1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3969 ]

CONTENTS

Oral questions

Availability of BCR annual report. Mr. Bennett —

Production details on railcar plant. Hon. Mr. Nunweiler answers —

Time limit on welfare programme. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3969

Well drilling in Grand Forks area. Mr. Wallace — 3969

Dangers resulting from dynamite theft. Mr. Fraser — 3970

ICBC strike delaying school construction. Hon. Mrs. Dailly answers —

Maple Ridge building-burning. Mr. Phillips — 3970

Oil refinery studies. Mr. Gardom — 3970

Illegal airline carrier service. Hon. Mr. Strachan answers — 3971

Columbia River treaty commission. Mr. Gibson — 3971

School board liability in libel and slander suits. Mr. Wallace —

Replies to questions on IOK Poultry. Hon. Mr. Stupich answers —

Meetings about Jericho Park. Mr. McGeer — 3972

Cancellation of rental housing council grant. Mr. Phillips — 3972

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 84). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 3973

School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act (Bill 73). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3993

Report and third reading — 3995

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 135). Third reading

— 3995

Municipal Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 103). Committee stage.

section 6. Mr. Curtis — 3995

section 8. Mr. McClelland — 3997

section 14. Mr. Curtis — 3998

section 16. Mr. McClelland — 3999

Amendment to

section 17. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3999

Amendment to

section 18. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4000

Amendment to

section 19. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4000

Amendment to

section 29. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4000

Report stage — 4000

Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 1 10). Committee

stage.

section 3. Mr. Chabot — 4001

Report and third reading — 4001

Resort Municipality of Whistler Act (Bill 130). Committee, report and third

reading — 4001

British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural

Gas Producers Act (Bill 129). Committee stage.

section 2. Mr. Bennett — 4001

section 29. Mr. Chabot — 4001

section 30. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4002

Report and third reading — 4002

Royal Roads Military College Degrees Act (Bill 12). Committee, report and third

reading — 4002

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 142). Committee

stage.

section 7. Ms. Brown — 4002

Appendix — 4005

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral questions.

AVAILABILITY OF BCR ANNUAL REPORT

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister Without Portfolio as a director of the B.C.

Railway. As I'm sure he's aware, it's required that the 1974

financial report be printed and published by July 1, as

required under the Audit Act of British Columbia. As we're

finally getting the B.C. Rail to appear before public accounts

tomorrow, I wonder if the Minister can tell me how we can get a

copy of the 1974 financial report, which doesn't seem to be

available.

HON. A.A. NUNWEILER (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr.

Speaker, I'll be in touch later on and try and determine an

answer to that question.

PRODUCTION DETAILS ON

RAILCAR PLANT

HON. MR. NUNWEILER: I would like to answer a question that

was raised yesterday with respect to the car-manufacturing

plant that is in operation. It started to go into operation in

the latter part of March. Up to this point, the 10th car has

rolled off the assembly line and the plant is manufacturing

approximately one car every two days. At this point it is on

schedule and is expected to produce three to four cars per day

later on this fall. There's a total of 130 employees employed

at this time. The first order is for 400 chip cars, and the

second order is expected to be 500 bulkhead flats.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary to both the question he

answered from yesterday and today. Would the Minister when

finding out about the 1974 report, because the printers have

yet to receive instructions to print it, make it available to

all the members of public accounts in time to have this

information for tomorrow morning's 8:30 meeting?

Secondly, yesterday I asked the Minister the price per chip

car. Could you give us that information?

HON. MR. NUNWEILER: On the cost of chip car production, we will develop

an experience. It will be readily available after the first one or two orders.

So it will take some months to develop that experience to any accuracy. There

was an auditor's report filed with the annual report, as this House knows. But

if there are any further details that you're looking for, I'll certainly do

my best to check them out.

TIME LIMIT ON WELFARE PROGRAMME

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Human

Resources, who's about to leave the room. Could you just sit

down? Thank you.

Could I ask the Minister, now that he's back in the room,

why a limit of six months has been placed on recipients of

incentive payments under the welfare incentive programme?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): The six-month

time limit has always been there. It is one that can be

renewed, based on the recommendation of the social worker.

It is a programme which is intended to give people the work

experience, and, hopefully, have some movement through the

programme into some pre-training. What we have done is to

reassert the fact that there always was a six-month limit and

it could be renewed, based on the recommendations.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for his explanation

of the programme, and I agree with him it's well worthwhile.

But can he just simply assure us there is absolutely no change

in policy with respect to the welfare incentive programme and

any applications for extending a time period past the six

months?

HON. MR. LEVI: No. There's no change in policy. It really is

an attempt to ensure that people who need to stay on can stay

on, but to remind people that there should be some movement

through the programme after six months. No, it's not a change

in policy.

WELL DRILLING IN GRAND FORKS AREA

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like your

guidance as to whether I ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources or the Minister of Agriculture about the

drilling of wells near Grand Forks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wells?

MR. WALLACE: Water wells.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'll ask the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources. I gather there's some real concern by

residents in the Grand Forks area that plans are going ahead to

drill wells which might interfere with established domestic

water wells. I wonder what discussions have been held with

the

[ Page 3970 ]

residents. Could the Minister also tell us what studies have

been carried out to determine the impact of the programme? I

believe it's under the ARDA agreement which might really

involve the Minister of Agriculture more intimately than the

Minister of Lands.

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

It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) referred this matter to Water Resources, but it hasn't received my

personal attention. I understand that it's testing, but beyond that I would

have to take the question as notice.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could

the residents of the area have the assurance that at least once

the studies are completed they will be given the right to

express by vote their own feelings about whether or not they

want the programme in their area? They've stated that there has

not been an opportunity to express in a proper vote their own

opinions.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would think that would normally be the

case with respect to an ARDA programme, but the Minister of

Agriculture is more qualified to comment on that. The people of

that area have been advised on many occasions by the staff of

the water resources branch that they should apply for licensing

with respect to their own ground water supply, and most of them

have not done so. I would again urge them to think in those

terms.

DANGERS RESULTING FROM

DYNAMITE THEFT

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a further question to the

Minister Without Portfolio who is a director of the British

Columbia Railway.

In view of the fact that 200 lbs of high-powered dynamite

has recently been stolen from a sawmill at Leo Creek on the

B.C. Railway, what steps have been taken by the B.C. Railway to

protect and guard the right-of-way and bridges of the railroad

from being blown up? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NUNWEILER: Mr. Speaker, the situation is under

control. I would point out that management is taking the

precautionary steps. I am not in a position to permit me to

make any further comment.

MR. FRASER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If they have taken

steps, what type of steps have they taken?

HON. MR. NUNWEILER: I have no comment on that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. the House Leader has a

statement.

ICBC STRIKE DELAYING

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in

answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) re: were some of the school construction starts

being delayed because of the ICBC strike? The answer is no.

MAPLE RIDGE BUILDING-BURNING

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to direct my question to the Minister of Highways. Was there

any urgency or justification, or any reason whatsoever, why his

department would burn down a house and a barn on private

property prior to a purchase agreement or exploration

proceedings being completed, as was the case on May 31 and June 1 of this year in the municipality of Maple Ridge? The exact

address is 17933 Lougheed Highway.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, that's

the first it's come to my attention. I'll check into it and let

the Member know.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary. Would the Minister,

when checking into this situation, also find out for me what

the latest offer to these people has been? At the present time

there has been no offer, no justification for this untimely

burning of these buildings.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll check that out, but

usually when you start looking into these things there are

always two sides.

MR. PHILLIPS: There are four sides to the house.

MR. SPEAKER: I am wondering is the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey hovering or seeking the floor?

OIL REFINERY STUDIES

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Since the headlines

indicate that the Premier is very strongly considering a $350

million oil refinery, I'd ask the Hon. Minister if he's aware

of the existence of any income, expense projections, market

surveys, environmental studies, cost estimates, or any specific

information along that line, concerning the

[ Page 3971 ]

contemplated project?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum): No.

(Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: Well, that explains it, I guess. Is the Hon.

Minister suggesting that that's just another kite being flown

by the Premier?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No comment.

MR. GARDOM: Supplemental to the Hon. Minister: it is

reported in the paper that the manager of Imperial Oil

contemplates that the government proposal could produce an

annual loss to the province of $50 million a year. I would ask

the Minister if this is within the normal and anticipated loss

confines for this government?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows you can't inquire

whether statements in a newspaper are true.

ILLEGAL AIRLINE CARRIER SERVICE

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications): Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) asked me a question regarding illegal operation

of an airline carrier service from Vancouver airport. I took

the question as notice and found out that the information was

correct. There was an application before the Motor Carrier

Commission for this company to operate, but they were operating

illegally. I had the Motor Carrier superintendent phone Air

Canada and instruct them to immediately get a legal carrier.

They assured me they will.

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY COMMISSION

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

question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources,

for, I guess, about the fifth or sixth time of asking: is it

still the intention of the government to appoint a commission

into the Columbia River treaty, and if so, when will the terms

of reference and the name of the commissioner or commissioners

be released?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think those matters have been covered

under previous questions.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that you cannot

multiply with slight variations in similar questions.

MR. GIBSON: It's been four months.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't make a supplementary on what is obviously out

of order, surely.

SCHOOL BOARD LIABILITY

IN LIBEL AND SLANDER SUITS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the

Minister of Education who very kindly provided me with a

written answer to an earlier question regarding the long

litigation case which took place in Kamloops, and where a

teacher was subsequently awarded $67,000 damages.

My question relates to the fact that the Minister stated

that the board has the option to pay the legal expenses of

parents who were involved in the suit. Since some of the

parents have been found guilty of libel and slander, could the

Minister tell the House if this is customary, that school

boards have this authority to pay for the legal costs of

parents involved in such libel and slander suits?

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, before any answers are given on

that, surely you are not asking for a legal opinion of the

Minister on this question?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the policy of the

Department of Education as to whether it feels that school

boards should have that degree, or if they do. I am not asking

an opinion. Do they or do they not have the authority under the

Public Schools Act to make that kind decision?

MR. SPEAKER: That speaks for itself in the statute, surely,

Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, it doesn't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You are asking someone to interpret a statute

that you helped to pass.

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON IOK POULTRY

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

have taken some questions as notice with respect to IOK

Poultry. In Hansard 187, page 1 the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) asked a

series of seven questions with respect to equipment that was

purchased.

Were tenders called? Tenders were obtained from a number of

companies.

What was the price paid? The equipment has been purchased

from Canadian Bird Equipment Ltd. for $135,000, and Gordon

Johnson Food Equipment Ltd. for $30,000.

When was equipment purchased? In the fall of 1974.

From whom was the equipment purchased? Canadian Bird

Equipment Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, and Gordon Johnson Food

Equipment Ltd., St.

[ Page 3972 ]

Thomas, Ontario.

Where is it stored? At manufacturer's plants at this

time.

How long has it been stored? Since fall of 1974.

What is the monthly storage cost, if applicable? Canadian

Bird, $250 per month; Gordon Johnson, no charge.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked questions

about reports that might have been done on this question of an

interior poultry plant. I am sorry it has taken so long to get

them together, but I would like to table these if I may.

Leave granted.

MEETINGS ABOUT JERICHO PARK

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question for the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Has he

scheduled a meeting with the City of Vancouver with regard to

the provincial government's seven acres of Jericho Park that

were committed many years ago by the provincial government to

the City of Vancouver on a lease basis?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There has been no request from the mayor

as far as I know, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, shame!

MR. McGEER: A supplementary. Is the Minister aware that it

has been long-standing City of Vancouver policy that the park

be created out of this seven acres of provincial government

land? Could the Minister name the alderman who passed the

motion that made it city council policy?

MR. SPEAKER: Surely the Hon. Member cannot ask a Minister of

this House to be responsible for what take place in another

forum in another jurisdiction.

MR. McGEER: He was the author, Mr. Speaker. I think it's

most appropriate.

CANCELLATION OF

RENTAL HOUSING COUNCIL GRANT

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct my question to the Acting Attorney-General.

On May 7, 1975, a letter from the rent review commission to the rental housing

council of British Columbia stated that the commission had approved an application

for a research grant in the amount of $7,000. This research grant has now been

cancelled, after the rental housing council went out and hired four UBC students.

These students are going to have to be laid off if the grant doesn't become

a reality. As I say, the application was approved and a letter sent to the rental

housing council. I would like to ask the Acting Attorney-General if he can advise

me why this grant has now been cancelled.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Acting

Attorney-General, I will take that up with the Acting Minister

of Finance.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had no wish

to take up the time of the question period, but now it's over.

I would like to inquire from your Honour how it can be that a

question which simply seeks information and has been asked

several times, and the information has not been forthcoming,

and is asked yet once again after a lapse of some days or

weeks, can possibly be ruled out of order. I'd appreciate your

citation....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: This House is about to recess, we assume, in a

matter of a couple of days. One is seeking information for one

last time on a question on which an answer has been refused for

at least four months since this so-called commission was

announced.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that we

follow the rules as set out in May ? In that regard, Beauchesne

adopts the rules set out in May and it gives a very convenient

list that guides this House and guides the Speaker in

determining what questions are in order.

At page 147 of Beauchesne it sets out that a question, oral

or written, must not multiply with slight variations a similar

question on the same point or repeat in substance a question

already answered or to which an answer has been refused.

Therefore it falls into that category. If the Minister has

made a statement to the House, the statement must be accepted.

The statement that he has made was, as I understand or

recollect from previous questions on this same subject, that

this would be dealt with in due course. That was the answer he

gave and there's nothing that one can do that I can see, other

than continuing to repeat a question which is out of order,

under the rules.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, for clarification, are you

suggesting to me that any Minister in this House can stand up

and say he will give an answer in due course and that no Member

of the opposition may thereafter ask him again that question?

That to me, Your Honour, is completely....

MR. SPEAKER: No, I would point out to the

[ Page

3973 ]

Hon. Member that you can remind the Minister. I always

regard the asking of the question again may be taken as a

reminder by the Minister. But there's no absolute mandate

requiring a Minister to answer any question, as you know.

Therefore in parliamentary practice I don't refuse the question

being asked again. But if the Member takes it that there's an

absolute right, of course he would be in error.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that there's no absolute right in

answer. My submission is that it should not be out of order if

it is simply asked again in a....

MR. SPEAKER: It is, I am afraid, out of order. The point is

that I have always permitted it on other occasions for the

simple reason that the Minister may have forgotten about the

matter.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, also on the point of order, I

gather that if you deem it appropriate to remind a Minister

that a question has been unanswered, you'll take that

course.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't take the initiative, as you'll

understand. What I do, though, is point out that constant

repetition of some questions when it may be that the department

in some cases is investigating a matter, is reviewing a matter,

is finding out the information that you require and it may take

some time: it follows from that that constant repetition would

be out of order.

MR. GARDOM: Well, in the event, Mr. Speaker, it had slipped

the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly'

s) mind, could

you tell her that a question has been on the order paper for

379 days?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows, and I've asked

him to give me a memorandum on this that might clarify the

matter to me, that a question should not be asked on the order

paper that is dealing with the subject matter of what may be a

very important suit between two parties, one of whom is in this

House, the other a member of the public, to which a court has

been given the jurisdiction to deal with the question and not

this House.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, once again I have with every

respect to completely contradict your assessment of this point

of....

MR. SPEAKER: I am waiting very anxiously for your

memorandum.

MR. GARDOM: There is absolutely nothing before the court,

Mr. Speaker, dealing with that...

MR. SPEAKER: I have no knowledge of that.

MR.GARDOM: ...and the sub judice rule does not apply in

this case whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be so kind as to supply

the Speaker with a memorandum setting out his views on the

subject so I can investigate it more fully? But sitting here in

a matter of one or two seconds and having to decide a matter of

what is before the court is a very difficult matter to do. I

would appreciate your help.

Orders of the day.

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

leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we're going into second

reading first of Bill 84, Labour Code of British Columbia

Amendment Act, and then we'll proceed on the order paper with

committees and adjourned debates on second readings, as in the

order paper.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

it's important that the remarks I make relative to a number of

technical amendments in the Labour Code be very concise and

very clear, because the Labour Relations Board as the chief

administrative agency for giving effect to this law certainly

does on occasion refer to the debates that took place in this

House in terms of guidance and intent and the philosophy of the

law. So I think it's important that the statements be precise

in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour Code has been in force for about a

year and a half in the Province of British Columbia now, and

we've had an opportunity to make some assessment of the

provisions of the Labour Code. By and large these amendments

are a result of our experience with the code to date.

The amendments respond to some problems that have arisen in

the application of the code. They do not represent a shift in

policy, but rather an extension of the basic theme is to

regulate industrial relations by an administrative agency with

curative powers rather than a judicial agency with punitive

powers.

The most important changes in Bill 84 are the amendments to

the remedial section, the remedial authority of the Labour

Relations Board. The policy

[ Page

3974 ]

advanced is to provide a wider range of alternative remedies

in the law in order that a labour dispute or problem can be

resolved with a remedy tailored to meet the issue at hand.

For example, arbitration sections have been amended to equip

arbitrators and the Labour Relations Board with greater

discretion to remedy the diverse situations that arise during

the term of the collective agreement. More flexibility has been

infused into the arbitration process without diminishing the

need of parties to know how to conduct their own affairs and

resolve their own differences under their collective

agreements.

To illustrate this concept, I draw to your attention

section

97 of the amendments, which has been amended to expand the use

of this remedial power. The existing provision gives the board

three options where the problem of delay in arbitration of the

collective agreement occurs. One is to make non-binding

recommendations for settlement of the issue. Two, they are

empowered to refer the dispute to a specific stage of the

grievance procedure of the collective agreement and, three, the

third option, they are permitted to request the Minister to

appoint a special officer.

These important options under the new amendment will be

available not only in cases where there is a delay, but in all

cases where industrial unrest results from the dispute.

These amendments continue our policy of regulating

industrial relations by an administrative institution composed

of representatives of the two constituent groups, labour and

management. This approach requires some amendments to clarify

the institutional framework of the Labour Code.

When the code was introduced in the first instance in this

House for second reading, I pointed out that the board is

uniquely equipped, both in its flexible structure and by the

expertise of the personnel on the board, to understand and

sensibly regulate the dynamic collective bargaining process. It

was for that reason that the code took the significant step,

which was deemed unusual and far-reaching at that time, of

vesting in the Labour Relations Board the comprehensive and

embracing authority of regulating the laws pertaining to

industrial relations rather than leaving those authorities with

the court.

At the same time, and for similar reasons, the code placed

important restrictions on the extent to which the court could

become involved in labour relations matters. I want to give the

House, Mr. Speaker, a concrete illustration of the advantage of

the administrative solution over the judicial solution in

industrial relations problems.

I draw this example from an actual case that occurred during the past year.

In this instance an employee disobeyed a rule of management with which he disagreed

during the term of the collective agreement. As a result, he was fired from

the job. The union took the position that the management rule relating to overtime

was unfair because it was a breach of the collective agreement. Management disagreed.

Without seeking arbitration, the union went on a wildcat strike.

Under the old judicial approach to this kind of problem, an

injunction ordering the strikers to cease their illegal

activity was the only remedy. The court would have no authority

to deal with the underlying grievance relating to the

interpretation of the collective agreement.

However, under the Labour Code, in this actual case, the

Labour Relations Board was able to give a cease and desist

order against the illegal strike, but also to give an order

resolving the matter of whether the individual fired was fired

for just cause or not, and to further issue an order

interpreting the overtime provision of the collective

agreement.

So it wasn't a narrow judicial approach to the dispute. It

was an approach which allowed the board not only to remedy the

strictly legalistic question, but also to come to grips with

the root causes of that manifestation.

This kind of comprehensive and interrelated treatment of

labour relations problems has proved to be the strength of the

Labour Code and it is one of the important innovations of the

approach. Therefore it is imperative under the plan of the

Labour Code that the Labour Relations Board have exclusive

jurisdiction to deal with industrial disputes.

I am not suggesting that the courts are incapable of sound judgment on industrial

relations matters — far from it. Rather, the exclusion of the courts is based

on the need for a different institutional framework capable of dealing with

a wide variety of problems that are all interrelated and, in dispensing remedies,

sensitive to the dynamic nature of collective bargaining.

Let me illustrate the extension of the basic policy of the

code that's inherent in the amendments before the House today.

First I will deal with the amendments affecting the board and

then those affecting the arbitrator's authority.

The new code,

section 28 and

section 8 of the bill,

consolidates all of the board's present remedial authority. In

other words, they are not restricted in the type of remedy they

can apply to an individual case. The effect is that the board's

immediate areas not limited by the type of complaint before it,

quite simply. At present if an unfair labour practice complaint

allows the board to act in one way, complaints alleging

violations of other sections of the code allow the board to act

in quite another way. These remedies are now consolidated and

can be used on any complaint.

There are no artificial restrictions on the type of remedy

the board can order. No party will be

[ Page 3975 ]

frustrated because it failed to present its complaint under

the most appropriate and most advantageous

section of the code.

The board is to be given some new remedial authority. It can

refuse an order in any case if it thinks it is just and

equitable to do so. It can order compensation for any party

injured as a result of a breach of the code, but it does not

have the authority in relation to conduct regulated by

part 5,

which is the strikes and lockout

section of the code — also the

picketing provisions. This authority is reserved for the

courts, which are more expert in calculating large losses,

particularly business losses. Even there, however, the board

must give its consent to the court proceedings in order to

advance the purpose of solving problems, not punishing

offenders.

Lastly, the board will be given a general authority to

design appropriate remedies for each case. The remedies, of

course, must be curative and not punitive, and they must also

further the policies and objectives stated in the code. For the

arbitration process the remedial authority of arbitrators is

codified and arbitrators are given new powers. Arbitrators, we

hope, will be able to exercise these new powers more in keeping

with the philosophy of the code. The purpose is to make the

arbitration a more desirable alternative than illegal work

stoppages in responding to disputes.

Among the new powers given to arbitrators is the authority

to overlook technicalities such as breaches of the time limits

in the grievance procedure and to look beyond the narrow

questions submitted to them by the grieving party. A narrowly

drafted question or submission to an arbitrator will no longer

prevent an arbitrator from resolving the real matter in

dispute.

Another new amendment grants arbitrators the power to award

compensation. An arbitral award telling a party he has been

wrongly dealt with but not offering any relief other than

sympathy for all or part of his loss is no substitute for

direct job action in the eyes of a trade union. If arbitration

is to be a method and a procedure for resolving rights disputes

without resorting to work stoppages, the aggrieved party must

be able to get just satisfaction from the arbitrator. The

changes in the proposed

section 98 are directed precisely

toward that end.

Before the code was enacted, the courts were confronted with

a frustrating dilemma. They were frequently called upon to rule

on the legality or the illegality of a particular form of

behaviour by one of the parties to a collective bargaining

relationship without ever being able to deal with or resolve

the underlying problems, the tensions and so on — the root

causes that created the dispute in the first instance.

Let me give another example to illustrate the point, but let me say first that

the roles of the parties in this example could just as easily be reversed. I

am not pointing the finger at either party. In the example that I shall use,

Mr. Speaker, an employer — I don't want to name the employer but his initials

are "Sandman Inn" — consistently refused to hire workmen whom he knew were involved

with a trade union. The employer is hiring construction tradesmen in this situation.

Of course, the nature of that industry makes it very

difficult, if not impossible, for a union to organize by the

traditional techniques, due to the short tenure of the job, due

to the lack of any continuing relationship between the workers

and the employer.

So in this case, one union recognizes that the employer is

consistently discriminating against its members because they

are union members, and it becomes increasingly frustrated by

the employer's conduct.

Finally, the union puts up a picket line around the project

and the construction comes to a halt. This situation is a

classic illustration of the reason why the Labour Relations

Board now has total jurisdiction over all aspects of labour

disputes.

Before the code was enacted, as soon as an employer saw the

pickets, he's have headed down the block to the courthouse and

he'd have obtained an injunction, probably an ex parte

injunction, and the courts would have had affidavits before

them declaring that the union was not even certified, let alone

in a legal strike position. The court would have had little

choice legally except to grant the order restraining the

picketing. That would be the legal question before them.

In the situation I'm talking about, the court would never

even have had an opportunity to hear about the real underlying

reasons for the union's behaviour. Even if the court did know

the problem, it would have no authority to deal effectively

with that problem. Circumstances like these and a host of

others provided the rationale for the original decision to

remove the courts from involvement with the regulation of

industrial relations in this province.

After a year and a half of experience now, under the new

code, the government is persuaded that the original policy

decision was a wise one. In the proposed amendments to this

bill, the government seeks to do two things basically. First,

we wish to clarify the precise line that divides the board's

jurisdiction from that of the courts, in dealing with matters

that are now under the exclusive jurisdiction of the board.

Second, and consistent with the same basic policy, we wish

to ensure that the board is the final decision-making authority

in the area of industrial and arbitration law.

The first of these objectives will be achieved by a minor

reorganization of the present sections 31 and 32 of the code.

One of the few significant changes will be the addition of the

proposed

section 32(2).

[ Page 3976 ]

Late in the first year of its operations, the Labour

Relations Board decide in the case of Canex Placer Ltd., Endako

Mines Division, that it did not have the jurisdiction under the

code to regulate industrial conflict that was in violation of

criminal law.

Provincial quasi-criminal statutes are the common law

regarding personal property damage. In those areas, the board

said the authority of the court should remain inviolate. That

was the intent of the code as first enacted and that is the

thrust of the additional subsection 32(2) proposed in

section 8

of the bill. It clarifies the court's jurisdiction to grant

relief in cases where a strike, picketing or lockout is

conducted in such a manner that it creates an immediate threat

of injury to a person, or an actual obstruction or physical

damage to property.

Other changes in the specific format of sections 31 and 32,

I'll be able to discuss in more detail with the House in

committee on the bill.

The intent in each of these cases is to ensure that the

board has control over every aspect of labour disputes. Such

control is necessary, in my view, if we are to achieve a fair

resolution of those disputes.

There is one final point relating to the continuing

jurisdiction of the courts. The present

section 34(2) of the

code excludes the courts from review of decisions made by the

board within its jurisdiction under the code. One area over

which the board is not, and should not be immune from judicial

review is that of constitutional jurisdiction. Obviously the

courts must remain supreme in that field. In this area, the

jurisdiction of the courts is to interpret the British North

America Act, and it must remain supreme.

To avoid any ambiguity on this point, the bill proposes in

section 8 to qualify the present

section 34(2) by adding words

that will make it crystal clear that the board's decisions

where they relate to the constitutional jurisdiction of the

board are not immune from review.

The board's exclusive domain, as it was intended from the

outset, will remain in the field of labour relations and the

bill will make that point precisely.

A further objective of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as far as the

board's authority is concerned, is to place in the hands of the

board the power to act as the policy-making appeal tribunal of

arbitration under collective agreement.

The bill does not — I repeat it does not — purport to usurp

the vital function of arbitrators in the province as the

primary agency for resolving disputes arising during the course

of the collective agreement. Likewise the bill does not

restrict the jurisdiction of the court of appeal to review

arbitration decisions based on legal conclusions that are

within the special competence of the court.

I'm referring to arbitral awards that decide points of general law, not related

to labour relations or policy or arbitration procedures. Over such questions

of general law the courts will retain their jurisdiction. Where issues involving

labour relations policy or the

interpretation of the code are decided by arbitrators,

in this case, however, the board should have the power to ensure that sound

and sensible decisions are fairly reached.

To achieve that goal the bill will make the Labour Relations Board the final appeal tribunal for arbitral decisions that

are reached after an unfair hearing as in the case of an

arbitrator having acting improperly or where such decisions are

inconsistent with good labour relations policy. This change

advances the basic policy established when the code was first

enacted.

The board and arbitrators are given guides to the purposes

for which they are able to exercise their authority. The

board's guidelines are in

section 8 of the bill — the new

section 27(

l) of the code. The legislative directive to the

arbitrators is in

section 22 of the bill, the next sections

90(22 and 23) of the code.

Again, protection of the public interest has been another

important theme of the Labour Code and some new amendments are

contained in the bill before the House which have been

introduced in this bill to ensure that services vital to health

and safety are not interrupted by strikes or lock-outs.

Section 73 of the code is amended to require upon

Ministerial intervention the designation of life-supporting

services provided by firefighter, police and hospital

unions.

Some of the policy extensions in this bill are not

institutional completely. These include repeal of the exclusion

of agricultural and domestic workers from the jurisdiction of

the code. This amendment is in keeping with the report of the

justice and labour committee of the House and representations

to the government by various parties over the past number of

years.

Another is the prohibition. In

section 6 of the bill against

expulsion or suspension of an individual from a union for the

sole reason of dual unionism.

This amendment furthers the intent of the code that an

employee should be free to join a union and participate in its

activities and that employees should be free to change their

union representation. These and other similar amendments I will

speak of in more detail when the House deals with the bill in a

more exhaustive fashion in committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are one or two

things I'd like to mention at this stage in second reading.

Interjection.

[ Page 3977 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, perhaps I did not hear. Was

there a movement to adjourn from the Minister? I would be happy

to proceed. I was a little confused. Somebody mentioned

adjournment and I wasn't too sure whether the Minister was

suggesting it or the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Gabelmann) was suggesting it. I have no wish to adjourn

it.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the Minister that most of

these details can be dealt with in committee but there are one

or two points that I would like to comment upon at the present

time.

First, I quite agree with bringing in agricultural workers

under the provisions of the code. I think it's high time that

agricultural workers were treated like other workers as far as

that is possible, given in different nature of their

employment. I think, however, that one of the first things that

comes out of the Minister's statement to us today is the

recognition of many of the problems that were discussed at the

second reading of the Labour Code originally and in particular

during the discussion last August during the firefighters'

strike.

Section 73(7) which he talked about is a welcome admission

of the problem of what the Minister has called "life-supporting services." It's something that we welcome. We find

it difficult however, to understand why the principles of this

were not properly understood by the Minister earlier on when

these points were raised at the discussion of the Labour Code

itself.

I think the Minister should recognize that the right to

strike in life-supporting services — police, fire, ambulance

crews, driver and other ambulance workers — is essentially

illusory. You cannot allow people in positions such as that to

strike, as we discovered last summer when the government moved

so quickly to end a strike.

There are problems involved in this legislation which we

will be discussing clause-by-clause, one of which is the

invasion of privacy which seems to take place, particularly in

section 3 which is

section 4(2)(

B) of the Act itself. There

seems to be some problem in

section 7, institutionalizing bad

practice, as far as we can see — where people do not receive

the right to review all evidence.

I appreciate the comments of the Minister with respect to

strikes and slowdowns and similar activity. The fact is that

slowdowns can be just as damaging as strikes. I think that this

bill is getting along to recognizing that particular fact.

I was surprised that the Minister did not comment more on the success or otherwise

of the bill itself. I thought when he brought his amendments to the original

code that he would be indicating the number of days lost on strike, the areas

of success, the areas of failure of the code, where he has been disappointed

and where he has been very happy. We had a catalogue of amendments, but no overview

of the success of the code in terms of the statistics by which we could readily

measure this legislation against those previous.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is worth pointing out that in the

first quarter of 1975, breakdowns in labour-management

negotiations resulted in 50 disputes involving 12,518 employees

and accounting for a net loss of more than a quarter-million

man-days. That's in the first quarter of this year. These

figures are substantially above the 1974 experience where in

the first quarter 35 disputes took place, involving 11,266

workers and resulting in a loss of only 172,627 man-days. The

most critical figure, I guess, is man-days lost. In the first

quarter of 1974, 172,627 were lost; in 1975's first quarter,

255,348. I wonder whether the Minister, in closing the debate,

would be a little more expansive, if you like, about the reason

for this rather dramatic increase in the first quarter of this

year.

Mr. Speaker, again in principle, one point I would like to

mention is the continued erosion of the use of the courts. I

recognize we are dealing with special problems. I recognize

that total reliance upon courts has not been successful in the

past when dealing with labour disputes. The Minister's examples

that he gave us indicated definitely that this was the case;

the courts were unable to take advantage of all the information

that the Minister indicated they should be looking at in

certain situations.

The principle of dividing up rights and privileges into a

whole series of different boards and independent authorities,

and not having one consistent system of law governing society,

is one that we would like to look into very closely as we go

through the clause-by-clause. Admittedly, the Minister has

indicated that in certain circumstances it may be necessary. We

can accept the fact that there will be cases where it is

necessary. But as a general principle, this withdrawal from the

court system, in this area as well as others, by this

government is something that we oppose. We do feel that the

court system applying to all citizens equally should be

something that should be protected. We don't want to see this

authority, that authority and yet another authority being set

up, acting in a way in which they could totally ignore the

normal law governing normal citizens, and where they ignore the

normal systems governing other people.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned that the rights of the

court of appeal are not restricted. I think that is one point I

would like to debate with him in committee stage. It appears to

me that the right of the court of appeal will be severely

restricted and later on we will be discussing that matter.

Given that, I trust that we will be getting from the

Minister some overall view of the success of the legislation

itself. It is difficult to judge the

[ Page 3978 ]

amendments until we can judge where the problem areas have

been. It is difficult to judge the problem areas unless the

Minister is willing to be candid with us and indicate where his

hopes and aspirations in this area have not been fulfilled.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I think that in detail, one

would need to look at the bill very much more closely in

committee reading. But in talking to principle in the bill, it

is quite clear that the Minister outlined the primary purpose

of the amendment — to make it very clear that the Labour

Relations Board is the final authority on all labour-management

disputes.

As I see it, the Minister has said that there are only two

areas in which the courts are really involved, and that is

where points of law can be challenged or where the

constitutional aspects of the board's function can be

challenged. I don't know if that is the correct

interpretation,

but I made some pretty careful notes as the Minister was

speaking. He pointed out that the main function of the

amendment is to clarify the precise line dividing the board

from the courts. Secondly, to ensure that the board is the

final decision-making authority.

Now this may be the 1975 approach, which is worthwhile. From

his general comments I gather the Minister feels that progress

to date goes suggest, from the examples he's quoted, that this

is the direction in which we should go. I think time alone will

tell to what degree that is a successful philosophy and

policy.

Nevertheless, I'm sure the Minister realizes the very

fundamental change of direction which is involved in taking

these matters out of the courts. We may perhaps go into some of

the details section-by-section later on, but it is my

understanding that this code could still be challenged per se

on constitutional grounds inasmuch as the board, in effect,

appoints members with authority or jurisdiction that would be

given to a supreme court judge by the federal government. Yet

the Labour Relations Board appoints individuals who have that

same kind of authority, who are not supreme court judges, and

who are not recognized as such by the federal government. These

matters, normally, could only be dealt with under the

jurisdiction of a supreme court judge.

The last thing I am trying to set myself up as is any kind of an expert on

a very tricky subject, but my advisers tell me this is a constitutional issue

which exists in the Labour Code, that the kind of authority given to the members

of the Labour Relations Board is the kind of authority which, under the BNA

Act, is given only to supreme court judges appointed by the federal government.

Therefore the jurisdiction which is being given to Labour Relations Board members

by the Minister under this code could well be challenged as being unconstitutional.

Now we may get into that in detail, or it may be that the Minister has a simple

answer.

The other important principle in this bill is that

section

32 gives the courts the right to award damages as a result of

illegal strikes and lockouts. Again, according to the advice I

have, it has been somewhat open to question as to whether the

courts still retained the right to award damages for illegal

strikes and lockouts. As the Minister has pointed out, again in

the notes I made, the amendment makes it clear that unless the

Labour Relations Board says that the court has this power, then

in fact it does not have the power.

I wonder if the Minister can either confirm or correct this

impression that I have gained from his comments today, that

under the amendment to

section 32, the courts only have the

right to award damages for an illegal strike or lockout if the

Labour Relations Board says they have that right. If that is

the case, there again we have to express concern on this side

of the House about this very extensive, exclusive jurisdiction

which has been granted to the Labour Relations Board in the

original code, and which is not only clarified, as the Minister

points out, by defining the line, but in fact it seems there is

precious little left at all to the courts in the whole area of

matters covered by the Labour Code.

There are other sections of the bill that can probably be

better dealt with later. But I think there is also confusion as

to the route of appeal. The difficulty can arise where a person

or a party appeals to the Labour Relations Board and then

discovers the appeal should have been directed to the courts.

The Labour Relations Board has the authority to decide whether

the appeal can, in fact, then go to the courts. Again I would

like the Minister's clarification on that — I forget the exact

section. At any rate, it is the question of the appeal

mechanisms and whether or not it is clearly explained in the

new amendments the route which the appellant should follow —

taking the appeal to the Labour Relations Board or to the

courts, and running the risk, as I understand it, that if the

appeal is lodged in the first instance in the wrong

jurisdiction, this may preclude the possibility of future

appeals.

There are many other points, as I say, Mr. Speaker. I think

the fundamental point has been very well stated by the

Minister, and that is the issue of the bill — whether or not in

good faith, by trying to give such total power to the Labour

Relations Board to the exclusion of the courts, we run the very

serious risk of eroding the rights of individuals to take their

problems to the courts in an established and traditional

manner.

I don't think we should be pushing that step to the ultimate

unless we are absolutely convinced that the previous route in

the courts has been such a failure

[ Page 3979 ]

that the pendulum should swing right over to this degree,

that access to the courts is such a very narrow part of the

total spectrum of labour-management relations.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker,

the other Members have made it quite clear that the sections of

the bill can best be dealt with in committee stage. No one has

yet dealt with the bill in principle, which is really the

proper thing we should be doing in second reading.

I intend during committee stage to spend some time talking

about a variety of sections explaining my particular point of

view on those sections. What I want to do this afternoon is try

to put the bill into some sort of philosophical perspective

dealing with what I think is the principle contained. Some

Members would argue that, in fact, there is no principle, that

rather this is only a series of amendments that do not have a

connecting thread. In my reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I

think there is a connecting thread through the majority of the

amendments; it's a connecting thread that leads to a conclusion

that I'm not particularly happy about.

All Members of the House are aware that when the original

Bill 11 was introduced a year and a half ago now, or whatever

it was, I had some serious reservations about the direction

that that bill was leading us. I had some more serious

reservations about several sections. I expressed that

reservation directly on the floor of the House by voting

against some sections.

Mr. Speaker, at the time, I was concerned that there was a

potential that Bill 11, the Labour Code, was not in fact doing

what it was said to be doing. One of the things that we

campaigned on in the electoral campaign was to say that labour

relations should be removed from the courts — that the court

system cannot effectively, properly or fairly deal with labour

relations. There is, in fact, very little disagreement about

that. So what we did was to try to erect an alternative vehicle

to avoid having the courts involved in labour relations. It was

my fear then, Mr. Speaker, that the Labour Relations Board as

it was structured could well become nothing more than another

court and, in fact, we wouldn't have solved the problem.

I did have some hope that that wouldn't happen, that the

labour board would be composed of people whose business it was

on a day-to-day basis to engage themselves in labour and

management responsibilities, particularly as they relate to

collective bargaining and organizational efforts.

Unfortunately, the trend has been to not involve those kinds of people solely,

but to add a component that I think is being very dangerous and I think leads

us back to the old days of the court system. That is the legal component on

the Labour Relations Board. I don't intend to get into a discussion of how many

and whether or not those people, in fact are looking at labour relations problems

from the point of view of the law as opposed to the point of view of day-to-day

labour relations problems. It seems to me and it seems to people who have to

work with the board every day that decisions are being made not on the basis

of how you solve the problem on a day-to-day basis between the two parties,

because those are the two parties that have to live with the solution, but rather

on the basis of some legalistic solution.

To go back to my opening remarks, the thread that I see

running through these amendments, Mr. Speaker, is the thread

that suggests that those people on the Labour Relations Board,

particularly the lawyers, do not have enough of the powers they

think they need to properly, from their point of view, police

labour-management relationships. I see in amendment after

amendment in this proposed bill a strengthening of the position

of the people who would argue that the legal decision, the

legal precedent, the proper way of doing things is the

important route, rather than what I see as the important route — that is, to arrive at a solution that both parties are

satisfied with.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The marital analogy.... I know that the

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has yet in

this House in my experience to show any awareness of labour

relations problems, so I expect some heckling from him. That's

par for the course from the lawyers.

Mr. Speaker, it's a trite and old analogy to talk about

marital relationships and how they relate directly to labour

relationships. I think that everyone in this House and everyone

in this province would agree that no third party should go into

a marriage and tell one party or the other how to regulate

their affairs. Nor would we expect, Mr. Speaker, some third

party to go into a marriage to rectify some small problems that

that marriage is having. That's the kind of direction that I

see this bill going, particularly with these amendments.

We are, in this bill, giving arbitration boards and the

Labour Relations Board the power to alter collective agreements

that have been freely reached between parties. I think that is

wrong; philosophically, I think that is a wrong direction to

take. The basic premise that all of this is related upon seems

to me to be the idea that labour and management are equal in

this society and that what we need is a referee.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Members of the opposition will

probably hoot and will certainly

[ Page 3980 ]

disagree when I say that in fact the relationship between

capital and labour in this society in North America is very

much like sending a flyweight up against a heavyweight. You

don't have a referee in that kind of boxing match. Frankly,

that's the kind of situation we have here. Despite all of the

propaganda in the media, despite all of the speeches made by

corporate representatives, despite all of the speeches made by

Members of the three opposition parties, there is not an

equality between labour and management.

In the first place, in this country only one-third of the

people even belong to unions. In many of those cases they

belong to small unions that have to deal with multinational

corporations. There is no equality in this society. If we begin

to deal with labour relations from the point of view of acting

as a referee between two equal forces, then we've made the

first mistake that leads us down the road to more mistakes.

That's what I suggest is happening in this bill.

Now it seems to me that the way to get at labour relations

is on an ad hoc basis. That's the position that our party took

for years when we were in opposition. We argued against the

mediation commission because we said you cannot have a third

party that is sitting there ready to come in with both sides

knowing it's ready to come in.

The philosophy that parallels that, Mr. Speaker, is the one

relating to the resolution of disputes, whether those disputes

are at the end of a contract or whether those disputes are

during the lifetime of a contract. If a third party is there

ready to solve the problem, often the solution is satisfactory

to neither party, and often the solution when it's reached is

reached with much resentment on the part of one side or the

other. If industrial relations are to be harmonious, if that's

the goal, then there needs to be when the resolution of the

dispute is finished an acceptance and an understanding on the

part of both parties that they have gone their best licks, they

have got all there is to get from the other side and that's it,

and they're going to have to live with it for a predetermined

period of time.

But when you begin to put in a third party with increasing

powers — and that's what this bill does to the Labour Relations

Board — what will happen is that when resolutions are reached

as the result of the interference from that board, then a

dispute will longer, it will fester and it will make more

difficult bargaining in the future.

MR. WALLACE: What's the alternative, Colin?

MR. GABELMANN: The alternative? I'm coming to that. I think I do have

an alternative. When we have particularly difficult labour problems in this

province, what do we do? We find a person who is highly respected by both sides

— not to go in with any legislative mandate, not to go in with any predetermined

rules set by the cabinet or the House or by the Premier or by the Labour Minister.

We find the kind of person — and there are some in this province who can do

it — who can go in and make sure that the two parties can bargain together.

That kind of situation can relate to the straight contract bargaining, and it

can relate to difficulties that arise during the lifetime of agreements. That's

the solution: not to have someone imposed but to have someone there providing

assistance.

Going back to the marital analogy, you don't have someone

come into the marriage when you know that it's breaking down,

as we know. We see marriages breaking down all around us. We

don't suggest to the Minister or to the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) for that matter, or to any other

person in this society that when he sees a marriage breaking

down he should shoot in a trouble-shooter. The only time a

trouble-shooter will be effective is when those parties to that

marriage are prepared to ask for and accept the advice and use

that third person that they feel satisfied with.

Now I know it's trite and I know it's been said before and I

feel that it gets repetitious in the House, but that analogy is

accurate, it's appropriate and it should be thought about more

by Members from all sides of this Legislature. I think what

we've tried to do is to assume that the government can provide

magic solutions to problems that are in fact very, very

difficult. They're problems that don't lend themselves to

solutions from outside parties.

My fear, Mr. Speaker — and I'll be brief because I hadn't

meant to speak for more than 10 minutes, and I did want to

speak more in committee stage — is that these amendments are

strengthening the power of the Labour Relations Board. My fear

is that they will lead to the situation where both parties —

and I want to emphasize both parties, labour and management in

this province, are going to be leery of the Labour Relations

Board, are going to be avoiding it whenever possible, are not

going to be seeking its assistance, because they're worried

about what the Labour Relations Board can do to them.

The small unions will be worried about whether the Labour

Relations Board can put them in with a bigger unit against

their will, and that kind of distrust of the Labour Relations

Board will spell the end, will spell the doom of that Labour

Relations Board.

If the Members of this House really believe that the Labour

Relations Board route as an alternative to the court system is

the way to go, then you don't add to its powers the powers that

I suspect are already too much. You don't add to those powers

to the point where both parties no longer feel comfortable and

no longer will want to seek the advice, or assistance, or help

from that Labour Relations Board.

[ Page 3981 ]

I think that's all I want to say at this time, Mr. Speaker,

thank you.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver – Capilano): I'd like to

commence by paying a tribute to the words just spoken by the

Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I

disagree with a good deal of what he said for reasons that I'll

explain in a moment, but I think that because of the great

experience that he has in the labour movement, and the

sincerity with which he approaches this subject, that his words

are to be treated with a great deal of respect.

I would first of all say a few things about the principle of

the bill that he was discussing.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

As I see it, there are perhaps three principles I'd like to

touch on briefly. The first is what you might call the dispute

resolution mechanism; the second, the question of balance of

power; and the third, the question of third party effect.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour was principally

dealing with the dispute resolution mechanism and finding

problems with the labour board because, in his view, it was

acquiring too much of the trappings of a court, and the

procedures of a court.

I would suggest to the Hon. Member that first of all it's

not a court. Even if it were, there are all kinds of courts

ranging from the Supreme Court to say, the family courts, the

system of family courts that one would like to set up all over

B.C., a kind of a personal and humane and compassionate sort of

institution.

It would seem to me that the labour board can be what its

personalities and its own internal processes make it. But

surely due process is as important in the area of labour law as

anywhere else. Due process is something that is a little hard

to achieve if the approach is purely one of being ad hoc.

Without a certain body of precedent and without some

consistency in decision-making principles in the field of

labour disputes, it's difficult to have a guide to the future,

and this perhaps is one of the areas whereby the analogy

between labour relations and a marriage is not 100 per cent

exact. Each individual marriage tends to be a thing unto

itself, not necessarily looking to other marriages for

precedents about the way disputes ought to be resolved. Labour

law is unavoidably perhaps more fought out in the public

amphitheatre. Much of it never becomes public, the matter of

public knowledge in the field.

I agree with him 100 per cent with respect to the sanctity

of freely arrived-at contracts and the power to vary those

contracts worries me a great deal. More of that when the clause

involved comes up.

When the Hon. Member suggested that the answer was what he

called an ad hoc basis, I think that that's a fair description

of that approach to things. But I just can't agree, because it

seems to me that with any institution in society with power

there must go a concomitant responsibility and a major labour

dispute in the Province of British Columbia is something that

affects many more lives than the breakdown of one marriage. The

breakdown of one marriage is a tragic thing to the partners,

and to the children, and to the friends and so on, but a major

labour dispute affects far more lives, and with that kind of

power, it seems to me inevitable that some kind of systemized

public dispute-solving machinery is necessary.

With respect to what seems to me to be the second question

of principle, that of balance of power between the protagonists

in the labour field, this bill does no some direction to

redress some of the inequities of balance of power. For

example, agriculture and domestic workers.

It doesn't, in my view, go far enough in another area to

talk about industries where the balance of power is essentially

on the other side. Here again, I am perhaps in disagreement

with the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, because I

believe there are industries where in effect the trade unions

tend to have the upper hand.

Let's look, for example, at the situation in the food

industry. I've no intention of discussing the particular

demands in the negotiations that are under way right now, but

only the balance of power situation. In the food industry, the

companies really have little alternative but to exceed to the

demands made on them because, first of all, it doesn't cost

them a great deal. They can pass on the amount of the

settlements to the consuming public. People will continue to

eat food — they must — and will continue to pay more or less

the prices demanded.

On the other hand, they can't really afford a shutdown as

much as many industries because profit margins are relatively

thin. While people in this House will vary on the extent of the

profit margins in the food industry as a percentage of sales, I

think most would agree. There is not a great deal of absorption

capacity there.

So we have a situation here where the balance of power is

perhaps out of whack on the other side. Without going further

into that situation, I would commend to the Minister the

possibility as he is bringing in amendments to this bill, as

presumably will be brought in year after year by this or

whatever Minister might succeed him, that that subject of

balance of power receive more attention.

The balance of power question is not only a static one, it

is a dynamic one. We have in our society, and particularly in

British Columbia, an importantly-changing balance of power. We

have a

[ Page 3982 ]

situation where persons involved in the service sector of

the economy and particularly government — if I may refer to

government as an industry or as an employer — are tremendously

gaining in importance.

Opposed to that, we have the traditional relationship in

British Columbia where the goods-producing, and particularly

the export goods-producing, the forestry and mining industries

in our province, on a relative basis have less power.

So we see a situation where the industries and the unions in

those industries that used to be able to get a greater claim on

our society on a percentage basis are declining in relative

power and others are going up. This is leading to an enormous

amount of discontent and friction.

Again, without commenting further on the merits of it, one

has only to look at the forest industry situation in British

Columbia today which is a direct case example of this kind of

changing balance of power and relationship of the service- and

goods-producing industries in our society.

Again, I suggest that this Minister or his successor will in

years to come have to bring in amendments which will find ways

to smooth this changing importance of the industrial sectors. I

wish I had some suggestions for him, Mr. Speaker. I confess to

having none except to say that it is important that it be

studied and done.

The final principle of this bill that I would discuss

briefly is that of third party effects. This bill does make a

laudable step forward in the restriction of third party effects

as far as essential services are concerned. I think that is

very important. I commend the Minister for his recognition of

that principle.

I would extend on from there and suggest that again, in the

future, and in other amendments, ways must be found to minimize

third party effects of individual disputes.

Surely one of the classics in this province is one that this

House had to be asked to solve by legislation. That was the

elevator dispute wherein a relatively few companies and

individuals in their own individual dispute tied up literally

thousands of other working people and millions of dollars worth

of construction in this province over a long period of time.

The third party effects were far beyond the intrinsic merits of

the dispute.

Too often, parties to the dispute, whether on one side or

the other, will attempt to enlist as an unwilling ally on

their side of the bargaining table, the public interest in one

way or another in the sense of the public demanding that

solutions be found and imposed by a third party, usually by the

government.

The government will find its own task easier over the years

if it is able to find ways and means of minimizing these third

party effects. With those few comments in principle, Mr.

Speaker, I hope to have more to contribute during the committee

stage.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

direct my remarks along a similar vein to my colleague from

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I have the same

feelings about this legislation as he does. In fact, I almost

feel like I am giving this speech over again. It takes me back

to a couple of years ago when we had the Bill 11 debate on

labour in this chamber. The same things I felt then I feel now

in dealing with these amendments.

At the outset, however, I would like to comment on the

statements made by the previous speaker. It appears from what

he had to say that in fact the Liberal lawyers are supporting

the legalistic system embodied in this bill.

I think this actually confirms that basically whether the

Liberals are lawyers or not, it's a legalistic charge we keep

getting from that Liberal group. It confirms my feeling that we

are developing somewhat of a bureaucratic and legalistic system

through these amendments as it pertains to the previous

legislation we have already passed.

The previous speaker also talked about not going far enough

with the balance of power with the other side where trade

unions have the upper hand. In stating that he mentioned the

forest industry which I find rather amusing. He mentioned the

food industry as well but he also mentioned the forest industry

and I found that rather interesting.

Interjection.

MR. STEVES: Okay, but you were suggesting though that the

forest industry was a bit hard-pressed, I think.

Interjection.

MR. STEVES: Okay, well, that's where I disagree with you. He

suggests then that it's a historically-centred industry which

is relatively less powerful. I'm not sure whether he was

referring to the forest industry being less powerful or the

workers in the industry being less powerful, but I suggest to

you that the forest industry is probably one of the most

powerful industries that we have in the province along with the

mining industry.

The forest industry at the present time....

Interjection.

MR. STEVES: Well, if you listen you'll hear why.

The forest industry at the present time is in the position

of offering workers very limited increases strictly on

cost-of-living allowances and so on, because the forest

industry is an international type of industry.

The forest industry, like the mining industry, when it has arguments with workers,

always has the

[ Page 3983 ]

option of closing down their operations in areas like British

Columbia and exploiting the workers elsewhere in the world.

Quite often, countries like South America are exploited to

the detriment of working people up in British Columbia and I

can give you a specific example of the copper mines in South

America, when prices get too high in B.C., and when the workers

are put down like they were in Chile, they simply re-open

operations down there and close the ones down here in British

Columbia.

This is the kind of power that the big international

corporations have that I think is probably some of the most

powerful forces that are exerted by industry and in our

province.

Now, with regard to the principle of the bill, I'm really

pleased — in fact I'm extremely pleased to see the

section

regarding professionals, domestic and agriculture workers being

included under the Labour Act.

Like the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour I fought long

and hard to get that amendment put in and in fact that was one

of the clauses that both of us voted against in the bill 11

debate because those workers were not covered by the labour

legislation.

It grieves me very much then to find this very desirable

amendment included with a large number of amendments that I

find it very difficult to support in the rest of the bill.

When you look at the amendments very closely, that are

embodied in this bill, you find that many of them are very,

very simple. But when combined together in the context of the

legislation which has already been adopted by this Legislature

in the past, that we see basically that first-off I would

suggest that the amendments are really unnecessary and

secondly, that the amendments when added up and analyzed

carefully show that there will be a considerable centralization

of powers in the Labour Relations Board. They show increased

compulsion on the part of the Labour Relations Board and they

show, in my opinion, a drift towards the labour court

system.

The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour has made some

comments on that already. Basically we have already seen

appointments to the Labour Board — lawyers. We see the Labour

Board operating in a very legalistic manner and this

legislation that we're being asked to vote upon today has a

tendency to a system whereby we will have a third party

operating similar to a court of justice, not entirely the same

but similar to a court of justice, and the labour unions and

management both presenting their cases with highly paid

skillful lawyers.

I think this is something that some of us were hoping to

avoid when initial legislation was brought in, but these

amendments, to me, show a tendency of going in this

direction.

We have just in this province gotten away from the court of

justice system that Social Credit brought in. We've gotten away

from Bill 33 and Bill 42 and all the anti-labour legislation....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STEVES: We've got away from ex parte injunctions, but it

appears that we are now substituting a labour court

instead.

It seems that the philosophy of the bill as already has been

mentioned, is one that indicates that employers and management

are on an equal footing and if the Labour Relations Board then

would recognize that employers and management are on an equal

footing, that they have equal stature.

I would like to suggest, as I mentioned in my initial

remarks that this is not the case. In the case of the forest

industry and in the case of mining industry and various other

industries this is not the case. I suggest that this is a

failure to take into account that actually the trade union

movement is a movement for social justice and social change in

the province and has been for some time. It's historically

so.

Actually the objectives of the trade union movement have

been very much part and parcel of the same objectives of our

party — of the social democratic, the socialist movement in

this Province — going back many, many years. I feel that this

philosophy is trying to put them on an equal footing when

actually the management, the industry, actually has a bigger

shoe, is wrong and that actually by trying to do so we are

giving the upper hand to the big international companies.

I'm not going to go into any detail on the actual clauses at

this time. I am concerned, having negotiated on behalf of the

teachers in my area for the clause outlining "work to rule as a

form of strike." At the present time under the Act it is

basically just a misdemeanor and you get your knuckles rapped

if you use it, but it is not outlined as a strike. This puts

the work-to-rule clause into the position of being illegal if

it's carried out. I think this is wrong. When we discuss the

legislation later on clause by clause, I think I can give some

concrete examples of how work-to-rule has been used, certainly

in the references that I have been dealing with.

I am also concerned about the clauses dealing with dual

unionism. Combined with the Christian conscience clause and so

on, I feel that this could be construed as a first step toward

right-to-work laws. I'm very concerned about any drift that

might go in that direction.

Finally, I would like to comment on the compulsory aspects

of the bill pertaining to councils of industry in relationship,

particularly, to the firemen, policemen and so on. Last summer

we had a

[ Page 3984 ]

very unfortunate situation where the Legislature was called

to deal with the firemen. I was very much disturbed about it at

the time. I didn't vote against the bill. Actually, I didn't

vote for it or against it; I absented myself from the chamber

at that particular time. I received some criticism for doing so

from people in my own party who said: "Either you've got to be

for it or against it. If you don't stand up and be counted when

you feel strongly about something, then you're doing the wrong

thing." I accept that criticism for what I did at that

time.

I would like to say that I am very disturbed with the way

that was brought in and subsequent actions that took place

after that. It was then that the firemen in my area, who had

considerably better benefits than the firemen in Vancouver,

initially lost those benefits, and had tremendous battles with

the municipal labour relations bureau to get them. Finally the

Labour Relations Board had to step in and basically impose a

solution in regard to the benefits.

This is what the bill is calling for, further imposed

solutions. I am (

a) not very happy with the aspect of having

compulsory certification of councils, the trade unions, in the

first place, and (

b) very unhappy at seeing collective

agreements imposed upon those trade union councils once they

have been set up.

Finally, I am a bit concerned that when such councils are

set up, under the new amendments the Legislature will not

debate them, but the powers could be turned over to the Labour

Relations Board. I think we are then, in effect, handing over

these powers of compulsion, powers to designate facilities,

productions, services and so on to a board, rather than dealing

with it as a Legislature. We're giving it to an outside

power.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, for many,

many years this party has fought against labour legislation

brought in by the Socreds — very strong anti-labour

legislation. I am not suggesting that this legislation in any

way compares with the anti-labour legislation brought in by the

previous government. However, I must say that I am concerned

about the compulsion in the bill, and any tendencies towards

anti-labour legislation that might be shown in these

amendments.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to make a couple of

observations, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps these remarks would be far more

appropriate in committee, but I think the Hon. Minister somewhat overstated

the diminution of the role of the court. Because I see that the board does have

the discretion under

section 30, I believe it is, to transport one its decisions

or orders to the court, and ipso facto that would become a court order and enforceable

as such. Those are the terms within

section 30. Conceivably, violation of such

court order, or failure to obey it, would give rise to the normal procedures

of enforcement in the intrinsic powers of enforcement that the court has, such

as an order for damages, contempt proceedings, injunctive proceedings and loss

of liberty, perhaps, of the defaulting subject. So there is certainly quite

an instrument of approach to the court there, although it certainly has to be

noted that it is discretionary.

Secondly, I'm glad to hear that the Hon. Minister has stated

with the greater degree of statutory particularity that the

court retains its jurisdiction insofar as assessment of civil

damages are concerned and, certainly, for criminal proceedings.

Anything less would be preposterous.

I do not concur with the assessments presented to the House

this afternoon by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) or the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Gabelmann). I think if their complete attitudes were

accepted, it would be, without any question of a doubt, the most retrograde step to management-labour relations that this

province has yet run into, and could run us right back into a

situation of chaos. They essentially express a degree — or this

is the

interpretation I receive from their remarks — of

contempt for the role or for the functions of a third party or

a referee, and advocate in its place a system of complete ad

hoc-ery. Well, I suppose if this was a Nirvana type of

society in which we live, and man was completely and

essentially and perpetually good, what they have proposed would

work. Unfortunately man is not perfect. He's quite imperfect

and he does have to have guidelines, and some guidelines are

provided here.

It's also to be noted that neither of these two Members

expressed in their remarks any concern or made any reference

whatsoever to the primary third party, and that is the general

public — the individual who is outside and beyond the realm of

the two disputants, the individual who does not benefit at all

from the successes that may result from labour stoppage on

either side by the disputants, and the person who always can

hurt from the failures of those particular parties. But we

don't hear any expressions of concern from those two Members to

the position of the third party. I think it's preposterous to

continue to be of the philosophy and impression in British

Columbia — in the world for that matter — that the third party

has constantly to sit and take every knock and every brickbat

that can possibly result from work stoppage.

It is interesting to note the amendments the Minister has

incorporated in the bill wherein he has left unto himself, I

take it, a discretion to request the Labour Relations Board to

designate certain facilities that it would consider necessary

or essential to prevent immediate and serious danger to life,

health or safety, and may order — may order — both sides,

[ Page 3985 ]

Mr. Speaker, to continue to provide and maintain in full

measure those facilities, productions and services and not to

restrict or limit them.

Well, the last Member who spoke felt that this was something

that was denuding the Legislature of its historic powers, and

it is not because it's not exclusive to it; it is complementary

to it. I think this is a recognition by the cabinet of this

government, if not the back bench of this government, that

there is a greater need, as I have stated in many, many

speeches — and I'm not going to belabour that point this

afternoon — to ensure that in inessential services the

privilege of work stoppage is something that is too expensive

in contemporary society to put up with. When I'm talking about

expense, I'm not talking necessarily about dollars and cents at

all.

One item that continues to give me concern is the removal

from the courts of their right to utilize the historic writs

wherein they can cure defective procedures and wherein

specifically they can bring in measures that would rectify

improper hearings, unfair hearings and a denial of justice.

Unfortunately I see that this is still incorporated or perhaps

entrenched more fully than it was in your former bill. I find

that somewhat disturbing, because I think if there is an

impropriety in the procedure that constitutes a denial of

natural justice, surely to goodness the concept should be the

same for the labour movement, for the employers and the

employees as for the rest of society, and the court should

retain that very intrinsic and very strong measure of curative

power which is one that has been won over the centuries and is

one that certainly should not be lightly denied. I very much

regret to say that I think that it is being somewhat lightly

denied.

I would like to make many more remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I

think it is much more appropriate for me to make those during

the committee stage.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): You know, it's

interesting to see these amendments before us, because I think

what it does prove to everyone both in and outside of this

House is that there's no such thing as perfection in

legislation, particularly when you're dealing with the

relatively difficult area of labour and management problems. I

think it's fair to say that the previous government had many

problems they tried to solve by one means or another and that

the present government has found that they don't have any

panacea for complete labour and management harmonious relations

in the Province of British Columbia.

This is what you might call patchwork legislation. It's introduced, I believe,

Mr. Speaker, from what I can find and from what I can read, at the request of

no one in either labour or management. Both sides seem to be of the impression

that they weren't really consulted to any great degree before the legislation

came in. I'm sure that because of that, and perhaps for that

reason, we have a number of amendments on the order paper which

will be discussed in committee stage.

You know, when the Minister first took office, I think he

had great hopes for the new Labour Code for the Province of

British Columbia. As a matter of fact, he appointed three

advisers to give him some advice and to hold hearings

throughout the province to get advice from those people

affected by management and labour disputes.

But the interesting thing is, Mr. Speaker, that those

committee hearings were closed hearings, selected people

invited to go to them in selected locations. Now is that really

open government? I don't believe so. Is it the type of thing

that you want to perpetuate? You are perpetuating that now in

hearings before the inquiry commission into the labour

construction industry in the Province of British Columbia.

I know it from an ad in today's paper. Your ad indicates a

number of locations for hearings in Victoria, Kelowna,

Kamloops, et cetera, and that parties will be allowed to

present written briefs to the inquiry but that all the hearings

will be closed.

I can't help but feel and wonder, when we are trying to

develop a better understanding in this whole field of labour

and management relations, why public hearings, so-called,

should be closed hearings. It would seem to me that the way to

enlighten people so that they begin to appreciate each other's

viewpoint is to have these hearings open so that they can be

fully aired, fully reported and that those who have an interest

would have an opportunity to attend. I think that is something

that is not in keeping with the promises of the NDP for open

government.

It is apparent as we go along that even the amendments

proposed will not bring about everything we desire in the way

of labour peace in the province. I think that perhaps the

Minister should consider, now that we have had some experience

with the Labour Code, setting up a public inquiry commission

into this whole field to solicit expressions of opinion from

throughout the whole province, to generally inquire into all

the laws that are presently in effect. We might find through

that, and the amendments that would probably come after those

hearings, that we would have a much better relationship and

more harmonious relations in the Province of British

Columbia.

One of the other Members referred to the third parties

involved, and I think that is increasingly important,

particularly today, because so much time and effort and

direction is spent upon airing the problems of labour and

management that quite often the public, who are the innocent

third parties in disputes, are forgotten. Yet they are the

people who are most affected.

[ Page 3986 ]

I am sure that if we don't find a way to not only involve

them in the policy-making and the solutions of these problems,

they are going to find a way — the public generally, that is —

to make their thoughts known. They quite often are

inconvenienced and for no justifiable reason that they can

see.

I think the thing you should be looking at, Mr. Minister, if

you want to enlighten the public and inform them, is a more

open attitude in dealing with any of these problems. Let the

public know what is going on. Let the public know both sides in

these disputes.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments that are proposed are more

properly debated, I believe, in the committee state because

there are a number of different areas, some that we agree with.

I think that having said that, I'll take my place and wait for

the bill to come back to us in the committee stage, because

there are a number of points and principles involved on which

we really deserve a full explanation.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would

like to take my place in this debate and talk a little bit

about the principle of this bill. I want to do it by starting

out by talking about the labour movement and about the trade

union movement. As we all know, the trade union movement is a

movement that grew out of working people coming together to

work for better conditions for each other. It is a very old

movement, and over the years certainly other movements have

benefited from it. Certainly the women's movement has

benefited. Certainly the black movement has benefited from some

of the experiences that working people had to go through in

terms of organizing themselves and forming themselves into what

we now know as the trade union movement.

Despite that, over the years, it has never changed. It has

continued to be a movement. It still is a movement which

concerns itself, not just with its membership, but with

everybody else who works.

It is concerned about organizing workers who are themselves

not yet organized. Its record in this area is not very good;

there are still only a third of the working people in this

country who are organized. But it continues. It continues in

its commitment to try to organize all of the people who

work.

It has branched out and involved itself in things like the

health of its workers. The trade union movement spearheaded the

fight for looking into things like safety on the job,

industrial diseases, these kinds of things. The trade union

movement is concerned about its workers who retire when they

are too old to work. They have gone into pension plans. They

have gone into co-ops. They have gone into credit unions,

housing, whatever.

Really, in terms of this government and other governments, what the trade union

movement tries to do is talk on behalf of most of the people in this country

because most of the people are working people.

I think that when we look at this bill in terms of its

principles, we have to say to ourselves: to what extent does

this bill address itself to the concerns and the needs of the

trade unionists and of the labour movement in this province as

articulated by its membership and by its leaders?

Certainly, there is no question but that in

section 1, the

bill does that very much. It was the labour movement through

the NDP and through other people who said that the Labour Code

is a code that should cover domestic and agricultural workers

in the province. It doesn't make sense to have a Labour Code,

which we think is a good code, which also has exclusions.

In this respect, speaking to the principle of the bill, this

bill does that. It includes now for the first time agricultural

workers. It includes domestic workers. It also brings in a

number of other people, professional workers, or whatever. It

also addresses itself in independent contractors who, as those

of us who travelled on the labour and justice committee know,

were exploiting very, very badly certainly a number of people

who were forced to work through the contract system.

We have heard from the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) that this is a very powerful movement. I don't

believe this. If they are a powerful movement, I am certainly

not impressed by the number of things that they have been

unable to do.

I am not impressed with the powerful movement which, for

example, allowed those women at Sandringham to remain on strike

for as long as they did before there was a settlement. It is a

ludicrous myth that you people over there keep spreading, that

the trade union movement is so powerful.

Would a powerful movement allow what happened to the workers

at Dominion Motors, that strike which was never resolved? Would

they have allowed that to go through? Would a powerful movement

have allowed Seagrams to close down rather than negotiate with

its workers?

It is not a powerful movement. It is strong in terms of its

commitment to the working people in this country, but don't

mistake that for power. It certainly is not a powerful movement

and no legislation that is introduced should ever be introduced

with the idea that it is in any way as strong as the corporate

sector of industry or certainly any of the employers in this

country, or in this province in particular.

What else do we hear the trade union movement saying to us?

The trade union movement is saying to us that it is concerned

about compulsion. It is

[ Page 3987 ]

concerned about being forced, using force to get it to do

certain things; that it really does believe in the collective

bargaining process; and that in fact, through certain sections

of this bill —

section 12, for example, on which I agree with

everyone that it can be better discussed in committee stage —

what we are doing is introducing an element of compulsion, that

in fact what we are trying to do is give the Labour Relations

Board a little bit more power than makes the trade union

movement comfortable that in fact we are not just giving

them additional options. We are introducing and strengthening

that element of compulsion which they are concerned about.

What else do we hear the trade union movement saying? We

hear them saying that they didn't like the definition of the

word "strike." The amendment to the amendment hopefully will

deal with that. That is good.

We also heard the labour movement saying that they were

unhappy, for example, with some of the regulations dealing with

picketing. There were a number of people, not just organized

workers, there were a number of us as individuals too who were

unhappy that something like the struggle that was going on by

the grape workers could not be supported by us by having

pickets thrown up around SuperValu saying "do not use this

store" because they continue to undermine the struggles of

these poor people, these grape workers who are trying to get

some kind of reasonable representation.

I think that we have to respect and we have to listen very

carefully, certainly, to what this movement is saying. In the

same way that I never hesitate to stand up in this House and

say that as far as it applies to women, we have to consult with

the women when we made the decisions about them...They have

to have massive input into any decisions about them. The

women's movement needs that.

In the same way, we have to respect that this is what the

labour movement is saying to us, that it needs to have massive

input, that we have to respect its concerns, that it

congratulates us, certainly, in those areas where its requests

have been exceeded to, but it still continues to have some

element of discomfort and to see that in some ways it is

threatened.

It is threatened by some of the sections in this bill, and

I've said before, certainly the one that has to do with the

extended powers of the Labour Relations Board. I certainly

support the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann)

in the position he took about the courts being replaced by

another form of court. But more than anything else, I would

like to say in speaking to the principle of this bill, let us

listen to the labour movement, let us respect their wishes

before making any final decisions about this piece of

legislation. Thank you.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I have no

doubt that the remarks by the Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard receive loud applause about a week or 10 days

from now when she places her name in nomination.

MS. BROWN: Unfair!

AN HON. MEMBER: Why isn't that fair?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thought it was a fair dress rehearsal

of the remarks that the Member was going to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, she'd be better.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not impressed, however, by her

suggestion that the trade union movement is without power. They

don't seem to exhibit the lack of power that one would expect,

certainly the lack of power which is to be found in some

elements of our community. If you look at the post office

strikes, the air-traffic controllers strikes, the problems we

had in the Port of Vancouver over the past 12 or 18 months — it

seems a little strange that someone would suggest that the

movement is without power. However, I recognize that the

Member's remarks were completely beside the principle of this

amendment.

To some extent I join in supporting the comments made by the

Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I took

trouble to get a copy of the Minister's very carefully

delivered remarks in opening second reading, and I am impressed

by the care with which he enunciated the extended role and

slightly modified policy that the government is giving to the

Labour Relations Board.

He said one thing, however, in his opening remarks, speaking

about the basic theme of the Labour Code, and if I may read, he

says: "That theme is to regulate industrial relations by an

administrative agency with curative powers rather than a

judicial agency with punitive powers."

Yet as I look at Bill 84, I recognize that the Minister has

gone almost all the way in changing what was clearly an

administrative tribunal into a judicial one. Indeed, it's

significant that the example the Minister gave, which he drew

from an occurrence in the past year, makes it quite clear that

what the board did in that case was to exercise a judicial

function not only in putting a stop to a wildcat strike, but

also by going so far, and very expeditiously, in dealing with

the underlying grievance which gave rise to the wildcat strike

by making an

interpretation of what the collective agreement

meant.

As he said in his remarks: "The Labour Relations Board gave

a cease-and-desist order against the illegal

[ Page 3988 ]

strike." That's an injunction if I ever heard it. Then it

went on to give an order — and that certainly is a judicial

word — resolving the matter, and to further issue an order

interpreting the overtime positions of the collective

agreement. What we have here, in the Minister's one clear

example, is a telescoping of those same functions which

heretofore were discharged by the courts of this province.

The reason that I express some concern about these

amendments and this new policy directive that the Minister has

issued to the Labour Relations Board in the course of his

remarks, is that the board, by being brought more closely into

the field of the judiciary, is likely to suffer the same fate

that the judiciary has suffered in respect of its attempts to

resolve disputes between labour and management.

When the Labour Relations Board was first established I

thought it was the clear opportunity for the government to

create a prestigious body which would enjoy the respect of both

management and labour. I must compliment the chairman of the

board and its members for the way in which they have conducted

themselves since the board began to work under the Labour Code.

They have achieved a large measure of respect from both

management and labour.

I believe they have achieved it because the members have

committed themselves in a responsible way to the task that was

presented to them. But they have functioned as an

administrative board. And as we move that board closer and

closer to a judicial tribunal, giving it more powers, as we are

doing today — powers with respect to its own jurisdiction,

powers with respect to the making of orders in a wider range of

circumstances — we are, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to you and to

the Minister, in danger of placing this board in the position

where its orders will be contrary to the wishes of one or other

of the parties to the industrial dispute, and therefore almost

certainly bound to run into the kind of resistance that was

found when the pure legalistic approach was taken to the

resolution of these disputes.

I'm not suggesting that the Minister has gone all the way,

but we are so close to it that I suggest to the Minister that

there should be some withdrawing of the authority given to the

board.

I think that the board has made remarkable progress. I think

it should have been given a longer period of time in which to

consolidate the support which is presently being given to it by

parties on both sides of these disputes.

I think it also must be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the board, and the

support that it has received from the trade union movement, can look to some

extent to the government for the relationship which it has been able to create.

There's no question to anyone who watches the industrial scene that the trade

union movement, by reason of their close relationship, even friendship, or at

least sometimes fondness, for the NDP has been prepared to go along with this

new experiment. I think that the board should have continued as before, rather

than to test the extent to which the trade union movement is prepared to put

up with an increasingly legalistic approach to the resolution of their problems.

I think it is indicative in some of the amendments which are

on the order paper of the extent to which representations have

been made by the trade union movement, and by management, to

the Minister to withdraw from what was his first intent in Bill

84. That should be a clear warning to the Minister that he has

almost gone as far as he can go without imperiling the future

of the board, and as a consequence, the future of labour peace

in this province.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I think for

several months now, perhaps for all of this session, we have

had the most rational and reasonable debate on what has in past

years in this province been a very irrational and unreasonable

subject.

We had the usual remarks from the leader of the Liberal

party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), and his usual statements that we

have to forbid and bring laws in against strikes in essential

services in this province. He's brought up the subject over and

over again in this House, despite the fact that the point has

been made to him over and over again in this House that in

countries where strikes are forbidden, strikes still occur. But

still he continues. He gets up and makes the same demand, as do

some other Members, to forbid strikes in essential services,

even though we're debating the principle of the amendments to

the Labour Code, I suppose because he feels that amendment

should be in there. It has never worked. It has never worked

anywhere that it's been tried, and yet in his blind way, he

keeps insisting that we have a ban on strikes in essential

services, even though it is a problem to define what is

essential service and what is not.

There have been several statements made that the labour

board is taking more and more of the judicial function. I don't

feel I'm qualified to comment on that. I don't know as yet

whether it has too much power or too little power, because,

frankly, I don't believe that the Labour Code in this province

has yet been in effect long enough to show whether it has too

little or too much power. Naturally, there will be some places

where they have worked where one side or the other could

complain that they had too much power. I'm speaking in general

and in principle to the whole Labour Code we have in this

province.

I would like to refer to a statement made about the ad hoc

solution to problems. I think if this party had been in office

35 to 40 years ago, that approach would be justified — the

problems in

[ Page 3989 ]

labour-management relations could be looked at separately,

individually, judged on their own merits. But after 20 years of

what we had under the previous government, the confrontations

we had in this province, and the continual deterioration of

labour-management relations, the strike situation that we had

in the province, I think that we were at a situation where the

ad hoe solution was beyond being used.

It would take far too long to get the relations between labour and management

back into a position where that ' type of approach could be used. I believe

it would be a better solution, but I think that the labour-management relations

in this province after 20 years of the previous government and under previous

Labour Ministers, was beyond the state where that could be used.

I remember when the Labour Code was introduced into this

House and the present Labour Minister, in speaking in second

reading of the bill, said that this is not cast in stone. It

isn't engraved in marble, and that there will have to be

amendments to it.

We are seeing some of the amendments that are being brought

in today, and it is my understanding that some were at the

request of the labour movement, some were at the request of

management, and some were ones that the Minister felt necessary

for the administration of the Labour Code in this province.

I don't think this is the last. session we are going to see

amendments to this Labour Code. We used to see that sort of

thing under the previous government. We remember the Acts they

brought in, and when amendments were asked for to particular

Acts by the labour movement or by the community, the only

reaction we had was a new Labour Act that was even worse than

the last one.

I can't remember exactly the numbers of the bills now, but I

remember it cumulated in Bill 88, the famous one that died on

the order paper. Although it died on the order paper it didn't

mean it was going to go out of existence, and I fully believe

that if that party had been re-elected, Bill 88 would have been

brought into this House.

The Minister made it very, very clear — and in the time I've

known him I believe him — that there isn't any kind of a law

that is going to perfectly and totally regulate peace and

tranquility in the labour-management relations in this

province. It is beyond the ability of any government to

legislate every situation in such a delicate tactical situation

that occurs at times in labour-management relations.

I believe that there are some of the amendments that have

been brought in that I could quarrel with. I would probably

have written them a little differently myself, but since I am

not drawing the money or the responsibility of the Minister of

Labour I have to leave it to him.

By and large I agree with the amendments, and I fully

believe that when the Minister closes the debate one of the

statements he will make is, if they don't work, if some don't

work, if they all don't work, or other sections of the Labour

Code don't work, we'll be looking at changes or amendments

brought into the House this fall.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour closes the

debate.

HON. MR. KING: There have been fairly wide ranging comments

on the second reading of this bill this afternoon. I'll try to

respond to them in order of sequence as best I can, having made

some notes of the various points the Members made in

discussing the principle of the bill.

Responding first of all to the last speaker, the Member for

Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), Mr. Speaker, I do want to

acknowledge and say, yes, indeed, I am open to constant

reconsideration of the Labour Code. Nothing remains the same,

certainly not in the field of industrial relations. It changes

constantly.

I said when the Labour Code was introduced, and I've said

many, many times since, in a public way, on this floor and on

many others, that I think it is imperative that the government

remains sensitive to the day-to-day problems that occur in

industrial relations. That means the problems of the two

parties involved in labour relations, because it is very much

an area where there are two parties of interest, that of

management and that of labour.

I do think that in the main the new Labour Code has been

working quite well. Certainly it is no blueprint. It is no

panacea to obtaining the objectives of industrial peace with

equity and fair play for the interests of the working people of

this province, and the interests of management.

I don't know whether it is humanly possible to devise a

system that is going to please and satisfy all the diverse

interests in that whole arena. I doubt it. Certainly I do not

now, and never did profess to maintain, to possess those kind of

capabilities that would satisfy the various points of view, the

various conflicting interests, even within the trade union

movement.

Having said that, we are not charged with the responsibility

here of trying to obtain industrial peace at any expense, not

at all, but to try to find the highest degree of industrial

peace which in my view is in the best interests of the totality

of our society, including the security of employment for the

working people, while at the same time remaining very, very

sensitive to the legitimate rights of the parties, their rights

to take strike action when necessary, when they feel that their

interests haven't been obtainable

[ Page 3990 ]

through bargaining at the table, their rights to adequate,

reasonable and expeditious grievance procedures to remedy

problems on the job that are problematic and could erupt into

work stoppages if unchecked.

So I remain very, very sensitive and very much available to

the trade union movement in this province and to the management

groups in terms of discussing with them and meeting with them

to discuss problems that arise, in terms of arguing and

disagreeing with them, too — I've certainly done my share of

that. As with these amendments, I think that I have

demonstrated a willingness to listen to valid points of view

and to react to those valid points of view. So it's very true

that the House may well anticipate further considerations of

the Labour Code — indeed, even some of these amendments we're

introducing and discussing today. If they're unworkable, if

they're problematic, if they're inequitable, then certainly I

have no interest and no commitment to maintaining a system that

mitigates against the best interests of any individual of this

province.

There is some misunderstanding. I have been intrigued by

some of the comments of some of my colleagues, some of my

knowledgeable colleagues and friends down in the backbench. I

have been intrigued by some of the comments from the opposite

side of the House. There has been the thread of something

running through this whole debate which I find extremely

intriguing and perplexing — that is, that in some way these

terrible amendments are going to interfere with the rights of

trade unions in collective bargaining. This terrible word

"compulsion" is being injected into the collective bargaining

process.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments have absolutely nothing to do

with the collective bargaining process. These amendments are

separate and apart and relate in no way to

part 5 of the Labour

Code, which is the

section and the part that regulates the laws

of strikes and picketing. Rather, these amendments relate to

arbitration procedures and matters that are referred to the

board by one of the parties.

The board is not unilaterally imposing something in a

compulsory way on the parties. The board action must be first

triggered by a complaint or an appeal by one of the parties. It

happens every day. Despite the concern for the legalism of the

board, usually when it occurs, both parties show up before that

board with their little lawyers in tow to argue the case. So

there is a need for some legalistic appreciation and expertise

in terms of the board's ability to adjudicate those complex

matters that come before us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But let me say that apparently some Members are unaware of

section 4(2) of

the Labour Code, which was borrowed from the old Labour Relations Act passed

under our predecessors — on the statute books of this province for as long as

I can remember and on the statute books of virtually every other jurisdiction

in this nation. That is the requirement under

section 4(2) on limitation of

activities of trade unions: "No trade union and no person acting on behalf of

a trade union and no employee shall support, encourage, condone or engage in

any activity that is intended to or does restrict or limit production of services."

This is talking about the term of the collective agreement. Further, under I

believe

section 92 there is an additional provision, an arbitration provision.

Again, this is borrowed from previous legislation and has been on the statute

books since time immemorial, and is certainly the system that is adopted throughout

most of North America. It is a provision that requires —

section 93(l) — that:

"Every collective agreement shall contain a provision (

a) governing the dismissal, discipline or suspension of an

employee bound by the agreement and for final and conclusive

settlement without work stoppage by arbitration or such other

method as may be agreed to by the parties of all disputes

between the persons bound by the agreement respecting its

interpretation, application, operation or any alleged violation

thereof, including any question as to whether the matter is

arbitrary."

So what we're talking about in the amendments is simply a

refining, an improvement of those methods of resolving those

issues that arise during the course of a collective agreement

in a manner that is expeditious, in a manner that is just and

without work stoppage. Work stoppage has never been a legal

remedy that was available to the trade union movement. Now it

happens — it does happen. One of the reasons it happens is

because the remedies — the grievance procedures or the

arbitration procedures — are too unwieldy or too slow and the

employee is left to grieve after the fact, after having some

sanction imposed upon him by the employer, and frequently his

fellow employees react and walk out in sympathy. But we have

introduced in the Labour Code and we have introduced in some of

these amendments limitations upon the employer's right to

assess in a unilateral, arbitrary way sanctions against the

employee.

In the case of a matter of a judgment, a questionable

opinion on the safety of a health hazard that obtains in a

certain industry, the employee is now free to determine to the

best of his own judgment that this is an unsafe condition and

refuse to perform the work, and the employer is prohibited from

considering that to be a strike action. So there's protection

extended there which never obtained before.

[ Page 3991 ]

But the important thing, and the point that I must stress

and re-emphasize, is that there's no additional measure of

compulsion involved in these amendments, and it certainly

doesn't relate to the contract bargaining for contract renewal.

It relates to those disputes that arise during the course of

the collective agreement and which are arbitrary by law and

always have been.

There's an attempt to refine and improve the arbitration

process because in some cases we've found, much to the

consternation and much to