1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 809 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Appeal to BCR workers to return to work. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 809

Mr. Phillips — 809

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 810

Mr. Wallace — 810

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

BCR strike. Mr. Phillips — 810

Natural gas shortage. Mr. Wallace — 811

B.C. Ferries. Mr. Morrison — 812

Community boards for social services. Mrs. Jordan — 814

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill

83). Hon.

Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 814

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act (Bill 84). Hon. Mr.

Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 814

Pacific North Coast cooperative Loan Act (Bill 87). HON.

Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 814

Geothermal Resources Act (Bill 77). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 814

Medical Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 81). Hon. Mr.

Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 815

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

stage.

Mr. Chabot — 815

Hon. Mr. King — 815

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 815

Hon. Mr. King — 816

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 816

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 816

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 817

Mr. Chabot — 817

Hon. Mr. King — 817

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 818

Hon. Mr. King — 819

Mr. Wallace — 819

Mr. Morrison — 819

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 819

Mr. Morrison — 820

section 4.

Hon. Mr. King — 820

Mr. Williams — 821

Hon. Mr. King — 821

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 822

Mr. Williams — 823

Hon. Mr. King — 823

section 5.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 824

Hon. Mr. King — 824

Amendment to

section 6.

Mr. Chabot — 825

Mr. Wallace — 825

Hon. Mr. King — 825

Amendment to

section 8.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 825

Hon. Mr. King — 826

Mr. McGeer — 826

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 826

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 827

Hon. Mr. King — 827

Mr. Wallace — 828

Hon. Mr. King — 828

Amendment to

section 11.

Mr. Chabot — 828

Mrs. Jordan — 829

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 830

Mr. Wallace — 831

Mr. McGeer — 832

Mr. Gabelmann — 832

Mr. Morrison — 833

Mr. Barnes — 834

Mr. Rolston — 835

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 836

Mr. Dent — 837

Mr. Williams — 839

Mr. Chabot — 839

Mr. Cummings — 840

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 840

Hon. Mr. King — 841

Mr. Chabot — 842

Mr. Phillips — 842

Hon. Mr. King — 843

Division on amendment to

section 1 I — 843

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 844

Division on

section 1 I — 844

Privilege Resignation of legislative seat. Mr. Brousson — 844

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 845

Mr. Speaker — 845

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 11). Hon. Mr.

King.

Referral to Committee — 845

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

we've got three men in the gallery today that have come 5,000 miles to find

out what British Columbia has in the way of many things. I'm sure they are very

impressed with the beauty of British Columbia in the first place. They can't

buy any of that and take it back with them. These men are high in the steel

industry of Germany.

I would just like to mention that Dr. Walter Niedermuller,

Klaus Haniel and Dr. Georg F. Lange are in the gallery here. I

hope that you will give them a good introduction as to how our

House operates.

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

like to join the Hon. Minister in welcoming these guests. With

Georg Lange, particularly, I had a very delightful time in

Dusseldorf not too long ago.

But I want to introduce to the House Mr. Rick Matson, age

23, who, at the age I think it was then of 19, clambered down

the steep, dangerous, slippery slopes of Lynn Canyon because a

girl's body was seen below in that stream. He's been the

recipient today of the Royal Humane Society bronze medal for

bravery and for selfless heroism. He's sitting with his

parents, the Matsons, in the gallery here.

He exemplifies the spirit of the ordinary citizen willing to

do as the Good Samaritan did and go to the help of another

citizen in trouble — the kind of spirit that should be

instilled among all our citizens. I ask the House to recognize

this very brave young man.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the House today to welcome a grade 11 law class of students

from Thompson Secondary School, along with their teachers, Mr.

Bob Ellis and Mrs. Badenoch.

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

would like to ask you to join me in welcoming a group of

students from Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Clinton, of the South

Cariboo School District, and their teacher, Mrs. Delaney.

These students tell me they've heard many rumours as to what

was going on in these chambers — not just physically but

spiritually. So they've come down to see for themselves, and we

welcome them.

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

with me today in welcoming Martin Robin, Mark Germane and a group of students

from Simon Fraser University in Canadian studies who are visiting us here today.

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

House to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the following telegram has

been sent to Mr. Norman Farley, chairman of the negotiating

committee for the shop crafts of the B.C. Railroad. Copies of

the telegram are being sent to: Mr. Jamieson, the secretary of

the negotiating committee; Mr. Horodyski, a negotiating member;

Mr. Forzley; Mr. Lehner; Mr. Saran; Mr. Behti, and Mr.

Bachuk.

These people represent on the shop crafts the plumbers, the

international machinists, the carmen, the IBEW, the pressmen of

local 861 , pressmen of IBEW local 2027 and the local chairman,

571, of the plumbers and pipefitters and the carmen.

AS PREMIER OF THIS PROVINCE, I URGE YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR UNION

TO RETURN TO WORK IMMEDIATELY. THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA COMPELS

ME TO MAKE THIS REQUEST OF YOU TODAY. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT YOUR

ECONOMIC SITUATION HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR MANY YEARS PAST. HOWEVER, NO NEW GOVERNMENT

CAN MAKE UP OVERNIGHT FOR MANY YEARS OF NEGLECT. TWO OF YOUR FELLOW UNIONS HAVE

ALREADY ACCEPTED GOOD WAGE SETTLEMENTS, AND ARE PREPARED TO CONTINUE WORKING.

YOUR WORK STOPPAGE, HOWEVER JUSTIFIED YOU FEEL IT MAY BE, IS

CAUSING OTHER WORKERS AND FARMERS GREAT SUFFERING. THE MINISTER OF LABOUR IS

PREPARED TO MEET WITH YOU IMMEDIATELY TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING

THE MACHINERY TO BRING ABOUT A SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. I WOULD

APPRECIATE YOUR RETURN TO WORK BY 1 P.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23. THE MINISTER OF

LABOUR WILL BE PREPARED TO MEET WITH YOU TO DEVELOP THE DETAILS.

The telegram was sent at 2:05 this afternoon, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to say that we welcome the fact that the

president of the British Columbia Railway, eight days too late,

finally decided to take some action. He stood in the House last

week, when I tried to get some action going, and called

me "frivolous and mischievous." But I certainly do welcome

it.

[ Page 810 ]

I do resent the fact that he had to be political in it and

say that the railway hasn't been looked after for the past few

years. The railway workers of the British Columbia Railway were

never happier until this government came to power. Now they've

tried to create a political machine out of this railway.

They've created their own problems. Now they're trying to make

political hay out of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think I should remind the Hon.

Members that it's not a time for a political debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: But it's all right for the Premier to create a

political….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That is why I permitted the Hon. Member

to go on. It's not a time, either in a statement or in reply to

a statement, for a political debate. It is an invitation for

the leaders of respective parties to contribute, usefully,

suggestions — but not to attack their opponents in the House on

the question of somebody else's policy.

That has always been accepted in every parliamentary

forum.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in light of your

injunction, we'd like to again, as has been indicated earlier

by another opposition speaker, welcome the Premier's belated

interest in this subject. Questions arise which we'd like to

pose in accordance with your suggestion a moment ago. Why was

this action not taken earlier? Why indeed has it taken so long

for the Premier to act as Premier, not as president of the B.C.

Rail, and send a telegram at this stage?

We'd like to inquire as to whether telephone contact has

been maintained over these past few days of strike. We'd like

also to inquire….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. I just finished suggesting this is

not the purpose of a statement. You can do it very shortly in

question time if you wish to pose a question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's why I read it before the question

period.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, can I phrase them in terms

of suggestions which I believe you did indicate we could make

to the government?

May I suggest to the government, to the Premier, that in future situations

such as this he maintain close telephone contact; inform us at the same times

as he makes statements about telegrams. May I ask him to instruct his Minister

of Labour to depart from his previous policy statement in this House that it

is not his job to anticipate trouble, and have him indeed anticipate trouble

and try to avert it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This party certainly welcomes

the message which the Premier has made us aware of today. We

will await judgment and pass comment at a later date.

Oral questions.

BCR STRIKE

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour and

director of the British Columbia Railway why shippers were not

informed that railway was going out on strike. Many shippers

were left with perishable stock in the yards with no

notification whatsoever that the railway was going out on

strike and I would like to know why.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): It is impossible to

predict the exact moment the unions may go out on strike. They

quite frequently serve strike notice. But so long as

discussions are under way, one always remains hopeful that a

settlement will be reached which would obviate the need for

strike notice to go out to shippers.

I am informed by the management of the railway that they

did, in fact, notify their shippers as soon as humanly possible

when a strike became inevitable.

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

Premier, Mr. Speaker. We have had an admission this afternoon

that the strike is causing grave harm to the economy, something

which was denied last week by the Premier. I would like to ask

him what measures he contemplates in the event that the unions

do not voluntarily comply with his request by tomorrow at this

time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Disputes on the railways have been

national in context. The national railways were on strike for

over three weeks before the federal government decided to take

any action at all. Over three weeks.

We have waited, Mr. Speaker, in hope that collective

bargaining would lead to a good solution to this problem. As

announced, two of the unions have accepted good wage increases.

The situation last week was one that caused the government

concern. We've reached the point now, as a responsible

government, where we must take the action that we're proposing.

We have not waited three weeks and it's not an isolated

problem. Railroads are having difficulty in negotiating right

across this country.

[ Page 811 ]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The

national situation was a rotating rail strike. We've had a

complete set-down. The Premier hasn't really taken any action,

he's merely made a request. I'm asking him the same question

again: what measures does he intend to take under advisement in

the event that the railroads are not operating by this time

tomorrow?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I expect we'll all be here

tomorrow.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A supplementary question on

the same subject. To the Minister of Labour: last week the

Minister said he didn't want to anticipate what might happen

with the other unions who have yet to settle. But I'd like to

ask the Minister if he is making any active attempt to try to

head off any possible trouble. Is there work going on with

those other unions, which still have to settle, to ensure that

when this strike is settled we won't be faced with another

one?

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sorry I missed that. It was so quick we

missed it all.

HON. MR. KING: Yes. The answer is yes.

MR. McCLELLAND: Could the Minister elaborate a little more

than that?

What is he doing? Is he meeting with those unions? Do you

have negotiators meeting with the unions at the present

time?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am not in negotiations.

Officials of my department are in consultation with the

parties. I don't really feel it is advisable for politicians to

become involved in negotiations as a matter of course, but

officials of my department are in constant touch.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it on this same subject?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, the rail strike of B.C. Rail, Mr.

Speaker.

I wonder whether the Minister would inform the House what

studies he has done so he can tell us exactly how many people

have been put out of work by this strike and how many we can

expect to be out of work at this time tomorrow if the strike

continues.

HON. MR. KING: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't got the detailed figures on

just how many people are out of work. I do know that quite a number of sawmills

have been forced to close and if a resolution isn't found very quickly the prospects

are for a good deal more mills to close, and so on. The implications are quite

profound.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, on the matter

of B.C. Rail, to the Minister of Labour: the Minister of Labour

informed us a few days ago that the Associate Deputy Minister

would be going to get the parties together to bargain

collectively. I'm wondering whether the Minister could advise

us whether there has been joint bargaining by the parties in

the last eight days. Has his Associate Deputy Minister been

successful in getting the parties together?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the parties haven't been

together per se. The Associate Deputy Minister has been holding

discussions with both management and the trade unions involved

for quite a number of days.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier, as

President of the B.C. Railway, whether the strike is resulting

in our losing boxcars that we wouldn't otherwise be able to

obtain? Are there estimates on that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, there is no loss of boxcars that we'd

otherwise be able to obtain. As you know, Mr. Member, there has

been some pressure on the federal Minister of Transport, Mr.

Marchand, to get directly involved. Talks have gone on with the

CNR and are continuing to go on, but we have seen no aggressive

action by the federal jurisdiction to live up to their

agreements. We intend to bring more information to the House,

if necessary, so that these talks can be more aggressive on the

federal government's part.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When are they going to put that

information forward? We've been waiting for months.

NATURAL GAS SHORTAGE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney General:

in the light of a great deal of conflicting evidence over the

weekend and the very serious nature of this natural gas

shortage, could he please bring the House up to date as to just

whether we will be buying very expensive gas from Alberta or

will we be stopping exportation to the United States? Which is

it to be?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right,

there was quite a blizzard of telegrams over the weekend — with

a little bit of help

[ Page 812 ]

from the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson),

which help or intermeddling, I'm afraid, was counter-productive

to the interests of B.C.

I sent my wire, which has been in the papers, asking that

the valves be turned down. I received, in stages, a reply from

the Hon. Donald Macdonald suggesting I was inconsistent with my

energy tsar — not tsar, I take that back. (Laughter.) My energy

advisor.

So I then sent this: that my Telex to the Hon. Donald

Macdonald was read to and approved by the Chairman of the B.C.

Energy Commission prior to dispatch. And "after receipt of your

(you, Donald) Telex reply, I rechecked with myself and with Mr.

Rhodes and I am advised that there is no inconsistency or

contradiction with respect to the position, requests and

requirements of British Columbia. I confirm therefore that the

position of the Government of B.C. is as stated in my previous

Telex to you of October 19."

So I've asked for a reply by noon tomorrow and any statement

as to what we may do will await that time, and, hopefully, a

favourable reply from the federal government which will

indicate the tap will be turned down as required.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question to that, Mr. Speaker.

Could I just ask….

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, that was your first question was it?

Or was it that of the….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker,

it has been indicated that I think counter-productively to the

interests of British Columbia. I would like an explanation or a

withdrawal. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: See for yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you asking a question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if the Minister wishes to make

charges against a Member's acting counter-productively to the

interests of this province….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's just my opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have a question that's supplemental to

that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the point I raised was a point of personal privilege. If he wishes to

make such charges let him explain. If he doesn't let him

withdraw. That's a question of personal privilege, is it

not?

MR. SPEAKER: Really, I think it's not unparliamentary in the

sense that everyone is entitled to their editorial opinion. You

can answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. That's a very

interesting statement, Mr. Speaker. You can stop right there.

(Laughter.)

What I'd like to ask the Attorney General, then, Mr.

Speaker, is: what is wrong with making sure that a telegram,

which I assume he sent in good faith at 5:30 in the afternoon

Ottawa time, was at least delivered prior to the Minister in

Ottawa leaving his office at 6 o'clock? Had we relied upon the

Attorney General, the man would have had to wait 48 hours — until Monday morning — to receive that telegram.

I phoned — a legitimate question, the same question as the

press asked — I phoned to Ottawa. The press were doing the same

thing, trying to find out whether the telegram had been

received and whether a reply had been sent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I just point out that I let the Hon.

Member explain — it's not being counted, I hope, in question

time — on a point of privilege that he has not been

counterproductive. He is entitled to answer that allegation.

That is what I've tried to do.

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to hear from the Attorney General, in

the light of the deadline tomorrow, to what extent has the

provincial government entered into preliminary negotiations or

agreements with Alberta should we need to import natural

gas?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps two answers at this

time and a fuller explanation tomorrow.

The Hon. Premier of British Columbia has been in close

touch, quite close touch, with the Hon. Peter Lougheed of the

Province of Alberta, because that might be instrumental in

taking advantage of what would be a very high-cost alternative

if we have to go that route. Secondly, our energy people have

made background feasibility studies of any possible other

inferior methods by which we might deal with this crisis and

they've exchanged that information with their federal

counterparts. But we don't want, in saying that, in any way to

diminish the position of this government which is that the

valves should be turned down — it is our gas.

B.C. FERRIES

[ Page 813 ]

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. Is the British Columbia government advertising

now for the position of general manager of the B.C.

Ferries?

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

Communications): Yes.

MR. MORRISON: Supplemental. Has the former general manager

then resigned, or has he been relieved of his duties?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Neither.

MR. MORRISON: Would the Minister then advise us what the

former general manager's position will be and what his duties

will be?

AN HON. MEMBER: Associate Deputy Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He has been told there will be a job for

him in some other capacity and, just to beat you to the draw,

that capacity has not yet been determined.

AN HON. MEMBER: A sideways shuffle.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean

then that this is the first step in the complete reorganization

of the ferry system? And will there be a study into the

management practices, or are you just doing this on your own

without any study?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is and will be a continuing

study.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the Hon. Member for North Okanagan wish to

ask a question?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I do, but it is not

relevant to this particular question.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I was hoping we'd get on to your question

next.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, there's a supplemental, would you like a

supplemental?

MR. SPEAKER: Well there's a certain limit to supplementals,

because it bars everyone else in the House from asking

questions. The Speaker has to determine the importance of the

particular topic and decide when it is pretty well covered. If

you've got a great question to ask, please ask it.

MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order. We have just asked him two questions

on this important subject. The Minister has admitted that he is completely reorganizing

the ferry system…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't.

MR. McCLELLAND: …and you have decided arbitrarily….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Correction. Point of order.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is a point of order. When

there is a point or order, please stop for the point of

order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I was on a point of order. How can he stand

up? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. When any Member is making a

statement on his feet any other Member can, on a point of

order, stop that Member if he feels that he's making an

incorrect statement.

MR. McCLELLAND: I was on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I point that out. That's right. Who wants the

point of order next?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My point of order was that the Member

said I had admitted that we were reorganizing the whole ferry

system. You asked if I was examining the organization of the

ferry system and I said yes. This doesn't mean we are involved

in a complete reorganization. They are two different

things.

MR. SPEAKER: Now do you have an important question bearing

on that that you wish to ask?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make the

point that when you remove the top level management of a system

as important as the ferry system in British Columbia and

replace him with another person…

MR. SPEAKER: What is the question?

[ Page 814 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: …that seems like a reorganization. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now the Hon. Member knows perfectly well by now

that you don't make speeches in question time. But you took

advantage of a point of order to make a speech.

AN HON. MEBER: Shame!

MR. PHILLIPS: This is to the Minister of Transport with

regard to the management of the ferry system. I want to ask the

Minister of Transport if this is the first move to bring

politics into the ferry system?

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would ask the Member to examine the

wording of the ad and to determine where that ad is being

placed. It's being placed in newspapers from one end of this

country to the other. I'm determined to find the man most

capable of doing this job. The ad is an open ad, there is no

one in mind, and it is in the hands of the Civil Service

Commission. They will determine who is best qualified for the

job.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I resent that implication, my friend. I

resent that implication. At no time have I made a single

appointment that was political.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the topic has been well

exhausted for today.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is there nobody in B.C. qualified to run the

ferry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the ad.

COMMUNITY BOARDS FOR

SOCIAL SERVICES

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Human Resources who once again has shocked this House by making

a major policy move outside the House. I would like to ask him,

in relation to this news announcement, does the Minister intend

to have municipal election law apply to the community boards to

be elected for the handling of social services in Vancouver, or

is he contemplating a form of neighbourhood town meetings to

elect these people? Or are you planning to use some machinery

under the Municipal Act…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You have asked two questions already and

you are only supposed to have one.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): First of all it

wasn't a major policy statement, it was the summation of a

series of public hearings that took place in Vancouver. For the

interest of the Member, I'll make available a copy of the

release that we did issue on Friday so that she might more

intelligently ask the question which she is trying to ask.

MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If we had

a more forthright Minister we might not….

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, it's too late.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No speeches.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PROVINCIAL HOME

ACQUISITION ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the

Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

Bill 83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TAXATION ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the

Taxation Act .

Bill 84 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

PACIFIC NORTH COAST

NATIVE CO-OPERATIVE LOAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutentant-G overnor: a bill intituled Pacific North Coast Native

Co-operative Loan Act.

Bill 87 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES ACT

[ Page 815 ]

Hon. Mr. Nimsick moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 77 intituled Geothermal Resources Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 77 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Motion approved.

MEDICAL CENTRE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medical Centre of British

Columbia Act .

Bill 81 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the day.

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

committee stage on bills.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 11.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

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

chair.

section 2.

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

Section 2 deals with the

rights of employees and employers and unfair labour practices.

It talks about the freedom of a member to belong to a trade

union. There was a very interesting note sent to me from a

gentleman in the gallery while the bill was being read in

second reading; it's unsigned addressed to the "Rt. Hon. J.

Chabot." I've been promoted, I see.

The question says, "When will an MLA talk about a non-union

worker's rights on a 30-day work permit and rejection of

membership? The rights of employees against employers are well

established re

section 2."

Certainly they're well established in this section, but the legislation makes

no provisions for the protection of those workers who do want to participate

in a union which in turn reflects itself in the workers being able to be gainfully

employed in the province. Unions are still free to refuse admittance to workmen,

journeymen in their particular trade union.

There are unions today that create artificial shortages — I

should say genuine shortages — to enhance their position at the

bargaining table. It's most regrettable, really, that an

individual who has a particular trade, in order to practise

that particular trade, must be a member of a union. When he's

unable to join that union he finds his ability to be gainfully

employed seriously restricted.

Also, the legislation fails to spell out sufficiently the

matter of freedom of choice. It talks about freedom. Certainly

there's freedom to join a union, but no freedom to join a union

of the individual's choice. This creates a tremendous

restriction. An individual who might be a journeyman or

craftsman employed in the construction industry, if he happens

to belong to a small or large Canadian union, I want to assure

you he will find it difficult indeed to be able to work on

construction sites. I think this particular

section should be

more clearly defined when one talks about the freedoms of the

individual, the individual's right to work.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Well, the question the

Member for Columbia River raises has received a fair deal of

attention in drafting this section. The old Act said that every

employee had the right to be a member; the new definition

reflects the fact that legislation does not force unions to

accept members. It is not a question of rights, but rather a

guarantee of basic freedoms. If you look at the federal code

you find that this definition is clearly made, as it is in the

Ontario Act.

I might just add that a good deal has been written on this

subject by some very eminent people; I could quote extensively

from that. Suffice it to say that in addition to the basic

concepts I have mentioned, we will have, under this code, an

ombudsman who will certainly be empowered to look at the kind

of situations where an individual union member feels he is

receiving less than justice.

I might point out further that the Act prohibits

discrimination and specifically requires that nothing in a

collective agreement or a trade-union constitution be in

conflict with the provisions of the provincial Human Rights

Act .

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I am concerned with

section 2.

While every employee may be free to be a member of a trade

union and participate in its lawful activities, difficulties

may arise if a person wishes to switch from one union to

another. We've seen in the Province of British Columbia a fair

amount of switching in recent months — in fact, the last few

years. I speak of the specific situation at Trail, for example.

Kitimat is another one.

I wonder why the Minister saw fit in this

section when it

was put in not to add the words "of his own

[ Page 816 ]

choice" after the word "trade-union" so that every employee

is free to be a member of the trade union of his own choice.

This is in the Ontario Act, I might add.

It would seem to me that this provision, which would make

crystal clear the ability of an employee and union member to

switch from one union to another, would be desirable. I wonder

if the Minister would have comments on that?

HON. MR. KING: I think the point the Member makes is a

provision that is applicable to certification moves of a trade

union rather than to the authority and the powers of

individuals. Certainly the individual member does not have the

authority, and could not under a democratic concept, to change

the union holding jurisdiction.

I think the member will find, Mr. Chairman, in a later

section dealing with certification applications, the kind of

language that ensures that members do have the right to

indicate their choice in free democratic votes for the union

they wish to have represent them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for

his remarks. We are actually on the

section dealing with rights

of employees and employers and it deals with a very important

fundamental freedom, as the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound (Mr. Williams) has pointed out. The fact is that

certification and other matters are somewhat separate; they're

not under this

section because they are not referring to the

rights of individual employees.

Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to this section, the

one standing in my name on the order paper: to add the words

"of his own choice". If any Hon. Member would like to subamend

that to "of his or her choice"….perhaps I'll do that

myself; adding "his or her choice" after the word

"trade-union".

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

would submit that there's nothing wrong with the words but

they're totally redundant and unnecessary. When you say

somebody is free to join a trade union, you don't need to say

"of their own choice". It's just poor draftsmanship, in my

opinion, to add those words, and quite unnecessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before we proceed, I would

appreciate it if the Hon. Members would wait until the

amendment has been delivered to our table and first declared in

order before I recognize the Member. The amendment is in

order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I repeat what I said. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: We just want to clear up our procedures.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney General said

that such words would be redundant, and yet they do occur in

other Acts and other jurisdictions. That doesn't necessarily

mean that they're not redundant there too.

However, the direct reading of this

section would be "every

employee is free to be a member of a trade-union"… Now, it

could be just a single trade union, and choice when you have no

choice is no choice at all. We would like to think that there

should be in there the question of more than one trade union

that might become of interest to an employee of any

organization; specifically to put in in the first item under

the rights of employees, that he has the opportunity of

changing unions. Later on, certification and other matters can

be dealt with then. But if we leave it the way it is, he may

only be entitled to be a member of a single trade union. That

type of ambiguity is avoided by the wording of the Ontario

Act.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I tried to indicate earlier to

the Second Member for Victoria that such an amendment as he is

proposing would infer and imply that the individual member of a

trade union has the right to an option in designating the

certified bargaining agent in a particular craft. That can only

be determined, obviously, by a majority indication of the

employees in such a unit.

To suggest that the Member have the arbitrary right to come

to a firm and if the existing certified union does not meet

with his choice, then to select one of his choice to represent

him, is just unrealistic.

I might read to the Member what Mr. Justice Carruthers has

had to say on this subject. His conclusion in considering this

type of suggestion was as follows: "It is therefore concluded

that the statutory right to union membership, although cast in

the language of legal claim, constitutes no more than a general

declaration of legislative policy. The repeal of the provisions

would not seem to alter the legal position of the individual

employee, the union or the employer."

So I think the Attorney General's point is very well made.

The amendment put forward by the Second Member for Victoria

would indeed be redundant and I oppose it, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 817 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has yet to

explain to me why, under rights of employees, we get into this

certification for bargaining. I can see certification for

bargaining in another

section of this Act. I can see it in

other areas. But under "rights of employees" I think that it

would be presumptuous to extend his argument as he has done to

say that simply by allowing a person the opportunity, indicated

here under his rights, to switch from one union to another if

he so desires would be somehow or another affecting the case of

certification for bargaining.

It would not be — and I think the Minister is aware of this — the situation that he envisaged, whereby an individual

employee in any company or shop could come up and say, "I want

such and such a union to represent me, of which I am the only

Member in this area." It wouldn't be that at all. But it would

make possible, or at least it would make much clearer, the

right of such an employee to gather together with his fellows

to change the union if they so wished, if they felt another

union would suit their purposes better.

For instance, we had a long discussion the other day about

the question of the dependent contractor. Say, for example, the

dependent contractor or the employees of dependent contractors,

because they were working for a forest company, found

themselves in the IWA through the operation of this Act. Later

on they might be hauling gravel for the roads department, for

our hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley); and I might think the Teamsters would be a more

appropriate union.

I think that by putting in under "rights of employees" these

words, you would in no way affect bargaining. I am disturbed at

the reference to the Hon. Justice Carruthers, that this was

simply just a general declaration. I understood that this

section actually granted rights to individuals. If it doesn't

why is it entitled "Rights of Employees"?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the matter the Member raises is

more properly dealt with in

section 39, which makes a specific

provision for union members, within the provisions of the Act,

to make representation to the Labour Relations Board to change

their bargaining unit and to designate the trade union of their

choice. That is a different right altogether than we are

dealing with in

section 2.

This is simply the right of employees to be included in a trade union without

sacrificing or jeopardizing any of their rights to employment, their right to

be free to take this action, without fear of coercion or intimidation from employers

and so on. What the Second Member for Victoria is advocating is something that

is indeed contained in this bill in a

section later on.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we're discussing

section 2, which

is the right of employees and employers. Looking at the right

of employees, the right to belong to a union of their choice

where they are recognized by the Labour Relations Board — where

they become certified — I think that it should be spelled out

that they should have the right to enjoy the freedom of their

work and enjoy their particular trade. However, there are

barricades in some instances. I'm wondering how we're going to

overcome these barricades. I'm thinking particularly of the

construction industry.

Are you suggesting that it would be possible for the

ombudsman to ensure that a union that is certified, regardless

of its particular background — be it American or be it Canadian — would be in a position to be able to get on a construction

site with, say, the Building Trades Council?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member is raising a

different question altogether than the….

MR. CHABOT: I'm talking about rights.

HON. MR. KING: The Labour Relations Board, at least under

this administration, pays no attention to whether a trade union

happens to have international or strictly national association.

The Labour Relations Board is an independent tribunal and under

this legislation it will become more obviously independent than

has been the case heretofore.

There are situations where rights to membership in a trade

union require a certain proficiency. In other words, it would

be ridiculous and disruptive to suggest that carpenters, who

have a particular qualification in their trade, must open up

their membership to people who are not qualified in that

particular craft. This is recognized not only in terms of

jurisdiction, but it's recognized in the collective agreements

that exist, particularly in the construction trades. I'm sure

that the Member for Columbia River would not suggest that we

get into that kind of problem without some pretty

well-thought-out alternative to offer.

Amendment negatived.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in

section 3 we have unfair

labour practices, and essentially the

section talks about

interfering with organization of a

[ Page 818 ]

union. But in the interests of making this a more

even-handed bill, I believe we should have words in there which

would permit an employer, without using undue influence or

without using any threats, promise or intimidation, to be able

to discuss with his employees the question of union

organization or formation. He should indeed have the right, we

feel, to express his own views.

Restriction on a person's right to express his own views is

a pretty serious one. In our view,

section 3(

l) goes too far.

We should add after the word "it" in line 3 the words, "but

nothing in this

section shall be deemed to deprive an employer

of his freedom to express his views so long as he does not use

coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence."

Then you would make consequential changes in the remaining half

of that

section 3(l), Mr. Speaker.

The purpose is simply to make this a more even-handed Act

and, in addition, as I said, to preserve the very, very

important principle of a man's right to express his opinion,

whether or not he happens to be an employer, employee or member

of the general public. I have the amendment here.

HON. MR. KING: I would suggest to the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria that an employer's interest in determining the wishes

of his employees to determine their own preferences is very,

very slim indeed. It is the group of employees who are seeking

to be represented by a trade union. They have that right; this

right is implicit in the legislation.

To suggest that an employer should have an equal right to

voice his opinion and to advocate perhaps to his employees is a

bit unrealistic, in my view. Any public utterance by an

employer would certainly be suspect by his employees and could

easily be construed as opposing the will of the employees and,

perhaps, surreptitiously jeopardizing their relationship with

that employer if they went against the will of the boss.

I would reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that the employer interest

is a very slim one here. I think that the Labour Relations

Board, in entertaining applications for certification, has

historically weighed and would continue to weigh any legitimate

employer interests associated with an application for

certification. But to suggest that an employer's absolute

rights should become implicit in the legislation would, in my

view, be a very dangerous principle, foreign to most

certification procedures and I would oppose the amendment on

that basis.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has completely misunderstood

the purpose of my amendment and I apologize for having gone rather quickly over

it. We are not, as I mentioned in discussion of

section 2, dealing with certification

and dealing with the board. We are not doing that. The question of what the

board's views are on the question of certification are not relevant at this

point of the bill; we're talking about rights. The heading is: "Part 1 Rights

of Employees and Employers and Unfair Labour Practices."

The Minister, in his argument, on the one hand said that he

thought the right was there implicitly. In the other half of

his argument he said it shouldn't be there at all even if it

were. The fact is we want it explicitly spelled out here so that

an employer can legitimately express his views without finding

himself somehow in contravention of this

section 3(l). The fact

is that he may be asked his views by employees and, without

wishing to do anything more than give his personal view, he

might be found breaking the law unless we put such an amendment

in.

Let's face it, we tend to look upon labour negotiations when

we're discussing a bill such as this in terms of warfare and

opposed sides, but there's a tremendous amount of goodwill in

British Columbia between most of the employers and the bulk of

the employees. They do discuss many questions.

I think that giving an employer the right such as this

would not in any way damage or destroy the protection of the

employee. It would, on the other hand, make it clear that it is

possible for a person to express his views openly, as we

believe citizens of this province and this country should be

able to do on every subject with a maximum amount of freedom

under all circumstances. We find it questionable to abridge in

any way the right of free speech. It has to be properly

explained, which has not been done by the Minister to date.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Second Member for Victoria

misquoted me. I did not suggest that it was implicit in this

Act that the employer's views be considered. What I did say was

that it is historic that…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He used the word "implicit".

HON. MR. KING: …the Labour Relations Board would weigh

any employer interest in a particular case.

The wording of this

section is designed to prevent

management exercising a role in the administration of a trade

union. I'm sure the Second Member for Victoria would not

advocate the support of

[ Page 819 ]

company-dominated unions. That is something that we do

encounter occasionally and it's something that is recognized as

being alien to the best interest of workers.

I have indicated that in certification proceedings, where

many, many unfair labour-practice charges arise, the board has

the authority and the expertise to weigh any management

interest.

In terms of developing the kind of liaison and discussion

that the Hon. Liberal leader suggests, that is something that

must come with the goodwill of the parties involved. Certainly

there is nothing contained in the language of this

section to

forbid or impede the development of such a relationship.

The Member raises essentially the same argument and, Mr.

Chairman, I do not expect to continue to respond to the same

argument.

Amendment negatived.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, a very small point

perhaps, but it's our

interpretation in

section 3(2)(

f) that

this is not a clear expression of intent and that actually this

could prevent an employer stating his opposition to an

application for certification. It states: "interfere with

lawful concerted action by employees for the purpose of

obtaining collective representation, ". We feel that

intent is well covered in

section 5 but, as written here in

subsection (2)(f), it could well be interpreted as interfering

with the employer's ability and freedom to contest an

application for certification to the Labour Relations

Board.

I would like to amend subsection (2) of

section 3 by

deleting clause (f). Speaking to the amendment, it seems to us

that the intent of clause (

f) is well covered in

section 5,

whereas subsection (2)(

f) could be interpreted in the light

I've suggested and could interfere with an employer's rightful

opportunity to contest an application for certification before

the board. On that basis, we suggest that the bill would be

clarified and enhanced by deleting (f).

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is

essentially the same type of legislation requirement that has

been in existence for some time in terms of the Labour

Relations Board dealing with certification applications.

Again, as we go further on, I think the Member for Oak Bay will see that the

employer interest is protected in terms of making any representation to the

board on applications for certification. While restraints are placed on the

employer, similar restraints are placed on the trade union and the individuals

involved which prohibits the exercise of coercion or intimidation for them to

attain their ends in the matter of representation. This simply sets out the

ground rules for the protection of the valid interests of both the employer

and the employee.

The board is authorized and has the legislative authority to

conduct investigations and to hold a hearing on any given

situation where either party feels their interests are being

violated or that undue coercion is being exercised on employees

by either party. I think the board has the necessary latitude

and authority to consider those questions, and I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, the amendment would do nothing to strengthen that

provision.

Amendment negatived.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, before we leave

section 3, I'd like to ask the Minister for a little

clarification. I find subsection (1) a little vague where it

says that an employer shall "permit an employee or

representative…." I'd like to know if he also has the right

to refuse to permit an employee to do it on working hours. Line

4, in subsection (1).

HON. MR. KING: Yes, the employer does have the right, and

that's provided in

section 4, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have an amendment here dealing with

subsection 2(

e) which deals with the "professional strike

breaker or an organization of professional strike breakers;".

My amendment is on the order paper in my name, and my amendment

would be an attempt to make it more even-handed. If we're going

to wipe out professional strike breakers, let's similarly wipe

out professional picketers.

I have concluded, on the advice of the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), that it might be better to

put this amendment in at the end of

section 4, so with your

permission I'll withdraw that amendment and put it in at the

end of

section 4.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I've again read

section 4 and

I'm afraid I don't find in

section 4 the Minister's answer that

the employer does have the right to refuse to allow the

employee to work on union business during business hours. I'd

like him to explain that before we leave this section. I think

it's giving him a right, but he doesn't have the right to

refuse to allow him to do so. I don't find that in

section 4.

If he does, maybe he can explain it.

HON. MR. KING: Well, perhaps he's not reading

section 4 as I

do. It starts out with: "Except with the

[ Page 820 ]

consent of the employer, no trade union and no person acting

on behalf of a trade union shall attempt, at the employer's

place of employment during working-hours, to persuade an

employee of the employer to join, or not to join, a trade

union." No person except with the consent of the employer. That

seems clear enough to me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MORRISON: I'm sorry, I'm a little thick in the head, Mr.

Chairman, but I still see that

section 3 allows an employee the

right to be paid for working on union business. It doesn't say

anything about persuading other employees to join; it says that

he has the right to not have his time deducted for doing any

union business. It says that he will have that right.

I want to know if the employer has the right to say, "No,

you cannot do it during working hours." I don't find that in 4

but I certainly find it in 3. I'm sorry I'm being a little

niggly on this point but….

HON. MR. KING: That refers, Mr. Chairman, to matters under

the collective agreement where safety committees and grievance

local shop stewards and so on are empowered to take up matters

during the course of the shift. I would suggest that's

imperative in view of the need to deal expeditiously with

possible health and safety hazards which could exist on the

job.

MR. MORRISON: Again, I don't find that either. Really what

I'm driving at is that it's fairly obvious in item 3 that an

employee will have the right to decide arbitrarily what is

union business and to say that he is therefore conducting union

business.

I don't see that it concerns safety or other items. It's a

very broad clause. I think that the employer should have the

right to have some say as to whether he does or does not

conduct that kind of business during working hours for which he

will be paid, rather than doing the job for which he is

employed.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, this is

customarily a matter which is covered by collective bargaining.

I have outlined the issues which are usually involved in the

kind of business that union representatives are customarily

allowed to do on the job, and they involve safety and health

measures. They are usually matters of joint negotiation between

the employer and the employee. This legislation simply

acknowledges an existing practice and allows that to continue.

There is no increase in rights in this legislation as far as

I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MORRISON: My understanding is that an employee would be able to

decide arbitrarily that he is doing union business and therefore not be at his

bench, or whatever his particular job happens to be, and the employer doesn't

have the right to say, "I'm sorry, that doesn't fall under these categories."

This is a very broad phrase.

The way it was explained to me by a union man was that he

would have the right to say, "I'm doing union business and

that's it, period." And the employer had no right to say, "You

are not. You should get back."

I realize that if it's for safety or health items, that is

under the bargaining agreement; but this is much broader than

that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the wording of the

section

indicated that "an employer may, notwithstanding anything

contained in this section, permit an employee…." Now if you're

suggesting that infers an arbitrary right I would simply disagree, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. MORRISON: I'm glad to hear you say so.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to 4(4)

line 8 where you have" …provide him with food and

lodging at the current price…." As in most logging camps and in many

other company cafeterias where the food is perhaps subsidized, we would

be put in the position, by passing this section, whereby the employer

would be subsidizing, perhaps to a degree at least, a union organizer.

This would, I think, create the type of potential influence which

should not exist. The employer should be totally at arms' length from

any union organizer and he should not be put in the position of

subsidizing him one way or another — or indeed of overcharging him.

I would suggest deleting the words "at the current price"

and substituting the words "at cost," just to preserve

the principle, Mr. Chairman, that employers should not have any

financial relationship, favouritism or otherwise, with a union

organizer.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the

section requires that no

employer shall deny access to a trade union representative and

further, upon a direction of the Labour Relations Board and

upon request by the representative, "the employer shall provide

him with food and lodging at the current price, and of a

similar kind and quality as is provided for the employees."

Now that's quite clear. "Current price" indicates the

customary price that the employer is charging for his

employees. This is to prevent any differentiation or any

discriminatory prices against the legitimate

[ Page 821 ]

representative of a trade union. To seize on that as a valid

matter for amendment is rather picayune in my view. I certainly

oppose that amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As mentioned earlier, I'd like to add in

section 4 something which would be parallel to

section 3(2)(e).

If we are to bar the use of professional strike-breakers, it

would seem at least of equal importance perhaps to bar the use

of professional picketers. The principle would be the same in

either case.

I would have that

section 4 amended by adding subclause (5):

"No employee or union or persons acting for an employee or

union shall use or authorize or permit the use of any

professional picketer or organization of professional

picketers."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the whole intent of this Act

hinges largely upon the jurisdiction and the authority of the

Labour Relations Board to deal with the whole matter of

industrial relations, right from the point of certifications

through the collective bargaining process, the law of strikes

and picketing. To suggest now that we are going to attempt to

deal in this

section with the board's authority to regulate the

law of strikes and picketing would be to completely change the

whole thrust and the whole basis of this legislation.

I am quite confident, Mr. Chairman, that there are adequate

provisions in future sections later on in the legislation which

give the Labour Relations Board full authority to govern and

regulate legal, valid picketing rights of trade unions. The

section that the Member suggests here, the added

section in the

amendment, would be completely redundant to provisions that are

contained in future clauses of the legislation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I appreciate

what the Minister has said about the thrust of this

legislation. We went through that at some length during the

second reading debate.

I thought there was unanimity on all sides of the House that

we were adopting this new approach to labour-management

problems based upon the equality between employers and

employees and that the board was being clothed with powers and

responsibilities which would ensure that that equality would in

fact be recognized and realized.

But Mr. Chairman, I am regretfully drawn to the conclusion, based upon the

Minister's consistent refusal of amendments in this House, that he is trying

everything he possibly can to destroy that equality by placing onuses upon employers

and by refusing to accept a similar onus for the employee and the trade union.

If this is in any way to indicate the kind of decision that we're to have from

the Minister and from his appointed Labour Relations Board then I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that this legislation which we all greeted with so much anticipation

is going to fail.

The Minister talks about the powers of the board and we

aren't even discussing those in the section. We're talking

about certain limitations on the activities of trade

unions.

section 3, under unfair labour practices which place

limitations on the activities of employers, the Minister had no

hesitation in putting a limitation, saying: "You employers

can't use professional strike-breakers." Why does he resist an

amendment which would say to the trade union: "And you trade

unions shall not use professional paid picketers either"? Is he

suggesting that the employers in this province have

consistently engaged in professional strike-breaking activities

but that unions have never used paid organized picketers? I'm

sure the Minister is not making that suggestion to this

committee.

If we're to have equity be the guiding light in this

legislation and for this board, then I think the Minister had

better give some serious consideration to the offhand way in

which he refuses amendments which are designed only to give

equality.

We're not asking anything for the employer that we're not

asking for the employee in this particular amendment. All we're

saying is that if you're going to have activities of this kind,

then let them be carried on by members of the union who happen

to be involved in activities entitling the men to picket. Let's

not allow union members to go on strike, accept employment in

other industries and then hire some professional picketer to go

and carry the signs up and down. This has been one of the

problems, Mr. Chairman, which has affected the conclusion of

strikes and lockouts in this province.

It seems to me that at this particular time, when we're

giving this new opportunity, we should be a little more

flexible in the way in which the Minister is receiving

amendments. It's not that these amendments haven't been on the

orders long enough for the Minister and for his staff to have

given them careful consideration. I must say that the response

the Minister is giving in turning them down indicates that he

hasn't taken the trouble to look at them.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I think

that in all probability the Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound (Mr. Williams) didn't take too much time to think out the

amendments which he drafted. I would further point out that

when the House gave unanimous consent to the bill on second

reading, that was your prerogative; that was your option. You

passed the bill with approval in principle, without commitment

and without any assurance from me that I would grant

[ Page 822 ]

amendments that the Liberal Party happened to put

forward.

I wonder, by the speech the Victoria Member gave, whether

he's more concerned with equity for the parties or equity for

the Liberal Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

HON. MR. KING: I'm interested in legislation which is

workable and practical.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be chippy.

HON. MR. KING: The suggestion that you can draw a fair

analogy between a striker's rights to obtain other employment

and a management group's right to hire professional

strike-breakers is just absolutely shocking, and reveals to me

a complete bias against the working people of this province by

the Liberal Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

HON. MR. KING: Certainly there is equity and there is

equality for the employer to hire individuals off the street

and continue to operate if he can.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Act specifically prohibits it.

HON. MR. KING: It certainly does not.

MR. WILLIAMS: It certainly does so. I put in "hiring" on the

order paper and you wouldn't accept it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: The Member is quite wrong as usual. He is

displaying his ignorance of labour legislation, I suppose,

because I have the best legal advice on the

interpretation of

professional strike-breakers. It in no way impedes an

employer's right to continue to operate his business, if a

strike is called against him, by the use of his existing

employees if they choose to cross the picket line or, indeed,

by hiring individuals off the street.

Professional strike-breakers are clearly defined. If I can't

get that through the Hon. Member's head it's not surprising,

because we don't have too much industry in the industrial area

of West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well, at least we have a feeling for working people in

the City of Revelstoke, and perhaps that's why we're here and you're over there

with that pathetic little group of yours.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to have this debate

because once again it reveals the philosophical difference

between us and the Liberal Party. The equity that they are

suggesting for employers and workers in this province is

weighted heavily, as is traditional for the Liberal Party, in

favour of the employer.

Certainly we are interested in equity, and most of the House — indeed all of the House — voted support in principle on this

bill. I'm not going to have the workers' rights eroded by petty

amendments from the Liberal Party.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would request that all Members please keep

their comments strictly relevant to the amendment we are

considering.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I speak to both sides of the House, in

charity.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You might have made those comments, Mr.

Chairman, a little earlier.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment put forward is put forward, we

think, to create the even-handedness which the Minister and

other Members of the government talked about. Now if every time

we put forward amendments we're going to be treated in this way — and the attack made on our motive which some other Chairman

might see fit to comment upon and stop a Minister from doing

that — there's going to be no way we're going to get through on

anything approaching a reasonable time, or with reasonably

sincere and searching discussion, all 47 pages of this bill.

We're on page 5. We haven't gone very far.

If the Minister really would like to have us listen closely

to his arguments — and I trust that he would listen closely to

ours — we could then vote as we see fit, depending on our

views, on the merits or otherwise of the amendments, and that

would be the right way of handling this bill in committee. But

if every time we are to have these chippy, foolish attacks upon

individuals in this House, we're not going to get very far very

fast.

The amendment in question is, we think, an amendment which

would create a little more even-handedness in this section,

section 4, as compared to

section 3. We know full well, as the

Minister has pointed out, that the board is going to

[ Page 823 ]

have an important role. But time after time in these

amendments that I have brought forward this afternoon, he has

referred to the board in collective bargaining. I would simply

repeat that we're discussing rights of employees and employers

and unfair labour practices.

Now for better certainty they're put in this

section so as

the board can be guided as to what our intentions are. We think

that an amendment of this nature, which would wipe out

professional picketing, is appropriate in the light of the

section 3(2)(

e) referring to professional

strike-breakers.

Now the Minister doesn't know why he doesn't like it. If

he's going to have to consult with those brilliant legal people

that he has, we can wait. We can adjourn this committee and he

can go and discuss it with them and come back when he's got

some answer — which we could then discuss. But to suggest that

these are not put forward in good faith, as a result of

considerable examination of this and other bits of labour

legislation, is trivial.

Mr. Chairman, I refer you to the professional strike-breaker

definition — "A person who is not a party involved in a

dispute…."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's perfectly relevant to this debate.

We are discussing the even-handedness of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you give the Hon. Member a chance to show

that they're relevant to the section?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. Now we have there a dispute with

the primary object, in the opinion of the board, to prevent,

interfere with or break up a lawful strike. That's precisely

the type of definition which prevents, in this bill, the hiring

by an employer of employees off the street, which he indicated

an employer was free to do. If, under this legislation, an

employer is free to go out and hire anybody off the street to

break a strike, as the Minister has just indicated to us that

he is, well, obviously this bill shouldn't proceed any further.

It is so obviously full of flaws that we would have to vote it

down right now. I trust the Minister will clear up this

misapprehension of his and indicate to the House that it is not

possible to do that, because by so doing, of course, you'll

have nothing but further labour disputes in the Province of

British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is put forward to make

section 4 equivalent and

similar to

section 3, at least in this respect. For this reason we think it's

perfectly in order; we think it will add to the even-handedness of the bill.

It will add to its acceptability with both sides in labour disputes in British

Columbia. We think that for these reasons it is a worthwhile and genuine amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister seems to be contradicting himself

from one day to the next. When we dealt with

section 1, I moved

an amendment to the definition of "professional strike-breaker," which would specifically exclude a bona fide employee

of an employer. The Minister refused that amendment, saying "Oh

no, that would give the employer the right to go out in the

street and hire people to keep his plant working during the

course of a strike."

Today when we try to put this amendment in to prevent the

use of professional picketers, and I raise the same matter, he

says, "Oh no, an employer can go out on the street and hire

people to keep his plant going during the course of the

strike." Now the Minister can't have it both ways.

HON. MR. KING: Sure he can.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, the Minister can have it both ways?

(Laughter.) So this is what equity means to the Minister. He

can have it both ways….

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't even got it one way.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I've got it quite clear, Mr. Minister,

exactly the way you're going to run this legislation; and if

the board takes direction from you, the whole Act will

fail.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of

giving the board direction. That's the difference between the

NDP and the Liberal Party. We believe in independence of

quasi-judicial agencies. The Members just reveal a complete

lack of understanding of industrial relations.

MR. WILLIAMS: We understand you; that's the problem.

HON. MR. KING: In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, the Member

quoted me as saying that an employer should not have the right

to go out on the street and solicit workers if he is struck.

Now, I never made any such statement. An employer does have

that right. You are confusing the

interpretation of

professional strike-breakers, despite the fact that we haven't

arrived at that particular

section of the legislation yet and

are supposed to be debating

section 4. So perhaps if you'd be

patient you would see that the dire consequences you are

predicting are completely without foundation.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 824 ]

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise on

section 5. In

section 5, where you have coercion and intimidation, you deal

entirely with intimidation "that could reasonably have the

effect of compelling or inducing any person to become or

refrain from becoming, or to continue or to cease to be, a

member of a trade union." Now, that's fine. I know that

even-handedness is a desirable objective and I would like to

point out that there are cases in this province — and I'm

thinking specifically of an individual union, the IWA, and

specifically of the case of truck loggers — where efforts have

been made to prevent truck loggers, self-employed people, from

organizing themselves in their own groups.

I fear that if this amendment passes without some sort of

even-handedness we are going to find that while it is

impossible, and rightly, for someone to carry on acts that

could compel or induce a person to cease to be a member of a

trade union, we have no such prohibition against people being

intimidated in their interests or in their desires to get an

association of independent contractors or even employers

organized.

So I would suggest that what we need here is an amendment by

inserting the following: "No trade union and no person acting

on behalf of a trade union shall participate in or interfere

with the formation or administration of an employers'

organization or contribute financial or other support to an

employers' organization" This specifically refers to the case

of the independent contractors and their associations, which as

we know have played a certain role in the economic life of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the definition of

"person" includes "a corporation, an employer, an employers'

organization, a trade union, and council of trade unions." So

the wording contained in

section 5 prohibits coercion by any of

those parties involved in industrial relations.

If the Member is suggesting that employers' activities in

terms of joining accredited associations might be subject to

coercion, I would suggest that I believe it is

section 7 that

covers that. The duty of fair representation is contained in

section 7, which guarantees the rights of employers'

organizations.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has made a

mistake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would direct the Hon. Minister to the

amendment contained on the order paper. I believe he has misunderstood the amendment as to which one

it is that we are talking about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're discussing an amendment to

section

5 to make this even-handed so that just as no person shall use

coercion, et cetera, to force anyone to refrain from becoming

or continue or cease to be a member of a trade union, we are

doing the same thing on the other hand. We are making sure that

no trade union, or no person is going to act in a way which

will interfere with the formation of employers' associations.

It would seem a necessary amendment or at least an obvious

omission to this Act that they don't have that here. It could

be done, Mr. Minister, no doubt by rewording

section 5, but I

am suggesting it be done with a separate subsection of 5.

With reference to the Minister's remarks about

section 7(l),

7(

l) talks about "bad faith in the representation of any of the

employees." It doesn't talk about at all….

AN HON. MEMBER:

Section 7(2).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You've got it back to front again.

Section 7(2) talks about an employers' organization.

Section

7(

l) talks about the trade union acting in bad faith, or

what-have-you, and it only talks in terms of "representation of

any of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit." It

does not deal with those same people interfering with the

establishment, organization or administration of an employers'

group, and that's why I think the amendment should come in

section 5.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the parallels

which the Member draws are not really synonymous. An employers'

group is not subject to the same kinds of fear of intimidation

and coercion that individuals are in the exercise of their

rights to join a trade union. Certainly it is inconceivable to

me that a union is able to significantly affect the desire of

companies involved in the forest industry or the construction

industry to form accredited associations to represent that

group at the bargaining table. It is rather inconceivable to

equate that with the threats to individuals that we are trying

to provide for and protect in the reference to trade-union

rights.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we have had already in the

province a fair amount of trouble on this very point and again

I refer specifically to the individual truck logger, the

individual owner-operator, and the IWA. Now, I'm not against

the IWA for trying to increase their influence and power in the

Province of British Columbia, but nor, on the other hand,

should I encourage them to do so at the expense of the

individual operator.

The situation can easily arise, Mr. Minister, where you have

individuals who have their entire capital and lengthy mortgages

sometimes — big mortgages and

[ Page 825 ]

bank loans — tied up in their equipment being hassled by a

union which wishes to have those people not join with other

self-employed contractors. Under those circumstances it is a

very real fear indeed; it could very easily lead to fear,

intimidation and coercion and has done so in at least one

section of this island with which I am familiar.

Perhaps the Minister cannot visualize it, as he indicated to

the House, but I trust that this example has indicated to him

that a little imagination, and perhaps experience in an area

other than his own, would indicate that there is a problem,

that there is a need for even-handedness, and that there should

be such an amendment accepted by this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to

section 5 pass?

Amendment negatived.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in

my name on

section 6. It is a very simple amendment. It only

changes one word from "one" to "each" and also reflects that

each party accepts the collective agreement which they signed

probably in another province or another country.

I think that it's important that this be changed from " one"

to "each" to simplify the decision-making on the part of the

board. I think you are putting an onerous decision on the part

of the board because of certain situations that might develop.

There might be an anxiety on one or the other party to have the

collective agreement sent to the board for a decision and for

its endorsation as a valid collective agreement in the

province, and I think that if it was put upon both parties to

submit the collective agreement and say that they do accept the

collective agreement there would be a lot less difficult and

less troublesome decisions to be made by the board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed with the proposed

amendment, I would ask the Hon. Member to hand it in in writing

to the Chair.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to speak in favour of the

amendment. I have an amendment on the order paper which carries

the same meaning; only the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) did it much more neatly than I did. Never use two words

where one will do, Jim.

But it does seem, in the interest of complete understanding, that if some agreement

is reached outside of the province perhaps both parties should state in writing

to the board that they are in agreement with the arrangement which has been

decided outside the province. It just seems in the interests of proper understanding

that each of the parties notifies the board that they accept that agreement.

Surely this would make life much simpler for the board. On the other hand, if

one party only notifies the board I don't know on what basis the board would

otherwise know whether it is acceptable to the second party. So it just seems

like one of these simple amendments that should make it very clear that the

board would be in a better position to decide if it had written notification

from each of the parties.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if a collective agreement is

signed outside the province, it's quite possible for one of the

parties to sign the agreement yet fail to ratify it; so in

effect they enjoy the best of both worlds. They can have the

benefit of the national agreement without a bona fide

collective agreement within the province in terms of our

provincial statutes. This is the kind of situation we want to

prevent where one or another of the parties attempts to have

the best of both worlds.

If we required both parties to file, we would not catch the

trade union who had signed the agreement but was refusing to

ratify it provincially. It is only by allowing the provision

for either of the parties to notify the board that an agreement

has been signed that we can be assured that the board is

apprised of the settlement and can take the necessary action to

investigate and determine whether the collective agreement must

be executed in the province. That is the reason why one party

is required to give notice.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. This is just an amendment which

clarifies the language contained in

section 8. It's a

housekeeping amendment which does not require additional

comment.

Amendment approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right at the very end of that section,

8(7): "On an inquiry by the board into a complaint under clause

(

d) of subsection (2) of

section 3, the burden of proof that he

did not contravene clause (

d) lies upon the employer." Now

clause (

d) if we refer back, talks about "discharge,

[ Page 826 ]

suspend, transfer, lay off, or otherwise discipline an

employee for the reason that the employee is, or proposes to

become, or seeks to induce any other person to become, a member

or officer of a trade union; or participates in the promotion,

formation, or administration of a trade union."

The problem as I see it is that what we are doing here is

putting the entire burden of proof upon the employer, and it's

virtually an impossible burden of proof to discharge. In other

words, if there is an employee who is inefficient and

incompetent, or untrustworthy, lazy — whatever genuine reasons

an employer may have for his firing — all the chap has to do is

to attempt to induce a number of friends of his to join the

union, or he can talk up union affairs with them.

Then when the disciplinary action is taken, the employee

will be in a position of saying, "Aha, it was done because of

my union activities," and the employer must prove

otherwise; and how can you prove otherwise? It's a burden of

proof which is extraordinarily difficult because undoubtedly

there will be plenty of evidence, if the employee has any

brains at all, of union activity by him.

Now I would think that a better way of dealing with this

would be to alter it so that the burden of the proof should be

on the complainant.

The other point, or I guess it is a supporting point, which

is very closely allied to it, is that under normal

circumstances a man is innocent until proven guilty. In this

situation we are reversing the situation and we are creating an

onus of proof of guilt on the employer, which would strike me

as being very unusual and quite contrary to the general

principles of our law.

I realize full well that in certain circumstances, and

particularly in automobile cases, there has to be a burden of

proof — where the burden of proof might be shifted to the man

who has committed an offence and who has to prove his

innocence. That is something which has crept in, particularly

in automobile accident cases, which have to be very rigorously

examined by any judge or person or Legislature. We don't want

to extend that principle unnecessarily. I wonder whether the

Minister would comment upon this necessity of putting the

burden of proof upon the employer.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this

section places the burden of proof upon the employer for

alleged breaches of the unfair labour practices sections

concerning any form of discipline for union activities. I

suggest that the issue in such cases is the intent of the

employer: what was the employer's intent in assessing

discipline? He alone has the evidence of such intent and it

would seem to me, under these circumstances, that he alone can

best offer evidence on what his motivation was.

I point out also that an offence under this

section is not a

criminal offence, so the consequences are not particularly

formidable in law. The Woods task force concluded in its report

on this matter that the onus of proof is on management because

of the principle that a person who is best apprised of the

facts should carry out the burden of proving what they are.

I think it is quite evident that the employer must first of

all have taken disciplinary action against an employee during

the course of a certification move. There are reasonable

grounds under those circumstances to suspect that he may well

have been trying to circumvent the legitimate activities of a

trade union.

If such a charge is made, which is not, I repeat, a criminal

charge, then he seems to be the person in the best position to

reveal to the Labour Relations Board, who would be

investigating, what his true intentions were.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, I'd like to

ask the Minister of Labour whether he considers this a fair and

equitable way of dealing with labour and management. In other

words, in a dispute of this kind, it seems to me extremely

important that the law itself be scrupulously impartial without

presuming wrongdoing on the part of management or wrongdoing on

the part of labour.

I would just like to ask the Minister, if he considers the

way this particular

section is worded, does it adhere to that

rule of scrupulous impartiality on the part of the

section

itself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, as we were not getting a comment on

that, I wonder whether the Minister would accept an amendment

which would deal with the question of putting the burden of

proof on the complainant so that the person complaining of it

… which is the standard procedure….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, under this legislation we are getting

some very curious things indeed, Mr. Attorney General.

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

address the Chair?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that

adding on the third line the following: "On an inquiry under

this section…the burden of proof should be on the

complainant…."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the amendment would really

be taking the labour rights of the employees back to the dark

ages because when

[ Page

827 ]

an employee is, let's say, fired, the employer knows the

reasons. In the case of intimidation for trade union activity

or because he has been sticking up for his rights in some

respect, the employer not only knows the real reason but he

can produce five other reasons to send that employee down the

road. How does the employee go about protecting himself? All of

the facts and information are in the hands of the employer.

So when there is that kind of a complaint — "I've been

discriminated against because I'm trying to defend my rights as

an employee. I am trying to defend the right of people to

belong to a trade union." With all the facts of the thing in

the employer's hand we've got to make it that the employer has

to come forward and justify the act he has committed against

the employee.

Time after time in this province employees have been

discriminated against for trade union activities and they've

had to go before the Labour Relations Board to try to prove a

negative. They've got to make out the case that what the

employer did to them was unjust, but they haven't got the facts

and the employer doesn't have to give an explanation.

Now we say if there's a case where the board should hear of

discrimination, that employer should come in and justify his

act. It's as simple as that.

You say that the employee is the plaintiff; but I say that

he's a plaintiff who can't possibly prove a case in so many

instances. It's up to that employer to justify the act that

he's taken and, if he doesn't justify it, let the board order

reinstatement, back pay, whatever.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I kind of wonder if the Attorney General

is aware of the fact that we're going to have a board under

this Act whose job it will be to determine questions where

there is difficulty. Certainly in a normal court situation it

might be extremely difficult for an employee to prove, as the

Attorney General has pointed out, that he was fired for union

activity. But the whole purpose of having a board — and by

golly, we've heard enough from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King) about this great board and how it's going to take care of

these anomalies — is to sort out the truth or otherwise. When

it comes to burden of proof, I think that the person

complaining must at least be the person who should come up to

the board and say, "I have been fired, laid off or whatever

because of union activity. Here is what I've done." Now instead

of that, it's going to be the other way around.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's thrown out. The employer doesn't

have to say a word.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Attorney General, if you would

later on like to address the Chair in the regular manner, we'd be delighted to hear your

views.

The fact of the matter is that the board itself is going to

have enormous discretion. If they are convinced, or if they

have a strong suspicion that a person has been treated in this

way, they'll be quite happy to accept the employee's view, I'm

sure of it. That's the whole purpose of having a board which

isn't bound by the legal precedents which the Attorney

General's head is so full of.

The whole purpose of having this very flexible board — the

opportunity of having a panel and officers appointed so quickly

and set up so well — is to get around the type of fusty legal

thinking which the Attorney General puts forward today.

All we're suggesting is that if a person is complaining

about being laid off, he should at least indicate that he is

the guy bringing the complaint forward; it should not be

reversed and put upon the employer. The standard procedure

which we feel would be much more acceptable, assuming of course

you choose a good board — that's always an assumption that we

have to make when we're dealing with sections such as this — is

that he'll get a fair shake and a decent hearing from the

Labour Relations Board as properly constituted and that he will

not have difficulty in proving a case — if he has a case. But

to shift the onus of proof the other way, we feel, is going too

far.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member didn't seem to quite

understand the Attorney General. There's no indication that the

board is going to start processing an action against an

employer unless indeed a complaint is received from some

employee who feels he may well have been discriminated

against.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Read the first line of subsection

(7)….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Into a complaint….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

HON. MR. KING: Into a complaint that has been received.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

HON. MR. KING: Obviously there's not going to be an inquiry

without a complaint.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Precisely.

HON. MR. KING: And in the meantime, if an

[ Page 828 ]

employee has been disciplined, dismissed, he is suffering in

a way that may well be irreparable.

I would suggest further that the Member's concern for the

interests of the employer is quite amazing because this only

applies to a pretty narrow period in time, that period in time

in which the trade union is engaged in organizing activities.

It seems somewhat significant to me that the Second Member, the

Liberal Leader, would defend the rights of management to

discipline and fire during that narrow period of time when the

union just happens to be exercising an organizing drive, an

organizing campaign. Surely, if there's a valid case for

dismissal and discipline, it doesn't have to be coincidental

with that narrow period in time when the trade union is

attempting an organizational drive.

The rights of management to discipline and fire are fully

protected in this legislation. But in that one narrow period — and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is room for grave doubts

about the basis and the motivation of discipline — I think it's

incumbent upon this House to ensure that those people who are

taking the precipitous action should be held to account and be

obliged to reveal their true reasons for the action to the

Labour Relations Board.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Amendment negatived.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm sure I never heard a single "No."

AN HON. MEMBER: I heard some "No"s.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay. Are you on

section 8?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well which amendment are you voting on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We were dealing with the amendment proposed by

the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to

section

MR. WALLACE: Yes, on that point, Mr. Chairman, could I have

clarification? The Minister introduced an amendment to

section

8 in three parts and we had one vote. I presume that we amended

three different parts in one vote.

Can I then just ask for clarification from the Minister that

the elimination of the 14-day waiting period is the essential

content of the third part of his amendment and that action can

be taken immediately after the date for compliance of the

order?

HON. MR. KING: Yes. It was felt, Mr. Chairman, that more force and impact

would be given to the findings and decisions and orders of the board if the

board is free on their own discretion to enforce them when they think appropriate,

rather than being precluded from doing so for the period of 14 days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 8 as amended pass?

Section 8 approved with amendment.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

MR. CHABOT: On

section 11, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment

I'd like to move.

Section 1 deals with the matter of religious conscience, and

I fail to understand the attitude of the government in dealing

with this matter.

I am sure the Minister has had dozens of letters asking for

consideration on this very section. These people are not only

opposed to belonging to unions, they're opposed to contributing

as well to a union, and these people deserve to have their

freedoms protected.

I'm not talking about every individual who belongs to a

particular religious belief. I'm talking about people with

strong religious convictions.

How many do we have in the Province of British Columbia that

take objection to the phony religious clause that's been

instituted in

section 11? Because that's what it is. It's a

phony, irresponsible

section that has been instituted in this

labour code.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): It takes a

phony to see one.

MR. CHABOT: When I mention the word phony, I hear from the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). He recognizes the

word very quickly. He knows a phony when he sees one.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: He knows very well, because he's the biggest

phony on that side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You blew it.

MR. CHABOT: He's the biggest phony.

I can never understand, Mr. Chairman, why this government

will not give some consideration to these people — the type of

consideration that is given in Saskatchewan, the type of

consideration that is given in Manitoba, the type of

consideration that is given in Ontario, the type of

consideration that is given in

[ Page 829 ]

England. They've instituted reasonable, rational pieces of

legislation. There is a

section there that provides protection

for these people and you people bring in a phony section. Yet

in the Speech from the Throne you suggested that there would be

a

section in the new labour code that would give genuine

protection to the people of strong religious beliefs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now tell us what you did.

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting in my amendment, Mr. Chairman,

that an amount equal to the union fees be contributed too to

defray the cost of the labour ombudsman, the great protector of

individual rights. I think that it's only fair that these

monthly premiums or monthly dues be directed towards assisting

the labour ombudsman to protect these people with their

freedom.

If the equal amount is not sufficient, I'm sure that those

people out there who have strong religious beliefs would be

prepared to contribute substantially more than an equal

amount.

I listened to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Radford) just a few days ago talk on this very matter

in which he said that very few people in Ontario, Saskatchewan

and Manitoba had opted to use the provisions of the

section

incorporated in the labour laws of those provinces. Well, it's

quite obvious why: in those particular provinces they don't

have the percentage of an organized labour force that we have

in the Province of British Columbia.

There's also the fear that has been generated in the minds

of those people because of certain pieces of legislation that

have been introduced in this Legislature. One is the Public

Works Fair Employment Act — again compulsory unionism, union

enforcement. These people are being surrounded and that's why

they're concerned at this particular time. We see the public

service Labour Relations Act as well, constantly infringing on

the rights of these people to be gainfully employed in areas of

not contributing to unions.

There are only a handful. Let's look at the civil service; I

would say there's no more than maybe 15 to 20. This is just a

guess, but I would guess about that many who might be concerned

with the inclusion of a legitimate and workable religious

conscience clause in the labour agreement. What you're doing is

restricting the areas in which these people can work by the

passage of all these additional laws which force people to be

part of a union structure or to contribute to a union

structure.

I think one has to be charitable and considerate. Put

yourself in their place and realize the type of dilemma these

people are in. If these people, who will not belong to a union

and will not contribute, find themselves in a position where

there is a clause which forces them to contribute to a union,

they'll seek employment elsewhere. But they're being surrounded

in British Columbia, and that's why they're concerned when they

see the various pieces of legislation that are being introduced

from time to time in this Legislature in the last year.

I speak with concern and certainly with sincerity on this

very issue. I hope the government will accept my amendment

because it is given in all sincerity and with concern for these

people out there, and there are very few of them. I hope the

government will accept the legislation which, in turn, will not

affect to any substantial degree the type of financial

structure of the unions because we're talking only about a

handful of people who have strong religious beliefs in this

province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to ask the Members to refrain from

using words like "phony." I didn't interrupt the last speaker

because he referred to people on both sides of the House when

he did it. But I hope that you treat each other….

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke that phrase, I didn't

say both sides of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we know what you meant when you first

said it. Nevertheless, I would hope that you treat each other

with more respect.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I have

never really spoken to any great degree in this House on labour

legislation because I feel it's a highly….

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: There's the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) again, wanting to stifle free debate and free opinion,

as usual.

…because I believe that the whole matter of labour

relations is highly emotional. But I do feel compelled to speak

on this amendment which we proposed through our Hon. Member for

Columbia River, which we support, and which I personally

support.

I would draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that in Canada

today we have just seen the close of a most unusual situation

where we as a nation have extended to people, who left their

own country for

[ Page 830 ]

less than conscientious reasons, the rights and privileges

of becoming Canadian citizens. I speak in terms of those

immigrants in Canada, some of whom were commonly called

draft-dodgers and were indeed people who wished for one reason

or another to escape the responsibilities imposed upon them by

their country to defend their country. We extended to them

amnesty and all the privileges and responsibilities of our

country.

Canada, during the last war, recognized the right of

conscience and the conscientious objector, and they were

allowed, providing this was a sincere motive — and it's very

easy to ascertain whether it is — the right to take a different

path. Not opt out, Mr. Minister, but take a different path.

Yet this government is denying people who have a strong

Christian conscience and a strong Christian belief the right to

take another path. Not opt out, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, but take another path. Surely neither the state in

itself or through its government, or a union, or an

association, be it professional or otherwise, has the right to

come between a man or a woman and their true, expressed

conscience or religion. This is one of the other reasons that I

would stand with my colleague and ask that this amendment be

accepted.

Surely what we are proposing and what these people are

willing to comply with can in no way be interpreted as a threat

to unionism or any single union, either in British Columbia or

Canada.

As my colleague pointed out, one, these are a very small

group of people; two, they are very sincere in their

objectives. They live in this manner; in their daily lives they

practice this mode of living. Three, and perhaps most important

of all, surely the objective of unionism, the accomplishments

of unionism and the benefits of unionism to the individual

members must be right and strong enough in society and right in

their benefits to the individual that the majority of people

are going to want to join a union and not have to be compelled.

Surely that is what one major factor of unionism is all about.

They don't need to be protected by legislation such as we are

trying to amend.

So I would ask, in speaking to this amendment, that the

Minister would seriously consider the strength of the unions,

the rightness of their objectives and the benefits of those

objectives to the individual members, and let this stand on its

own merit. In so doing, he should acknowledge the rights of an

individual, where he has a clearly-expressed mode of living and

conscience, to exercise his right, not, as I say, to opt out

but to take another avenue.

Surely the acceptance of this amendment will strengthen

unionism because it will show the confidence of the unions

themselves, it will show the confidence of the Minister of this

government in the acceptability of this new legislation, and it

will acknowledge individual rights for which we all stand.

In accepting this amendment, the money which would otherwise

be used for union dues will be used for a noble purpose, if you

want to call it that way, within British Columbia, neither of

benefit to one side over the other but to the mutual benefit to

both sides and to the individual.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favour

of the amendment put forward by my friend from Columbia River.

The principle of the amendment is very similar to the following

amendment on the order paper which is the one in my name. His

calls for the moneys to be turned over to defray the cost of

the labour ombudsman; mine suggests the money go to a charity.

Essentially, they are very similar amendments.

Mr. Chairman, it's been said that the test of democracy is

the treatment by the majority of minority groups. In a

situation such as this, we could hardly have a more classic

case. We have a very small number of people — estimates have

been given but I've heard no serious estimates which have

exceeded 500 people in this province — people who would feel

that their religious convictions required them to take

advantage of an amendment such as the one we are discussing or

the one immediately following; a very small minority of people

whose motives are difficult for the rest of us to understand. I

must confess I have difficulty understanding their specific

point of view. I don't share it, but they have it and they

believe it, obviously in all sincerity. I think that, even

though I may not be of their persuasion, we should allow them

to have the option they so obviously desire. It is a genuine

minority and it is perfectly simple to sort out any phonies — I

use that word advisedly, Mr. Chairman, after your recent

remarks — who might attempt to make use of it. It is a very

simple device to do that. It is something which has been done

in other jurisdictions and has been done with the conscientious

objectors, dealing with other specific matters. I'm referring,

of course, to those who object to bearing arms in time of

war.

It is possible to sort out the people who are attempting to

evade their responsibilities from those who have genuine

conviction. That poses no problem to acceptance of an amendment

such as this.

It's as well to cast our minds back in the history of the

Province of British Columbia and to realize that

[ Page 831 ]

those who are objecting to this type of amendment on the

grounds that it will destroy unionism have not been in the past

particularly — and I use the word in its non-partisan sense — liberal in their approach to people of other faiths, or other

religious or racial extraction coming to British Columbia — the

East Indian worker problem, the Chinese, the demonstrations

against Japanese.

We have had a fairly long history in British Columbia of

intolerance; it is the worst province in Canada in this regard.

And unfortunately there's no question, if we but examine the

history of our province, that labour unions in the past have

been involved. I think, therefore, in this situation we should

examine this amendment and the subsequent one, in terms of

principle….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly, as the Hon. Member points out,

there are plenty of other problems. He mentions the CPR, and I

would presume he's referring to the use of Chinese labour in

that regard.

Certainly we have at the present time almost hysterical

criticisms against such an amendment by saying that it would

destroy the union movement. I have looked at the two other

jurisdictions where the legislation follows the general trend

of these two amendments — Ontario and Manitoba — and this

simply hasn't happened there. The two jurisdictions that I've

looked at have not had a problem of this type of legislation

being used for breaking unions or indeed for people trying to

evade their responsibilities.

So I think that the Minister and the government should

consider this amendment, and the subsequent one, in the spirit

in which they are put forward and should accept them. The

number of people involved is small, but to them it is an

important amendment.

The effect upon others — the majority in any union or a

majority elsewhere in the work force — is minimal. Indeed it's

turned out to be totally negligible in Ontario and

Manitoba.

Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all

Members of the House to support my friend from Columbia River's

(Mr. Chabot'

s) amendment.

MR. WALLACE: This party also supports the concept that this issue should

be looked upon as a very important area in which a person's individual conviction

should be respected. I won't repeat all the arguments of the two former speakers,

but certainly the contacts I've had with the various citizens who have lobbied

in the building recently, and who have contacted us by letter, leave me in no

doubt that this is something about which they have genuine conviction, and also

that they represent a small number.

I think one point that should be made clear is that the word

"dues" — and I'm using d-u-e-s, in case there's any

misunderstanding. Maybe I don't pronounce it right. There are

heads shaking on the other side. "Doos?" Once again, Mr.

Chairman, my dialect causes all kinds of problems, but I'm

referring to the d-u-e-s.

I think that the payment of some fee implies membership. The

two words are complementary one to the other; one becomes a

member in an organization by paying a certain fee. Regardless

of the particular religious concept involved in this, I think

in any area of human endeavour, if you pay a fee and become a

member, these two features are completely complementary.

To suggest in

section 11, whether it's to do with religion

or anything else, that you pay your fees but you don't become a

member, to me in itself seems contradictory.

Mr. Chairman, in the last line in

section 11, after the

long

preamble, it says "the employee shall be deemed not to be

an employee." This again confuses me. I don't know how you can

be described as an employee in the first part of the sentence

and then described at the other end of the sentence as not

being an employee, when in point of fact you've gone through

the most obvious manoeuvre of paying a certain amount of money

to become a member of the union. To me this clause should

either be scrapped completely or it should be made

meaningful.

One meaningful way I think, which would in my opinion do the

union cause nothing but good — I think that the union cause

would be enhanced, not damaged by this movement — is a matter

in which the objectivity and the goodwill of union members can

be tested: do they in fact respect one of the basics in our

democratic society that the majority do always give fair

consideration to the minority? It's such a fundamental pillar

of all we believe in our parliamentary system that while the

fear has been expressed by unions — someone said hysterically — that this would weaken and be the thin end of the wedge

towards destroying unions, I beg to differ. I think that this

is the kind of statesmanlike decision which, if this government

will take it, will strengthen unions. They will strengthen this

government's respect for the wishes of minorities offered

with

[ Page 832 ]

genuine goodwill and sincerity, and, furthermore, meet the

very reasonable requests of a very small number of people who

have made the request.

But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that as the clause

stands, and as the individuals in society have pointed out to

all parties in the opposition and presumably to the government,

the clause does nothing to meet their request as it stands,

because they are still in effect paying money to the union. And

when you pay money to any board or union or government, you are

in effect accepting the validity of what that organization or

party or government stands for.

The basic problem here is that these individuals in society

do not accept, per se, the function and the attitudes and some

of the behaviour of unions. You are making it really impossible

for them, on one hand to say, "Oh well, we'll pay our

membership fees but we won't be members." It just doesn't make

sense. As I say, it would make a great deal more sense if the

membership fees were to be payable either for the use of the

ombudsman or, as suggested in the following amendment, to some

charitable cause.

This proposal, as has been stated, does apply in two other

provinces with no damage at all, as far as one can determine,

to the general union cause in these provinces. As I have said

earlier in these remarks, and I'll just repeat in closing, in

my view the union, the government, would lose nothing, but in

fact would gain a great deal from following this principle that

sometimes a very small minority has a point of principle which,

by being accepted by the majority, strengthens and enhances

these fundamental ideas we have about democracy in this

country.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to support what the Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) have said regarding this particular section.

If governments can respect the strong personal feelings of individuals to the

extent that they would relieve them of the obligation to defend their country

with their life, then it seems to me union leaders and the union movement are

doing themselves the worst possible disservice by failing to respect that degree

of personal feeling on the part of a very, very small percentage of the population.

I could hardly believe the fact that the head of the B.C. Federation of Labour

would come over here and actually lobby the MLAs over as fundamental a democratic

principle as this one. To me, it signifies a monumental insecurity on the part

of those union leaders.

What I wonder is simply this: if we have to hold men to such

account by laws that we pass in this province, I am talking

about the resistance shown by the Member for North

Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), if we have to hold human

beings to this kind of account by laws we pass in the

Legislature, then we must ask ourselves: how strongly are these

union laws and union regulations being forced against the will

of many other people?

If the union leaders haven't enough confidence in the belief

of their union members and in the union movement itself to

respect the feelings of a small percentage of the population in

the same spirit that governments themselves in time of peril

will respect these feelings, then those union leaders may

require from us more and more in the way of stringent and

dictatorial legislation to protect their interests over those

of the workingmen they allege to represent.

I think that the amendments which have been proposed to this

particular bill are very moderate ones. I believe that it would

be in the interests of the government and the Minister of

Labour to accept this amendment. I believe as well that it

would behoove the union movement itself to demonstrate

self-confidence in itself and the feeling that it had the

following of its membership in spirit as well as in law.

I regret it very much, Mr. Chairman, whenever we pass

legislation in this House that clearly violates the spirit of

conscience and goodwill on the part of any segment of our

society, because the more we indulge in that kind of thing as a

legislature, the more we are sacrificing the very freedoms that

legislative assemblies of this kind are all about.

It's almost a trivial point, Mr. Chairman, because there are

so few people who feel strongly about this particular law and

this particular ethic. They have become very vocal. They have

written many letters; they have contacted the media; they have

whipped Ray Haynes into a state of frenzy — not that that takes

a great deal. They've got a point, and because they have a

point it is worthy of the time and deep consideration of this

House.

I support the amendment and I hope the Minister of Labour

will indicate his support as well.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): I just wanted

to comment briefly on the proposal made by the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and supported by the other

political parties. In doing so, I want to say first of all that

this labour code won't stand or fall, won't fail or succeed on

the basis of

section 11, whether it is amended or not. It

really isn't essential to the thrust of the legislation. If it

were to be excluded

[ Page 833 ]

completely, it wouldn't make any difference in the terms of

the success of the Act.

I think it's unfortunate that this question is even raised

in the legislation. I think that the proposal, both in the

section itself and in the proposed amendment, would satisfy no

one. For that reason I am curious about its inclusion.

I just want to say that it's not a question that really

requires us to spend the kind of time we have spent on it

because it is just not that important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GABELMANN: I believe that, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I should

take a bit longer than I intended to take and talk about it

just a little bit.

The first point is that if people in this society want to

gain some benefit from groups to which they belong, then they

should be paying for those benefits.

MRS. JORDAN: Maybe they don't want to belong.

MR. GABELMANN: The legislation as it is framed takes into

account that people will have to pay some fee for services, in

effect. I am not very happy with that; I think we have copped

out in our solution to the problem because we have said you

don't have to belong and you don't have to be a member of the

union. I think it is more important to be a member of the union

than it is to pay the dues, quite frankly. That's where our

responsibilities lie as citizens, and that is to participate in

a membership capacity, not in the financial capacity. However,

that's my beef with the section; I am not particularly uptight

about it.

I want to suggest what really is, I think, the proper

solution to this problem. If people honestly do have a

conscience and they can't possibly belong to the trade union or

they can't possibly pay dues to that trade union, then there is

an obvious solution to their situation: let them continue to

work at that job, let them have all the rights of every other

worker, but say to them that if they are not prepared to pay

the costs of running that union, then they don't get the

benefits that the union has won for the workers in that

plant.

The simple solution to that is that if the union is negotiating a

contract that pays $5 an hour, the worker gets $2 or $2.25 or $2.50 or

whatever the minimum wage happens to be. You pay that worker the

minimum wage, because he has contributed nothing to the union which has

negotiated those wages. You pay him the minimum wage, Mr. Chairman, and

you say to the company that it can't get away with the difference. The

company would have to make up the difference between the minimum wage

and the collective agreement amount and give that to the same place

that the union dues are going to.

If we are going to be fair in this section, let's be fair

all the way around. That is a solution. It's probably just as

absurd as the solutions proposed in this whole question.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hear from, I think it

was the Member for the flood plains (Mr. Schroeder) talking

about that attitude being sick. I find it sick and repulsive

that people are not prepared to pay their fair share in this

society by paying their union dues and also paying the

responsibility they have to participate in the decisions of the

people that they are working with if they are involved in a

union situation. If they don't want to be involved in that

union, if they don't want to be involved in the work of that

union, if they don't want to be involved in the financial

responsibility, then they can go and get a job somewhere else.

They don't have to work there, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much do you pay the arthri