recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to

participate in this debate. It's been the friendliest debate on

a subject which has not in the past been noted for friendly

discussion. I think that we can thank the Hon. Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) for presenting this attitude to this

House at the outset. It's a difficult situation, and I'm sure

that all

[ Page 472 ]

Members on all sides of this House would like to see the

difficulty resolved.

We have had uncertainties in the field of labour-management

relations in this province and other jurisdictions ever since

the trade union movement first emerged as a force in our

communities. We all know, and the Hon. Minister of Recreation

and Conservation who just spoke knows better than I, better

than many of us, the stormy history that the trade union

movement has had. Therefore it's not surprising that even in

this year, 1973, there are still difficulties that surround the

operations of unions. There have been uncertainties. But Mr.

Speaker, there is one certainty: that the public of this

province and of this country, whether they be in or out of the

trade union movement, whether they classify themselves as being

in the ranks of management or not, are fed up with it. And they

are looking to labour, to management and to the government for

a solution. I think it was most clearly demonstrated in the

recent unfortunate work stoppage with the B.C. Ferries, with

the recent short stoppage of the B.C. Rail, with the recent and

tragic stoppage that we have had of the national railways, that

the people of British Columbia and of Canada are sick of it and

want something done. And it is in this light that this

government brings forward this bill. It only points out, Mr.

Speaker, the enormous responsibility which the government and

which the Members of this assembly take unto themselves in

debating this legislation.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford) said the bill wasn't perfect. Well, I certainly accept

that. No bill produced by this or any other government is going

to attain perfection.

Great responsibilities are being cast upon the Labour

Relations Board, upon its chairman, its vice-chairman and its

members. And they aren't perfect either, Mr. Speaker. They are

only human, and they will err as much as anyone.

We only hope that with guidance and responsibility they will

err less than others who have in the past been engaged in

attempts to resolve the difficulties between labour and

management.

I think there are two sections of the Act — I don't intend

to deal with them specifically today — but there are two

sections of the Act which I would like to recommend to the

Members' attention — sections 6 and 7. They don't really say

very much:

section 6 deals with bargaining in good faith. You

know, there can't really be any bargaining any other way than

in good faith, in my view. But it would appear from the Act to

suggest that there have in the past been attempts to bargain,

so-called, not in good faith.

Section 7 then follows it by immediately saying that no trade union, no employers'

group, or whatever the case, shall act otherwise than in good faith. Those aren't

the exact words but that's the effect.

So here we have the government setting out in two successive

sections the severest criticism that the government and hence

this Legislature when we pass this bill the severest criticism

that we could level against labour and management from the

grass roots, from the membership, to the very top.

I think this is the message that should go out to the people

of this province from this debate: that the activities which we

have seen in the past, the conflicts between the leaders of

management and the leaders of labour, are no longer acceptable.

And if they don't like the kind of authority that is being

vested in the Labour Relations Board, in those 10 men and women — and I hope there'll be more women soon — those 10 persons are

being invested with the kind of authority which we in this

House think is needed to stop the senseless and costly

arguments and conflicts which have gone on between two major

forces in our community.

I, for one, would like to see the powers of the Labour

Relations Board diminished. I would like to see limits placed

on those powers, but I think the situation is such in this

province that labour and management, for their own best

interests and for the interests of the public, must first of

all demonstrate to us and to the government that they can be

responsible and that the powers of the board are not

required.

Yes, we've taken out some of the punitive provisions in the

legislation which stand on our books today, and I hope that the

people of the Province of British Columbia will recognize this

as a sign that further changes can be made to take away

anything which may appear to be punitive in nature. I trust

however, they will also take this as a sign that if the parties

who are causing the difficulties in this field do not take the

opportunity which is presented to them that it is within the

power, indeed, the responsibility and duty of the government

and of this assembly to put punitive powers back into the bill.

May it never happen, but we do have the power.

Those people who are today arguing about the rightness,

correctness, effectiveness or otherwise of this bill should

present their arguments logically to us. We will listen. But

let them recognize that if decisions are made — and they must

be made by us, hard or not — we expect that those individuals

and groups in our community who are affected by those decisions

will abide by them and responsibly seek the changes which the

future may prove necessary.

The Board is, I think, well designed. I have said in other

places that I think the selection of members which has been

made to date is good. I'm not saying they couldn't have been

improved upon, but they're good. I think these individuals are

entitled to the opportunity to prove their worth. If they're

not, then they'll be replaced. They too should recognize in

the

[ Page 473 ]

performance of their responsibility that that is the fate

that may befall them, and I'm sure that none would take a

position on the Labour Relations Board under any other

circumstances.

We have provided in the legislation that the chairman has a

fixed term, but I would expect the chairman of the Labour

Relations Board in the performance of his responsibility as he

sees it under this legislation, if he finds he is running into

disfavour with the government or with the people of the

Province of British Columbia, from whatever side they may come,

that he would take the honourable course and resign. As I

understand the credentials of the chairman of the Labour

Relations Board, duly appointed, I'm sure that this is the

course he would take without hesitation.

I have other things to say about other specific sections of

this bill when we come to committee. I quite frankly say to

you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Members that I intend to propose

some amendments to this bill because I think it does not go far

enough in some circumstances.

But there is one omission in this legislation which I find

surprising as we take this new course of action — well maybe

it's not new — as we make this new attempt to bring sanity into

this field of labour relations. We've tried Labour Relations

Boards and mediation commissions and punitive actions and

everything before, so it's not a new course, but it's a new

attempt. We are really giving ourselves and labour and

management another chance. It may be their last one.

But as we make this new attempt, I'm concerned that one area

seems to have been forgotten. It's briefly touched upon in the

bill. There's one section, Mr. Speaker, which provides an

obligation on unions to deliver to their members by a certain

date in each year a copy of the audited financial statement of

their union. I say hooray for that, but why do we stop there?

It seems to me with the large number of employees who are trade

unionists in this province, and with the attempts that are

ongoing today and will continue in the future to encourage

others to unionize, that it would serve trade unions and their

members well if at this particular stage we in the Legislature

were to offer them a bill of rights — a clear definition of the

rights of a member of a union and of the duties and obligations

of that trade union to him.

You know, the corporate organization has been with us for

many years.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): They need a

bill of rights too.

MR. WILLIAMS: We have attempted, Mr. Speaker — if the Hon. Member would

take the time to look at the Companies Act, which is now the law in this province,

he would recognize an attempt — again perhaps an imperfect attempt — to provide

specific rights for members of companies, minority or otherwise.

We've had government involving itself in this area of

responsibility for years. And I wonder why government does not

involve itself in a similar responsibility with respect to the

growing union force in our community. And it will continue to

grow; no one in this chamber would say otherwise. I think if

serious consideration is given to this subject, and it could be

done at this time and should have been done, that it will be a

significant step forward to bringing about that situation to

which I alluded earlier where labour and management, having

better direction from their members, will take major steps

towards healing the wounds, putting an end to the conflicts

which make this kind of legislation necessary in the first

place.

Now, I wish the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Radford) and the Hon. Minister Without Portfolio

(Hon. Ms. Young) who sits to his left, both of whom I know have

a long history in the labour movement and great experience, I

wish they had told us what needs to be done among the rank and

file of trade union membership to improve the lot of those

members. They know, I am sure. But let me offer just a few

suggestions.

First of all, no worker in this province should be denied

the right to join the union of his choice. That is number one.

Membership should be available to every worker in this province

without discrimination. Now, I am not suggesting that all

unions do discriminate. Thank Heavens, that's not the case, But

there are instances and it is those unique instances which we

must arrest.

You know, we are debating at length this bill. You would

think that every union and every employer in this province were

constantly at each other's throats. We know that's not the

case; yet we are considering this kind of legislation.

All I'm saying is that in the case of those unions who may,

for whatever reason I don't know, discriminate in respect of

membership, that should be stopped by law. And, once a member

of a trade union, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that no trade union,

no local branch of that trade union should refuse to any member

any right to work, whether by permit or whatever the case may

be. If he belongs to the unit and he wants to work, then he

should be free to work.

The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), in speaking about the ferry strike outside this

House and, I believe, in as well — I'm not too sure about the

latter — said: "You can't make the men work if they don't want

to work." Nothing is clearer than that. But, Mr. Speaker, if

you want to work, then your union

[ Page 474 ]

should never, in any way, stand in front of you in seeking

your employment.

I would also like to suggest that no trade union should be

permitted to harass or interfere with any member of a trade

union who is lawfully carrying out his responsibilities as a

member of that trade union; no interference so long as he is

lawfully carrying out his responsibility as a member of a trade

union. We have had instances of that as well.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the directors of every trade

union, every local branch or unit of a trade union, should

serve and hold office for one year, with the right to be

elected. But let them stand for election and be accountable

before their membership at each annual meeting of that union.

If they have done the job, if they have served the union and

the membership, then they are entitled to be re-elected. And

when they are standing for re-election and therefore

challengeable on the basis of the manner in which they have

carried out their responsibilities, they will be obliged to

account for their performance.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker — and as I said I do not suggest that these few

points are in any way exhausted — but lastly I would like to see, as a

matter of law, as it should be in order to protect the membership of

trade unions in this province, that the funds of the trade unions

contributed by the membership, or the workers of this province, whether

they be in the nature of trust funds for pension purposes or otherwise,

should remain in Canada, be invested in Canada…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: …and be under the investment control of an

investment committee which is appointed by at least a 75 per

cent vote of the membership of the union.

For too long we have heard the arguments on one side and the

other about the use of union funds — how much money goes across

the line to the strike funds. There should be no need for that

kind of debate to go on. There should be no need for a union to

defend itself against charges that their moneys go to a foreign

country.

Make them keep the moneys here; make them invest them in

Canada. Then the argument will end and that area of criticism,

which has been leveled against trade unions, will stop.

There is increasing attention being paid to nationalism of

corporate organizations and it will continue. I don't oppose

it. But while we are discussing this particular legislation,

let us concern ourselves with the rights and responsibilities

of trade unions as part of this new attempt to bring about this

new climate, which will remove the uncertainty that all the

public of British Columbia feel for their future.

It's a good time to start, Mr. Speaker. I really hope that

the Minister can proclaim this legislation earlier than January

1, 1974 which is, I believe, the date he set for himself. And

the reason I say that is, if you avail yourself of the

publications that are abroad in this province, the press, you

will know that major labour confrontations will be before us in

1974. The greatest majority of our unionized workers will have

their contracts up for reconsideration next year.

Therefore, the test of this legislation and of the Labour

Relations Board is going to be a severe one right off the bat.

I would like to feel, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman and

members of this board would have as much time as is humanly

possible to embark upon their task, so that they will be as

ready as they can be for the challenges, the matters that will

come to their attention for filling their responsibilities.

They will have difficult decisions to make about their own

procedures, and that will take time. I would like just to be

certain that they are as ready as is possible to face the tests

which the next year will bring.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I, of course, rise to

support this legislation because I feel personally that it is

the kind of legislation that will be a vehicle through which we

can work to bring industrial peace into this province. That's

number one.

The other reason that I support it hasn't such a high moral

value. I'm from a highly unionized riding and if I vote against

it, I won't be returned to this seat in this House. So, I have

two good reasons: I should support my riding and the people in

my riding who are workers who want me to support this

legislation.

Now, I don't think that I have ever heard such a sickening

debate in my life as the one that is going on in this House

right now. There is only one group in this House which is

really speaking from where it's at and that is the New

Democratic Party. We're saying what we feel. We do want an even

break — not an advantage, but an even break — for all the

working people in this province.

Now, I would like everyone in this House — the press, the

galleries — to take a look down at our opposition Members. Do

you really think that they want the workers to have a fair

shake in this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LEA: Look at them. The group that brought in Bill 33, Bill

42, tried to bring in Bill 88. Do they really want a fair shake for the workers?

I don't think so and I think we have to look at past history.

[ Page

475 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, now, I hit a nerve. I hit a nerve, did

I? Because you are really in a dilemma, aren't you? You know

that you have to get the votes of the workers in order to get

elected, as distasteful as it is that you have to consort with

those kinds of people. But you have to get the vote. At the

same time, you are looking at the campaign funds and saying,

"Where are they going to come from if we support fair

legislation for workers in the province?" I wouldn't want to be

in your position, especially with a convention coming up.

(Laughter.) Boy, that is bad!

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right. But you are not laughing, Frank.

(Laughter.) Oh, yes. What a position to be in.

Then we turn to the Liberal Party. Now they keep talking

about the public — you know, as if the people who own companies

and the people who belong to trade unions aren't part of that

public. So we have to examine, Mr. Speaker, who they mean when

they say the "public" good. I guess they mean themselves. They

don't really care what happens to the workers, or even to the

industrialists so much as themselves.

You hear it said, "Over on that side of the House there are

card-packing NDPers and card-packing trade unionists." Boy,

that's pretty strong stuff. You can almost see the letters

coming from the Kremlin. Here we are — you know, those dirty,

dirty left-wingers.

But then we look at the other side and we have card-packing

Union Club members, we have card-packing British Columbia

Medical Association members, and card-packing members of the

legal bar. Boy, that's pretty sinister, too, Mr. Speaker,

because I'll tell you: did you ever try and get into one of

those unions? Eh?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do they have a conscience clause?

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, no conscience clause in those unions, Mr.

Premier. No, sir. As a matter of fact you have a hard time

finding a conscience. (Laughter.) That's how bad it is. And

what about that public good that we are always talking

about?

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. LEA: In other words, this is the Liberal attitude: you can

go on strike, you poor little workers, as long as you don't cause any economic

harm to the economy. I ask you, what's the point of going on strike if you don't

do that? That's your last recourse. You go on strike to bring harm to the economy

so that you can get a fair shake — not an advantage, a fair shake.

Even the federal Minister of Labour isn't trying to take

away striking power. But I suspect there are people on the

other side…. Get back to your seat. (Laughter.) Don't pick

your teeth in somebody else's seat. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! Would you carry on,

please?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Well, so where are we at in

this debate? Oh, we are talking about the courts too. You know,

we are asking: why can't we leave it all in the hands of the

courts — you know, those unbiased judges, "big L" Liberal

judges, in many cases. You know, I am not going to pussyfoot

around. I've never seen labour, or really seldom seen labour,

get a fair shake in the courts because there is an attitude in

the courts that isn't conducive to giving working people a fair

shake. That's not what it's all about. And anybody in this

province who feels it is all about that, then they don't know

what it's all about. I'll tell you that.

What happens in court? You know we have to look at it from

every angle. I've been in court rooms where you have a social

worker saying to the judge, "He comes from a good family; give

him a break." What do they mean by a "good family"? Do they

mean that the parents love each other; that it's a happy

family; that they are doing their duty to the community?

No, they mean he's from a "good" family — in other words,

they've got a little loot. You know, maybe he's a doctor's son

or a lawyer's son, and he votes for the right party; then

that's really a "good" family. So give a guy a little break

there; he's from a good family.

So the same kind of attitude seems to happen when trade

unions end up in court. They say, "Give management a break.

They're from a good family."

I mean, I just get the feeling that the kind of people who

are appointed judges in this system are the kind of people who

are designed to go in there and maintain the status quo, and we

all know what those…what they call them? Main-line parties?

You know what they call the status quo? So when we are talking

about this legislation, you people over there should be

fighting; you should be mad. But, you see, what's going to

happen, you are going to have to vote for it.

But do you know what we really have to do? Why don't you

fight for what you really feel? You don't want labour to get a

fair shake, the working people to get a fair shake. So get up

and attack this bill, like you should be doing. But it is hard.

You need the votes of the great unwashed. And so you are in

[ Page 476 ]

dilemma.

Well, I say that if you are going to do conscience and if

you are going to do justice to the people who voted you in, you

have to attack this bill. That's what they put you here for: to

attack this kind of legislation. So please, Mr. Speaker,

implore the other side of the House to do their job, do their

duty, attack this legislation, and not make us keep having to

force you up one at a time. (Laughter.) Thank you.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I want

to support the statements that have been made in this House by

previous speakers that the attitude of individuals involved

will either make or break this legislation. It will be the

attitude of not only the labour unions, the attitude of not

only those in management positions but, indeed, Mr. Speaker,

mainly the attitude of the legislators of this province.

It concerns me, Mr. Speaker, that when one of the Ministers,

particularly the one who just took his place, stands in this

Legislature and says that he is sickened by the debate on this

very, very important piece of legislation, his attitude towards

making this legislation work really concerns me. Because he,

Mr. Speaker, is trying to create in this Legislature the

attitude of those who have the responsibility to make this

legislation work. He is trying to create a negative attitude on

their part.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that those of us who are here to

conscientiously debate legislation are going to take a very

positive attitude towards that responsibility. I would have

expected a much more positive attitude, a much more sincere

attitude, from the Member for Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea).

However, I guess the people in this province will know and

they, in the long run, will be the judges.

I was also, Mr. Speaker, very disappointed in the attitude

of the First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Ms.

Young), because her attitude, speaking from a labour point of

view, yesterday afternoon was somewhat militant. I would hope

that her militant attitude is not shared by other members of

the cabinet. I know it isn't shared by the First Member for

Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Radford), who has had a lot to do

with the labour unions, as he pointed out in this House this

morning.

But I think, Mr. Speaker, that we must dispense from this

House, and indeed dispense from all the Province of British

Columbia, that all companies and all management are bad. This

attitude towards management has been built up over the past

years by the past opposition. I must say and, in all sincerity,

I want it on the record that I support the Minister of Labour's

(Hon. Mr. King'

s) attitude in introducing this bill. I think he

was being very sincere and very conscientious.

On his shoulders rests the entire responsibility of creating the attitude in

this province to see that this legislation works. I think we have to realize,

Mr. Speaker, that I don't agree with all of the attitudes of all the management

of all the companies in this province. I think those who have been involved

in labour will have to agree that they have sometimes not agreed with the attitudes

and the opinions of many of those in labour.

We must realize that those in management and those in labour

have been promoted mainly from the ranks, in many cases with

very little education in the management of individuals. In

business it seems to be the habit of taking a person who

happens to be the best person in a particular job and promoting

him to a supervisor without taking the time to educate him in

the skill of managing people. This, in some cases, is where

management has fallen down. This is also, in some cases, where

people who have been promoted within the labour union ranks

have not had the proper orientation. So I think we have to look

at the individual cases and not create a blatant, overriding

attitude that all management is bad or that all labour unions

are bad and not suited to their responsibilities.

There are many cases in the history book of irresponsibility

by labour union leaders, and also by management, and there are

some really fine, conscientious, hardworking union people. I

myself have had some limited experience in chairing arbitration

boards, and in those instances I have found by research, by

delving into the problems that created attitudes, that people

can certainly be brought together. In many cases, neither union

nor management have been practical or reasonable.

When this bill becomes law, I hope that those dealing with

this bill will take into consideration in some of their

decisions some of the special problems that are prevalent in

various parts of the province and not unduly create problems in

that part of the province that are still being pioneered,

because there are special circumstances.

Sometimes if you give a layman a little power — and this

happens in labour unions — it goes to his head. I want to

reiterate that attitudes and understandings are the two most

important ingredients in making this cake digestible by both

labour and management.

The government and the opposition can do a great deal to

either help or hinder the success of this legislation. I want

to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it will be very difficult to

override the attitude being created in Canada by the national

leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis). I feel that he

has used his position as leader of that party to create a

mini-cold war between business and labour. He has created this

friction to build himself and his party up to the detriment of

good labour relations in Canada. He has, in many instances,

twisted facts to suit his own style,. to create animosity. He

has drawn red

[ Page 477 ]

herrings across the picture tube of the television to

promote his own political ambitions and those of his son.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the truth hurts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you announcing you are running for

federal Social Credit?

MR. PHILLIPS: I personally feel, Mr. Speaker, that…

HON. MR. BARRETT: He couldn't make it provincially so he

goes federal.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have a few words to say to you in a

moment, Mr. Premier.

I personally feel that to experience the same kind of labour

management relations that exist in many countries in Europe

today we must have unions that are controlled within the

boundaries of our own country.

In those countries in Europe after the war, they had no

alternative but to have labour peace. Both management and

labour got together within the boundaries of their own country

and they solved their problems. Everybody, but everybody, was

responsible because they had a challenge to rebuild their worn,

torn countries.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which countries are you speaking

about?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm speaking of Germany. The labour unions,

Mr. Premier, in Germany are completely controlled within the

boundaries of Germany.

HON. MR. BARRETT: France? Italy?

MR. PHILLIPS: And I'm speaking of Japan. They could not

sacrifice the national well-being of their countries for the

pleasure of pride. We talk in this country about multi-national

corporations controlling our destiny. It is the multi-national

unions who have control over our labour force in Canada, and we

sit idly by. Really, our labour force is the pawn of the

leaders of the labour unions in the United States.

I want to back up the suggestion made by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. Williams) when he said that the money the workers in Canada pay into

these dues should remain in Canada. Maybe then we could have control in Canada

over our destiny. If we control our labour force in Canada, it certainly stands

to reason that we will certainly have control over the multi-national corporations.

There are always going to be multi-national corporations, but there doesn't

always have to be multi-national trade unions.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: If Canada and her people want to have complete

control, she must first control her labour force then she can

control the destiny of her industry.

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

That's the attitude in South America.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I notice that it's bothering the

government that the official opposition is being

responsible.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, their national leader

should go down in history as the most unstately politician of

the century. He can take a financial statement and twist the

facts to give any impression that he wants to give. He, Mr.

Speaker, in opposition is the type of a politician that is

dangerous to democracy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I draw the Hon. Member's

attention to the rules, particularly in May, which says that we

do not attack Members of another House in the intemperate

fashion that you are doing. We do not attack their character or

their reputation in this forum, nor do they do that to us. I

would ask the Hon. Member to observe some restraint in his

language.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you for drawing that to my attention,

Mr. Speaker, I'll just let the…

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Surely it's permissible

within the House to attack the policies of a party that are set

out…

MR. SPEAKER: Absolutely, absolutely.

MR. SMITH: …as long as it's not a personal attack upon

the man in power. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well, to accuse a politician, who is not here

to defend himself, in another forum, whether it be the Prime

Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, or leader of any group,

of twisting the facts, that is unparliamentary in our House and

it's been ruled out many times. To make other statements that

impugn his character, I would suggest is intemperate, and I

would ask the Hon. Member not to do so,

[ Page 478 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly abide by

your ruling.

The policies of the national New Democratic Party in using

the willingness of people to follow through the medium of

television are not creating a favourable atmosphere to make

this very legislation work in this province.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, business sits back on their

big lazy haunches in the corner, living with the attitude which

has been created in this province that to make a profit is

evil. They haven't done a good job of selling the

responsibilities that they have. This attitude on the part of

management, labour and business must change if this legislation

is going to work. That's what I'm trying to say, Mr.

Speaker.

Because the policy of the national party seems to be to rip

at every phase of corporate structure and to give the

impression to their workmen that they are being ripped off, I

think in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that our Premier should

send a note to the national New Democratic Party and say:

"Look, we are bringing in legislation in British Columbia that

everybody in British Columbia would like to see work. You in

Ottawa have a responsibility to urge the people in British

Columbia to see that it does work." The Premier is always

talking about cooperation with Ottawa. Let him show some

statesmanship and influence the national party to try and help

sell this. They are in the very fortunate position in Ottawa

where they have a lot of television time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's that got to do with this bill?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier wants to know what

this has to do with this bill. The whole purpose of this bill

is to create labour stability in the Province of British

Columbia. As I have said, and as many speakers prior to me have

said, the proper attitudes are necessary. All I am asking, Mr.

Speaker, is that the New Democratic Party of British Columbia

urge their national party to exercise some statesmanship. They,

at this particular time because of the position they hold in

Ottawa as being the party that controls the destiny, are in a

very opportune place to show leadership in this regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I can't quite see how that deals

with the principle of the bill here or the ultimate

responsibility in this House to carry on its own legislation. I

wonder if the Member would try to get back to the principle of

this bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the message got to those cabinet

Ministers over there: They, understand how it pertains to this bill, and they

also realize how the suggestion I have made would change the attitude in British

Columbia by showing leadership from their national party.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, I feel, is weighted fairly

heavily in favour of the unions when it comes to organizing the

remaining workers in British Columbia. I want to point out, Mr.

Speaker, that by and large the only people left to organize are

those mainly in small business. I do hope that when it comes to

having this bill function there will be a lot of good judgment

displayed on the part of union leaders, and that they will not

exercise some of the powers given to them in this bill to

unduly work hardship on small businesses. There again, we

always seem to come up with the attitude that everything is big

business and big labour bosses. That is not the case — there

are many small unions that are working very efficiently and in

a good atmosphere.

By the same token, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic

government's Members are heavily weighted in favour of labour

unions. I don't hold that against them. But I think because of

this situation they have a very sincere responsibility to

management to show that they are going to be unbiased.

This party, Mr. Speaker, is using statesmanship in debating

this legislation. This party in opposition is being responsible

for its actions. This party, Mr. Speaker, wants British

Columbians to pull together for the good of all our citizens,

not just one segment.

Mr. Speaker, we could stand on the floor of this Legislature

and damn and condemn the powers of this Labour Relations Board,

powers that make the past mediation commission seem pale by

comparison. But that, Mr. Speaker, would not be showing

responsibility.

The Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) just a short time

ago stood on his feet in this House and said that the

opposition weren't criticizing the bill and that he could do a

much better job. And I think the Member for Kootenay is very

disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that we are not creating in this

House the same attitudes towards this legislation that they

created when they were in opposition.

The Premier started to stand this morning while the Member

for Kootenay was speaking and said, "We have nothing to condemn

in the bill." Mr. Speaker, there are many points in this bill

that are not perfect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha!

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier of this province is very

disappointed that the opposition is not bringing about this

climate. We are not going to, in opposition, use our position

as an opposition party to create an atmosphere of unrest over

this legislation. We represent all of the people of the

Province of British Columbia, not just labour, not just

management.

Mr. Speaker, we want to see this legislation work, and we

will not use this legislation for political gain. I want to

contrast that with the past performances of

[ Page 479 ]

the government when they were in opposition. Every piece of

legislation that was tabled in this House, in an endeavour — and I must say tabled in good faith — to try and solve the

labour situation in British Columbia was used by them as a

platform to create havoc in this province. Now that same

government, those same representatives, are disappointed that

we're not using the same tactics.

This government doesn't want a recurrence of the

demonstrations of 1971. This opposition doesn't want attitudes

created that would cause another incident like that in New

Westminster.

There was a demonstration on the lawn of the Legislature

over Bill 42. This opposition didn't go out and try and incite

them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonsense! Nonsense!

MR. PHILLIPS: This opposition didn't go out and march with

them and try and incite a riot, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no. Blood will run in the streets,

said the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: This party will be responsible in

opposition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's a change.

MR. PHILLIPS: And there are many actions that a strident

opposition could implement…

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a has-been.

MR. PHILLIPS: …if we wanted to oppose for the sake of

opposing. We want to create, in this province, a positive

attitude towards this legislation. We don't want to condemn it

like the mediation Act was condemned before it had the

opportunity to work. We don't want to condemn it like the

compensation Act was condemned by the government when it was

brought in — and I remember sitting in this House. That Act was

brought in in good faith. The opposition of the day tried to

condemn it before it had the opportunity to work.

The present Premier, when in opposition, at every turn of

the wheel tried to create havoc to labour-management relations.

I would hope this negative attitude has not been carried to the

Premier's office. There is a new day dawning in British

Columbia and there are new responsibilities on government and

management and labour.

This party is going to be part of creating that new

attitude. It's going to be part of that new attitude. It's

going to be part of that new responsibility. We are going to do

this, Mr. Speaker, whether or not it pleases the

government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll be very brief, and I won't be

sanctimonious like the former speaker. I want to thank the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) for his

opening remarks. I thought they were sincerely given and I

don't question his motivation one bit. I think that kind of

attitude in the House is most positive.

I don't believe there is anybody in the House, on either

side of the House, that doesn't want this legislation to work.

I just don't believe that. We are politicians; we do have

political differences. If situations arise, politicians do use

those situations for their own political advantage. Any

politician that denies that is not telling the truth.

Every situation that comes by is fraught with political

overtones and each person's response is a measure of their own

level of standard of behaviour that they want to create. But

when the Member — who is just leaving his place — tried to leave

the impression with the House that in opposition it was a

constant role of either myself or the party that I led at that

time to inflame labour matters, I would like to remind him that

it was I who had to initiate an unprecedented legal suit

against the Premier of the day for making those allegations in

a most political frame of reference.

When he talks of the 1971 incident, the most political

statements were made immediately after that by the former

leader of that party where, in effect, he actually accused me

of being responsible for those acts of violence. Now if that

isn't base political behaviour, I don't know what is.

I was forced to take action by going to the courts, which I

thought should have been unnecessary in a province like British

Columbia. It was a measure, Mr. Speaker, of how

labour-management problems had come to be used in this

province.

How many times have we sat in this House and heard speeches

from the former Attorney General, with his grey vest, talking

about the labour bosses? Those were almost scandalous attacks

on people in our community from an elected Attorney General — on

the labour hacks, the labour bosses and the labour

pork-choppers…and the glee, the titillation, that was

expressed on the former Premier's face over the points that he

thought he was scoring politically by that kind of

vituperation.

It was part and parcel of the atmosphere of this House, and

I want to thank all the Members for moving away, to some

degree, from that scale. Not everybody has. But they have moved

away to some degree.

[ Page 480 ]

This law is like any other man-made law. If it works, it

will be the men and women involved that make it work, not the

jurists. With all due respect to my friend from Prince Rupert

(Hon. Mr. Lea), it'll be the men and the women involved, the

human beings involved, who will make it work, not the jurists

-good or bad, concerned or indifferent. The success or failure

of this legislation will depend upon the people who are

directly involved.

I must reply to some of the side issues that were raised. I

don't know why they were raised. Perhaps they were

unintentional, but I hope they don't become smoke-screens.

There is a great debate within the trade union movement over

nationalism. I think that it is an unfortunate mistake to

oversimplify that debate by saying that Canadian dollars must

remain in Canada.

Surely the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams), if he were to take that same logical argument to the

extreme that some of my own party members would like to take

that logical argument to the extreme, it is that no insurance

premiums should leave Canada — no company profits should leave

Canada. He would become, I think, one of the most rabid

advocates of the Waffle position if he were to…I signed it

because I wanted it discussed.

That Member is now taking — he doesn't want discussion, he's

taking their absolute position. Canadian dollars for Canadian

workers should stay in Canada. Then okay, Canadian dollars and

all insurance premiums should stay in Canada. All oil companies

stay in Canada. And if he were to take that cause right to the

people of this country, I think he would find that a segment of

the population would agree with him.

But certainly he just can't say it for the trade union

movement and absolve any kind of comment about West Vancouver

dividends not going down to the United States.

I think there should be a better balance; I certainly do.

That's why this government has embarked upon a direct

intervention in the economy. We purchased Columbia Cellulose as

a very good business deal, and we purchased Ocean Falls as an

economic deal with social consequences. We're directly

involved. That's why we are involved in the insurance business.

And we're proving the case that there is a role for national

intervention or provincial intervention in the economy as

well.

Incidentally, we happen to be doing all right. We're even

involved in that nasty word "profit" in terms of both

operations.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's right, and the taxes are less with a

Crown corporation so we can bring about the social reforms we all desire much

faster.

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed with interest the response in

certain segments of the community, both by labour and

management, almost an automatic knee-jerk response, to the

legislation. I said on a television programme weeks before the

bill was introduced that I could guarantee you that as soon as

the bill was introduced it would be attacked by labour and it

would be attacked by management.

It's a change, and there are people out there who have been

conditioned by 20 years of hostility in labour-management

relations to view all change as suspect.

It's true that we have taken a position — and I believe it

very, very much — that in the past labour legislation in the

province was heavily weighted against trade unions. Now we are

not saying as a consequence that because a party such as ours

comes into power it is mandatory that in the next number of

years — X number of years, whatever it may be — that we go from

one end of the pendulum over to the other. That would be

absurd.

We recognize some of the emotional attachments that

obviously some of the cabinet Ministers and backbenchers have

to specific areas of the trade union movement. We are the

government and we must come down the middle in terms of trying

to be just, fair and reasonable in this kind of situation.

There was some criticism that the bill was not introduced

last session. Well, of course it wasn't introduced last

session. We went out to the community and some of the community

and some of the areas did criticize. I don't recall that as an

opposition point. I don't think it was the official opposition

either. But everybody had a chance during the past year to get

involved, in saying what they felt about redrafting of labour

legislation.

The Minister of Labour worked very, very hard — right across

this province — inviting people to come and listen. They were

prepared to listen to any presentation.

So when I hear people outside the Legislature saying, "It's

too fast," I can't help but be amused that some of those

people were saying just a few months ago, "It's too slow." And

for the House Members themselves — very few, I must admit — to

say that this should go to a special committee after all the

work the Minister and the community has gone to, to me is just

not a valid point.

The question of debate on principle: the debate on principle

should have been ready for the last five years for every

political party. There has been no more politically-charged

issue at the provincial level than labour-management

relationships. So to say that you need another few days to

discuss the principle of a labour-management bill means, Mr.

Speaker, that there was no position by anybody all along.

[ Page 481 ]

MR. SCHROEDER: That's a rationalization.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not a rationalization. You're too

new. I don't like that reflection on you, Mr. Member, but the

fact is that in committee stage….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the first time you came in it was

the shoe banging, and we wouldn't want you to be labelled as a

Khrushchev type. Since that time you haven't kept them on your

feet — you don't have them on your desk any longer but you've

got them in your mouth. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that there has been

a great deal of discussion on this very important problem for

the last five years. We have the opportunity of expressing

ideas and opinions on the principle, and everybody in this

House should have been ready. When we come to committee stage I

welcome the first Member who said that he would be discussing

amendments. And that was the same position taken by that party

during the Bill 42 debate, which was excellent. But to have the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), of all people,

tell us that it was his party that was not involved in the

inflammatory debate around Bill 42, when if you all recall it

was he who gave the most long-winded, irrational filibuster

that's ever been presented in this House…. Some of the most

inflammatory statements, which are now recorded in Hansard

forever, including the Peace River constituency concerned,

emanated from his mouth! How many hours was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-four.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thirty-four hours. The first time he put

in a 34-hour week. (Laughter.) Now, Mr. Speaker, I find it

difficult to accept from that Member the new statesmanlike

position by attacking the federal leader of the New Democratic

Party.

Mr. Speaker, what is presented to the House is an attempt to

come to grips with an atmosphere — that's what it really is.

We've got a super-heated atmosphere of labour-management

problems in this province and we're trying to say, "Okay, we

move away from the courts and move to something far more

flexible." After all, Mr. Speaker, that's the whole key to

success in areas of human relations — flexibility, the ability

to move quickly and to be flexible to adapt each ruling to each

separate situation.

Wildcat strike: there has been nothing effective in this province to deal with

wildcat strikes up until this bill has appeared. National strikes that cripple

industries at the provincial level: we haven't had the means of dealing with

those kind of specific problems.

We also need some avenue to clear grievances that

individuals or small groups feel. And the ombudsman idea

presented by the Minister I think is first class.

The conscience clause: I'll confess that I had a major

influence in that clause. I'm very much in favour of this. But

I want to tell you that you cannot have it both ways, as good

theologians will attest to. Once you move an argument from the

abstract into the reality, then there are penalties. It is all

very well when you discuss theory in the abstract, but once you

place

an act there are penalties for placing

an act. If you are

a conscientious objector in the United States, you must respect

your conscience. But the penalties are that you go to jail or

leave the country — that's your option, too, because you are

part of the total society. Now, I admire people who are

conscientious objectors. You have the option and you must pay

the penalty when you exercise that act. You can take off out of

the country or pay the price, and the price is going to

jail.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The other option is to commit suicide, and

that's not permitted. The other option is go in the army and

serve as a…. There are people who define these things on an

intense individual basis. If the world had 20 per cent of its

population making decisions on conscious moral and

philosophical backgrounds we wouldn't need this law; we

wouldn't need 99 per cent of the laws that are in the statute

books, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately the population that operates

on that concept is around not even I per cent — I would guess

about 0.5 per cent.

MR. SCHROEDER: Be an optimist.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to be an optimist, but that's a

separate argument.

There are many, many churches, there are many, many

religions, but there are very few religious people. Now, I

don't profess to make a judgment on other people's moral

evaluations. I'm in politics, and to me politics is one of the

most honestly ruthless businesses that's around. You don't have

to piddle around with rationalizations; you're involved in

making real decisions, not in the abstract where everything is

beautiful.

MR. SCHROEDER: Not at the expense of the individual.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not at the expense of the individual, and

that's why the conscience clause. The individual will make the

decision, but he cannot have the benefits of that group or

society without paying a

[ Page 482 ]

share or a penalty. And in this instance the share is:

render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. It is the union

organization that organized, that got the working conditions,

that has the wages on the job, and if it hadn't been for that

union there wouldn't be those kinds of working conditions. So

at least the obligation or the penalty is, "Pay the dues," just the same as a conscientious objector or anyone

else. So I have no objection to that particular section.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In your case it's not a question of being

interested in Caesar. I would think that the psychological

study would be more apt at Brutus. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, I

find it interesting that with that party going through the kind

of internal problems that it has right now, Caesar is gone but

still very much alive. I don't see any lean and hungry Cassius

around. Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to take that argument

or its appropriate analogies any further, but I do think that

Caesar's succession did have something to do with heredity. Or

was that the scene at all? But we'll leave that very

interesting area, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it's not the ides of November.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, there are these other nits that have been

referred to by the Social Credit opposition — the labour leader

and the labour boss, or the labour leader's control. One of the

problems, in my opinion, in labour-management relationships is

that there is no such thing as labour leader control. What

happens is that management delegates absolute authority to a

very small group of negotiators. But in the labour situation a

committee is elected from the union and the committee may be

dealing very, very conscientiously in terms of trying to come

up with softie kind of contract and go back to its membership,

and all it takes is one or two people to disrupt a whole scene.

No conscientious labour leader views himself as a person who is

a dictator over a group of people. He expresses the wishes of

the membership, and if the membership wishes to change their

opinions on occasion, then he must express that. So to attack a

person as a labour boss or an absolute labour leader is

nonsense.

You must find some room for these people to manoeuvre. The Japanese are far

more skilled at this, Mr. Speaker, than we are. I'm beginning to learn this

about them. Their device around saving face is essential, too, for us in western

civilization. We must have attitudes and boundaries in this legislation to allow

people to, save face, both management and labour. So there is a great deal of

flexibility and that is an important ingredient in this type of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way from the Winnipeg general strike. When

that happened we in this country were at the peak, in my opinion, of absolute

hysteria against the trade union movement. The closest we saw to that kind of

hysteria, in my opinion, was that strike in Newfoundland some 12 years ago.

Things have changed dramatically since those days. Most

people do want peace and harmony and good order in their

everyday life, but all people do not have the same kind of

security that those of us in this House have. There are people

out there who are earning only $2.50 an hour. They don't give

a fig for all the labour legislation in the world if they can't

put groceries on the table. They must have an expression or

vehicle to allow them to bargain for better working conditions

just to meet the demands of everyday life.

On the other hand, it is the old dilemma of not sacrificing

what the rest of us have got. So we must find accommodation for

the legitimate expression of working people to catch up — at

the same time, hopefully, not damaging the gains that everybody

else has made.

But there will be strikes. There will be strikes under this

legislation, and there will be strikes under any kind of

legislation, because free people in a free society must have

the right to withhold their labour. And they must have the

freedom to make the decisions whether or not they wish to give

that choice up. That's why the separate

section with the

firemen, and the police…

AN HON. MEMBER: Does the farmer have that right?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, the farmer has that right. They were

threatening to do that last spring.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, the freedom is there.

Who was it that made that famous statement about everybody

being equal? You know, everybody is free to sleep under the

bridges if they want to.

What we are trying to do with this Minister is create an

opportunity — not new ideas as the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) suggests, not new concepts — but create an opportunity to allow some rational maturing to

take place in labour-management relations in the Province of

British Columbia.

Nobody, as I said in the beginning, wants labour-management

conflict. But when it comes, no politician will avoid

exploiting it. Not overtly and screaming like we've had in the

past with wild accusations; but certainly by saying it is this

party's

[ Page 483 ]

fault or that party's fault. That's the nature of

politicians. We are not going to avoid that. But we are trying

to create a new opportunity.

It appears to me that almost everybody in the House will be

voting for this bill in principle. Well you can't start a bill

off with a better launching than that.

I hope, when we get to committee stage, that there will be

amendments proposed by the Members. The Minister has said, just

as we did in Bill 42, that if the amendments are beneficial and

helpful then we will certainly consider them; if they are not,

we will reject them. We are quite serious. We accepted some

during Bill 42 as well. But if we don't agree with them we

won't accept them.

But I will say this, Mr. Speaker. When this debate is all

finished, when it is all history and the bill is in operation,

the loneliest man in all of British Columbia will be that guy

right there because, when all is said and done, it will all be

on his head whether it works or not.

I am not doing that to him by saying it now. It is a fact.

It is a fact. He will be looked upon as the person who is

either the success or failure of this bill, and he cannot avoid

it, being Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King).

His is the only job in this cabinet that has absolutely no

possibility for praise, but all the potential for abuse. He

can't issue press releases that he has purchased a new pulp

mill. He can't issue a statement that he is going into the

insurance business. He can't announce a tax concession. All he

has got, Mr. Speaker, is bad news when he is spoken to.

(Laughter.) That's the only time he's ever asked a question in

the corridor by the press. So, Mr. Speaker, that's where it's

at.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Did you tell him all that

before he…

HON. MR. BARRETT: I told him all that. As a matter of fact,

I spoke to him one day when we were walking along by the Big

Eddy up at Revelstoke. I don't know whether the Member

remembers that or not, but we were walking along the dike by

the Big Eddy up at Revelstoke, two-and-a-half years before the

election….

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): That's how sure

you were.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no. We were. (Laughter.) No, no,

that's not how sure we were. That's how sure I was.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I said, "What would you do if you were asked to

be Minister of Labour?"

HON. MR. KING: Don't repeat it. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Paraphrase it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you in about five

years what he said. But he's there, and he's the best man for

the job. Not that former Ministers of Labour weren't great; but

I think he's the best man possible at this time for this

job.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that the

first non-hysterical labour debate is taking place in this

House and it will pass into history. I look forward to the

committee debate on each section, but I hope the bill will be

accepted by the total community. Despite all of our biases, I

hope the bill will be accepted by the total community as a

genuine attempt to deal with a very, very difficult

problem.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise in

support of Bill 11, not with a list of the usual kinds of

comments, because I'm one with perhaps a different background

than many of the speakers who have been before me, having

primarily had my experience as a social worker in the area of

community welfare. So I'll address my comments briefly in that

regard.

If I may have leave, there is another very important

statement I'd like to make. I have in the Speaker's Gallery

some relatives. As a matter of fact a couple of them I haven't

seen for almost 34 years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've grown since then. (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: Yes. Well, I'd like to tell you the whole story,

but perhaps some other time. I'm looking forward to having the

adjournment so that I can visit with them. I was late getting

into the House this morning, and I haven't had an opportunity

really to talk to them yet. But my two uncles, Amos and Sam — those names are biblical terms I hope you will realize, they

are not racist. (Laughter.) Their last name is Young. My

mother, Anne Boullon by another marriage: my sister, Ethel

Williams; my nephew, Ronnie Williams, and his friend.

I believe my uncles are presently living in California, but

they originally were from Louisiana. That's where I saw them

last, in Bogalusa, Louisiana, back in the late '30s. My mother

is presently from New York, and my sister is from Portland,

Oregon. Anyway, Hi, Mom. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is permitted.

MR. BARNES: Really, that's about all I should say.

MR. GARDOM: You'll have to take them to dinner.

[ Page 484 ]

MR. BARNES: Our Hon. leader the Premier has really done a

magnificent job of presenting the case for Bill 11, the Labour

Code of British Columbia Act. I was most impressed with his

approach to this matter because I think that we have got to

have a more humanitarian approach to our legislation.

We certainly are here to do our jobs as politicians, but I

think that the challenge should always be there to rise above

political opportunity and consider an opportunity to really

give something to the community. I think that we are witnessing

the birth of a very important piece of legislation and that one

will have to work very hard at finding something wrong with it.

I realize that the opposition has a job to do, but really I

think this is a humanitarian piece of legislation and it's a

considerate and responsible piece of legislation.

I think that the Premier was right on when he suggested that

the Minister of Labour will be on the hot seat no matter what

he does. I don't think I could come up with a better set of

rules to run my own family and, believe me, I love all of them.

It's hard when you have to sit in the hot seat sometimes.

I think this legislation is giving all parties concerned — labour and management — an opportunity to put their best

efforts forward if it's done in good faith. This is another

concept that you can't always define in absolute terms, but

good faith speaks again about conscience, something about the

intangible aspect of human nature. Whatever that means to you,

that's what the bill is relying on; it's relying on that aspect

of humanity that we have somehow lost in the past years. We

have put too much faith in arbitrary and absolute

positions.

We've got to be prepared to sit down and listen and deal in

good faith, because the people who really hang in the balance — and this often includes the parties concerned as well — are the

ordinary working people, the ordinary consumer and the ordinary

individual who don't have time to read legislation and study

all of the finer details, trying to gain advantages here and

there. These people are saying: "Why can't we get on and work

in some kind of cooperative way? If we're a country living

together, can't we get along together? Why is it that labour

has to have the advantage or management has to have the

advantage?"

Somehow we've got to sell a new image. I think that we are

stuck with adverse positions, positions that require a for and

against. This is too often perpetrated, carelessly and

irresponsibly perhaps, by the politicians. Maybe we should now

begin to have a little faith, put forward the mechanics and the

opportunity through a flexible piece of legislation and allow

people to come together and understand the consequences of

their acts.

The Premier was pointing out the considerations regarding the conscience

section

of the bill. I think this is another reality, harsh though it may be for us

who live in a society. We have to recognize that we're all committed to a set

of rules. Everyone is committed to a set of rules, whether they are conscious

of it, aware of it or care about it. Nonetheless, we are all in a society committed

to a set of rules. It behooves us to learn something about these rules because

they are affecting us, whether or not we utilize their effect upon us by understanding

how to survive with them, or they affect us in a way that is useful to someone

else. This, I think is the challenge.

We must get the education across; we must get the

interpretation across to the public. I'm not too sure if we're

going to be able to do it with this bill. I think it's going to

require a follow-up by all of the Members who have spoken

before and those who will be speaking after, because they've

all indicated, in the opposition as well as the government, a

sincere wish that this legislation will survive. Everyone has

been fairly optimistic. But we're going to have to prove this

when we leave this Legislature, when we're asked about the

sections, because if we have other designs in mind then we're

going to sabotage the bill and we're going to do all we can to

encourage factions to stand alone and hold out. Really what

we're saying is that we're all in it together.

We could even suggest that there are only about 1 or 2 per

cent of the population who are really astute enough to

understand the battle. Most people benefit one way or another

but don't always understand the fight between management and

labour which is an historical struggle. But I think as we talk

about world peace and want to get on with a more interrelated

experience in living, we must revise the rules of battle. We

must improve upon our understanding of what the conditions were

before, because times have changed.

There will always, I suppose, be a working class and a more

elitist class, but at the same time these will have to be

looked at relatively because we've all gone up a bit. We're all

a little bit better off than we were at the turn of the

century, relatively speaking. So we need to understand some new

concepts and some other ways of resolving these struggles.

I think that labour-management strife has plagued our

society for long enough, and really this document can

contribute to a better understanding, even in a small minute

way, between those forces who are often the same people wearing

different hats from time to time. It's very difficult to

determine what values are for one group and what values are for

another, which to me indicates that we need to look a little

harder and realize that we are ready for transition. We are no

longer in the same struggle we were in, but it's advantageous

to some people to perpetrate that belief or that myth.

I'm going to support this bill in the spirit in which

[ Page 485 ]

the Hon. Minister has put it forward, in good faith and I

hope the other Members will do so as well. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Hall moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a

bill intituled Livestock Production Ac t.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 46 intituled Livestock Production Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 46 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.

DOMESTIC ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill. Intituled Domestic Animal

Protection Act .

Bill 45 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.

DEPARTMENT OF

CONSUMER SERVICES ACT

Hon. Ms. Young presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Consumer

Services Act .

Bill 48 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.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Housing

Act .

Bill 49 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.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw Bill

15 on the order paper, which was replaced by the message bill

introduced moments ago.

Leave granted.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER PRIVACY ACT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill

intituled Government Computer Privacy Act .

Leave granted.

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill 60

intituled Government Computer Privacy Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 60 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

B.C. RAILWAY ACT

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill

intituled

An Act to Amend the B.C. Railway Act .

Leave granted.

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill 61

intituled

An Act to Amend the B.C. Railway Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 61 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE

FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLY

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill

intituled

An Act Respecting the Fluoridation of Water

Supply.

Leave granted.

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill 62

intituled

An Act Respecting the Fluoridation of Water

Supply .

Motion approved.

Bill 62 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.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada