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)

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

2863 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates.

On vote 120. Mr. Chabot — 2863

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

leave of the House to permit debate in Committee of Supply for

this evening's sitting.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 120: Minister's office, $94,135 — continued.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, I have a few

remarks here related to the TV news tonight on channel 2. I was

rather shocked and flabbergasted that I would see this kind of

government action in which the ICBC has suggested to clients in

the Province of British Columbia that if they experienced any

distrust and any financial hardship, they should phone a

particular number and they would be looked after by ICBC. I

want to know whether the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

supports and condones these kinds of strike-breaking tactics by

ICBC. It's always been my opinion that a strike or a lockout

has been a battle of economic sanctions. It appears to me now

that through the Minister or through his representatives in

ICBC you're about to harass the dispute that exists between the

employer and the representatives of the employees — the OTEU and

ICBC. I never thought I'd see the day when the government which

is so closely married to the B.C. Federation of Labour would

support these kinds of strike-breaking tactics which were

portrayed, which were promoted, on CBC channel 2 tonight.

What is the government trying to do, Mr. Chairman? They're

trying to destroy the only tool the labour unions have to fight

against an arbitrary employers such as ICBC. This is a serious

matter. Is the Minister going to tolerate the kind of

strike-breaking tactics that I saw on television tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. CHABOT: Yes, shame on the government! Shame on the

government!

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That is the most hypocritical

statement I've heard from that Member.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): That has got to be the

height of hypocrisy coming from you and your scandalous record

of labour in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Well, that's the nonsense we get from that lying

Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: You've never told the truth in your life!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member for Columbia

River withdraw that remark, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let him say whatever he wants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Premier, first, to

withdraw the implication that the Member was guilty of

hypocrisy and, secondly, that the Hon. Member for Columbia

River withdraw the imputation of lying.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word

"hypocrisy."

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the words that the

Premier has lied to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister of Labour continue

before we have any further interjections? Step into the breach

quickly.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the Member for

Columbia River, who was a former Minister of Labour in this

province, that there's no way that I conduct the affairs of the

Department of Labour in accordance with television interviews —

in this case a television interview that I'm not familiar with.

I conduct the Department of Labour on pretty firm principles,

which are largely accepted by both management and labour in

this province. I think that the improved record of

labour-management relations in the last two and a half years is

a pretty firm encouragement to conducting the department in

that way.

Now when it comes to the question of intervening in a

dispute, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that was one of

the problems with the former administration. They became

involved in a partisan position, on one side or the other. But

that position seems to have changed with the changes from

one

[ Page 2864 ]

side of the House to the other. When they were on the

government side, Mr. Chairman, they enacted legislation which

was clearly partisan on management side — clearly partisan. And

that was an adjudication and a judgment not only of the trade

union movement but of very eminent members of the judiciary in

this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against them?

HON. MR. KING: And here tonight we have the spectacle, Mr.

Chairman, of the former Minister of Labour suggesting that I

make a judgment against a management firm involved in a labour

dispute.

AN HON. MEMBER: Government firm.

HON. MR. KING: That is not my style, Mr. Chairman. That is

not my style, and I think it's improper for a politician to

call upon the government to make that kind of judgment. I think

it's an indication of the kind of shallow understanding the

Member for Columbia River has of industrial relations because

I'm here to offer any assistance to both parties to that

dispute, and they have the full aids of all the Department of

Labour 'devices at their disposal.

MR. CHABOT: In a pig's eye!

HON. MR. KING: In terms of making a judgment regarding

strike-breaking, I find that peculiar. This afternoon the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) stood in his place

and accused me of a conflict of interests because I was

involved on the board of directors of B.C. Railway when they

became involved in a labour dispute.

This evening his colleague, the Member for Columbia River,

stands up and suggests that I should become involved to

manipulate the position that management is taking with ICBC in

their dispute.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was a two-hour interval.

HON. MR. KING: I would suggest that the Social Credit

Members try and get it together, try to be consistent, but try

to understand that it's improper for a Minister of Labour, who

is basically a referee, an impartial arbitrator of industrial

relations in this province, to take a position favouring one

side or the other. Certainly I would not presume to do anything

of that nature.

MR. CHABOT: I appreciate very much the words of the Minister — that

he's a referee and that he plays an impartial role regarding the conflict that

exists between management and labour in this province. The Minister talked about

some of the legislation that existed on the books prior to his assumption of

the position of Minister of Labour. I don't know if the Minister recognizes

the fact that the legislation was there to protect the public interest prior

to his coming to office. We have seen the dismal record of his position regarding

public interest in previous disputes since he's been Minister of Labour. I want

to tell you that it's always been our position, as a government and as an opposition,

to take a strong position in the public interest, and we will continue to do

so.

I want to know if this action taken by ICBC — be it by the

direction of that Minister who's just leaving the chamber right

now, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan), or by Mr. Bortnick, the general manager of ICBC — is taking away from those workers, the representatives of the

workers, the OTEU, the economic sanctions they have to resolve

a reasonable collective agreement. What action will the

Minister take if he finds there has been interference by

ICBC?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, you know, this is really

incredible. That Member, as I indicated earlier, was Minister

of Labour in this province, and it's absolutely incredible that

he displays such a complete lack of understanding of the basis

for dealing with labour disputes in this province.

There's a management firm that administers ICBC in the way

that the former government employed management to administer

and run the affairs of B.C. Hydro, the Ferry Authority and

various other Crown agencies. He appears to be, on the one

hand, indicating that there should be in some way political

interference with the business administration of that

corporation.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no. You're twisting.

HON. MR. KING: If he is asking me to intervene, he fails to

understand that there's a procedure for dealing with unfair

labour practices in this province.

MR. CHABOT: Even against a government agency?

HON. MR. KING: If, indeed, there is an unfair labour

practice, the employees have recourse through the Labour

Relations Board. The Labour Relations Board is, indeed, an

impartial agency, and if the Member only understood that,

perhaps the record would have been better in the past. There's

no way that I intend to make any judgment regarding the conduct

of management or labour. If they run afoul of the law, if they

fail to comply, then there are

[ Page

2865 ]

penalties and there are remedies available to the opposite

party through the Labour Relations Board. The Member should

know that.

In terms of the dismal record — you know, I'm quite willing

to accept the Member's judgment. That's his opinion; he's

entitled to it. But I'm going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I

place a great deal more credence in the opinion of such fairly

substantial and respected newspapers in this nation as the

Financial Post , which is certainly no friend of the New

Democratic Party. They have a full-blown headline regarding the

record of the Department of Labour in British Columbia last

year. It's entitled: "Labour Code Cools Down Strikes".

"Last year British Columbia bucked the national trend in labour relations. The time lost in strikes

and lockouts soared in Canada, while British Columbia lost a

substantial $1.5 million man days. That was a good 25 per cent

lower than the loss two years earlier during the previous heavy

round of bargaining."

Now that's statistics. You can say what you want

politically, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and

those are statistics that, while they don't indicate that we

have all the answers, certainly do indicate an improvement, an

encouraging trend. I would think that the Social Credit Party

would welcome that, rather than trying to involve political

debate in a labour dispute that is presently underway in this

province. That will add nothing to a climate that is conducive

to settling that dispute.

MR. CHABOT: Strike-breaking tactics by that government over

there.

HON. MR. KING: If it is strike-breaking tactics, Mr.

Chairman, the trade union certainly has a remedy at their

disposal.

But I'm going to suggest to the House that a man who

developed a mediation commission, presided over by a judge from

the North West Territories who had no background of

understanding of industrial relations, and held that as a club

over the heads of the workers in this province to provide a

solution to deny the right to strike and give to that former

Social Credit cabinet the right to impose arbitrary

adjudication of that judge, is hardly the base from which the

Member can get up and sincerely make an accusation of someone

attempting to break legitimate strikes in this province. That's

a pretty shoddy performance, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the twinkle in that Member's eye when he gets up, because he has

great difficulty keeping a straight face. I understand that. At least he has

a sense of humour, because he can hardly be serious in making those kind of

charges. Being a former railway employee like myself ... it's a good bunkhouse

story, but I think perhaps he should let it lie.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Earlier in this session,

not too long ago, we saw the introduction of a bill by the

Minister of Labour, Bill 85. While I can't reflect on that bill

until it is debated in the House, I suggest to you that we took

your position in good faith, Mr. Minister, when you, in

introducing that bill to this House, suggested that you were

concerned about both labour and management — not one side or

the other — both labour and management in the education

programme that would be introduced into this province.

Now if you are sincere in the remarks you made when you

introduced that bill, I suggest that you demonstrate that

sincerity in the debate on your estimates this evening.

I feel that there is a problem which must be resolved. It is

not a problem of labour, or a specific problem of management,

but it is time that both labour and management in this province

came to the conclusion that to pursue their goals and their

objectives down paths that are 180 degrees apart is not doing

anything for the economy of the Province of British Columbia or

for the people who are involved who do not happen to be

involved as 'an employee or an employer.

I believe, and I think history will prove it, that the

solution to some of these problems is a meeting around the

table on at least a basis of a determination to solve problems.

I think it is time in British Columbia that we began to take

recognition of the fact that many people are involved

indirectly in any labour-management problem, and they become

the people who are the losers — not labour, not management. As

the Minister knows very well, in many labour-management

problems eventually the union or labour side comes up with a

solution to their problem, they present it, it may be too great

for management to accept, but somewhere along the line there is

a salve. But what happens? In 99 per cent of the cases the wage

increase awarded is added on to the cost of the product. You

know it, Mr. Minister, and I know it. Let me tell you something

else: the public knows it as well.

Now you are not here to represent labour or management, and

I'm not here as an MLA to represent labour or management. We're

here to try to effect laws that will result in a compromise of

the extreme positions that have been held by both labour and

management, and somehow effectively get them together to

resolve their differences.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Okay, laugh it up and make fun of it, Mr.

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke).

[ Page 2866 ]

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): You're the one that's funny.

MR. SMITH: But if that doesn't happen, then the whole

Province of British Columbia is the loser — not you as Minister

of Labour in the immediate future, not myself as a Member of

the opposition, not the labour union which is involved in

negotiations or the management side, but the whole Province of

British Columbia. We've seen it happen in other countries,

including Great Britain, who have almost deprived themselves.... Well, they have. They've deprived themselves of a

position they once held in the world economy. As a matter of

fact, they've slipped so far back that unless they get up and

pull themselves up by the bootstraps, there's nothing left for

the British Isles, which is an exporting country.

I hope that in this province, where we have a tremendous

number of unions and union agreements, we'll have sense enough

in the years ahead of us and in the months ahead of us to

realize that there's nothing to be gained by a continual

confrontation between labour and management. I've accepted what

you've outlined in Bill 85, and I think our party has, even

though you haven't spelled it out directly in the bill. But you

said on the floor of this House that you hoped both labour and

management will cooperate in establishing that programme.

I am one of the people who is of the firm belief that people

have a choice which is theirs and theirs alone. They have the

choice to become involved in a labour union and join that union

if they so desire, and they have a choice to be employed as an

individual without becoming involved in a labour union if

that's their desire. Regardless of that, they have a vote

somewhere along the line, and the majority of the employees

will decide that issue. So that's not your issue or mine;

that's one that the particular situation will resolve

itself.

I do believe that if we do not resolve in an effective

manner the problems that are involved today in labour

management relationships, then the whole economy and every

person who lives in British Columbia will be the losers in the

long run. I have been told by people who do not represent

management but are in the labour force that because of

automation or semi-automation their jobs become very boring

today. They do not see anything in the process that they can

grab on to and say: "This is what I did to help produce a

certain product." You know that as well as I do. Perhaps there

is an answer to that — that we make these people who are

employees part of the process, allow them to buy into the

action or the operation. After all, many companies have

introduced this sort of thing to the benefit of both labour and

management.

I don't like to say this in a manner which you would take as an insult, but

I suggest that you are very pro-labour in your background, in your training

and in your work. Perhaps that is what it should be if you are to occupy the

position of Minister of Labour in an NDP government. But I do not think that

you or any of the rest of your colleagues can forget the other side of the picture.

If you do that, what you are really asking for is a collapse

in the industrial economy of the Province of British Columbia.

I believe that you are aware of that. Otherwise we would never

have Bill 85 before us. But I do believe that we are moving

into a new era in the Province of British Columbia, one which

is not a continual, head-on confrontation between labour and

management. We have seen this probably graphically illustrated

by three unions which have been fighting tooth-and-nail for

many, many years and who have suddenly decided that that is not

the way to go, that perhaps they should get together and

discuss the mutual problems they share, and at least come out

of that with a common understanding of each other's problems. I

believe that is the way we have to go in the Province of

British Columbia today, because if we do not do that, labour

will say to government: "You have failed in the job before

you." Management will give up, and they will say to government:

"You were continually on the side of labour to the point where

our business was decimated and went downhill to the point where

we could not operate any longer."

As long as we have basic products to sell, we have to look

at other areas of the world besides our own province. I am

concerned, Mr. Minister, because I believe we are moving into

that area. I think you are aware of it. I hope your colleagues

are aware of it. If they are not and the policies are all one

way, pro one side rather than the other, it is a sorry day in

the future for British Columbia.

We have even got one of your own Crown corporations,

Can-Cel, who today say they are in trouble and are going to

have to lay off a lot of employees because of the situation in

the export of lumber and chips and pulp.

So let us not fool ourselves in this province. We have got a

problem and the problem involves 50 per cent of the economy of

this province. I would hope that we can solve that problem. So

let us not suggest that any one political party has all the

answers of it. It is not there, as far as I am concerned,

because today, why you have a pay cheque, and tomorrow, when

you have not a pay cheque, you are going to look at it very

closely as an individual.

I would hope we can forget some of our personal biases and

prejudices and get on with the job of building an industrial

economy, which our province is based on at the present time,

for the benefit of all British Columbians, not one side or the

other.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the

Member for a thoughtful contribution to

[ Page 2867 ]

the debate. I am a bit perplexed, a bit confused. I am not

quite sure where I stand. I am accused by this colleague for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) of being an anti-labour

strike-breaker. I am accused by the Member for North Peace of

being pro-labour and jeopardizing the interests of management.

I really don't think either one of them means it. I think

perhaps that is a bit of a political excess.

Interjections.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Get it

together! Get it together!

HON. MR. KING: I want to assure the Members that I do my

best to be even-handed and I accept and I agree with the

comments that last speaker made. Certainly there has to be an

attempt to try to mitigate and to reduce the amount of conflict

in the province. I agree with him also that no political party

has a blueprint to achieve that. There is no blueprint even in

academic terms for solving labour-management conflict. It will

continue to occur to some degree.

I think the overriding concern to this House and to this

province is to try to minimize the kind of conflict we have had

over the past number of years to the extent where it becomes

the rare occasion rather than the usual manner of reconciling

differences between labour and management. We want to reduce

the incidence of strike action and lockout action so that it is

the rare occasion rather than the usual occurrence. I think

that is everyone's objective.

There is no precise way to accomplish that. There is

certainly no way to accomplish it as an absolute, because

certain rights in society do impose inconvenience. Certain

rights, when exercised to their utmost, are disruptive to the

community at large, and certainly the strike and lockout rights — and they are rights — are disruptive when they are exercised

also. That's the price that society has to pay for freedoms and

that is true in a variety of other social customs as well.

I think that is fairly well accepted. Certainly it is a

convention of the United Nations, the international labour

organization; pretty well every nation in the western world

accepts that premise. But what we seek to do is to introduce

aides and assistants from government which should try to act

impartially, which would provide alternatives to the parties,

alternatives that might not result in work stoppages,

interruptions of essential services, and so on.

This proposition of impartiality.... Certainly I have a background in the

trade union movement. I make no apologies for that; I'm quite proud of the fact.

I hope the Member would not infer that it is an impossibility for a trade union

member to act in a judicial fashion in terms of public responsibility, while

at the same time accepting and even encouraging more and more business people

to get involved in politics. I see no reason to suggest or accept that a person

involved in a business enterprise can act any more judicially and impartially

than a trade union representative or a working man. To accept that proposition

would display a disdain for working people in this province, and I am sure the

Member would not want to infer that. I'm sure he would not.

The point is that one is judged by their clients, and in my

position I have clients in the business field and I have

clients on the labour side. I'm going to suggest that if either

of those parties felt that I was not impartial, that I was

biased and prejudiced, then I think my credibility would be

impaired to the extent that I could not do an effective

job.

But I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to say that I have an

excellent relationship with industry in this province. I've had

excellent cooperation, as I have in general terms from the

trade union movement. There are exceptions on both sides.

That's what I strive for, and I think that's what is expected

by the people involved in industrial relations.

To suggest that I am continually on the side of labour

simply because I come from a trade union background to me

displays a bit of a prejudice which I hope the Member did not

infer.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't even say it

HON. MR. KING ; Yes, he said I was pro-labour. He said he could infer

from my background that I was pro-labour. He said he would not want management

— these are his precise words — to believe that I was continually on the side

of labour.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Let's get it

down to producers and non-producers.

HON. MR. KING: Well, if we got it down to producers and

non-producers, perhaps, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you would

not have a place in this House.

We are talking about industrial relations, and I think we

should try reasonably to keep the debate on the vote pertaining

to the office of the Minister of Labour.

I have tried to answer in a reasonable way the reasonable

comments which the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) put

forward. I agree with him in general terms of what should be

the goals of the Department of Labour. They should be common

goals regardless of what political party happens to hold

office. The only difference that obtains, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

[ Page 2868 ]

HON. MR. KING: I hope the Member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith), who I understand is the new labour critic, can contain

the Leader of the Opposition so he and I might hold an

intelligent exchange.

I demand that we have the same objectives. The difference is

in terms of devices to obtain those objectives. We are trying

many new things in the Province of British Columbia. Some are

working fine; others need improvement. But the real test, the

real measure of success comes from the acceptability of these

approaches to labour and management, not from the politicians.

That's why I suggest that it is patently improper, as was

suggested earlier by one Member, that we become involved in a

debate on a particular labour dispute in this House. That

contributes nothing to easing the conflict; it contributes

nothing to easing the hostility and the emotion. It is

certainly not a basis to make a fair appraisal and judgment on

the issues surrounding the dispute. That's an adjudicative

matter. So I hope we can keep the debate on that plane, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. SMITH: On a couple of further points, I attempted to

keep the debate on the plane that the Minister suggested in a

couple of instances in his reply that we should keep it on. I'm

afraid that's impossible because, first of all, he attacks the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for saying what he said,

which he has a perfect right to do in this House.

He attacks the Leader of the Opposition as being a

non-producer. I presume that's what his remarks inferred. Tell

me, Mr. Minister of Labour, how many people have you employed

consistently over the last 20 years in the Province of British

Columbia? Over the last 10? Over the last five? How many people

have been on your payroll as your employees?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you trying to make him out as an

exploiter of labour?

MR. SMITH: You know, I won't even listen to that remark

because the Member who just interjected that isn't worth

recognition.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): We'll meet you in the

Stampede Cafe and talk about it.

MR. SMITH: I'll tell you this: it's people in the small

business class who are not the people who employ hundreds of

employees that are the basis of the economy of this province —

including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), his

family, and people like him who have employed people.

I happened to work in the hardware business myself at one time. That's where

I got my start many years ago. As a matter of fact, a long, long time ago — in

1946, as a matter of fact. I was pleased with that job because from that job

I rose to an assistant manager, then to a manager in a very large chain, and

then went on into another business on my own. I have no reason to feel regretful

about that situation. I was given an opportunity by a business owned by people

who didn't even know the name of the Leader of the Opposition. They gave me

an opportunity to go to work on a legitimate basis. I'll tell you what: they

decided that if I had it and I could go ahead, I would be promoted. Now there's

nothing wrong with that in the business world, Mr. Minister.

The suggestion of producers and non-producers, I think, is

one that you could consider because in society, today we have

both classes. The producers, as a rule, are the people who are

the recipients of better positions in the labour force. They

work their way up because they've shown some initiative, and

they go from one stage to the other. Eventually they end up, I

suppose, in the management area, and there they're castigated

because they worked like hell from the time that they first

went into the labour force.

You know, it's amazing to see the Minister laugh at that,

because that's what happens. An individual in the forest

industry, in the logging industry, or whatever — a lowly clerk

who starts out as a delivery boy in the store, works his way up

to become the manager, then the superintendent, and 25 years

down the line you find out that he's in charge of a chain. Now,

is there something wrong with that? Is there something wrong

with the fellow who starts on the green chain in the lumber

industry and works his way up through the system, continually

putting himself into a position of a higher wage? Then he

becomes a shift foreman, then he becomes a boss of the crew — is

there something wrong with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. SMITH: Oh, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't see

anything wrong with a person with ambition who decides that he

wants to get out and do a little better for himself and his

family than someone else who wants to sit back and do nothing

or, at least, the minimum possible.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) knows that full well. Leo, you came up through the

hard school and you know that when you work hard there are

certain promotions involved. Sometimes they take a little

longer than others. I believe that most of us realize that. I

think that we have to at least refer to that occasionally.

There's one other thing that I don't agree with — the

statements by one of your Members, your Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) who suggested at your

convention, I believe, Mr. Minister, that in labour-management

problems or in a situation where he decides individually that

Super-Valu should close down, that

[ Page 2869 ]

is what should happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who, Gabelmann?

MR. SMITH: That's right. The Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour. "If I had my way, I would close down

Super-Valu, if I so decide." If I so decide. Is that the

democratic process?

Let's reverse it, Mr. Minister. You are the Minister of

Labour. If you so decide ... I just wanted to wait until we had

the interference in front of us here removed.

If you so decide something should happen....

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: I don't think so, and I hope not.

Without getting political — and if you want to pursue that

course, we can do it — I believe that there is a better answer.

I tried to point that out in my initial remarks, but, Mr.

Minister, if you keep shooting arrows over at the Members of

the opposition, believe me, we will get into a discussion that

may take us a full week or better to decide. Whatever time it

takes, we will take because I believe there is an important

principle here, and the important principle is this: if you and

the Members of your party do not realize, and every Member of

this Legislature does not realize the problems we are involved

in in British Columbia in this next year, then neither have you

any right to be Minister of Labour, nor has your party any

right to be government. And the people who do not point this

out to you have no right to replace you because it is there

now, this year. We had better make up our minds that decisions

that are made in the next six months will dictate for many,

many years in advance of that. What will happen to the economy

of British Columbia?

I don't think you are derelict in your duty, and I don't

think we are either. We may disagree to a certain extent on the

means to approach the problem, but for goodness' sake, let us

remember that the economy of British Columbia is very fragile

in that it can be destroyed by the wrong decisions by

government.

HON. MR. KING: I want to assure the Member for North Peace

River that I was not casting any aspersions upon the productive

capacity of the Leader of the Opposition's family business.

MR. BENNETT: Or any other, I hope.

HON. MR. KING: I am sure that his family has been very

productive. I was simply responding to his good-natured gibes

across the House. I hope the Member doesn't become overly

sensitive about that repartee.

I am just a bit intrigued by your equation of productive

capacity. I am sure you didn't mean to imply what I heard.

Certainly, those who are in business are not the only people

who are productive. There are all kinds of productive

contributions to this nation and to our economy. Some of them

are hardware; others are more aesthetic. Even the political

process, I think, at times becomes somewhat productive when

certain Members rise in their places.

But I was intrigued by the kinds of analogies that the

Member drew regarding productivity. He referred to

non-producers: we have to be concerned about non-producers as

opposed to producers. Gee whiz, you know, that sounds like Ayn

Rand's writings to me. I don't know whether or not you ever

read Atlas Shrugged , but she espouses a certain

philosophy, with which I would not want to associate myself in

a philosophical or political way, where some kind of arbitrary

decision is made on those who are productive in society, and

the rest are left to a questionable fate.

MR. SMITH: It proves itself.

HON. MR. KING: I would like to think that every human being

has a contribution to make, some greater than others.

MR. SMITH: It proves itself. There is no arbitrary decision

to be made by anybody.

HON. MR. KING: Then he talks about the lowly clerks. Those

girls down there in the Hansard box.... I don't think

there is anything lowly about them. I think they are every bit

as good as anyone in the opposition. And I think the Law Clerks

who sit there at that desk and advise the Chairman of the House — I don't consider them lowly. Not a bit. Their stature is as

great as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) or the

Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) or mine or any else's.

I have the greatest respect for human beings, no matter what

contribution they may be able to make to our economy and to our

society.

I don't really want to get into a system of industrial

relations or political structure that attempted to set those

kind of judgments on the people of this province. I know very

well that the Member didn't mean to infer that. I'll accept his

sincerity in terms of trying to produce labour peace in this

province. That's our objective; we have common goals. With some

goodwill, a speedy debate and a speedy passage of these

estimates, we'll achieve that goal.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I have a few

remarks that I'd like to address to the Minister. He's in a

very good mood this

[ Page 2870 ]

evening. He's got his best judicial attitude displayed to

the committee. He talks about management and labour as being

his clients. It's great. He's Mr. Wonderful. He's a big man in

the cabinet and he's a big man in the House. He really is Mr.

Wonderful. He's above all of these problems that arise in

labour-management because he has very carefully got his

department structured in such a way that never does he have to

soil his hands with the problems that arise in labour and

management.

MR. WALLACE: He's King.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right; he's the King until it gets to a situation where it's so impossible that

he's got to bring in special legislation to solve the problem.

He won't use a mediation commission. Oh, no. We would never

force a settlement on anybody by a mediation commission. We

would only use the extreme power of the Legislature. Do you

suppose that His Lordship the King would use Bill 61 to solve

these problems? He wouldn't do that because that would be

beneath him to exercise those extreme powers.

MR. BENNETT: He'll use it on the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) when he closes down his

Super-Valus.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, we'll deal with the Member for

North Vancouver–Seymour in a moment, and his attitude with the

Minister. It seems to me that the point raised by the Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) was somehow or other missed by

the Minister. The Minister's taking his hands off position to

labour-management disputes when the government is involved in a

direct conflict of interest. His own government.

Now here's a Minister who has already been involved in one

conflict-of-interest situation regarding labour matters in a

Crown corporation of which he was a director and an officer.

They finally had to yank him out of that position. It seems to

me that the Minister misconstrues his role if he somehow or

other thinks that he's sitting over there in the cabinet, the

judge of problems that may come across his desk. He's a

Minister of the Crown. When the Crown, involved through its

Crown corporations, gets in the position of breaches of labour

practice, it seems to me that one Minister of the Crown has a

direct responsibility to tell the other Minister of the Crown

when to head in. It we can't have a good example in

labour-management matters shown by Crown corporations, then how

do we ever expect that the rest of enterprise is going to be

guided in any other way?

The Minister should clearly recognize that the Member for Columbia River is

not asking him to step in and interfere in a proper labour dispute, but he certainly

is suggesting that he should tell one of his fellow Ministers to stop strikebreaking

activities in a Crown corporation of which he is the president.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This is ICBC. If you're having trouble

getting the work out of ICBC, here's a phone number to phone.

Not only that, the Minister stood up very proudly in the House — I think it was yesterday — and read a whole list of services

you can now get from the motor vehicle branch.

How does the B.C. Government Employees Union square that off

with their comrades in the labour movement who are fighting on

picket lines in front of ICBC? How does the Minister of the

Crown, president of this Crown corporation, and his fellow

Minister, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), square off

with that?

It seems to me that it just isn't good enough for the

Minister of Labour to get up on his high horse and take the

haughty attitude with Members of this committee on this kind of

a problem. When the government involves itself in commercial

enterprises, the government has got to show leadership in a way

that they will expect other corporations in this province to

deal with similar matters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that he should relate his remarks to the specific

responsibilities of the Minister.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That's what he's doing. Right

on.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. I hate to have to remind

you, Mr. Chairman, but the Minister of Labour has something to

do with labour relations in this province.

I suppose that the Minister is trying to establish a role

for himself in view of the very sound rejection that he got at

the NDP convention just recently.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The new Minister of Labour from North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) is breathing hot on his

neck.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): You were there, eh?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I wasn't there, Mr. Member for

Dewdney, I wasn't at that convention. But, you know, there were

some other very

[ Page 2871 ]

interesting people who weren't there either. It's

interesting who else wasn't there either. Let me see ... who

was there from the B.C. Federation of Labour?

MR. WALLACE: Was the president there?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I don't think the president of the

B.C. Federation of Labour was there.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Were the

secretaries there?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't think the secretary of the B.C.

Federation of Labour was there either. These were people who

were the very close allies of the NDP. I remember when the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

used to be Leader of the Opposition. He sat there, and on the

days when they used to debate the Labour Minister's estimates

up in the gallery there would be the representatives of the

B.C. Federation of Labour; they would be four or five strong.

They would be leaning over and listening to what the Minister

of Transport and Communications had to say when he lashed into

the Labour Minister in the old days. But somehow or other they.... I guess they didn't get an invitation to the

convention.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was away from the Liberal

convention?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I wasn't at the Liberal convention

either. Oh, I get the picture: the B.C. Federation of Labour is

now independent of the NDP. (Laughter.) Well, I'm glad the

Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) pointed that out to me.

I set a very good example, that's right.

I think it's a step forward of the B.C. Federation of Labour

to be independent of the NDP. I really think it is.

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

You're really strong on independence these days.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You might have to come over and join us,

Bob — that's right. Lorne Nystrom's not going to win. When that

battle is fought, they're going to start counting off who was

supporting the favourite son or favourite daughter. But that's

your problem.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just relax — I've got a couple more things to say.

I think that the Minister of Labour has got to adopt a different attitude with

respect to his responsibilities as Minister. No longer can he take the haughty,

austere position like: "Don't worry me with the problems; the Labour Relations

Board will look after all the problems. If they won't look after all the problems,

then free collective bargaining will do the job between labour and management.

No interference from the Minister of Labour. But somehow or other if it really

gets tough, really tough, then I'll assemble the Legislature and they'll pull

my chestnuts out of the fire." — as they did in the case of the firemen's strike,

when the conduct of the Minister left a very great deal to be desired, a very

great deal to be desired in the negotiations which led up to this Legislature

being assembled on that particular little problem.

The Minister has given his story. I hope that one day the

trade union movement gives their side of the contretemps that

led up to that particular situation.

Interjections.

MR, L.A. WILLIAMS: I'll send you over a note so that you'll

know what it means.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has got to

do better than he has tonight before he is entitled to this

vote. He's got to respond to the challenge that was laid out to

him by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). What are you

going to do when you have the situation of the Crown

corporation headed by that Minister in conflict with the trade

union movement of this province? Are you going to sit back and

do nothing? You don't dare, because the next thing that will be

happening is that senior members of industry will be refusing

to play any role in matters when they could participate.

If you're not going to play a role in the resolution of this

difficulty, Mr. Minister of Labour, then I think that you

should seriously consider removing yourself from the executive

council. Then you won't be involved in these conflicts. They

got you out of the conflict with B.C. Rail by taking you off

the board; maybe we can get you out of this conflict by taking

you off the executive council.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am properly chastened by the

eminent Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who admonished me

for not having dirty hands and dirty fingernails. I can tell by

his suit, his demeanour and his well-kempt, manicured hands

that he's an authority on dirty fingernails and dirty hands. I

can see that. I'm sorry,

[ Page 2872 ]

Mr. Chairman, that he does not appreciate my style. I

apologize for that. Nevertheless it's something I've lived with

now for about 44 years and I guess I have to suffer through

it.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're paranoid!

HON. MR. KING: But what's more important, really are the

issues he raises. He talks about my responsibility in involving

myself, indeed imposing myself, into a dispute between ICBC and

the trade union on the premise that they apparently have done

something illegal.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, that's not what I said.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

apparently objected to a statement which I have before me. That

statement reads:

"ICBC interim procedures by which emergency service will be

provided to motorists during the current strike by members of the Office and

Technical Employees Union.

" ICBC says motorists suffering severe financial hardship

caused by death, injury or loss of a car should call this

number — 665-2800."

That is the basis, apparently, by which the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) suggest I should

intervene, by some strange gyrations and calculations find ICBC

guilty of unfair labour practices, admonish my colleague, the

chairman of the board, and completely supersede the authority

and the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board which has

the jurisdiction to adjudicate and rule on any breach of

industrial relations law in this province. I don't quite

understand it. I can understand it from the Member for Columbia

River, but I have more difficulty from that independent Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. He's a lawyer, and I would ask

him whether he suggests that judges of the court should go out

and prejudge the guilt....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You're not a judge. Get that through your

head.

HON. MR. KING: It's not too dissimilar. I am there to be

impartial; I am there to provide services and aid to both

parties. If I, on the basis of press releases, on the basis of

TV broadcasts, make an arbitrary judgment on one of the

parties' guilt, then I think Members on the opposition side

would be the first ones to criticize me for that too.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

He says that I was yanked out of the railway. Well, that's

his prerogative to think that. I don't know whether that's any

more of a stigma than having drifted out of the political party

that I happen to belong to.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Shunted. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: At least I've been consistent in my support

for the beliefs, for the philosophies and for the political

party I have stood for all these years. So if he wants to make

judgments on my conduct, I'm quite prepared to match those with

his any day, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest that the people of the

province will place their judgment on the conduct and the

commitment of people who, for whatever reason, jump from party

to party and from philosophy to philosophy in this province. So

that's the kind of personal commentary that's really not

relevant to this vote anyway.

I do say that it is strange and absurd that Members of the

opposition, particularly lawyers, ask me to place judgment on

the conduct of trade unions or on the conduct of management. My

role is to provide a framework of legislation by which both

parties must live and abide. If they breach those laws, then

there is a mechanism, there is a vehicle for trying them,

hearing the evidence, trying them, making a judgment and

providing a remedy through the courts. The politician's role is

not to become the enforcer; rather it is to become the

lawmaker. I think the Member knows that better than I do. So

that is the issue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This is not a correction, Mr. Chairman,

although I suppose that it perhaps is. It is quite clear that

the Minister failed to comprehend the point I made.

What we have across the floor is not 15 or 16 separate

governments, all functioning independent one of the other. We

have the Minister of Labour, together with his colleagues,

forming the executive council of the Province of British

Columbia, therefore they must act in concert and deal with the

problems of government. They have chosen the ownership,

management and direction of ICBC as one of the functions of

government. As a consequence, the Minister of Labour should use

his efforts in the executive council to make sure that the

conduct of ICBC is exemplary.

HON. MR. KING: But not prejudge them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Not prejudge them. Well, if a strike is

not a matter of economic warfare between labour and management.... You have read the

[ Page 2873 ]

announcement by the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) saying: "We will continue to do our job

with regard to the motoring public, regardless of the strike."

That defuses the action of the union, and you should have said

to that Minister of Transport and Communications: "ICBC has

been shut down by the strike and will continue to be shut down.

We won't take any steps to the contrary." That's your

responsibility, not as Minister of Labour, but as a Minister of

the Crown.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few remarks. I'm appalled, really, by some of the remarks made by the Minister of Labour.

I'm always appalled by what he has to say.

The Minister fails to recognize the fact that what we are

discussing is a government Crown agency, and that they have a

responsibility to set an example of non-interference between

management and labour.

We've been given a clear indication on the basis of a report

given to the Minister of Labour by the Minister of Transport

and Communications, via John Mika. You've been told

specifically what was stated on television tonight, and you

have a responsibility to set an example of non-interference.

And you have set an example of interfering in the economic

sanctions which a union can utilize to resolve a labour

dispute. You have got to recognize that.

You can't always say that there are means and devices and

structures by which people can appeal any unfair labour

practice or anything like that, because there's a clear example

given to you tonight of strike-breaking tactics utilized by a

government agency. Utter interference! Utter interference in

the rights of the OTEU and its representatives to gain a

reasonable labour settlement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MR. CHABOT: You know, it's not good enough for the Minister

to get up and make his facetious remarks that one Member has a

fancy suit, and the other Member has a twinkle in his eye and

he can't be serious and the only place this might be able to be

utilized is in the railway bunkhouse. Well, I've seen railway

bunkhouses too, you know.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: You know, Mr. Minister, you can laugh all you

want, but this is serious matter. You can't laugh it off

because you have clear evidence that your government, or

government agency administered president.... The Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is president

of that great corporation, ICBC, that great money-losing

corporation that lost $34 million of taxpayers' money last year. Now we see the interference by the Minister

in this and, you know, you've got a responsibility to tell us:

will you, as Minister of Labour — who is supposed to be the

great impartial arbitrator of disputes, never leaning one side

or the other — condone the action of ICBC in utilizing

strike-breaking tactics in this particular instance?

You have a responsibility. I don't know, I could develop

quite a dialogue and quite a discussion with the Minister with

some of the remarks which he has stated. The Minister talks

about the Financial Post talking about the record of

labour disruption in British Columbia during the year 1974.

Well, everyone knows that what was written there was on the

basis of a press release from that Minister of Labour — a press

release in which he virtually suggested, Mr. Chairman, that he

was proud of the record of the Department of Labour regarding

man-days lost last year.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) apparently is

proud. Unfortunately I don't have the number of man-days lost

in British Columbia, but I'll venture a guess somewhere in the

neighbourhood of 1.5 million last year. That's nothing to be

proud of. I have to suggest to you that it was more than in the

previous large bargaining year of 1972. But I tell you, Mr.

Minister, your first quarter of 1975 leaves nothing to be

desired. I recall very vividly the statements you have made in

this House regarding how you were going to resolve all the

problems that existed between management and labour; that

unless you could improve the record of the previous Minister of

Labour you would resign — resign. Now, Mr. Minister, you know

we're heading into a difficult labour-management year in

British Columbia this year, and you've got to be temperate in

your statements. You've got to be cautious in what you say,

because you'll find yourself in a very serious difficulty with

those facetious and irresponsible statements you make from time

to time.

Now the Minister has a habit of castigating the vehicle

which the previous government utilized to resolve

labour-management disputes in the case of public interest and

the long duration of a dispute, be it through a lockout or

through a strike. Now I want to suggest to the Minister....

The Minister left the impression that that vehicle was utilized

on numerous occasions. It was very infrequently used and the

Minister, if he wants to tell the truth and tell the truth for

once, will admit that it was very rarely used, and only used in

the case of extreme emergency after an extremely long tie-up in

the labour dispute of great economic consequences to the

province, or one of sheer public interest in the province.

Now I'd like the Minister to tell me whether he

[ Page 2874 ]

condones and supports the action of ICBC in interfering in

the right of the OTEU and its representatives to gain the kind

of collective agreement which they believe they're entitled

to.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): It's well

known, I think, in this House and in the province that Members

of our party have a wide variety of views on a lot of issues.

It's also pretty widely known that we have differences of

opinion concerning how to approach labour relations. It's no

secret that I've had disagreements with the Minister on many

occasions. But one of the things that we manage to do in our

party, Mr. Chairman, is to be consistent. If we say something

regarding our own personal philosophy, or it we have any

activity that we carry out as Ministers or as individuals, we

manage somehow to maintain that consistency from year to

year.

I find it pretty astounding to have the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) stand up and talk about the Minister's

responsibility to practice a policy of non-interference in a

labour dispute when we have the record of the previous

government and their massive interference in every labour

dispute they could get their hands on.

MR. CHABOT: How many times did I interfere? How many

times?

MR. GABELMANN: The establishment of the mediation commission

was enough.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it is also pretty hard for me

to take to listen the Member for Columbia River talk about "the

rights of the OTEU." Never in any of the years or months that

that Member was Minister of Labour did he ever give any

indication that he was concerned whatsoever by any of the

labour rights. His policies and his practices were to defend

the rights of management, which is government represented. I

think he did a fairly good job at that. To hear him talk about

the rights of the OTEU is pretty hard to take. I certainly

didn't intend to get up tonight to talk about this, but I felt

that it was pretty bad stuff. I couldn't believe it.

I think that Members, political representatives, members of

political parties, people who want to represent the public in

the Legislature should have or should attempt to have some

consistency in their policies. I think it is important that

Members who take one position when they are government take the

same position when they are in opposition and vice-versa.

MR. CHABOT: Don't give me that.

MR. GABELMANN: I make no secret about the fact that I

disagree with a number of the policies of the Minister. I am

going to be consistent about that, and I am sure the Minister

is going to be consistent about his views. We respect each

other's views in those matters. We manage to co-exist very

well. That co-existence basically derives from the fact that we

each are consistent and we each firmly believe the kinds of

policies that we advocate.

I just want to take a couple of minutes tonight, Mr.

Chairman, to talk about a couple of areas in which I have some

disagreement in terms of the current practice of the Department

of Labour. They are not serious disagreements because by and

large the practices of the Department of Labour have been

commendable. The time lost from strikes in British Columbia

last year definitely was less than in any similar kind of

bargaining year under Social Credit. The practices of the

mediation services that we provide and the officers that are

provided by the department have been able, I think, to resolve

many disputes that under the former government would have led

to strikes. They didn't lead to strikes because of the

excellent work that the department was able to do.

I think the fact that there may have been 1.4 million

person-days lost last year should be seen in the context of how

many days are lost every year from sickness and from accidents.

The days lost from strikes or lockouts in no way compares to

the time lost from sickness and from accident. Those days are

far more costly to the economy than all of the days that are

lost in labour disputes.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Not directly; that is so. I think that the

emphasis that people place on days lost from strikes or

lockouts should be placed in context. The context really is how

many days are lost for other reasons. Not many days are lost,

in fact, to strikes and lockouts. Most labour disputes are

settled amicably. The former Minister of Labour knows that as

well as I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true? Is it true?

MR. CHABOT: It is true.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, there were one or two things that the

former Minister of Labour used to say that were right, and that

was one of them.

My comments at the NDP convention a few weeks ago have been

the subject of some discussion in the House tonight and also

the subject for discussion on page 4 of The Province a

few days ago. I think I would like to, if possible, outline my

views on the question of organizational and informational

[ Page 2875 ]

picketing so that I can attempt calmly and rationally to put

my views on the record so that it is understood both by Members

in the House and by representatives of the press gallery.

I believe that the current legislation administered by the

Minister is too restrictive for workers in the construction

industry. I believe that the legislation has been very

successful in terms of industrial work situations. It is

possible now to organize in a way that was never possible

before in industrial situations.

But construction workers are in a different situation

altogether. They don't have the ability to go on a two- or

three-month campaign, signing up members who happen to work at

one place, because often they are only working there for a week

or two or just a few weeks and they are off to another job

site. The only way to organize workers on those construction

projects is the day or two at the beginning of the work

project. The only way to really do that is to have an

informational picket line on that job site so that it gives the

organizers some kind of ability to get the message across to

those workers who are not organized. The Minister has set up a

commission headed by Jim Kinnaird to look into ways and means

of making it fairer for construction workers in terms of

organizing. I am pretty confident in my own mind that the only

alternative that the commission is going to be able to come up

with is the question of informational picketing. I really

believe that no other alternatives exist but for one.

The other alternative that might exist is compulsory

unionization. But I don't believe that this province or this

Legislature or, for that matter, myself really want to see the

situation that we have compulsory unionism. That's the only

alternative, I believe, to informational picketing to solve the

problems we have on the job sites, as is so perfectly

demonstrated by the Gaglardi dispute with the building trades

unions.

Believe this or not, Mr. Chairman: there was more freedom

for informational picketing under the old government than there

is under ours, because the Labour Relations Act of those days

was silent on the question and the courts were able to

interpret the information in a way that allowed more

informational picketing than now exists. So I think that on

that part of the picketing question I've explained my

position.

On the question of informational picketing as it relates to

disputes such as the farm workers' dispute relating to grapes,

lettuce and other products in California as that dispute

affects us here in British Columbia, my comments at the NDP

convention were much more extensive than quoted in the press,

although I won't deny that the press quoted me accurately. They

did. I believe that I wouldn't use those same words again,

because I don't believe them to be wise. All of us at times get

carried away, as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) knows. In the heat of

a convention sometimes when you're on to an emotional debate,

and you start listening to yourself more than you do anything

else, you sometimes tend to get carried away. I got carried

away and the words I used were not wise, nor are they what I

believe.

I do believe that people who want to assist workers who are

organizing should have the right to go on an informational

picket line in front of an outlet that is distributing the

goods coming from a strike-bound situation.

It's not very often that the labour movement declares a

product "hot," because they know that if they use that

weapon indiscriminately it will become meaningless. The labour

movement is very selective and very careful before it

determines that a product is going to be named "hot." It did

that in the question of California grapes because the struggle

of the farm workers in California was seen to be one that was

just and valid and one in which we could provide some

assistance, particularly since Canadian consumers were

purchasing a large quantity of the grapes being picked by

non-union workers in California.

I believe that I should have the right — this is what I was

trying to say at the NDP convention — to stand up in front of a

Super-Valu or a Safeway or a Stong's or any one of those stores

and ask people not to stop at that store because that store is

selling a product that is hot, a product that is being produced

in a strike-bound plant or, in the case of the grapes, in a

strike-bound industry. I believe that workers have very little

economic power in this society. They don't have the power that

management has in the boardrooms. They don't have the power to

name new prices for their labour as management does for their

goods. Management at any time, for any reason and under any

circumstances can arbitrarily without any reference to anyone,

including the government and anyone else, assign a new price or

a new value to their goods. Workers don't have that right. In

that sense, workers are not equal in the economic

situation.

Therefore some other weapons are required. I really believe — I believe this sincerely and I believe this honestly — that

workers must have the right to inform the public that there is

a dispute going on, and they should be able to say to the

public: "Please do not purchase the following goods." Or even

more: "Please do not shop at the following stores because these

stores are practising a policy of selling strike-bound goods."

That's my position.

I don't believe that I personally should be able to go and

walk on a picket line and say: "I want to shut down

Super-Valu." I believe in that case that Super-Valu should be

able to continue to operate. But I would try my best, Mr.

Chairman, to make sure that no one walked into that Super-Valu

store, that no one bought goods if that Super-Valu was

[ Page 2876 ]

practising a policy of selling, as I say, strike-bound

goods. That's the position I was trying to outline at the

convention.

MR. CHABOT: Are you against the Teamsters?

MR. GABELMANN: I regret very much that my comments at the

convention were as ill-advised in that particular context as

they were. It hasn't done me any good; I'm trying to set the

record straight now.

Nevertheless, my position is different than that of the

government. I make that clear. The Minister has devised

legislation. I hope he will reconsider it. I hope over the next

few years we'll get a chance to revise that legislation so

that, in fact, I will have the legal right to walk up and down

in front of a Super-Valu store saying to people: "Please don't

buy these grapes, because they are produced by non-union

labour." I don't have that right now, Mr. Chairman, and I want

that right.

The only other matter I wanted to raise in this discussion

of the Minister's estimates is the question of the Labour

Relations Board. Again, I have some minor disagreements with

the Minister.

I agree with the general policy of moving labour relations

out of the courts. One of the prime reasons for moving labour

relations out of the courts was to get it out of the legalistic

framework.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't need your help, Jim, thanks.

One of the problems with labour relations in past years is

that disputes have often been seen to have legalistic

solutions, and that has been very much emphasized by the fact

that disputes ended up in the courts all the time. We quite

properly moved labour relations outside the court system and

into a new Labour Relations Board.

My quarrel is not with the basic direction of the policy but

with one particular example of its implementation. I believe

that having three out of the top six officers of the Labour

Relations Board trained in law, even though one of them was a

professor and not a practising lawyer, provides an atmosphere

of legalistic solutions. I don't believe that labour relations

is a legal art; I believe it's a social art. For that reason I

would like to see people who understand the processes sitting

on the Labour Relations Board. I honestly don't believe that

lawyers can have that perspective; and if they can have the

perspective, they aren't seen to have the perspective. That

again is the important matter there. I would just hope that in

the future we would be able to go away from that trend to have

a legalistic Labour Relations Board.

I agree with the Minister when he says that the decisions of

the board need to be carefully written in language that won't

allow there to be some appeal to the courts. I believe the way

to do that is to have trained legal advice working for the

Board, not acting as commissioners on the board. I think that's

the proper procedure to make sure that problem doesn't

arise.

As I say, I think the conduct of the Minister in the last

two and a half years has been excellent. I believe honestly —

in the same sense that I have some minor disagreements with him — that he has been the best Minister of Labour not only that

this province has ever seen but this country has ever seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. GABELMANN: The Member says nonsense, but the record's

there. He has managed, I think, to provide an atmosphere in

this province of....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, we won't pause to laugh at that. I

think he's managed to create an atmosphere in this province of

trust from both management and from labour of his department,

and that's the essential first element in conducting rational

and sane labour relations.

The problem in the past, of course, is that at least one

side didn't have much confidence in the Minister or the

Ministry. That's been changed now. I want to at this time offer

my sincere congratulations for the excellent job that the

Minister has done for the last two and a half years.

MR. WALLACE: I've listened very carefully since about 8:30,

and I'm rather surprised by two particular comments of the

speaker who just took his place, the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I'm absolutely shaken by his

statement that workers have no economic power — "very little"

was the phrase he used. Very little economic power. I don't

know where he's bee these last 10 or 15 years in this

province, but the economic power of the worker has certainly

not only created strikes of numerous types by numerous sections

of the work force but has certainly wrought some very

considerable effects and hardship on third parties, namely the

public.

Whether or not the Member who just took his seat thinks that

simply because an employer can change the price of a product,

that the employee cannot change the price of his labour

overnight and that that denotes very little economic power....

I would just have to differ very strongly on that point. I

don't think that the....

[ Page 2877 ]

HON. MR. KING: They are my estimates, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you and he obviously disagree, and

there's no better point for an opposition Member to zero in on

than a split in the government.

Seriously, it seems to me that economic power has so many

ramifications and so many consequences. I really feel that that

is a gross exaggeration of the facts the way in which the

Member described them.

He also touched upon informational picketing. I notice in

section 84 of the Labour Code that there's certainly no

restriction on providing information by any other means other

than the picketing device.

Section 84 makes it very plain that

a trade union or other person may at any time and in any manner

that does not constitute picketing, as the word is defined in

the Act, "communicate information to any person or publicly

express sympathy or support for any person," et cetera,

et cetera.

So while I'm not in any way trying to get the Minister off

the hook on this one, I think it's only fair to say that

section 84 of the code allows any trade union member to spread

information in any way other than by picketing. As far as I'm

concerned in our party, that's as far as it should go in giving

the authority and the mechanism for union members to spread

information about products that are hot. When I sit down, I

would hope the Minister will answer why he is so opposed to

informational picketing. I don't for a moment disrespect the

right of the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann)

to disagree with the Minister of Labour, but I would like to

know why the Minister is so clearly concerned that

informational picketing would be very disruptive, or the degree

to which he considers it would be disruptive. I would also like

him to state very clearly that it is government policy to

oppose informational picketing, even though there were many

voices in his own party at convention that seemed to favour

it.

The Minister talked earlier on tonight about alternatives to the problems facing labour-management relations, particularly

when there is a difference of opinion. Again, the Member for

North Vancouver–Seymour talked about consistency. I wonder if

the Minister thinks this government is being consistent in

always opposing compulsory arbitration when that, in effect, is

what we have with the teaching profession in this province. We

needn't get off on a battle of semantics because we had this

battle on education in committee a few weeks ago, where the

government very cleverly, at the last minute, deleted the word

"compulsory" from the report because it wouldn't have looked

very good in the official report that came into this House to

say that teachers have compulsory arbitration. But they do.

They negotiate, they mediate, and then there is a deadline. I

can't remember — is it November 15?

Then there is arbitration which is binding. The Minister

shakes his head.

HON. MR. KING: Not my department!

MR. WALLACE: I know it isn't your department, but I am

talking about principles and consistency, Mr. Minister, and it

is your government, whether it is your department specifically

or whether it is government policy. We are talking about a

principle which involves compulsion in the area of collective

bargaining.

Any time I have spoken in this House and said that I believe

that many people in our society would welcome more attempts to

have deadlines in negotiation beyond which there would be

binding arbitration, the Minister has taken great exception and

said that that will not work. Well, it seems to work for the

teaching profession. I don't see why we should consider that

other sectors of the work force are so different.

Granted, they are not all the same by any means. But when

the teachers can't negotiate an agreement with the school board

beyond a certain date, the process of arbitration sets in and

that arbitration is binding. The teachers and the school

trustees have no choice as to whether it is binding or not.

Whatever is handed down by the arbitration board is the

settlement.

The Minister interjected a moment ago that that is not his

department. It may not be, but, as the Minister well knows,

we've got legislation on the floor at this session which gives

the Minister the job of appointing the arbitrator. I am not

saying that is wrong. I am saying that the principle applies

that as far as the teachers are concerned this government

believes in a policy of binding arbitration. I don't see how we

can interpret that part of the government policy any

differently.

Although it's been mentioned earlier tonight, I also was

somewhat surprised to find that driver's licences and

certificates will continue to be issued because I always

understood that the whole strength of the strike weapon has

changed in recent years. It used to be that the employee was

simply trying to bring economic pressure upon the employer,

basically. But now there is so often a third party involved,

the public at large, that the strike weapon has more

significance because the employee can embarrass the public or

put the public to considerable hardship. If that is the case,

and I think it is.... It certainly is the case in the recent

strike we had in Victoria with the CUPE workers whose action

resulted in the loss of education for several weeks for many

children in this area. I am sure that if it was just a question

of the teachers trying to exert economic pressure on the school

trustees, the strike could go on for 10 years if the children

weren't the innocent

[ Page 2878 ]

victims in the middle.

So I must say that I was surprised when I read that the

government is continuing to provide driver's licences, renewal

of licences and driver's certificates when I would have

imagined that this was very much the strength of the ICBC

strikers, to inconvenience the public.

I understand there is a moratorium on anyone being found

driving without the appropriate insurance. I'm not even sure

how legal the suspension of that law can be. Does the

government have the constitutional right, because of a labour

problem, to suspend the application of a law? It is an

interesting question. I don't know who issued this moratorium,

which Minister, or what validity that moratorium has, but I am

certainly going to be fascinated to study the first test case

in court when somebody gets killed by the driver of a vehicle

that is not insured. Has the government figured that one out? I

think there will be some terrible legal tangles, when, as

almost inevitably will happen, someone in this province is

either going to be injured or, worse still, perhaps killed in

an accident by a driver who doesn't have legal insurance and

who is still driving without that coverage because of this

so-called moratorium.

It seems to me that the consistency of the government in

this respect in espousing the sacrosanct nature of collective

bargaining and the fact that no one must act to break a strike

in unfair methods, this seems to be a pretty good example that

the government itself is indulging in in the case of the ICBC

strike. The Minister said earlier on tonight that the most

important function he can fulfil is one of neutrality. I accept

that. But certainly the Minister, as he well knows, has

admitted in this House that there have been times when he has

leaned on parties — that was the phrase he used — and it seems

to me that that particular admission of involvement in trying

to coerce or persuade one or other party to a dispute to settle

in practice is not what the Minister was describing in theory

earlier on tonight.

Before, we leave that point, I do hope, without

transgressing on the bill, that the Minister will consider that

his stated concept of neutrality and recognition that

labour-management problems are exactly that — a 50-50 situation

where both sides have to be balanced to the greatest possible

degree and that all his activity has to be is equality towards

both sides — I hope he will amend that bill which, as I said

yesterday, doesn't contain the word "employer" or the word

"management."

The other area that I would just like to touch upon, Mr. Chairman, relates

to the Minister's stated concern about the rejection of settlements by union

membership. He's quoted last month as saying that the rejection of settlements

negotiated by union leaders but rejected by the membership is a growing problem,

and I'd just like to ask the Minister one or two questions.

First of all, is the Minister contemplating a more rigid

situation whereby, during negotiations, there shall be

mandatory intervals at which the negotiations should be

communicated to the membership with or without a vote? This,

again, was part of the impression the public received during

the recent CUPE strike here in Victoria — that many of the

members of the union first of all were not kept well informed

about what was going on in the negotiations, and there was

great delay in submitting the proposals to the membership.

I'm wondering if the Minister has any suggestions as to how

this problem is to be tackled. And I wonder if he's even

considered the possibility that perhaps if the leaders come to

a majority decision that the offer is acceptable, whether it

should always be absolutely necessary for all the membership to

ratify a decision which is acceptable to the leaders.

I know it's become standard practice that the total

membership vote for or against the settlement arrived at or

suggested by the leaders, but as the Minister pointed out in

this statement.... I don't know, he made the statement early

in April. He also said that trade union leaders should put

their own jobs on the line if they have what they consider a

satisfactory settlement which they can't sell to the

membership. I'm wondering if we can anticipate change in the

legislation to implement some of these ideas. Or is the

Minister just trying to sound a warning that it's a problem but

he has no proposals as to the solution?

The last comment I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, was on the

question that I think the Minister is sympathetic to, and that

is the right of workers who are blind to have a greater freedom

of choice in the whole question of whether or not they can

become organized, and the degree to which they are now totally

dependent on CNIB in terms of seeking jobs and conditions of

employment. I don't have the press clipping relating to the

subject, but I believe that the Minister is sympathetic to the

situation of blind workers. I would like to know to what degree

we can anticipate early changes to the existing

legislation.

I presume all MLAs have had correspondence from the.... I

forget the gentleman's name who acts on behalf of an

association for the blind. But this seems to be an area of

neglect in labour legislation and, perhaps just by default,

nothing has been done to change the legislation which has

existed for a long time.

Is the Minister close to bringing in amendments in regard to

the blind workers?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace), we can expect some amendment to the Blind

Workers' Compensation Act at the current session. I do

expect

[ Page 2879 ]

that we will see some amendment to that Act.

The question of trying to impose time limitations on

bargaining has been tried in a variety of areas. But really, I

hold the view that there is very little one can do to

legislatively require bargaining in good faith. If one or the

other party chooses to delay, there is no problem in finding

adequate excuses to do so. We are studying a variety of

options, and, as the Member probably knows, there are some

options in terms of exercising the strike weapon rather than

arbitration as it affects those areas most crucial to the

public interest: police, firemen and hospital workers. There

are some options there.

The teachers, of course, come under the Public Schools Act,

which is in no way under the jurisdiction of the Department of

Labour. While one may question the policy of the government on

that point, it is my understanding that the teachers and the

school boards have requested that system. That is their choice,

but it is certainly unique in terms of industrial relations. I

doubt that one would find many other groups in our milieu who

would be prepared to accept compulsory arbitration as a method

of settling....

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: Why don't you try it? It works for the teachers.

HON. MR. KING: As a matter of fact, Mr. Member, we do try it

in almost every dispute, but in a voluntary way. You see,

whenever a protracted strike is in effect that is of concern to

the community or to the people involved, I, as a normal

practice, offer third parties to them: an industrial inquiry

commission or an industrial arbitrator. If they accept an

industrial inquiry commission, which in law is non-binding, I,

as a matter of appointing an industrial inquiry commission, ask

both parties if they will voluntarily accept it as binding. And

there is a vast difference between compulsory binding

arbitration and voluntary binding arbitration.

Compulsory arbitration hangs there as a club to be used at

all times, where quite frequently I have appointed industrial

inquiry commissions with the voluntary agreement of both

parties to accept the adjudications as binding. So that's a

normal course. But it is one that protects, preserves and

maintains the rights of both parties. That often occurs, and we

try that frequently as a device. But it is as an internal

device, not something that is held up as a high-profile subject

of controversy to the industrial relations world. Quite

frankly, I think that is preferable.

There are a number of other things we study. But in my view

unless you have some basic agreement and some receptivity by

the parties, then you are not very well advised to try many

experimentations on them. You will be repudiated before you get it off the ground. But

we do try those things.

I would like to say to my colleague, the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), that I agree with him. We

certainly do have certain disagreements regarding approaches to

the picketing area particularly. But I can't help but draw to

his attention the illustration that he uses of the imported

grapes to Super-Valu and his desire to have the right to

informational picketing in those circumstances.

The irony is, of course, that the Teamsters, who represent

the grape workers, achieved that right to representation

through the very device that the Member is advocating —

organizational, informational picketing rights. It would be a

bit of an irony to them to set up the same obstacle to

recognizing their right to sell them in the store.

MR. WALLACE: Why are you so opposed to it?

HON. MR. KING: I'm opposed to it on the basis that there can

be no effective control. You see, in reality there is no

difference between picketing per se in a legal strike,

information picketing or organizational picketing. My

contention is that the consequences are the same. The

consequences are that no workers cross the picket lines, and it

imposes a shutdown of the plant. So no matter what you call it,

organizational or informational is a misnomer in my view

because the consequences are that workers don't cross picket

lines. That means on any grievance that a worker, a group of

workers or some dissident from up the street happens to have,

were they given the right to picket in an informational or a

organizational way, there would be absolutely no security of

operation for any industry in this province. That would detract

from the security not only of industry but of the workers as

well. I doubt that it is in the best interests of the

workers.

I recognize and agree with the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour that we do have a special and unique problem

in the construction industry. I'm not in agreement with him,

though, that it's impossible to find other devices to come to

grips with those special problems. That's what I hope to do

through the appointment of Jim Kinnaird in the construction

industry. He's a capable person, acceptable to both parties. I

hope we can experiment — perhaps not. If I can find no other

reasonable, practicable, acceptable answer, it may well be that

I'll have to have a hard look at organizational picketing. I

hope not because I'm afraid of the disruptiveness of it. That's

my reaction.

The point I'd like to get across to the opposition Members

on the ICBC thing is that you can't have it both ways. You

can't hammer the government for interfering with management

rights as it pertains to the railway, and question us about

interference with

[ Page 2880 ]

management to the extent that some resign and so on, and

condemn us for that, and then at the same time ask us to

intervene and control management's response to a labour

dispute. They may or they may not be acting fairly — I really

don't know. But I would say this: certainly if they have done

anything illegal or immoral, then they should be judged by the

board responsible for that corporation. If they've done

anything illegal, which I only know that they have — in fact, I

doubt that they have — I would certainly have a strong message

for my colleagues on that board. But I don't think it's my

responsibility to prejudge the action of that management group.

If they are, in fact, violating the law, the workers have a

remedy available to them.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, could I first of all inquire of

you if this is the proper vote to ask questions about the

Workers Compensation Board?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would ask the Hon. Minister to respond,

but I would think that it would be.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the particular question I have

here relates to a policy statement on industrial noise, as

issued by the board on December 16. At that time the board

noted that:

"Plans are being developed at the board for the

implementation of the new

section 40(

a) of the Workers'

Compensation Act. This provides that: 'the board may, in such a

manner as it may determine, vary the rates of assessment as

between different employers, or levy supplementary assessments

according to the estimated exposure of workers to industrial

noise. It may do so whether or not hearing protection is worn.'

The simple question I have for the Minister is whether that

section is nearing implementation and if any kinds of

safeguards have been found to the very wide and seemingly

arbitrary powers of the board to issue assessments without any

appeal or hindrance, apparently on a completely arbitrary

basis.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

section 40(

a) is very close to

being proclaimed and initiated. The main problem, in terms of

the delay this far, has been working up the administrative

procedures, the techniques and the expertise to give

application to that

section regulating levels of noise.

The powers that the board has with respect to levying penalty assessment or

varying assessments according to the risk level is quite consistent with similar

powers that pertain to penalty levies in any other

section of industry, should

that industry fail to comply with standards and regulations set by the board,

or should statistics prove an exceedingly high accident rate in a particular

industry, Then frequently and historically there have been penalty assessments

and variations of assessments.

Similarly, those industries that have an excellent safety

record, with adequate first-aid provisions and so on, benefit

from improved ratings. So that's quite consistent. I think that

the board is more concerned with an educational role in terms

of trying to assist industry and workers in methods to combat

and reduce noise, rather than they are in assessing any

penalties or sanctions against the parties. They play more of

an educational and persuasive role than a punitive one in most

cases.

MR. GIBSON: Just a brief follow-up, Mr. Chairman. Could I

ask the Minister if the implementation and administrative

practices here are being worked out by the board in

consultation with industry?

HON. MR. KING: The board has made a habit of discussing

proposed changes in regulations and so on with industry and

labour, yes.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, we've had a rather interesting

discussion this evening. There are a few more remarks that I

feel compelled to make at this time, which otherwise I may not

have made in this debate. But when we hear the comments of the

Minister of Labour, and the innuendo, to a certain extent, and

the insinuations that have been involved in the remarks of the

Minister concerning the Members of the opposition, I think it's

incumbent upon us to retaliate with a few remarks.

I've tried this evening to keep the debate on a level of

what was good in the long run as we see it for the Province of

British Columbia. But the Minister couldn't resist taking

potshots at the opposition and harked back to something that is

long past — that is, previous administration and all the rest

of it.

We would like to remind the Minister that it is 1975. We are

in a continually changing situation with respect to

labour-management relations. Everything that has been done for

the last 20 years, and the legislation that has been

introduced, has not always been to the degree that management

would accept it or labour would accept it. But I think in the

long run this has been beneficial to both management and

labour. There has been a progressive situation involved.

Now I think that it is only proper that I draw to the

Minister's attention a few of the things that I myself am not

responsible for. I am not voicing my own opinion. But I think

it is proper that I draw to the Minister's attention the

opinion of many people who are involved today in

labour-management relations. I think it is fair that I should

draw to the Minister's attention that many people feel, and

[ Page 2881 ]

think with perhaps some justification, perhaps not, that

they would like to see the matter challenged in court. They

feel that the Public Works Fair Employment Act discriminates

against a certain sector of people in the Province of British

Columbia. They feel it is a discrimination against the Canadian

Bill of Rights as far as people are concerned.

They say that the Province of British Columbia never asked

them or consulted them when they collected taxes for whatever

the purpose might be. But they certainly discriminated against

certain people in this province when the NDP chose to bring in

what they called the Public Works Fair Employment Act. I think

the Minister should look at that in respect to those people who

feel that they are discriminated against. There is a

discrimination there inasmuch as they are not allowed to work

for the government on certain projects. But the government

never has suggested to them that there should be a reduction in

their taxes because they choose to be independent operators or

work outside of the confines of a union agreement.

If it is fair to collect taxes from everybody right across

the board, is it not fair that those same people should be

entitled to bid and to work for the government as long as they

are competitive, as long as they produce and as long as they

can do a good job? These people feel that they are being

discriminated against in respect to that particular piece of

legislation. I think that the Minister of Labour should look

very closely at that.

I suggest to the Minister also that perhaps it is the

responsibility of government to analyse the constitutions of

all of the labour unions in the Province of British Columbia to

see if some of the provisions of those constitutions do not in

fact impinge upon the provisions of the BNA Act or the Bill of

Rights. I have had many learned people suggest to me that there

are certain provisions within some of the constitutions and

articles of unions which do impinge upon the BNA Act and the

Bill of Rights. If that is so, I think it is the responsibility

of the Minister of Labour to investigate that particular

problem and, without getting into a big hassle with either

union or anyone else, suggest to them that there are certain

things within their constitution that are really

unconstitutional and that they should be removed for the

benefit of both their members and the people at large.

I have suggested to the Minister that there is a growing

concern among people who are actually the third parties

involved. They are removed directly from labour-management

confrontations. But they feel that strikes are really only a

method of bringing economic pressures against employers.

Eventually the strike will be settled and they are the helpless

victims who are caught in between.

I'd like to suggest to the Minister also that there's a growing concern in

the Province of British Columbia among many people that the labour unions who

hold themselves out as representatives of labour should not feel that they are

above the laws that govern all of us. In that respect, they should abide by

the same rules and regulations as everyone else. Just because they're strong

in numbers does not give them any preferential place before the law.

Yet we have seen in the past on a number of occasions that

one of the requirements of removing a picket line or settling a

labour dispute was the withdrawal by management or people

affected of a petition to sue or bring those people into court.

You've seen it, Mr. Minister, and so have I. I can quote to you

a specific example. I don't really need to do that because I'm

sure you're aware of many of them, where one of the conditions

of settlement was that management or people who were affected

by the strikes verbally agreed to withdraw an impending court

action as a price for settlement of a strike. Is that fair? Is

that the price that we have to pay for industrial peace in the

Province of British Columbia? I should hope not, because it

certainly exemplifies that might is right and not necessarily

the laws of the land. I think the Minister is well aware of

what I'm speaking about because there are many situations that

have resulted in this sort of thing.

I think that we should, perhaps now, after we have had some

experience in the Labour Code of the Province of British

Columbia, analyse it, at least again, and ask concerned people

what they think about it. What are its strengths and what are

its weaknesses? There are both strengths and weaknesses in the

Labour Code of this province. Perhaps there are sections that

should be rewritten. I suggest to the Minister that there are

sections that should be rewritten in the legislation to redress

those sections and the legislation that we presently have on

our books so they become more evenly balanced between labour

and management.

There is a concern in the minds of many people about the

power of bureaucratically appointed boards. They feel these

powers should not be absolute and that the decisions of such

boards should be open to challenge in the courts on the basis

of common justice. Yet we have set certain legislation above

and beyond the recall of the courts, or above and beyond

redress in the courts of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just caution the Hon.

Member that he is beginning to stray into a discussion of

legislation rather than the Minister's administrative

responsibilities.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, their are a number of things that

have been related to me by people, and I'm sure the Minister

would appreciate the fact that I'm bringing to his attention

these suggestions.

[ Page 2882 ]

I'd like to say to the Minister also that these were not

suggestions that have been made to my by people on the

management side of the ledger. These are suggestions made to me

by the rank-and-file people who belong to labour union

movements, who have set down in a non-political discussion

about what they see. They agree with many things that have

happened, but they also disagree.

One of the problems, Mr. Minister, that they're concerned

about is that they can sit down quite often in a non-political

manner with people who are not directly involved with their

union and discuss what they think is good and what they think

is bad about some of the practices today. When they try to do

that same thing in a union meeting, they are sometimes

chastised. They feel that it could result in either their

expulsion or, at least, in a position that would jeopardize

their jobs, and I think it unfortunate that we have that

situation in B.C.

So I've tried to bring to the attention of the Minister some

of the problems that are expressed by people who are members of

labour unions. There is a great desire on the part of the

average person who carries a union card today that everyone

should be treated equally before the law and that labour unions

are as much responsible before the law as anyone else. And they

feel, individually at least, that this expression and this

suggestion should be made to the government today.

Certainly, in the situation with respect to women in the

labour force, I think we're making some improvement. We're

removing some of the discriminations that were there in the

past. I think that's a good thing. Some of those

discriminations were the result of social customs, really, more

than anything else.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Oh, no. You know, Mr. Minister, that's not true.

That's not true. That's not true and you know it. Most of the

problems involved were a result of social customs more than

anything else of the past. And I agree that we had to have

somebody prod us collectively a little bit to remove those

things, because they have been there and people were not paid

equal pay for equal work. But certainly in that respect there

is an improvement today.

I would like to know just what the Minister feels with

respect to the points I have raised — the matter of the perhaps

unconstitutional clauses in some of the constitutions.

HON. MR. KING: Okay, I've got it.

MR. SMITH: You've got some of these points, down? Thank you,

Mr. Minister. Now I'll sit down and listen to your reply.

HON. MR. KING: Thank you. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the

Member's concern about the violations of the BNA Act and the

human rights laws. But I want to assure him that within the

Labour Code of British Columbia, as well as in the Human Rights

Code, there are protections for trade union members to ensure

that no trade union constitution, nor indeed the constitution

of any other social organization, can in any way abridge the

human rights of individuals in this province.

There's a duty of fair representation contained within the

Labour Code which is basic and assures that no worker shall

have his rights denied through lack of representation or

through a prohibitive clause that in any way conflicts with

human rights as laid down in the code. So I just want to assure

the Member of that.

The other points he's made are well taken, and I assure him

they will be considered.

MR. SMITH: The Minister seems to treat very lightly some of

the things that have been raised this evening in this debate.

But let me tell him this: a lighthearted manner in dealing with

some of the problems I've tried to raise to the Minister

tonight is not going to solve them. We do have problems of

harassment by both management and labour. If the Minister would

like me to bring to his attention a number of cases of

harassment by labour, I am quite prepared to take up the time

of the committee to do that.

But I don't think that really solves the problem, Mr.

Minister. I think that what will eventually solve the problem

is labour legislation that considers the fact that there is a

problem there. I have recently received correspondence from a

non-union contractor in northern British Columbia who bid for a

job which he was entitled to bid for. He's provided employment,

Mr. Minister, for a number of people in that part of the

province for the last 15 years on a steady basis, 12 months a

year. He made work for his employees, his permanent staff, when

there was no work available, and he's paid them good salaries.

He's bid upon government contracts that he was entitled to bid

on, and he was successful in a couple of situations. Yet he's

had nothing but harassment from the unions this year in setting

up information pickets against him.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: It will, if we get some situations from the

Minister and some answers. I'm telling you the problem of a man

who has provided employment opportunities for a great number of

people over a long period of time who has bid successfully for

a couple of school contracts. He's answered every piece of

correspondence from everybody, including your

[ Page 2883 ]

department and from the Labour Relations Board. He's filed

copies of his wage rates and everything else. Yet he is being

harassed. Why? Because his employees decided and have chosen

not to join a union.

He keeps a permanent staff with him all year round, His

employees have said a number of times that they are not really

interested in belonging to the union. He's provided these

people with a salary equivalent to what they could earn with a

union, and do you know what he was accused of? He was accused

of increasing their salaries as a bribe!

Is that what we want to become involved in? He was accused

by the union of increasing their salaries as a bribe this year.

The union, the IWA accused him of this. Why? I don't know. But

it only makes common sense that between January of 1975 and the

present time, many people have received salary increases; and

he increased his own employees' salaries accordingly. Now he is

accused of bribing the employees so that they wouldn't belong

to a union. That's pretty low in my opinion for the union to

resort to those kind of tactics and put up information pickets

to deprive this fellow of employing people who have of their

own free will decided....

HON. MR. KING: Can I ask the Member to give me details of

that case so that I can have the department look at it? If he

would care to give me the details of the case, I will have a

look at it.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Minister, the details are before your

department, before the Labour Relations Board. They filed

everything with them. They have asked for in inquiry.

HON. MR. KING: But I don't receive those details from the

board. If the Member would like to give me the name so that I

can check and get a review and see what is going on....

MR. SMITH: I think there was harassment involved.

MR. CHABOT: I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excuse me, I was under the impression that

you were prepared to let some of the votes go through tonight.

Was I incorrect?

MR. CHABOT: It is late. The Minister has been quite

obnoxious tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Vote 120 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. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada