1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3193 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates

On vote 123.

Mr. Smith — 3193

Hon. Mr. King — 3193

Mr. Wallace — 3193

Hon. Mr. King — 3193

On vote 124.

Mr. Phillips — 3194

Hon. Mr. King — 3194

Mr. Phillips — 3195

Hon. Mr. King — 3196

Mr. Phillips — 3196

Hon. Mr. King — 3197

Mr. Fraser — 3198

Hon. Mr. King — 3198

Mr. Wallace — 3199

Hon. Mr. King — 3200

Mr. Smith — 3200

Hon. Mr. King — 3202

Mr. Smith — 3203

Hon. Mr. King — 3203

Department of Highways estimates

On vote 93.

Mr. Fraser — 3204

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3207

Mr. Wallace — 3207

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3208

The House met at 10 a.m.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 123: manpower development, $10,635,689.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Good morning, Mr.

Chairman. It's nice to see you on a beautiful Monday morning. I

welcome you back to the House. I hope you had a nice weekend,

that you're in a good mood and that you'll be very cooperative

with the poor Members of the Legislature this morning.

There's one item that I'd like to bring to the Minister's

attention. It's on page 131, right at the bottom of the page,

Mr. Chairman, where we deal with apprenticeship training,

pre-apprenticeship training and tradesman upgrading. Now as I

look at the vote, I notice that the allocation last year for

apprenticeship training was just over $5 million, and that is

reduced to $3.4 million this year. Just below it we have

pre-apprenticeship training, which last year was $3.3 million

and is up to $4.2 million.

It would seem that there's a redirection by the department

in the terms of emphasis that they're putting on apprenticeship

training as compared with pre-apprenticeship training. I'd just

like the Minister to tell me what led to this decision if, in

fact, that's what it is. It seems that you've increased the

pre-apprenticeship training vote and decreased the

apprenticeship training. What factors led to that decision?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I dealt

with that, I think, briefly last week when we were discussing

the estimates. It's an apparent deduction in expenses for

apprenticeship training, but it's the result this year of a

change in the reporting of what the actual provincial training

costs are.

As the Member is probably aware, the federal government makes a large amount

of training dollars available to the provinces. I can say, Mr. Chairman, that

I'm not at all satisfied with the amount of money which the federal government

does provide to the Province of British Columbia. On an analysis which has been

done by the Department of Labour, we find that British Columbia only receives

8 per cent of the total manpower training dollars allocated by the federal government.

On any conceivable yardstick that you want to measure, that's pretty disproportionate.

We have met with the federal Manpower Minister and discussed the disparity between

British Columbia and provinces such as Alberta. We have a much higher work force.

If you want to measure it by unemployment, or by the work force or any other

yardstick, we're very badly treated.

Nevertheless, a large portion of these funds are paid back

to the Province of British Columbia. In some instances we

provide the initial training dollars and then we're repaid by

the federal government. So the number of people under

apprenticeship training and the total amount of allocation are

up a good deal over previous years, but the method of reporting

it reflects what we anticipate receiving back from the federal

government. Therefore it shows a reduction over other years.

But it's basically just the system of reporting on what's

anticipated as a return of dollars from the federal

government.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if

this is the vote but I wonder if the Minister could comment

briefly on the student employment programme. In two respects he

did put out a very informative press release in February

dealing with what had happened in the 1974 programme in trying

to give students employment and also give them some kind of

occupation perhaps related to their future careers. But I

notice that as far as this summer is concerned the applications

far exceeded the available jobs. I'm not suggesting the

Minister can produce jobs out of a hat for everybody that wants

them in the summer, but I wonder if we could have some idea of

how many students made application how many were successful

and, basically, what fields of employment they will be working

in.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we mounted essentially the same

programmes as last year. There are five different programmes

under the student summer employment programme. Some of them are

career-oriented toward providing practical experience and

training in the chosen career areas of the students. As an

example, we take certain law students out of the universities

and put them on the police beats so that they, perhaps, get a

broader appreciation and understanding of the kind of endeavour

they've chosen for life. Similarly, we take medical students

and send them out to work with GPs in the wilderness areas.

Then there are the programmes such as park improvements

mounted through the regional districts and the municipalities —

the kind of community betterment programmes that are mounted by

the local municipalities. Then we have the direct programmes

related to government departments. We have the programme for

farmers and small businessmen under which the province

subsidizes the

[ Page 3194 ]

wages of students to a maximum of $300 per month. So there

are a variety of initiatives to try and provide worthwhile

jobs.

I have two complete volumes here, which I won't bother going

into, but which are a response to last year's programme. From

all of the elements who participated in the programme we

received in excess of a 75 per cent expression of support that

the programme had been meaningful from the point of view of the

students and had been beneficial and productive from the point

of view of the businesses and municipalities involved. I think

we can take from that that it wasn't just a make-work programme

that was mounted to put dollars in pockets but was a meaningful

work experience for both parties. The response was really

excellent.

As the Members are aware, we had a lower budget to work with

this year. We had to use $15 million of the $35 million that

had been allocated for special employment projects in the

forest sector to help mitigate what had been an extremely high

unemployment year in the forest industry. Consequently, that

left us with $20 million to mount programmes for students. Even

at that, the projection is that there will be 10,000 students

employed under this programme.

The Members can appreciate that it takes some time to make

the full analysis. Some areas, such as regional districts, who

are allocated money fail to utilize it all. That results in a

reallocation to some other area that had a programme without

adequate funding. So the programme is delayed in terms of

analyzing all of the employment that flows from it.

Vote 123 approved.

On vote 124: Labour Relations Board, $989,175.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I was just reading

the Labour Relations Board annual report that was recently

tabled in the Legislature by the Minister. The understanding

that I have of the Labour Relations Board, according to their

report, is that it is to exercise jurisdiction over such

matters as certification, unfair labour practices, differences

under a collective agreement and the like under the new

statutory provisions approved by the B.C. Legislature in the

fall. A final step in the process was the proclamation on

Labour Day, 1974, of

part 5 of the Labour Code, giving the

board exclusive jurisdiction over strikes, lockouts, picketing,

and the repeal of mediation services.

The report goes on to say that the fundamental principle of

the Labour Code, stated right at the outset of

section 2, is

that every employee is free to be a member of a trade union and

to participate in its lawful activity.

In the case that I mentioned with regard to local people wanting employment

with B.C. Hydro on local jobs — which information I have supplied to the Premier

and which information the Premier supplied to the Minister — in those cases

local people who did not belong to the union are being refused union membership

on the basis that there are sufficient unemployed persons within the union elsewhere

in the province. Maybe such jobs have never been available locally or maybe

the people have never had the opportunity to belong to a labour union before.

I would like to know if the Minister would consider this discrimination against

local people by not being allowed to join the union. The union offices are in

Vancouver. If they really want to fight their case they have to travel to Vancouver.

Shouldn't the union have offices on these local projects if they are going to

hire local people? What is the Minister's attitude toward this project? Have

you had a chance to survey the information?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have had an opportunity

to have my department investigate the specific project that the

Member for South Peace River raised last week. I find, much to

my amazement, that there are 80 per cent local people employed

on that project. So I find it difficult to understand the

Member's concern. I would think that is a most equitable

distribution of employment opportunities for local people.

In general terms I do agree with the Member. Historically it

has been a problem of trying to find an adequate scope of

employment for local people when projects are undertaken,

particularly by the government or Crown agencies, in local

areas.

I certainly encountered the same kind of problem that the

Member for South Peace River is talking about when the Mica dam

contract was awarded some years ago. I was disappointed at that

time that while the government was able to negotiate a 10-year

no-strike pact with the unions involved, they were unable,

apparently, to negotiate any minimum provisions for a local

manpower content in that huge project.

The Member will also be aware that since this government

came to office, we passed what is called the Public Works Fair

Employment Act. I believe that the opposition voted against

that bill.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): That's right.

HON. MR. KING: But under that bill we now have the statutory

authority to provide that as a condition of awarding direct

government contracts, or Crown agency contracts — with three

exceptions of school districts, hospitals and municipal

contracts — my office is empowered to require a reasonable

percentage of local manpower. So that's the first statutory

provision and authority that has ever

[ Page 3195 ]

prevailed in this province, to my knowledge, to ensure that

the interests of local people are protected in terms of giving

them an opportunity to participate in the development of their

local resources and so on. This had some impact, as the Member

can appreciate, when we signed the very contract he referred

to; it has 80 per cent local people employed in it.

I'd just like to observe that this is hardly the appropriate

vote to discuss that. This deals with the Labour Relations

Board, and they have no such authority. That authority flows

from the office of the Minister of Labour.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says that this is

not the place to discuss that. I think I've already outlined in

the purpose of the board that they have jurisdiction over trade

unions and they also have jurisdiction over the Labour Code

which says that every employee is free to become a member of a

trade union and participate in its lawful activities. So I

think it is the proper place to discuss it because it

definitely comes under the Labour Relations Board. But after

the Minister makes his little political speech, then he says we

can't discuss it any more — he's had the final say.

I realize that there are maybe 80 per cent local people

employed on this project, but percentages don't always tell the

true story. As the Minister full well knows, there are many

mediocre jobs — cutting bush, filling up gas cans, being a

water boy and so forth. But the cushy jobs that people are

qualified for, like driving the big Caterpillar tractors — the

high paying jobs — what percentage of those are local people?

That's that I'm complaining about. I don't care if it's 99 per

cent. If I have local people who are complaining to me about

not being able to become a member of this union, I don't think

you should just gloss it over, Mr. Minister. One individual, in

my estimation, is important to me. It may not be important to

the Minister of Labour. Individuals may not be important to the

Minister of Labour, but they're certainly more important to me,

Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. KING: Only certain individuals, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Any individual in British Columbia is

important to me, Mr. Minister. I represent all political faiths

in this Legislature. I represent all political faiths.

The Minister talks about the Public Works Fair Employment Act. Certainly I

voted against it in its original form. That's why the Minister changed it, because,

as usual, a year later he saw the error of his ways and he said that if the

opposition voted against this bill, there must be something wrong with it. So

what did he do? The following year he brought in amendments, He said that if

the opposition votes against this, there's got to be something drastically wrong.

Now with regard to the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Chairman,

through you to the Minister, it's supposed to be a

non-political board, and I believe that for all intents and

purposes it is. I'm just wondering what right of appeal we have

from the Labour Relations Board. It says the Labour Relations

Board...the unfair labour practice part of the code imposes

other duties on trade unions and employees. The employer's

right to run his business efficiently and without the

interference of the union organization campaign during working

hours are protected by

section 4.

Now I'd like to ask the Minister in the case of the

Seagram's strike, where that particular business decided that

it was going to close down the bottling plant because after two

years of trying to get this particular function running

smoothly, they found they just couldn't make it pay. And I'm

not in love with Seagram's but I'm in love with fair practice;

what's fair for any little operator has got to be fair to the

big operator.

HON. MR. KING: You're in love with the product.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it has nothing to do with the product.

Mr. Chairman, we have a case here where the Labour Relations

Board brought in a ruling that Seagrams couldn't close down

their bottling plant, so they had to appeal it. The only place

they could appeal was to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the

meantime, to comply with the Labour Relations Board ruling,

Seagram's paid the employees, kept them on the payroll, but

they didn't reopen the bottling plant.

So it's a technical matter. The Labour Relations Board ruled

against it. Consequently we not have a lockout — which is

really not a lockout at all. The union calls it a lockout, but

it's not a lockout. You have 80 people inside this plant on the

other phase of the operation who want to work. These people

want to work.

They have circulated a petition — the right to work. They

have circulated a petition among themselves, signing it saying:

"We want the right to work." But because of either the Labour

Relations Board or the particular union, these people are being

denied the right to work. I just have to ask the Minister: what

appeal do you have from the Labour Relations Board?

I consider, from the information I have gained, that here is

the Labour Relations Board making a decision with regard to how

a company shall run its business. I think that if the Labour

Relations Board is going to function and be respected, both by

labour

[ Page 3196 ]

and management, it's got to be unbiased and can't work for

any one particular union. I'm not saying they did in this case,

but I'd just like to have the Minister.... Here's a case in

point. I don't know whether it's still before the courts or

not, but I'd just like to have the Minister's comments on it.

Please, Mr. Minister, don't be political; just tell it as it

is.

HON. MR. KING: I certainly wouldn't want to break any

traditions in this House, Mr. Chairman, and become political.

(Laughter.) I think the pillars would shake and crumble if

anyone indulged in political comment within these sanctified

chambers. That would be far from my purpose.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, forget your....

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member talked about the

Public Works Fair employment Act and the rights of people to

join trade unions. Nothing has changed in that regard with

respect to the laws that obtained during the Social Credit

regime regarding the right of trade unions to limit the number

of people they would allow into their unions. That is so

particularly in the construction industry. As the Member well

knows, there is a hiring-hall practice in the construction

industry and there is no tenure of seniority between employee

and employer. So the union members are dispatched from a union

hiring hall and take their turn on a rotation basis and

available jobs. Consequently the union is responsible for

providing adequate work for their roster of workers, and they

are naturally interested that that roster does not become so

large that they deprive members of 20 years standing of

reasonably frequent work opportunities.

Now to demand — and I'm not suggesting the Member would

demand this, perhaps he didn't understand.... But if we said

to them through law, "Look, you must let into your union every

individual who makes application," why, that would

result in a surplus of workers in any given craft, carpenters

or whatever, to the extent that very few of them would be

making a living wage. So I think the Member understands that

problem.

However, there are arrangements that can be made for local

work projects. The union can provide work permits out of

recognition of the right of local people to participate in

local projects, and they frequently do. I receive pretty good

cooperation from industry, from the contractors and from most

unions in that respect. Occasionally we have a difference of

opinion, as sometimes even occurs in this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then you lay the wood on.

HON. MR. KING: Oh, occasionally we do that too. I regret having made

that comment in this House, because there's been a marked absence of any visits

from the opposition people ever since I made that remark in this House. I want

to assure you that you're always welcome.

With respect to the Labour Relations Board and the decision

on Seagram's, this Legislature is not really a review of

specific cases that are adjudicated by the Labour Relations

Board. We can certainly review the legislation and the

authority vested in them, but I wouldn't want to get into the

position of reviewing evidence that's placed before the board

upon which they base their adjudication. I think that would be

improper, and I think the Members would agree.

Now whatever the evidence was in the Seagram's case, the

board found in its wisdom that Seagram's closure was not an

ordinary management function of cutting back on their

operation. But the board found according to the evidence that

the company had in fact sought to place pressure on the union

by indulging in what, in effect, was a lockout. Therefore they

ordered that that plant be reopened and the workers

re-employed.

There is a case before the courts on it. Therefore I

wouldn't want to precipitate another debate on the ultra vires

concept at this time. (Laughter.)

Be that as it may, I think it is interesting to note, when

the Member talks about right to work.... That's an epithet

that's becoming more closely associated with spokesmen from

across the floor. Perhaps it's an unfortunate choice, I don't

know.

MR. CHABOT: These men are demanding the right to work.

HON. MR. KING: I know who the spokesmen are for the right to

work, also. But "the right to work" is a bit of an elusive or

improper name, in my view.

However, that case is before the courts and, subject to the

finding of the courts, will determine whether or not the board

exceeded their authority, as the Member suggests. So we have to

be content with that at the moment.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister again proceeded to discuss the

case to say it shouldn't be discussed. I think we have a case

here where the other people in that particular plant should

have an appeal to the Labour Relations Board. There are 80

people there who want to work and demand the right to work. If

you have....

MR. WALLACE: You've said that already.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and I'll say it again — I'll say it

again, Mr. Member. If the right to work bothers you, I'm sorry

it offends you. But here are 80 people who demand the right to

work; it's a dispute within a

[ Page 3197 ]

union. Does the Labour Relations Board have jurisdiction

over that? You have 62 people on the outside keeping 80 people

on the inside out of work. Where does the Labour Relations

Board come into that? I say that according to their report it

comes under their jurisdiction — where it is the rights of the

individuals in the case of....

HON. MR. KING: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a minute until I finish, Mr. Minister. I

don't wish to be discourteous to the Hon. Minister, but I have

another point which might have some bearing on your

discussion.

The particular union has sent out a memorandum to all of its

workers saying that "all employed members on wage indemnity, on

workers' compensation or unemployment insurance are required to

contribute 10 per cent of earnings from June 2 until further

notice. A handful of members have yet to donate from the period

March 2 to April 14 and are again requested to do so."

Here's a union because of this dispute in this one

particular plant saying to those who are still working in other

jurisdictions: "We want you to cough up 10 per cent." Where is

the Labour Relations Board...? Is that not infringing on the

rights of individuals? They still pay their union dues. Is this

not infringing on the right of an individual? I think if I were

in a labour union and because of some possibly poor ruling by

the Labour Relations Board had to give up 10 per cent of my

wages, particularly in the summertime when I want to go on

vacation...

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): He's be a shop

steward.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and want that little extra bit of extra

money to barbecue and maybe buy the odd case of beer.... And

here the union comes around and says: "Here, I need that 10 per

cent because we're in a dispute over here." Is that not

infringing on the rights of those individual members?

I remember one time not long ago when the school teachers

were asked to give in 10 per cent for political purposes, but

that's gone past. They realize they made an error....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, they realize they made a mistake now;

they've all changed their direction, or they're changing

gradually.

I'd just like to know what the Minister feels. If we're going to have the Labour

Relations Board, I think they must be fair not only to business and unions,

but they must respect the rights of individuals. This is what bothers me. The

right of one individual must be supreme; we cannot crush the right of any individual

in our society.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Everybody must reign supreme. The Minister

tries to give the impression that he is so fair. I'd like to

hear his comments on this practice.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Hon. Member

that we must pay close attention to the individual rights and

liberties of people in this province, workers, all citizens.

That's why, Mr. Chairman, we eliminated such statutes as those

under Bill 43, the Trade-union Act, which interfered with the

right of workers to disseminate information to discuss matters

in dispute. We viewed that to be an unacceptable invasion and

interference with workers' rights to express their opinions in

free society. I agree with the Hon. Member that that's

unacceptable.

Under the new Labour Code, Mr. Chairman, we also provided a

requirement, a duty of fair representation, to all trade unions

and to all employer groups in this province, so that if any

member feels that his rights within the organization have been

abridged in any way he has the option and the right to appeal

to the Labour Relations Board. As an MLA of this House I would

hope that all Members would be adequately conversant with the

law to advise people who complain to them that they should

appeal to the Labour Relations Board if they feel that their

rights have been abridged in some way.

I find it curious that the Member suggests that we enter

into the private domain of a voluntary legal organization — a

trade union — and attempt to restrict the calls they may make

upon their members for dues to finance a specific strike or a

specific dispute. The churches ask us to tithe. Even some

political parties go out....

MR. PHILLIPS: They don't lay the wood on you if you

don't.

HON. MR. KING: Even some political parties go out.... Mind you, not

all the political parties have the support of J.V. and people like that to give

assists. I think it's a bit of a dangerous advocacy to suggest that we should

start regulating the internal affairs of trade unions, of fraternal organizations,

of churches, and so on. If they are undemocratic and they abridge individual

rights, there is recourse. Anyone who makes such a claim has....

MR. PHILLIPS: You're being political.

HON. MR. KING: No, I'm not being political at all. I say it is more

appropriate than making general condemnations.

[ Page 3198 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I gave a specific case.

HON. MR. KING: If there is a specific case, that case should

be adjudicated on the evidence and on its merit. There is an

appropriate place for that to take place and that is the Labour

Relations Board. But there must be a complaint. That is

fundamental in all law. They are quite free to do that, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): As somebody said, the Minister is

doing a good job of skating around things here today. On the

right I to work, I would just like to say a few words. The

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) apparently has

cases and so have I. I wouldn't be here this morning relating

this case if the Minister would only answer his mail. I don't

think this Minister has much to do. I can't understand why he

doesn't answer his mail. He has a large staff. In any case, I

want to make this as brief as possible.

This is a letter that I received from a lady who is the wife

of the individual involved. She says here that:

"For the last two years my husband has been working non-union

for Price Bros. construction of Prince George on road construction, for the

Department of Highways, operating a 621 earth mover scraper. Price Bros. were

contracted by the Department of Highways to work on the various roads in the

interior, in the Cariboo, as well as the Hart Highway north of Prince George.

This particular person was laid off on November 8, 1974 because of winter conditions

and was told that his job would be available on May 15, 1975.

"There were a total of nine operators on the job last year,

three union and six non-union. Approximately two weeks before

the job was over, representatives of the International Union of

Operating Engineers, Local 115, came on the job to get the

non-union men to sign up with 115. The job was just about to an

end because of winter setting in and because Price Bros. had

told the men they didn't want to be certified just then, the

men turned 115 down. Only one man signed to go into the

union.

"This spring, in order to get work for the machines" — that

is, Mr. Price's machines — "he had to get certified. On April 18, Mr. Price

signed a letter of intent to Local 115. A couple of days later, my husband went

to Prince George to apply to get into 115 and was turned down. They claim he

would not make a good union man. This was said about a man who belonged to the

IWA for at least 15 years, the 602 Labourers' Union for four years, for a total

of 25 years in the labour market. He has never been fired off any job he ever

had and has never had any trouble with any employer."

The upshot of it all, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, is

that:

"Price Bros. has a job waiting for my husband but he can't

go to work because 115 at Prince George decreed that he could

not work at a job of his own choosing. The 115 did take two

employees of Price Bros. One had one and a half days seniority

over my husband, the other had one year less. People talk a lot

about welfare bums, but what can the ordinary man do when big

brother union turns things down on his right to work?

"This letter is written in the hope that something can be

done to get a family man back to a job that his employer has

waiting for him. It seems to me that one of the freedoms of a

Canadian citizen is the right of choice of employment. Yours

truly......

Mr. Chairman, the upshot of this is that this man is still

not working, but the contractor is at work and he is working in

the very neighbourhood that this man lives. I've got to assume

that the fellow who is driving the scraper that this man should

be driving came from Vancouver or Revelstoke or some place like

that. I don't think this is right. I believe I understand from

the Minister's reply the last time he was standing on his feet

that this should properly be taken up with the Labour Relations

Board. This person should take that up. As I say, I've written

the Minister. I would like to hear his remarks about it. It

seems to me that there is something wrong here when a man on

the local scene....

As far as who is paying all of these bills is concerned, the

public Treasury is paying these bills. When they bring a man

from Vancouver to operate a scraper up in the interior of the

province, I suggest that the Highways department and in turn

the public Treasury...it is costing them more money. That man

is no doubt being paid a living-out allowance where a local man

is right at home. There is something definitely wrong when

these things happen.

HON. MR. KING: I am rather sensitive to being accused of not

answering my mail. I do try to answer my mail. As I recall, I

think the Member's letter came in on June 2. That's not very

long ago.

MR. FRASER: Oh, quite a while.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: The Member appreciates that there has to be

an investigation of the facts of a case like this. The Members

acknowledged that the individual in question had an opportunity

to join the operating engineers union last year and declined.

I'm

[ Page 3199 ]

uncertain as to whether you're talking about someone who is

applying for work as an individual, or whether you're talking

about an individual who is a contractor and employs other

people. There are variations and the laws are certainly

different in those circumstances.

In the first place, if he's an owner-operator employing

people, I hope the Member's aware that it's an unfair labour

practice for that owner to involve himself in influencing

whether or not his employees join a trade union. That is their

right: it's up to their free expression of choice as to whether

or not they join a trade union. If he is seeking inclusion in

the trade union just for himself so he might find a spot in

employment up there, then I would just draw to your attention

that the union certified for that kind of job has negotiated

the wages and the working conditions for that kind of function

to the point where it's pretty attractive. I think the Member

would have to question, as I would, the right of individuals to

pop in and out of the union simply to accommodate a selective

opportunity for employment when they want it. What about the

people who live with that craft all year round and who have

constantly supported the union's activities to improve their

working conditions? They have rights too.

I don't know what the specific circumstances are. I

understand from the Deputy that a full report is coming in on

that case very shortly and that the Member will have his answer

very soon, but it's very difficult on the floor of the

Legislature to draw a conclusion when one doesn't know all the

facts and all the evidence involved in these kinds of

cases.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I didn't realize this was the

vote where we debated the right to work, but just in case the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Philips) is concerned, I also

have a great respect for the individual's right to work. I

wouldn't want to be misunderstood on that point.

I wanted to ask more specifically about the Labour Relations Board itself.

There has been quite a bit of comment from the B.C. Federation of Labour that

the Labour Relations Board is weighted too much in favour of lawyers. This to

me is a rather ironic situation because I remember that when we debated the

Labour Code after it was introduced the tremendous thrust which the Minister

of Labour mentioned all the time, and some of the various areas where he and

I were in disagreement, was his great and I'm sure sincere desire to get labour

disputes out of the courts and into some other kind of arena. This may have

been well advised, just within the last few weeks the B.C. Federation of Labour

has expressed its great concern, and I think the words they've used are that

the Labour Relations Board's been turned over to the lawyers. In fact, there's

a quote here from one of the papers back in April. They had issued a statement

saying the trade unions "were extremely concerned at the tendency which has

become apparent to turn the board over to the legal profession and enable them

to use it to experiment with academic theories about labour-management relations."

I think Len Guy was the main person who was upset about the

domination of the Labour Relations Board by lawyers. He said

they're not practical enough to be successful in labour

relations, and he said that labour-management relations are too

complex and delicate in British Columbia, and blunders arising

from a well-meaning experiment could have disastrous results.

He said lawyers can always be hired to provide a legal

background, and he was particularly criticizing the appointment

of lawyer John Baigent, and also mentioned that there were

several other lawyers. The chairman himself came in for

criticism, although he mentioned that he had never practised

law, but he certainly had functioned as a law professor in a

university.

I don't know how important this is to the successful

functioning of the Labour Relations Board. I would imagine that

the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the board is

achieving its functions I personally, as an observer, can't see

that it matters whether you're a lawyer or an accountant or a

clerk or what you are, if you're on that board because you have

some particular experience or expertise or interest or proven

capacity to do the job, but if a group in society as important

as the B.C. Federation of Labour is uptight about this, I think

maybe I'd like to hear the Minister's comments.

I tried to do a little more reading on this, and I gather

that one of the reasons the B.C. Federation of Labour is

concerned is that these persons they have quoted are chairmen

of panels investigating such labour disputes. They feel that

the particular influence of the chairman, often in tie breaking

votes, is reflected by his legal background. Apparently there

is this deep concern.

Now the Minister may be able to clarify for us whether in

his mind this is a valid concern and whether, in fact, he's

planning to change. I gather there's only one vacancy at the

moment on the total board of 18, and that it's the five or six

top positions that labour is concerned about.

The only other point I'd like to ask the Minister about is

regarding the authority in the Labour Code for the Labour

Relations Board to impose a first settlement. Here again, I

gather that the B.C. Federation of Labour is not at all happy

about that power vested in the board. I think we talked on this

at great length over the Sandringham Hospital dispute in the

past. I suppose at the present time the ICBC dispute is one

where the Labour Relations Board would have the authority to

impose a first contract.

As I say, since the B.C. Federation of Labour is a

[ Page 3200 ]

very important group in society, has the Minister met with

them to discuss this contentious issue, and to what degree is

he prepared to tell us whether or not he's reconsidering the

usefulness or otherwise, or the disadvantages, of having this

power to impose a first contract remain in the hands of the

Labour Relations Board?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the last point

first. I'm not receptive to changing the first-contract

provision; I think it is proving to be very useful. I'm aware

that the B.C. Federation of Labour, as well as some other

unions, condemn it publicly. I think their fear is mainly

related to the fact that this is a limited form of arbitration,

and perhaps in that sense it's threatening in the broader

field. I do not see it that way and, apparently, most of the

individual trade unions do not see it that way either because

many, many of them are making application for the use of the

first-contract provision. I think we've had something like 29

applications for the imposition of a first collective

agreement. Something like that.

MR. WALLACE: By unions?

HON. MR. KING: Yes. And one by management. But we use this

in an extremely selective way. It cannot be initiated by the

Labour Relations Board; rather it must be initiated from my

office. I must be convinced that the motive for application is

a genuine one in terms of the collective bargaining system

having broken down and there being little prospect for resolution through the normal collective bargaining process.

It's designed basically for the instance where an employer

refuses to recognize the legally certified new unit, and, in

effect, circumvents the intent of the law which was, through

certification, to give those employees the right to

bargain.

The board also has been extremely selective, and in most

cases has been able to use the authority it holds to bring

about a negotiated settlement. I think only in four or five

total cases have they actually imposed the first collective

agreement, so one can see that it's used very selectively. I

think that's working quite well.

As I say, all of the major unions, some of which had publicly

condemned the philosophy of it, are quite prepared to use it

when it serve their purpose.

MR. WALLACE: Like talking against a bill, and then voting

for it.

HON. MR. KING: That's right.

The question of the content of the board: yes, the B.C. Federation of Labour

has criticized the number of lawyers on the board, and a number of unions have.

But I note that when most of those unions appear before the board, they have

their lawyer in tow. If they're so uptight about lawyers involved in industrial

relations, perhaps they could start demonstrating that they're willing to show

that there should be less of a reliance on lawyers by leaving theirs home when

they appear before the board and other agencies.

However, be that as it may, my main concern is that we are

establishing a new concept of law, and an administrative body

of law has to be set up surrounding the functions and the

decisions of the board. Many of them are precedent-setting, not

only in terms of the new code but certainly in terms of new

industrial relations concepts anywhere in Canada. We have to

ensure that there's a consistent body of law built up which is

systematically and judiciously pursued in future cases. So

I think it is important to have some legal people involved in

the process at this particular time.

What I said to that Hon. Member, I stand by. I do not think

the courts are the most appropriate because they are dealing

with strictly the legal aspects of it. We do, with these

panels, have labour and management people; many of them still

actively involved, but sitting as board members.

It's interesting to note that only in one or two decisions,

out of the hundreds that board has issued, has there been a

dissent. Pretty nearly every one of them has been a unanimous

award by the board. But it is important in terms of how the

decisions are written, so that they become the basis for

establishing precedent that will give the board consistency in

future in similar cases. I do anticipate that at a point in the

future perhaps there should be fewer lawyers involved in the

process. But at this stage I think it's important to have that

additional input to the system.

MR. SMITH: It's been an interesting discussion this morning

concerning labour relations. I'd just like to bring to the

attention of the Minister a problem that's been related to me.

It concerns a company in Vancouver which started business in

1951. It's a family company employing a father, a number of

sons and a couple of relatives initially. They manufacture

pallets — wooden containers and pre-cut pallets — for the

waterfront. The company is Consumer Pallet Ltd. of Vancouver.

For a long time they operated as a non-union company and then,

as happens, the union consistently comes in to suggest that

they should become a union company, certified. IWA was mainly

involved in the transactions.

I don't think there's any doubt about it that the company

preferred to remain non-union, because they were a family

company, started in 1951. But finally they saw that in order to

operate and be able to continue in business and move their

products into

[ Page 3201 ]

union shops and so on they would probably have to submit to

union certification.

Now the struggle started in September of 1974. At that time

the company was picketed by a far greater number of picketers

than they had employed as employees inside the plant. There

were abusive tactics involved, and some assault charges were

laid because of some of the people involved becoming abusive

towards their employees in the plant. It finally seemed that

they would have to submit to the union request for

certification. But one of the conditions at that time imposed

upon the company by the union was that when they got this all

squared away, in exchange for removing pickets from the plant

and accepting union certification, the company would drop all

charges against any of the people involved in the picketing

process. That was part of the suggestion made to the company by

the union representatives: that they drop all charges. So this

was done and any employees involved were automatically

reinstated at that time so that they could get beyond this

impasse. After all, how can a company operate if they are being

picketed and harassed and when it looks like the only solution

is to cooperate with the union or go out of business? That's

the choice they faced.

A mediator was appointed by the Labour Relations Board and

over a number of meetings came to some decisions concerning

certification. A number of verbal commitments were made by both

the employer and the mediation officer representing the

Department of Labour in this particular dispute. They did come

to a verbal agreement as to how they would overcome this

impasse. Unfortunately, when the ruling came down, and the

agreement that was put to them was drafted in written form, it

didn't obtain a number of the points they had covered initially

in their discussions with the mediation officer. The company,

of course, was concerned about that because they felt they had

bargained at least verbally in good faith at that particular

time, and there were things that were very important to them

that the agreement did not contain — and other things they had

never agreed to.

At about the same time, they were still involved in internal

problems within the plant regarding themselves as managers and

some of their employees. It turned out that they found no other

way to overcome this problem than to fire one particular

employee. They found, once the Labour Relations Board had met

and handed down a decision, that not only did they have to

adhere to the union's position, but they weren't being charged

with social discrimination and illegally firing an employee. So

that went against them.

It's also interesting to note that in the initial instances of certification

the IWA representative knew about the certification before the employer did.

They had a phone call, as a matter of fact, from a representative of the union

saying: "You're certified." They said: "How do you know?" They said: "We know."

Sure enough, a day or so later they were informed of the certification, but

IWA knew about it before they'd even been informed, as employers. So that didn't

sit too well with them.

It's also interesting to note that the three men who sat on

the Labour Relations Board as a committee, as a Labour

Relations Board, were the same three that sat on the union

application for certification. They felt that this was unusual

at least, that it would probably have been better had the

Labour Relations Board appointed to that inquiry team people

who had not originally been involved in the request for

certification.

They were charged, and a writ was issued charging them with

breaking their agreement with the union. They were required not

only to reinstate the employee who had been responsible for a

lot of their problems in the first place but to reinstate

everyone else who had lost any time and pay them all back-pay

as if they had been fully employed during this time.

Now the thing I would like to pose to the Minister is this:

without taking any sides, either for the union as represented

by IWA or for the company, it would seem that the least that

could happen would be a reinvestigation of the whole situation

by the Labour Relations Board. The company would like to know

what procedure they have or that they can follow. I think that

perhaps they should appeal the decision of the Labour Relations

Board and the ruling that was handed down. But there's a

feeling among the management personnel of the company that all

they're going to do is increase their problem if they appeal a

decision of the Labour Relations Board.

If that is that state of affairs between management and

union and the Labour Relations Board, as they view this whole

problem, then it's a sorry state indeed, Mr. Minister. I hope

we have not come to the point in the problems in this field in

British Columbia that a firm trying to solve an impasse feels

that an appeal on their part against a decision they are

convinced was not fair to their side of the story would result

in additional harassment and perhaps striking their premises or

picketing it and preventing them from working.

Some of the instances that were related to me, although I

can't confirm them, are the type that we hear too often and too

frequently. For instance, the plant is highly industrialized —

there's a lot of machinery in there. There's a large electrical

circuit feeding the plant from a transformer that had to be

installed in order to give them the power they need. I suppose

it's all three-phase electrical wiring and large motors. But

during the dispute, that whole service line suddenly was torn

out one night. Machinery was damaged in the plant beyond

repair. Now these sorts of things are the type of harassment

that that

[ Page 3202 ]

company was involved in, and they are concerned that it

could happen again.

I would ask the Minister to review that particular case and

see if they have rightful grounds for an appeal, because they

are concerned that if they go in that direction, take that

course of action, they'll be subjected to the same type of

problems that they were involved in and their plant was

involved in about a year ago.

That's one family company. Another company came to me not

too long ago. It's not a company really but two people, two

brothers, who are involved as.... Well, they're ceramic

contractors. They do ceramic tile work. They're artisans, two

Italians who immigrated to Canada some years ago. They have a

specific skill that's in high demand, particularly for some of

the buildings going up where ceramic tile will be part of the

process in a number of the rooms. They're called upon

frequently. I don't think they've ever been short of work,

because of the skill they have. They're not union. They hire no

crew. There are only two of them, and they wonder why they

should have to form a union shop when there are only two of

them ever involved — two brothers who have worked together for

years. Yet, of course, you know what happens when they go onto

a union job. Harassment takes place and suggestions that if

they don't join the union then things will be very difficult

for them indeed.

I could see some sense in them becoming a union shop if it

was a substantially sized company. But is there nothing in the

Labour Code that would exclude such a small firm? They are two

brothers doing the job they know how to do, and doing it well.

They tell me they never hire any help; it's just the two of

them working together, as they have for years. Is there no

reasoned way that they can be excluded if they choose not to

become a union, and yet not subject themselves to harassment on

union jobs? It would seem that if they were a larger firm, yes,

there would be grounds for it. If they are forced to, I guess

they will probably go union. But at the present time, in the

situation they are in, they are able to accept employment

wherever it is available to them. I would like the Minister to

comment on those two particular situations.

HON. MR. KING: I have mixed emotions about responding, Mr.

Chairman. The Member apparently doesn't understand the law with

respect to certification. The Members on that side of the House

admonish me and give me lectures about individual rights and

freedoms.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Thank you. Then perhaps you'll be consistent enough to

recognize that it's the right of employees to make their decision as to whether

they wish to be represented by a trade union or not. They have that right, free

from any interference by the employer. It's an unfair labour practice for an

employer to engage in intimidation, coercion and interference with that democratic

right of his employees.

MR. SMITH: What happens when there's harassment?

HON. MR. KING: In fact, Mr. Chairman, in the particular and

the unfortunate case which the Member has chosen to raise,

there was, indeed, an unfair labour practice charge filed

against the employer during the organizational. campaign. The

employer was convicted in the Supreme Court of British

Columbia, and an order was issued restraining him from further

interference.

There were incidents on the picket line, with charges and

counter-charges made by the employees and the employer. There

was an incident in the plant after one of the union members had

been dismissed — that was the basis of the unfair labour

practice charge — where the employer actually beat quite

seriously one of the employees who was a union member — beat him

physically. I am surprised and filled with chagrin that any

Member of this Legislature would want to champion the cause of

an employer who has conducted himself in that way.

It's ironic that the chairman of the Labour Relations Board

panel that sat on the case was an individual who has been

associated with management all his life, namely Mr. Ed Peck. He

had some choice comments to make regarding the conduct of that

employer from a management viewpoint and in terms of how the

brothers had conducted themselves.

I had the opportunity to meet them myself, Mr. Chairman.

They journeyed to Victoria and met with me in my office, so I

know something about them. But the Member did make the

statement that the employer had concluded that he would

probably have to submit to union certification. I think it's

regrettable when Members of this House accept that kind of

proposition. It is none of the employer's business whether or

not his employees decide that they wish to be represented by a

union.

There's a democratic process for arriving at certification.

They must convince the majority of the workers in that unit

that the union can do something for them. They require 35 per

cent of the workers to make application. If they obtain over 50

per cent, they may be certified; if they have less than 50 but

35, a representation vote will be held where the workers in

that unit have the right to express their support or their

non-support for the union.

For the employer to say blithely, and to hear in this House

by Members of the Legislature, that the

[ Page 3203 ]

employer will submit, if he decides in his benevolent way

that maybe his workers should be able to express the democratic

right — that's appalling. That's illegal! So I suggest that the

Member have another look at the case, and have another look at

the law respecting the rights of working people in this

province.

The whole history of that case is one that I'm surprised

anyone would want to associate themselves with. With respect to

the notification of the certification going out to the union

ahead of the employer, that's really not true. What happens is

that both parties have lawyers — the union had a lawyer and the

Sharamata brothers, or Consumer Glass, had a lawyer. The board

notified both lawyers simultaneously. This is a practice that

goes on daily.

But in some cases, one lawyer comes in and picks up the

decision and the other one doesn't perhaps until the next day

or a couple of days later. But the crucial thing from the

board's point of view is when that lawyer is notified. He has

his obligations to his client. If he does not choose to pick it

up immediately and reveal the contents of that decision to his

client, then it certainly is not the board's responsibility.

That's the way it flows. There was no differentiation between

how the parties were treated in this case.

These cases and the conduct of the parties have been ruled

on on the basis of the evidence submitted. Both the Labour

Relations Board and the Supreme Court of B.C. drew conclusions

which I certainly can't argue with. I haven't had an

opportunity to view the evidence, but in light of their

conclusions and in light of the violence that was visited upon

one of the workers in that plant who happened to be an East

Indian immigrant who was perhaps a bit concerned and

intimidated when it came to his right to exercise his options,

not being all that familiar with the language and not being all

that familiar with his rights under law in Canada, I can see

where he went through a pretty traumatic experience. Not only

was he dismissed, he was beaten up. I can't find any tears in

my eyes or compassion in my heart for the plight of that poor,

struggling, little free enterprise group. The view he holds of

his workers sounds to me like the chattels of old.

MR. SMITH : It is fairly obvious that the Minister, in

replying, chooses to champion the cause of the worker. That is

fine, but he completely ignores the other side of the

particular firm and the incidents which involve physical abuse

to Mrs. Sharamata by the very employee who was, apparently,

beat up by a very large, physical man — one of the Sharamata

brothers.

HON. MR. KING: That was never proved.

MR. SMITH: Well, you see, you choose to champion the cause of one person

who was involved in the physical incident, but there were a number of people

on both management and labour side. This is a very volatile type of situation

which came about probably as a result of people on both sides becoming very,

very uptight in the situation that has existed there.

I understand Mrs. Sharamata, who is not a young person, was

subjected to abuse in the office. One of the young lads stepped

in — a lad in his teens. He was subjected to physical abuse as

well. It was when they got to that point that there was

retaliation, I guess from both sides. Let's not just paint a

white picture of one particular segment of this particular

problem and the other side of it all black. I am suggesting to

the Minister that from the conversations that I have had and

the reports that I have read there is probably justification

for the employer, if he so desires, to require or request an

appeal. One of the reasons that they say they hesitate to do

that is that they feel that they would only be subjecting

themselves to a reoccurrence of the same type of harassment

situation that the whole crew and company was involved in

before. That shouldn't happen. There should be a right of

recourse for both union and management in that situation if

they so desire.

HON. MR. KING: I would just like to make this observation.

It is not my purpose or intention to make a judgment. There is

a difference between what the Member is saying and the position

I am taking. I'm taking a position based on the conclusions

reached by either (

a) the Labour Relations Board, which viewed

and scrutinized the evidence through hearings and arrived at

decisions and (

b) the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I know

there were conflicting allegations and charges regarding Mr.

Sharamata's mother and the worker who was beaten up, but I am

simply going by the conclusions and adjudications that were

made by those agencies. That does not involve showing a bias or

preference for the workers in terms of the evidence. I think

the Member should recognize that distinction. If he wants to

appeal the case on behalf of the Sharamata brothers to the

Labour Relations Board or the courts he is, of course, free to

do so. They are the ones who came to those conclusions, not

me.

Vote 124 approved.

Vote 125: salary contingencies, $1,893,827 — approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 93: Minister's office, $138,690 — continued.

[ Page 3204 ]

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for a year to

have something to say to this Minister and his department. The

highways in the province are all falling apart and he doesn't

even seem to realize that. I think we're going to get in

serious trouble if we don't get something done.

Dealing with the Minister's office, I have a few questions

to ask there. I'd like to know why this Minister isn't doing

anything about highways. He's got two executive assistants to

help him do nothing. That's the first thing I'd like to

ask.

Regarding the total highway budget, Mr. Chairman — and I

know that you'll be interested in this because you represent a

large rural riding just like myself — this budget we're dealing

with here is an amount of $275 million, and it represents 9 per

cent of the total budget of the Province of British Columbia.

Believe me, Mr. Chairman, in no way can we keep up to the

demands that are made on our highway system with this kind of

allocation from the total budget. While $275 million is a lot

of money, in relation to the total budget it is not very much.

As I explained, it's just 9 cents out of every dollar this

government has in this budget. There's no way this Minister or

his department can keep up with the ever-increasing traffic

volumes on our highways and byways. Consequently we are seeing

a deterioration of these roads all over the province — and I'm

not talking about.... I believe that about 10 per cent of the

highways in the province are paved; the other 90 per cent are

gravel surface.

What I'm concerned with this morning, Mr. Chairman, are the

main roads: Highway 1, Highway 97.... You know, by this fall,

Mr. Chairman, we're liable to be running on more gravel on

these roads — gravel surface — than we are paved surface,

because they're blowing up all over. No. 1 has blown up and has

been patched up. They spend all summer patching up the holes

that were created in the winter and the spring. They have a

different excuse every year as to why this happens, but this is

not the answer at all. The answer is to build these roads so

that these things won't happen, and certainly to a better

degree than is going on right now.

In this budget, maintenance is up from $69 million to $105

million. There have been big salary increases in this

department, like other departments, and I don't decry this

fact. But, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the increase here will

not even look after the salary increases that have been awarded

to the personnel of the Department of Highways, let alone put

more graders out and more maintenance machinery and

road-building, and so on. So really we're going to go behind

from 1974 in actual work and improvements, and this is what

alarms me. All you have to do is do a little driving to

ascertain that this is a fact right at this present time.

You know, right now, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister and his staff, I can foresee

that this fall we will have highway truck drivers, grader operators and machine

operators getting their salaries, which they deserve, but they won't be able

to operate the equipment they're hired to work on because there won't even be

any money in this maintenance vote to supply the fuel to operate the vehicles.

I think this is a ridiculous situation.

I really think that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) gave a snow-job to the Minister of Highways at the

Treasury Board level when last November, December, January —

whenever it was — he accepted the kind of funds that are

involved in this budget to look after the thousands and

thousands of miles of public roads and cow trails that are

still gazetted as public, because in no way can this Minister

and his department look after these large problems.

There's another thing I'd like to hear from the Minister. I

hope that he will have a few things to say under his estimates.

I believe last year it came up regarding the fact that always

in the past, Mr. Chairman, the Province of British Columbia has

been divided up into four regional areas for highways purposes.

I know this Minister was sympathetic in breaking down this

large area. In my riding, for instance, I have to deal with two

regional highway engineers. But I feel sorry for the regional

highway engineer in region 4, because he has to administer from

central British Columbia up to the north B.C. boundary, over to

the Queen Charlotte Islands and over to the B.C.-Alberta

boundary. No one person should have that large responsibility —

and also a lot of roads.

So I would like to know what the Minister's doing, or has

done, regarding breaking down these four regional districts

into some more and better administrative organization. I

understand that there has been a new highway district announced

in my riding, but I'm really concerned about the total

province. In other words, how are we coming along in, say,

creating eight regional districts instead of four, which will,

I think, bring better service to everyone involved and take the

load off these four regional districts that now really have too

heavy a load, in my opinion.

Under the budget of this Minister, Mr. Chairman, the capital

construction budget is up from $110 million to $140 million.

This, Mr. Chairman, won't even take care of the cost of

inflation. I would like to hear the Minister say that it must

be the fact that this year there'll be less road contracts let

than were let in 1974; and in 1974 they let about 40 per cent

of the contracts that should have been let if we're going to

keep on keeping up with the ever-increasing load on our

highways and the deterioration of them.

I would also like to hear from the Minister, Mr. Chairman.... He is also an MLA, and I was in part of his riding last

year; I'm referring to the Queen

[ Page 3205 ]

Charlotte Islands. There's a very adequate little ferry

system there. There is a lot of controversy going on about this

now. As it is in the Minister's own riding, I'd like to hear

from him what he's got to say about it, because just this

weekend in the paper — and I'll quote a few items, here —

regarding this ferry that connects the two larger islands in

the Queen Charlottes...and which, by the way, I rode on last

summer:

"The operator of a government-subsidized ferry system

between the two main islands of the Queen Charlottes says the

government is using stalling tactics to keep him maintaining

the service until it is taken over in December." I assume taken

over by the Department of Highways.

"Garth Mannering of Delta, director of Misty Islands

Transportation Company, said he's placing little faith in a

panic phone call he received from an Assistant Deputy Minister

in the Highways department last week. Mannering would not

disclose the official's name but said he was told that

government hadn't realized what was going on, and its actions

in the takeover are not the way the government planned on

operating.

"Mannering charged in May the government was putting him out

of business without compensation. On Friday, he said the

government official told him he would get back to him after a

meeting about the takeover. But Mannering added he was

sceptical that the official would do so. 'It's just a-tactic to

make me keep providing service while the government

consolidates its own position,' he said. 'It's just buying

time.'

"Unless the government comes up with a satisfactory

alternative by June 15th he'll give the required 30-day notice

and phase out the ferry system by mid-July. Mannering said he

has offered to lease or purchase most of his ferry equipment.

'The ferry system will be kept going for the required 30 days,'

he said, 'but alternative and possibly smaller equipment may be

used if the regular facilities are sold or leased out before

the period ends.'

" 'The takeover,' he charged, 'is a political gesture on the

part of Highways Minister Graham Lea, who is MLA for the area.'

I'd like the Minister to answer that charge, if in fact this

is right.

" 'Government operation of the system makes no economic

sense,' he said, 'because it will cost more than $2 million in

capital expenditure to take it over and $600,000 a year to

operate. The government will lose about $400,000 a year in the

system,' he predicted.

"The takeover first was mentioned in 1972 and in 1973 Lea

and Municipal Affairs Minister

Jim Lorimer were involved in a government offer to buy him

out. Since then he has been getting the runaround from the

government, and six months ago he decided to take things into

his own hands and get out of the marine business.

"His firm's pullout will have an adverse affect on logging

companies in the area, and they depend on it, he said. He

predicted two logging companies employing a total of 120 men

would have to close down. The operation of a third would become

marginal.

" 'But there's not enough business to have $200,000 worth of

marine equipment sitting around to supply just the logging

camps. The ferries used are landing barges pushed by a tug,' he

explained."

Mr. Chairman, they are quite a unique deal. As I said, I

rode on it last summer.

" 'When they aren't doing ferry runs they are used to supply

logging camps. The firm also operates a number of other

transportation facilities in the area, including a bus system,

a U-drive outfit, water taxis,' he went on. 'The bus system

might have to be phased out because it has never made money.

But,' Mannering added, 'the company will maintain the U-drive

business and all its contracts with....' "

So I'd like to hear the Minister, when he gets an

opportunity, to reply to those charges that, according to this

gentleman, this Minister is gerrymandering this for political

reasons because he is the MLA for that area.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like to hear from

the Minister today is about day-labour money allocations. We've

already lost two months of good construction time in the

Province of British Columbia, and it appears from the

department in Victoria that they've issued orders to everybody

in the areas in the interior that they don't know what the

day-labour allocation is, and consequently no roadwork has

commenced — or some has and some hasn't.

I'd like to know what instructions the Minister issued to

withhold the day-labour allocations. As far as I'm concerned,

they're still withheld. As I said, we've already lost two

months of good working time. I'm not too worried that the

announcements will come, and the money will be allocated just

about the time it starts to snow and freeze up. In that way, of

course, no roadwork will be achieved, or certainly not to the

amount that could be achieved. I can't understand why this

department isn't ready to go when the roadwork and the weather

is right, say the first of April. As I say, we've lost a little

over two months now and we'll probably get into the rainy

season and then snow.

[ Page 3206 ]

I really think, Mr. Chairman, that it's being done on

purpose to save money, money they haven't got. That's why they

haven't been able to release the day labour allocations. And

when I say day labour allocations, I'm not talking about major

contracts, because there's hardly any of them going on in the

whole Province of British Columbia. You can count those on one

hand. But day labour is where men and equipment are hired on a

day-by-day basis, the job is supervised by the Department of

Highways, and you get some good, permanent work done. As of

today, they really haven't got any of this going.

The other thing in here is the allocation for new equipment.

I've said this ever since I've been an MLA, and there are two

or three things I'd like to know about the equipment vote which

last year was $8 million; this year it's up to $11 million. I

would just like to say that I'm sure happy to see it going up,

but I have two questions.

I'd like to know if the $8 million was spent last year. If

not, what excuses have they got for not spending it — such as

placing orders, not getting delivery and so on? If the $8

million was spent, I'd like to know what it was spent on —

trucks, bulldozers, graders, what quantities of equipment did

they acquire? On the $11 million that we're discussing, I'd

like to know what their intent is there. How many pieces of

equipment and what type do they intend to get for that kind of

money? Because of inflation, equipment has probably tripled in

cost just in the last three years, so, of course, we have to

keep up with the money allocations. But I would like to know

because the Department of Highways cannot do the work without

the tools, and in this case, without the purchase of equipment.

Those are the tools they require to do the maintenance work

that is so very necessary.

I want to get into the details of the riding later on, but

I'd like to know about the Lillooet repair shop which has

always irked me from an economic standpoint.

They have to haul a broken down machine up to 150 miles to a

place called Lillooet which is away off the beaten stream. The

machines that do the service to Highways 1 and 97, when they

have any problem they have to be low-bedded and trucked over to

Lillooet. I understand this is an antiquated shop. I'd like to

know what the Minister is doing about upgrading that shop.

I've spoken on this before, and he said: "Oh yes, all you're trying to do is

kill the biggest payroll that Lillooet's got." I'm not trying to do that; I'm

trying to put some common sense into some of the engineers' heads. There's a

waste of money in hauling this equipment back and forth. For even a flat tire

on a grader, they haul it 300 miles so they can fix the flat tire. This is coming

out of Highway money votes that should be going for that machine to be properly

grading the roads.

I think that a highway establishment should be established

out on the main road closer to the area than Lillooet is. Let

Lillooet go on and look after a certain area, but I think we

have to have more service centres closer to where the action

is. I refer to Highway 1 from Lytton practically right through

to Kamloops. These machines that operate on there have to go to

Lillooet for maintenance. It doesn't make any sense at all to

anybody. I'd like to know what the Minister is going to do

along that line.

Thinking of that, there's a really involved procedure to

getting a new maintenance building in the highway system. I

refer to the fact that the Highways department has to lean on

the vacant-office department of the government, and I refer to

the Department of Public Works, to call the tenders and build

these badly needed maintenance establishments.

There are men in the interior of British Columbia

monkey-wrenching and fixing machinery out on the ground at 45

below zero. Since 1969 I've been promised that they would have

the proper maintenance buildings. Yes, the prior government...and this one is following the same rut. About three years

apiece, equal responsibility — and they've done absolutely

nothing. These men in the interior spend every morning until

noon getting their equipment started because they haven't got

adequate shelter for themselves or the equipment. People are

screaming and hollering to have their roads snowploughed and

so on in the wintertime, and here they can't even start the

equipment that will plough it out.

The Minister knows where I'm talking about — places like

Likely, Bridge Lake. All I get is: "Oh sure, that's coming some

day." But we've got to change the government twice more before

we can have these maintenance establishments. Apart from what

they cost....

AN HON. MEMBER: Once more. Once more is enough.

MR. FRASER: Well, once more. It is really important, I'll

agree. (Laughter.)

How long have we got to wait with this bunch of nonsense,

anyway? That's all it is — straight red-tape bureaucratic

nonsense. You waste money by not getting the proper use out of

this equipment or the men, and you also lose good men over it....

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep talking.

MR. FRASER: Before we go any further, I'd like to hear a few

answers from the Minister, and then we'll get, Mr. Chairman,

into the real nitty-gritty.

Before I step down, the riding of Cariboo has

[ Page

3207 ]

3,800 miles of publicly gazetted roads, by far the largest

in British Columbia. The next riding closest to mine has 1,900

miles of publicly gazetted roads and the average in British

Columbia is 1,000 miles. The Second Member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mr. Cummings) hasn't got any at all, and it's a lucky

thing for Vancouver–Little Mountain that there are no highways

there when they have that Member to scream for highways for

them.

Anyway, because of this fact, Mr. Chairman, I have no end of

highway problems all the time.

I'm waiting for the Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) to

get up here and support me here this morning....

MR. CHABOT: Where is he?

MR. FRASER: Well, I don't know where he is. He was here.

But in the riding of Cariboo we have that famous road,

Highway 20 from Williams Lake to Bella Coola. Mr. Chairman, I

want the Minister to know that 260 miles of the 300 miles of

this road are in the riding of Cariboo. The other 40 miles are

in the riding of Mackenzie. There's a real game going on here.

The Member for Mackenzie gets no end of complaints from his

constituents at Bella Coola and he refers them all to me

regarding the roads. (Laughter.) There is a little game being

played here.

I'd like to know, while we're on that subject, and the

Member for Mackenzie would like to know what you are going to

do about improving that road, because nothing's happened to it

for a number of years. As I say, there are sections of Highway

20, an important link from the interior to the coast, where the

rocks are even worn out. The rocks are worn out! There's no

road left. I'd like to know, as we get into detail later on

towards the end of the week, under your estimates, what you are

going to do about important links like that.

This time I got an assist from the back bench of the NDP. I

know this Minister, Mr. Chairman, needs the support of every

backbencher he can get and he hasn't got it. The Member for

Mackenzie is real upset about the job he's doing on the roads,

and more specifically Highway 20.

With that I'd like to sit down, and I'm sure the Minister's

ready before lunch to get up and answer all my questions the

way we want them answered.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to deal with them one

at a time because the Member did skip around from one subject

to another.

Dealing first of all with the total budget, he said 9 per

cent of the total budget goes to Highways. That's fairly

accurate.

MR. FRASER: Everything I said was accurate.

HON. MR. LEA: Not quite. I think what we have to look at is

the kind of spending that this government is doing in terms of

total transportation. Every other jurisdiction is going into

total transportation as a package. If you want to take total

transportation in this province and put it all together, I

think you'll find that our percentage of the budget will

compare with any other jurisdiction.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are the ICBC losses in there too?

HON. MR. LEA: I'll tell you, we're not putting down the

pilots of the aircraft as "bulldozer operators" any longer.

They're listed as what they are — pilots. Under the previous

government, if you wanted to look at the Highways budget you

didn't know what was happening, because they had bulldozer

operators that were flying...

MR. CHABOT: We were building roads, though.

HON. MR. LEA: You were building roads. You found many things

buried within the Highways budget under "maintenance" that were

not identified as to what that money was being spent on, such

as ferries.

Now let's just take a look at the paving. I am assured, and

I've lived in this province all my life....

MR. PHILLIPS: I thought you lived in the Yukon.

HON. MR. LEA: I lived there for eight years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, all of the good life that I've had was

lived here right in B.C.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: MR. Chairman, I'll wait until another Member

asks me questions. I can't answer these.

MR. WALLACE: I just have two areas. I've had a great deal of

complaint about the Albion to Fort Langley ferry. I wonder if

the Minister could give some answers, because the questions are

pretty specific. I gather that there's a multiplicity of

problems and tremendous delays, People spend hours on a journey

because they're delayed on this little ferry. For example, the

winches break down on the ramp, I understand.

The biggest problem this person is concerned about is

safety. The ferry is employing teenage personnel with no

lifeboat or firefighting training. There's been, I gather, an

enlargement of the docking facilities and, for whatever reason,

the personnel on

[ Page 3208 ]

the ship seem to have difficulty docking. This frequently

leads to damage to the vehicles.

The other situation that's been mentioned is that the cars

are crammed so tightly close to one another on the ferry that

sometimes there's just no way that you could get out of your

car if there were a fire or any emergency situation. The people

in their cars are jammed so close together on this little ferry

there's no way they could get out.

As I understand it, the safety regulations read that all

vehicles shall be stowed so as the occupants shall have

reasonable access to and from their vehicles at all times.

Apparently, when some of the personnel on the ferry attempt to

maintain this safety regulation, the captain of the vessel

gives instructions to get as many cars aboard as possible. As a

result, people are literally trapped in their vehicles should

there be any serious or sudden need for them to try and

escape.

There's been a new hydraulic steering system installed on

the ship which, incidentally, I believe is called the T.

Laguna. This steering system is proving to be anything but

efficient and effective. There's great difficulty, as I say,

particularly in docking the vessel. I understand there's at

least a rumor that the government is planning to spend quite a

few thousand dollars on repairing this or installing another

type of steering system. The ship practically runs aground on

low tide because dredging is ineffective, or there hasn't been

enough dredging.

All in all, several people who use this ferry have asked me

to raise this matter and ask the Minister would he.... I

understand the Minister is aware of some of the problems I've

already raised, but the people who use the ferry regularly have

asked if he would not set up a complete inspection, or some

system of review of the whole service, not just the specifics

I've raised. It seems to me, from what I've been told, that

there are mechanical problems, also problems of administration

and personnel.

The other quick question I would like to ask the Minister

relates to our own area, the capital region. I raised the

subject of the Blanshard Street extension when we first debated

the Minister's estimates some weeks ago. He has subsequently

announced that there has been a change of plan. As far as I can

determine, it's very much a change for the better inasmuch as

the tunnel that was previously proposed has been abandoned.

From what I can read of the new plan, I wonder if the Minister

could give answers to one or two questions.

First of all, how many residential properties will be involved in having to

be demolished or relocated or in some way seriously interfered with? How many

families are faced with the need and the absolute necessity of relocating? I

know that there's one factory, the Pitney Bowes plant, built on that site within

the last few years. I wonder if the Minister could say if it is involved in

having to be moved. To what degree has the Minister's department entered into

negotiations? Has the Minister's department entered into negotiations with the

residential property owners and commercial concerns such as Pitney Bowes?

The price tag which has been placed on the new Blanshard

Street extension plan is $6 million, I believe. I wonder if

that $6 million includes the estimates of the property

acquisitions that will be involved. Or is the $6 million the

approximate estimate for the construction of the highway?

There's to be a one-way system of highways in the

Vernon-Seymour area. I'd like to know if the $6 million is only

for the highway, or does it involve all the residential and

commercial acquisition of property?

Another quick question. With the tremendous importance of

tourism to the greater Victoria area, has the Minister

consulted with the municipalities, at least in a preliminary

way, as to what season of the year most of the work will be

done, and the possibility of using a winter works programme to

the maximum? As perhaps all of us who drive within the capital

city know, right now we've got disruptions of one kind or

another on several of our highways downtown, particularly

Government, with the plans to develop a mall and so on —

changes on Wharf Street and so on.

I think it would be catastrophic if any major part of this

upheaval and redirection of traffic during construction were to

occur in the main summer months. I know that you can't stop and

start a project like this that readily, but I wonder to what

degree the Minister has discussed with the core municipalities — Saanich particularly — as to when this might be done and to

what degree a winter works programme is possible. Does the

Minister, in fact, have a figure for total cost including the

construction plus acquisition of property?

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, on the Blanshard Street network

a lot of the specific details such as the number of homes and

how many people are going to be dislocated are not at my

fingertips. I will bring that in tomorrow with my estimates and

give you all the details on the Blanshard Street project.

I can tell you that I think things are working out very

satisfactorily for both the city and the department. The staff

of the city and my staff have been working closely together to

try and come up with a solution, which they did. It was

presented to myself. I approved it if the politicians in

Saanich approved it, and they have approved it. The plan is

satisfactory to both staffs and both political groups. I would

hope that it is the plan that will eventually come to

fulfilment. I will bring you the details in tomorrow.

There are problems with the Albion ferry. The

[ Page 3209 ]

problems started in 1972. Six weeks before the last

provincial election the tolls were taken off that ferry. This

put a great demand on the ferry that wasn't there before. I've

also asked my department to contact the Hon. Member for Langley

(Mr. McClelland). I don't know whether they have done that yet

but I have asked them to so that he can also give me a report

back from his vantage point as the MLA.

The ferry itself runs under MOT regulations. The points that

you raise I will certainly check out. There are a limited

amount of vehicles allowed on the ferry under MOT regulations.

I would assume that that is being done and the safety

regulations are being carried out. I would assume that. But

from your remarks I will ask for a full report, both from my

department and from the MLA for the riding so we can be sure

that safety regulations are being adhered to. If they aren't,

then it bothers me as much as it bothers the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

One of the problems now that we have the tolls taken off is

that we have more people using it. We can either put in a

larger ferry, which we don't think will solve the problem

because the bigger the ferry the bigger the demand. Admittedly

they can save some miles, but the Mission bridge was put in at

considerable expense to the people. Hopefully a lot more people

will be using the Mission bridge.

We run into the same kind of problem as we run into in the

inter-relationship between land use and transportation. There

are people living on the north side working on the south and

vice versa using that transportation system. Obviously, the

desirable goal would be to have people living on the same side

that they work. We should try to use incentives so that people

will do that. If we thought of putting in a new bridge we would

be talking somewhere in the order of $20 million to $25

million. We in the department don't feel that the call for that

usage would be there. It's either they put up with the ferry as

long as the safety regulations are being adhered to and the

limited use that it supplies or using the longer routing which

other people are going to have to use. We don't feel that the

considerable expense it would take for another bridge would be

warranted at this time.

MR. WALLACE: Check out the safety factor — that's the main

thing.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, I agree that the safety factor is the

main thing. I will certainly have the department give me a

report on that. I will send a copy to the Hon. Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace).

Dealing, as the time will allow, with some of the items that were raised by

the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), I will work backwards. He mentioned

the equipment vote and how he is pleased to see that it is up. It is about three

times what it was previously. The $8 million has been spent except for approximately

$200,000. This year, I could give you a breakdown.

MR. FRASER: Just send a note.

HON. MR. LEA: Send a note? Okay, on the things that we hope

to purchase this year. We are budgeting in $11 million but as

you know it is not always possible to fill it. We did last

year.

Day labour is not a problem. What is happening is that there

is day labour work being done all over the province at the

present time. What I have done is ration it out quarterly.

Instead of the whole year going out I am rationing it out

quarterly because I think it is my responsibility, as much as

possible, to try and stay within my budget that is approved in

this Legislature. As we go along the costs are increasing

fantastically, so I am going to have to judge. I want to judge

quarterly where I stand from a fiscal point of view so I can

get better control.

MR. FRASER: Tell your colleagues, too. They need practice in

what you are doing.

HON. MR. LEA: On what you are talking about in terms of some

of the back roads, I agree. It has been a problem. For the last

two years that I have been Minister I have had pretty

comprehensive studies done into the kind of administration we

would need in order to have a regular maintenance programme and

not go from one brush fire to another brush fire. You'll see

soon that there are going to be some positions coming out

within the Department of Highways. We're instituting a

maintenance management programme. In other words, we're going

to have management by objectives as opposed to management

dealing with brush fires.

We don't want to become overly bureaucratic but we do need

some control. It's not good enough.... Some foremen work out

very well. They run their area. Some district managers run

their area. But we have no way of checking at the central level

really at this point as to whether one foreman is doing his job

well with his crew, or whether he isn't. So under the

maintenance management programme that we're beginning now,

we'll be able to tell by looking at the reports that come in

whether one crew are not putting up enough signs, or as much as

the other crews. The management maintenance programme will be

going into effect and we hope that it has a lot greater degree

of control over the kind of work that the crews are doing and

so we'll know.

MR. FRASER: What about regions in the province?

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, yes. Regions in the province.

[ Page 3210 ]

As you say, there have been four regions. I agree it was not

adequate. We're going, at this point, into six regions: one

more for the north and one more breaking up region 1. Vancouver

Island will become a region, and the lower mainland that is one

now will remain there.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

HON. MR. LEA: It's being done now. It won't be just

overnight. What we're doing is getting some personnel together

so that they can go in there. In the north, for instance, it

will still be run out of Prince George until we can get

personnel in place — we've advertised now for personnel — and

it'll be a gradual changeover so that one day we can say,

"Okay, we've gone this gradual route."

Also, you'll be happy to know that there are going to be

five new districts within the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are they?

HON. MR. LEA: One at Gibsons; one at Port Alberni; one at

100 Mile House in your area; one at Creston; and one at Dease

Lake. I think that's been long overdue — both the regions and

the districts. So we hope that that will solve some of the

problems that you've raised.

Paving and spring break-up.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, in checking with the senior people in

the department, they tell me, and I believe them, that the

spring break-up every year is about the same. It doesn't matter

whether the Liberals, Conservatives, Socreds or NDP are in,

apparently nature doesn't care.

MR. WALLACE: Is that a fact? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LEA: Yes. The spring break-up is exactly the same

and you try to deal with it as best you can.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's called summer break-up.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, I imagine it varies from one year to

another, but I don't think it matters which political party's

in.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: We deal with that as best we can. Some years

it's much worse than others.

Now there's one pothole I'd like to have plugged, and I'm

looking at it. (Laughter.) I don't blame the opposition for

making a political issue out of potholes — it's been done for a

long time. The fact of the matter is that I think the

Department of Highways should be commended for the way they

deal with the kind of spring break-up we get in this province

that other jurisdictions don't face to the same degree.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Instead of insulting the personnel of the

department, I think they should be commended for the kind of

job they're doing...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEA: ...to try and keep the roads travelable in

this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: I move the committee rise, report resolution

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Hall moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a. m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada