1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 905 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Availability of natural gas to B.C. consumers. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 906

Mr. Smith — 906

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 906

Mr. Wallace — 906

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

B.C. Railway strike. Mr. Phillips — 907

Natural gas contracts. Mr. Wallace — 907

Wage agreement for B.C. Hydro linemen. Mr. Curtis — 908

Reduction of natural gas exports. Mr. McGeer — 908

Premier's trip to Alberta. Mr. Bennett — 908

Contract for ferry design. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 909

Abuse of Mincome asset allowances. Mr. Wallace — 909

Privilege

Ommission of statement on answers to questions. Mr. Schroeder — 910

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 910

Mr. Speaker — 910

Routine proceed ings

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill 90). Mr.

Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 911

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill 91). Mr.

Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 911

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill 89). Hon.

Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 911

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill 85). Hon.

Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 911

An Act to Amend the Public Bodies Information Act (Bill 92).

Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 911

Transportation Assistance Fund Act (Bill 93). Mr.

McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 911

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

stage.

Amendment to

section 23.

Mr. Gardom — 912

Mr. Wallace — 912

Hon. Mr. King — 912

Mr. Gardom — 913

Hon. Mr. King — 913

Mr. Wallace — 913

Mr. Williams — 914

Mr. Wallace — 914

Hon. Mr. King — 915

Amendment to

section 24.

Mr. Gardom — 915

Hon. Mr. King — 916

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 916

Hon. Mr. King — 916

Mr. Williams — 916

Hon. Mr. King — 917

section 27.

Mr. Chabot — 917

Hon. Mr. King — 917

section 28.

Hon. Mr. King — 917

Amendment to

section 30.

Mr. Wallace — 917

Mr. Williams — 917

Amendment to

section 31.

Mr. Gardom — 918

Hon. Mr. King — 919

Mr. Gardom — 920

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 920

Hon. Mr. King — 920

Division on amendment — 921

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 921

Hon. Mr. King — 921

Mr. Wallace — 922

Hon. Mr. King — 923

Mr. Wallace — 923

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 924

section 31.

Mr. Williams — 924

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 926

Hon. Mr. King — 927

Mr. Wallace — 927

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 929

Mr. Gardom — 929

Hon. Mr. King — 930

Mr. Wallace — 931

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 932

Mr. Gardom — 932

Mr. Liden — 933

Mr. McGeer — 933

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 934

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 935

Mr. Rolston — 936

Amendment to

section 33.

Hon. Mr. King — 936

Amendment to

section 34.

Hon. Mr. King — 936

section 38.

Mr. Williams — 936

Hon. Mr. King — 936

Amendment to

section 40.

Hon. Mr. King — 937

section 42.

Mr. Chabot — 937

Hon. Mr. King — 937

Amendment to

section 43

Hon. Mr. King — 937

Mr. Chabot — 937

Hon. Mr. King — 937

Mr. Wallace — 938

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 938

Hon. Mr. King — 938

Statement

Record of filing answers to questions. Mr. Speaker — 939

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 939

Appendix

Report of Special Committee — 940

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1973

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce a group of 60 students from Qualicum Beach Secondary

School who have come down under the direction of their teachers, Mr. McMurray and Mr. Coates. They won't be coming

into the gallery until 3 p.m., but I'm sure that they would

appreciate a warm welcome from the Hon. Members at this

time.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have a

visitor in the Members' gallery today from the fair City of

Revelstoke. I would ask the House to join me in extending a

warm welcome to Mrs. Vincent Rizzuti.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I'd

appreciate it if the House would join me in welcoming a group

of students from the Ideal Free School who are visiting us with

their teacher, Mr. Gary Nixon.

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

to draw to the attention of the House that today is United Nations Day. I think

it's particularly appropriate that we draw this to your attention today when

we have a number of students in our gallery, because I think we all appreciate

that although the United Nations certainly has not been able to bring peace

to the world we must never denigrate their efforts in attempting to do this.

I do think there are many positive contributions which the United Nations has

made in many other areas, and any who have been there and seen the number of

committees on health and education and human resources realize that they're

a very active, working group for the benefit of all mankind. Thank you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join

with the Hon. Minister of Education in her words. With warfare

and bloodshed in the Middle East, it was to the United Nations

that people first looked, and we in the opposition would like

to join with her in wishing the United Nations well and also

urging all Members of this assembly and those who may be

listening to us to take an interest in the affairs of the

United Nations by joining the associations that they have in

virtually every city in our country. This type of support, we

think, will do a great deal towards making that body much more

effective.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of the official opposition, I too would like to join the remarks of the two former

speakers. Through the course of history we have had wars and

through the course of history we have tried to prevent them and

find ways of mediating them. We have had some very major wars;

we have had some rather minor wars, and we're having some

today. Despite the fact that they're small wars, they're still

very serious.

I feel that while the United Nations has been attempting to

keep a peaceful atmosphere over the world, it has not been an

easy job for it. I commend those who have extended themselves

in this particular field and I think that it will take much

more cooperation, much more liaison and much more feeling on

the part of people to bring about peace in this world.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The Conservative Party would

like to commend the Minister of Education for bringing United

Nations Day to our attention. We would strongly support the

concept which, as she quite rightly states, has not met with

all the success that human beings around the world would have

wished. But I personally feel that as the world matures and as

civilizations mature in small countries and in large, the

United Nations has actually exceeded the expectations of many

people. Its recent action in bringing at least a fitful halt to

the hostilities in the Middle East is the kind of action

without which the whole world or the superpowers might well be

engulfed in a frightful worldwide bloodshed.

I feel that in recognizing the worldwide nature of the

organization we should also recognize our local citizens who

contribute their efforts to the local branch. Particularly, I

think that we should commend Larry Ryan, who is the local

branch President in Victoria, and that this House should give

him recognition for the tremendous efforts he makes.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's not often I have

this privilege, but I'd like to draw to the attention of the

Members of this Assembly the fact that we have in the Members'

gallery this afternoon Mrs. Dorothy Thompson, wife of the

vice-president of the North Peace Socred constituency.

Accompanying her is Mr. Glover. I wish the House to welcome

them.

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

leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Delivered by hand under date October 24,

1973, under the letterhead of Westcoast Transmission and the

signature of Kelly Gibson, is a letter to Mr. James H. Rhodes,

Chairman,

[ Page 906 ]

B.C. Energy Board.

"Dear Sir:

I have previously informed you of the difficulties we are facing

this coming winter in our gas supply and the necessity of having to curtail

deliveries to our various customers.

"However, as a result of a series of meetings concluded just

this morning, I am able to assure you that we will meet the

requirements of all our Canadian distributor customers up to

their respective contracts or demands or nominated demands for

up to Nov. 1, 1973."

I do emphasize that no overrun gas will be available. Mr.

Speaker, this is a vindication of the position of the Province

of British Columbia and a great victory following the passage

in good order yesterday afternoon of Bill 70 on its second

reading. The essential domestic needs of the consumers and

industries of British Columbia will be met. The hands on the

valve will be Canadian. It is not as a result of augmented

supplies but good sense that has brought us to this happy

position.

MR. SMITH: I listened to the remarks to the Attorney General

and I presume that the last two or three paragraphs were

paraphrased or his own words, not the words of the letter of

Mr. Gibson.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're the letter, but they came over

the phone, The last sentence reads, "…contract demands or nominated amounts…."

MR. SMITH: The question I would pose to the Attorney General

is that if he is talking about contract customers, that does

not necessarily include all of the people who are serviced by

natural gas, and that might just refer to those people who have

an industrial contract with the Westcoast Transmission. Would

the Hon. Attorney General please clarify that point?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll be glad to, although it isn't

question period, Mr. Speaker. When they say that nominated

amounts will be met as of November 1, those are the winter

nominated amounts of Inland and the other utilities and Westcoast — they will be met, so industrial and domestic customers

will be satisfied.

MR. SMITH: In that case, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the letter

from Mr. Gibson to assure the House and the people of this

province that British Columbia will be looked after first.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to hear that

this gas shortage that the government has been telling us about for so

long will not occur in British Columbia. If this is a vindication of

the government's position of yesterday where they were calling for

"turning off the tap," calling for breaking of contracts, I would be

very surprised. I would think it would be a vindication instead of the

sensible approach to the problem taken by Westcoast as well as many

other people which was, of course, to look for other supplies to make

up for the loss in northern B.C.

We would welcome this. We would point out that if this is a

vindication of the position, I guess it's like Napoleon

vindicating his victory in Moscow or in Waterloo. We feel

instead that it shows the reverse; it shows the sensible

approach was to look for other supplies of gas before going

into any rash moves or breaking contracts and "turning off the

tap."

AN HON. MEMBER: How come they didn't find it before

yesterday?

MR. WALLACE: Naturally we also are delighted that B.C.

customers will not suffer. My immediate question perhaps would

be more appropriate in the question period and the Minister can

answer it later: There is no mention of the supply of gas to

receivers outside the provincial boundaries. To what degree

will this result in breach of contract and so on and all the

question of federal intervention?

MR. SPEAKER: That would be an excellent one for question

period. I think we should have enough statements on this

subject now before the question period.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to rise

on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Last night in the House, as per Votes and

Proceedings , by leave of the House the Hon. David Barrett,

Premier, made a statement that he had been informed that the

strike on the British Columbia Railway had ended. I would like

to have the Premier clarify if he intentionally tried to

mislead the House, because the strike on the British Columbia

Railway is not over. The last of the voting is taking place at

9 o'clock tonight. I took the Premier at his word and went out

and said, "Oh, these great socialists have solved the railway

strike."

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member indicate to me what page

this is?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's votes 29 and 30, page 5, Mr.

Speaker, the very top of the page.

He made a statement that he had been informed that the

strike on the British Columbia Railway had ended. That to me is

misleading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we don't know what has

[ Page 907 ]

happened. All we do in Votes and Proceedings is indicate

what statement was made in a form that will indicate the

substance of the subject matter. It's not for you or me in this

matter to claim it as a breach of privilege.

What has to happen, presumably…. If there is something

in that statement that you doubt, it's not a question of it

being changed in Votes and Proceedings or that the Votes and

Proceedings are incorrect The matter can be raised, of course,

in question period.

Oral questions.

B.C. RAILWAY STRIKE

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to ask the President of the

British Columbia Railway and the Premier if he intended to

mislead the House last night by giving this information.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I gave the House the

information that was given to me. A memorandum of agreement was

signed and I was informed that the strike would be over and the

men were in the process of going back to work. The words that I

used:

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to make a

brief statement.

Leave granted.

This afternoon initiatives between the B.C. Rail, the

government representative, Mr. Kinnaird and the shopcraft

union have brought about a resolution of the strike. It's my

understanding that the men will be returning to work as soon as

possible.

That is my exact statement and that is exactly what is

happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing misleading.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Never mind speeches. Do you have a

supplementary?

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary on the same question. When the

Premier and the president of the railway recently said in this

House that the railway had never made money and never would

make money, was he anticipating the settlement of the

strike?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not at all. I was explaining how in the past shares

had been bought in that company to provide it funds to give it capital and operating

deficits. I say that it wipes out the accumulated debt. It was a method of the

previous government to lead the people of British Columbia into believing that

the railroad was making money when in fact it has not, it is not and it will

not be making money. It is just like another highway.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have

here before me a British Columbia Financial and Economic

Review , 33rd edition, July, 1973, under the hand of the Hon.

David Barrett, Minister of Finance, which says that in 1965 the

British Columbia Railway made $1,744,969 profit; in 1970,

$896,923; and in 1972 it made a profit of $992,499. Was the

Premier misleading the people of British Columbia when he put

out this economic review in July of this year? Was he under his

own…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I was continuing the practice

up to that time of the former administration. We are no longer

going to continue that practice of not charging the railroad

interest for loans or paying off its capital debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Truth in government for a change.

NATURAL GAS CONTRACTS

MR. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Attorney General

whether he is in a position at all to expand on an earlier

statement this afternoon. While we certainly welcome the fact

that British Columbia customers will be receiving their

contracted gas supplies, does this mean in fact that we will be

breaking contracts with El Paso?

I would preface that by quoting from yesterday's report of

Macdonald's meeting with Mr. Love that "possible gas shortages

were discussed at considerable length but no major decisions

resulted." Has he had any message in any way, Telex, telephone

or otherwise, from Donald Macdonald?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There have been no messages from Donald

Macdonald that I know of and I have been in my office very

recently.

In answer to the first part of your question, we have always

considered that the matter of export of materials from Canada

should be those only that were surplus to our needs. That

should be an implied condition of all exports out of Canada,

particularly of energy resources. This, therefore, is not in

any sense a matter of breach of contract.

MR. WALLACE: One supplemental question. I noticed the

Minister's very careful stress on the word

[ Page 908 ]

"implied." In other words, does it in fact say in written agreements that

this is a condition or a clause upon which our exports will be based, or is

this simply our own natural self-interest which is implied? The word "implied"

leaves in my mind the doubt that in fact we are breaching a contract.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I see no difference in the

case of B.C.'s natural gas from the situation when the federal

government, for example, curtailed the export of butane

recently, about two weeks ago, to the United States.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary

question to the Attorney General. Do I interpret correctly the

Attorney General's statement — that Mr. Gibson's letter today

represented a vindication of the government's action of

yesterday afternoon — to mean that the Westcoast Transmission

Company has capitulated to threats, real or implied, from this

House, and is dishonouring commitments to customers across the

line? Or is it merely that Westcoast Transmission has been

able to find alternative sources of supply in the United States

and would have found these sources in any case?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There have been no threats, but in my

opinion the constructive debate of yesterday and the passage of

Bill 70 through its second reading was one element in the happy

position in which we find ourselves today.

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

questions are becoming hypothetical and that, of course, is

prohibited.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question to the Attorney General

on the same matter. It's obvious, from the statement that you

made in the House and the letter you received from Mr. Gibson

representing Westcoast, that they have moved to accommodate

the people in British Columbia and assure their gas supply for

this winter. Will the Attorney General ask the Hon. Donald

Macdonald to ratify the position of Westcoast Transmission in

their decision to protect the consumers in British Columbia so

that it does not, in any way, jeopardize the position of Westcoast Transmission as a supplier to El Paso under the rules and

regulations of the National Energy Board? Will you move to try

to get a confirmation and ratification from the Hon. Donald

Macdonald?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In view of the clear terms of this

letter from the utility concerned here that supplies are

assured, I don't really think further action on our

part is

required. I take this assurance as stated. I am sure that our

supplies are assured.

I really can't speak for the Hon. Donald Macdonald. As a matter of fact I have had a little trouble

getting a reply just recently from him.

WAGE AGREEMENT FOR

B.C. HYDRO LINEMEN

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): In the absence of

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams), may I direct a question to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) in his capacity as a director of

Hydro? Is it correct that tentative agreement has been reached

between B.C. Hydro and the outside linemen for a wage

settlement in the amount of approximately 30 per cent over the

next two years — an agreement to be ratified within the next

several days?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There has

been a tentative memorandum of agreement. The question of a

settlement hasn't been completed yet and the actual complete

terms I'll have to take as notice.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Surely the

Minister could give some indication to the House of the

approximate percentage increase, which I understand is in the

neighbourhood of 30 per cent, including fringes.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll take that as notice.

REDUCTION OF NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. McGEER: To the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), do

we take his statement this afternoon to mean that in the future

British Columbia will move to reduce the exports of natural gas

below the levels at which they are today? Is that the long-term

policy of the government implied in this statement?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, our policy will be

consistent to make sure that the essential domestic and

industrial needs of the Province of British Columbia will

always be met first.

PREMIER'S TRIP TO ALBERTA

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): To the Hon. Premier: I

would like to ask, in light of the announcement by the Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), are you still going to Alberta

tomorrow?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, arrangements were made this

morning for the Attorney General, myself and Mr. Rhodes to

visit with the Premier of Alberta tomorrow afternoon. Since the

receipt of this

[ Page 909 ]

letter from Westcoast Transmission I have instructed my

office to inform the Hon. Peter Lougheed that our meeting will

be postponed.

CONTRACT FOR FERRY DESIGN

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister

of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). May I ask

whether the contract which a press release of this announced

today for the design of two car ferries went out to tender so

that Canadian companies could participate in tendering for this

particular contract?

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

Communications): As I have already reported to the House, we

asked for submissions from a firm in Victoria as well as the

firm in Seattle.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

May I ask the Minister whether or not, subsequent to the design

sketches being prepared by Nickum Spaulding, there was any

attempt to have bids put by any Canadian company?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've already answered that question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister

please to check the record and indicate to the House "yes" or

"no" now — whether or not this was done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You may ask a question, but if

it has already been answered you can't press for a further

answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It has never been answered.

MR. SPEAKER: You may ask but you don't necessarily need to

get an answer. That's also in the rules.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, he doesn't have to answer if that is your

statement, but naturally you ask him in the hope that he will

answer it.

ABUSE OF MINCOME ASSET ALLOWANCES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi). In view of some recent allegations of abuse of Mincome in relation to

the fact that people are transferring income-producing assets into other

forms of assets, and in view of the Minister's statement as I read it in today's

press that he intends to do nothing about it, would he make some comment as

to whether he accepts this as a justifiable action on the part of citizens whose

assets include Cadillacs, et cetera?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I am not

prepared to comment, Mr. Speaker, on the last reference to this

particular case that was referred to in the paper. We take all

the precautions that we can possibly take in respect to the

implications for Mincome. I am quite satisfied with the lengths

to which we go. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with senior

citizens, I'm quite happy with the results that we've got.

Obviously if we have some abuse of the system, once we are

able to detect this we quietly tell the people that they are no

longer in receipt. But in no way are we going to be able to

introduce the kinds of procedures that are going to be able to

fill any of the loopholes, so-called.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. At least could I

ask the Minister that in cases such as this which are drawn to

his attention, can we be assured that he will investigate?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes. The Member has my assurance on this. Let

me just say this: a number of people have spoken to me about

this and I have said that what I need are facts. I have yet to

receive any facts in my office.

MR. WALLACE: But you will investigate them if you….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I point out, in preface

to my supplementary question, that we are not dealing with

abuse of the present system; we are dealing with a loophole in

the present system which allows people legitimately to claim

who are wealthy people.

I ask the Minister, in the light of this fact having been

brought to his attention over a year ago in our discussions on

the establishment of the Mincome plan in this Legislature,

whether we now could have his assurance that those remarks made

then will be reconsidered and that he will come up with changes

to the plan which might plug that loophole — such as were

suggested over 12 months ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's answer one at a time.

HON. MR. LEVI: I don't think that the Hon. Member's question

really relates to this one. You have been talking about the

question of income with the $2 and the $1 tax back. That is

something that we have discussed continually with Ottawa.

[ Page 910 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That is just another aspect of it.

HON. MR. LEVI: But in respect to wealthy people, I don't

want it to be suggested in this House that wealthy people are

applying for Mincome, because I don't think that's the case.

That just isn't the case. As far as we have been able to

identify, more than 99 per cent of the people on Mincome have

been perfectly frank with us about their assets. I don't think

that we want to in any way besmirch the programme by a

suggestion that one or two people may be getting through it on

a loophole basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Oh, a point of privilege? Would

you state your point of privilege?

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): A point of privilege, Mr.

Speaker. I have two questions in regard to procedure. In the

Votes and Proceedings of October 23, yesterday, there appears

an answer to a question which stood on the order paper for a

long time in my name — an answer to question 7. It was on page

2 of Votes and Proceedings October 23.

The question was asked originally of the Premier as

president of the council. The answer comes from the Hon.

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

My first question is, am I to assume that this is a partial

answer to a question because it only comes from one of the

divisions of government of whom the question was asked?

The second question, though: on page 6 of the same issue of

Votes and Proceedings it stated that the Hon. Minister made a

statement relating to an answer filed by him at the afternoon

sitting to question 7 standing on the order paper.

I checked with Hansard and I do not find that statement, and

I'd like to know what the statement was.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well if it is not in Hansard , I certainly

made a statement. Just at 11 p.m. last night I stood up and I

said: "At 6 o'clock tonight I filed an answer relating to

question 7." I said, "That was partial information and further

information will be available at a later date."

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. That does not appear in Hansard ,

whatever the statement was. It should be looked after because

if this can be deleted from Hansard , Mr. Speaker, then anything

else could also be deleted. I think we need to look at it.

MR. SPEAKER: The problem is whether it got picked up by

Hansard . Sometimes Members' microphones are not up.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can always hear you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not if you're speaking.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The fact that the matter is recorded in

the Votes and Proceedings is a clear indication that certainly

the Clerk heard what I had said.

MR. SPEAKER: I will certainly check with Hansard to see why

it isn't in Hansard , but that kind of error can happen.

I also found out why, when a report from committee included

some recommendation for the House to record a vote, there was

no way of picking it up by microphone. The Hansard staff were

trying to do it by what amounted to custom because they had no

words on any tape. Now we have a microphone just there with a

cut-off button that will allow that to be done.

Is there any further question, Hon. Member?

MR. SCHROEDER: No, I'm satisfied.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, is it proper for a question to be

asked of one Member of the executive council and the answer to

be given officially by another?

MR. SPEAKER: Usually the proper course is that if there's

been an error by the Member asking a question as to

jurisdiction of particular Ministers, the question is sent back

by the Clerks to the particular Member and redirected to the

proper Minister. But there may be occasion when, out of

courtesy, it merely is passed over to the proper Minister

rather than sending it back. Now what happened here I have no

knowledge, and I would have to look into it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually the answer should have been sent

to the Premier's office or the office of the Minister of

Finance for collection. That was my part of the answer, and it

came to me in that form. After it was done it was drawn to my

attention, and that was why last night I took the earliest

opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to what had

happened.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If indeed that is a

partial answer to the question, then I must insist that the

question remain on the order paper until it is fully answered,

because the answer to the question is couched in language that

would cause anyone to believe that it was a total answer. Let's

get it straightened out.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, thank you, Hon. Member. We'll see that it

is.

[ Page 911 ]

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on the same point

I asked a question exactly in the same line as question 73

which was answered last night partially — they answered item B

only of question 73 — and I see that 73 has disappeared.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, is 73 on the Votes and

Proceedings ?

MR. MORRISON: Yes, on page number 3 the answer for question

73 appears, but it was item B only of that question which was

answered. I resubmitted the question to the Clerks today in

order to get the other two items, but if 73 remains on the

order paper then I don't need to resubmit it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: (Mike not on)…to question 73 is to be

filed today. The error was noticed in my office.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that clears it up as well — thank

you.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Are we into

introduction of bills?

MR. SPEAKER: No, but….

MR. GARDOM: We've been here 40 minutes. I thought we might

soon arrive there.

MR. SPEAKER: Editorials come first. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE COUNTY COURTS ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 90

intituled

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 90 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SUPREME COURT ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 91

intituled

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act .

Bill 91 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

MR. GARDOM: I think the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) wants the floor. He's in an odd position; he must

want to do something. (Laughter.)

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE COUNTY COURTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 89 intituled

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 89 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

MR. GARDOM: Author! Author!

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SUPREME COURT ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 85 intituled

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act .

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There must have been a leak here.

(Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: You're reading my mail!

Motion approved.

Bill 85 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PUBLIC BODIES INFORMATION ACT

Mr. McClelland moves introduction and first reading of Bill

92 intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Bodies Information

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 92 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE

FUND ACT

Mr. McClelland moves introduction and first reading of Bill

93 intituled Transportation Assistance Fund Act .

Bill 93 read a first time and ordered to be placed

[ Page 912 ]

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

of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

proceed to public bills and orders. Committee on Bill 11.

LABOUR CODE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

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

chair.

section 23.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are considering the amendment standing in

the name of the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

Amendment negatived.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, Mr. Chairman,

we went a little bit out of order there concerning this

amendment, but that's not distressing. I would move the

amendment in my name, a copy of which the Clerks have and which

was delivered to them last night to

section

Section 23 now reads: "The board shall make all its

decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing

for publication." The amendment, Mr. Chairman, reads: "The

board shall publish all of its decisions in proceedings under

this Act."

I think it's somewhat a pithier amendment — I'm not lisping,

Hon. Member — somewhat a pithier (laughter) amendment than that

of the Hon. Member for Columbia hyphen River (Mr. Chabot). I

indeed submit that it is a decided improvement to the

government proposal, because I'm saying that it must be

mandatory that the board publish its decisions resulting from

proceedings, which it should do for legal certainty, for

clarity and for conciseness. That, essentially, is the

substance of my argument. Because this board is going to become

a law unto itself, those laws should be published as matter of

right.

The government

section as it now reads, Mr. Chairman, does

not go that far; they merely say "make available for

publication" but they do not say how, or when, or where, or in

what form these decisions will become available for

publication. So I say: make it more simplistic, make them not

just available upon request but published. I'm not talking

about intra-departmental memoranda at all but only of decisions

of the board and of the body of precedent that this board shall

certainly develop.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the tenets and the precepts and principles

of natural justice that a citizen shall be entitled as of right to know what

is decided, by whom it is decided and for what reason it is decided. I do not

think that it should be incumbent upon anyone to have to come cap-in-hand to

the board to seek out reasons.

In conclusion, it should be a matter of right and the way

that I have phrased my amendment would so become a matter of

right that the board "shall publish all of its decisions in

proceedings under this Act." I so move that amendment.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, very briefly on

the amendment, I think that this is an excellent amendment and

would carry out the precept that justice must not only be done

but must be seen to be done. This is the theme which the Hon.

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has often

mentioned in this House.

Last night the Minister used the phrase that the reasons

"insofar as possible" would be published. It seemed to me that

since the parties concerned before the board are more likely to

be satisfied by the decisions of the board, it doesn't seem the

least bit unreasonable that we should ask the reasons to be

published. There is no point in wasting more time in repeating

the arguments of last night, but I do think also that it was

very well stated by the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) that the publication of these reasons would form an

accumulating body of evidence which perhaps in the course of

time would make it easier and easier for the board to carry out

its function. Therefore I support the amendment.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I support the intent of

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

and the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) have put forward; that

is the intent and, indeed, the provision contained in the bill

now.

The problem is, as I outlined last night, that if there is a

statutory requirement to provide written published reasons for

each and every decision, the board could be bogged down to the

extent that it simply couldn't continue to handle

expeditiously the total volume of certification applications

and other matters that will come before it.

It is the intent that decisions that are contested in any way, or

applications that are contested in any way, and as a consequence

controversial in nature, will indeed be published and made available to

the parties.

The other point is that not all of the board's decisions

will be in response to adjudications of party issues; some of

these decisions will be administrative decisions. And while I

appreciate the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey's (Mr.

Gardom'

s) intent, I just don't feel it too practical in view of

the fact that many decisions will be administrative and the

board

[ Page 913 ]

will require some flexibility in how they make this

administrative procedure available to the parties.

MR. GARDOM: Of course I was not talking about newspaper

publication — the Minister understands that thoroughly, I'm

sure. Are we to take it from the Minister that as a matter of

right — as a matter of right — any party to a proceeding before

the board will be entitled to written reasons for

decisions?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the parties do not have the

absolute right in each case. What I have tried to outline is

that the board will give reasons for controversial

decisions.

I would point out to the Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey that under the provisions constituting the ombudsman

section, 133 (b), the ombudsman has access and can demand

reasons for decisions that are given by the board. So they are

not insulated, as is currently the case, where they can hand

down a decision and completely refuse to give reasons for that

decision.

It is the intent that they will, insofar as possible, give

and publish reasons in any contested adjudication that comes

before them. In other circumstances, should an individual feel

that he has been aggrieved in any way he has access to the

ombudsman who could then demand and require the board to give

justification for their decision.

MR. GARDOM: The point that I was making — and the Hon.

Minister really has emphasized my position as opposed to

detracting from it — he said, "Yes the ombudsman does have a

right to demand written reason." I'm just saying that any party

to a proceeding surely should have the same right to demand a

written reason.

If he can say, "I want to have the reasons of the board as a

matter of right," then an individual should have the

same right. After all, who's the person most affected — that

individual or the ombudsman? Obviously it's the individual.

There's not a court hearing in the land wherein a person

cannot request reasons for judgement. They're recorded. I'm

saying the same thing here.

If the Hon. Minister was appearing in front of the board in

a labour-management dispute as management or labour, and I was

on the other side, surely to goodness one of us would be

entitled to go to the board and say, "Look, you made a decision

saying X, Y, or Z. I want to have your reasons for your

decision," — or — "I want to have your reason written out for

me." I don't want to have to go running down the hall to knock

on the door of the ombudsman and say, "Hey, go and get these

fellows to give the decision to me."

As a matter of right, let reasons pass to the individuals before the board

if they request it. Can you give that undertaking?

HON. MR. KING: I already have given that undertaking, Mr.

Chairman, that in contested adjudications before the board, the

board will give reasons — written reasons for the

decisions.

I also pointed out that there are other decisions which are

made by the board in an administrative way. If the board were

required to publish reasons for every administrative decision

that was made in addition to every adjudicative decision, then

I think it would seriously impair the board's ability to deal

expeditiously with the very, very many complex problems that

will becoming before them.

So there's no intent and there's no desire to submerge

reasons that should be given in the case of a contested hearing

before the board. I think this provision clearly covers that

situation.

MR. WALLACE: I'd just like to add the comment that again the

Minister has used the phrase "insofar as possible" and that

isn't in the bill. Not that "insofar as possible" really means

anything; it means as far as it's possible in view of the

board. And that again doesn't give us protection in the

statute.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I fail to see why we should take

refuge in the fact that the ombudsman can, if the party

requests, go to the board and ask the board to give the

ombudsmen to give the party reasons. Now, this seems to me just

a further encouragement of bureaucracy. Why shouldn't the

parties in front of the board themselves have the clearly

established right to ask for reasons?

I'll be possibly introducing my amendment in a minute — which is second best to what we're now discussing. But it seems

to me the arguments have been clearly made. Maybe the Minister

himself would amend the clause to exclude administrative

decisions because that word isn't included in this clause we're

debating either.

I accept that point of view very readily that he doesn't

want the board to be fiddling around with a lot of paper work

publishing administrative decisions, I agree with that. But

anything which is contentious or contested, indeed, the reasons

for the decision on such a contest should be published. Perhaps

the Minister would bring in one of his own amendments to

clarify it to that degree. But to take refuge in the fact that

if somebody's got enough time and effort and trouble to go to

the ombudsman, then for him to go to the board and create

another whole run-around of paperwork and bureaucracy, I don't

think is what the Minister would want himself.

This ombudsman, I would presume, is going to be busier than

a one-armed paper hanger by the time he gets finished. Surely

we should do all we can to minimize the need for an ombudsman.

The amendment of the Second Member for

[ Page 914 ]

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), I think, would prevent

the use of the ombudsman in certain cases where it would be

very simple for the board itself to give one or the other party

the written reason.

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

courts certainly don't publish all their reasons for decisions.

Under

section 23: "The board shall make all its decisions in

proceedings under this Act available in writing for

publication." The parties do have access; there's no

question on that point. So surely you're not suggesting that

the board should publish every decision that is made. The

parties unquestionably have access to the reasons for the

decisions and the decisions that are made by the board, and I

think that's quite adequate.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

I wonder if the Minister could perhaps deal a little further

with the point that he last spoke about, namely this making

available the decisions for publication.

It's mandatory that the board do this so that any person

coming to the board requesting a copy of any decision the board

may make must be given one, quite obviously, and having been

given one, must be then entitled to go ahead and publish it.

Now, am I to understand that the board itself is not going to

be required or obliged — in fact it's unobliged — to make any

regular publication of its decisions but that others are going

to be able to do this as a matter of commercial practice? This

certainly happens in the courts of the land, We can't stop

them, Mr. Minister. If any enterprising publisher wishes to

publish the results of all the decisions of the Labour

Relations Board, administrative and others, the board, under

this section, must give those decisions and make them

available. I would like to know whether the Minister recognizes

that this is a possibility.

In dealing with the amendment and the Minister's rejection

of it, I was disturbed when he said a few moments ago that he

would give us assurance that in matters of contest before the

board reasons would be given for the decision. Mr. Chairman,

there's nothing in the legislation which obliges the Labour

Relations Board to act one way in respect of contested matters

before it and some other way in uncontested matters.

If the Minister intends this to be the case, then I think

that he should perhaps withdraw this

section at this particular

time and bring in an amendment because the Minister has no

control, he tells us, over this board. They establish their own

practice and procedure; they are the judges of this legislation

when it's passed. And no assurance that the Minister can give

to us in this committee can in any way affect what the board in

its wisdom may see fit to do in future years.

I agree with the Minister that to oblige it to give

decisions and reasons in respect to purely administrative

matters, as to whether there should be one secretary or five or

matters of that kind, would be ludicrous.

If the Minister is of the mind that, when there are

contending parties before the board, there should be an

obligation on the board to give reasons with its decision, I

would think that he should make this very clear in the

legislation. Even if the Minister does somehow or other have

means of controlling the Labour Relations Board — and I

sincerely hope that's not the case — he, with his wisdom, might

not always be the Minister; we might have someone else as the

Minister who would take a different view. If it is enshrined in

the legislation, then I think there's no question that, in

contested matters before the board, the board gives its reason

with its decision.

Without offending against the philosophy which underlies

this legislation and without delaying the work of this

committee,

section 24 could be passed over for the Minister to

reconsider and bring it back at some later time.

There's one other point that I think should be made. The

Minister has raised the question of access to the ombudsman.

Well now, I don't think the Minister intentionally wished to

mislead the committee, but the fact of the matter is that if

the board does not give reasons for its decisions, any party

going to the ombudsman is not thereby going to get them because

the reasons don't exist.

The ombudsman provision is quite clear: if the board

exercises discretionary powers without giving reasons and the

ombudsman learns of this, then the ombudsman may make some

investigation into the practices of the board and, having made

that investigation, is to report to the Minister of Labour and

to this Legislature with his recommendations as to what changes

should be made.

The availability of the ombudsman does not resolve this

particular problem of the board giving reasons with its

decisions. All the ombudsman can do is create a fuss if the

board does not do so and then, bringing the matter to the

attention of the Minister and to the Legislature, recommend, I

assume, that there be amendments to ensure that the board does

not continue to exercise discretions without giving

reasons.

That is all the more reason, Mr. Chairman, why I suggest the

Minister should pull this

section temporarily and provide

specific legislative assurance that reasons will be given, even

if only limited to those cases where there are contended

matters before the board.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, you have my

[ Page 915 ]

amendment which would be added to

section 23 as it now

stands. It is a second-best attempt to enshrine in the

legislation the fact that anyone who wishes to have written

reasons would be entitled to get them.

We've already debated this afternoon that it should be the

right of anyone involved in a contested decision to have that

right, but the amendment I am suggesting would make it quite

clear that a person could, in fact, obtain written reasons.

I'll just read the amendment, Mr. Chairman, after the word

"publication": "…and shall, upon the request of any

interested person, give written reasons for any decision within

a reasonable time."

I just feel, Mr. Chairman, that this further clarifies,

without any doubt at all, that persons or parties interested in

a decision of the board should at least have the right to seek

a written statement of the reasons and to have that written

statement within a reasonable time. I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that we should

give this present structure an opportunity to work. I would

suggest that if any of the fears which the Members on the other

side of the House express reveal themselves as being a fact

after watching the operation of the board, then certainly a

case could be made based upon fact for specific instructions

such as are suggested in the amendment.

But there are considerations here which made me somewhat

apprehensive about accepting the kind of amendments the Member

for Oak Bay suggests. Parties could use such an opportunity to

attempt to deal with the board on matters that really do not

involve their interest directly, and perhaps a great deal of

harassment could result in terms of the board functioning in a

reasonable and expeditious manner.

I think the intent is clear that those parties affected by

decisions before the board will receive reasons for decisions

that affect them. I'm afraid if we attempt to phrase this in

legislative language, we may include rights that in no way

contribute to the interests of the parties or to the smooth and

efficient functioning of the board.

I would point out again that if the board is found to abuse

any of the powers that are vested in it, there is the outlet of

the ombudsman who can demand and scrutinize the reasons and

points of law that are made by the board and so on. In the

final analysis, if parties can come before my office and prove

a case in fact of abuse by the board of any of these powers,

then certainly I would be receptive to amendment.

Let's give it a chance to function. If any of the grave

fears of the opposition Members emerge, then I'll certainly be

receptive to looking at it. But I prefer to give it a chance

under this structure.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to waste the time of this

committee. First of all, I believe that justice must be seen to be done. If

the Minister is suggesting that we've got undue apprehension, I must also confess

that he must have undue apprehension at not accepting such a simple, straightforward

amendment for fear of some form of harassment. I don't really, Mr. Chairman,

understand what he's implying.

The phrase says, "upon the request of any interested party," and I would imagine that the straightforward meaning of

the word "interested" would exclude any troublemaker who would

simply be seeking to create problems as a result of a board

decision. I would think "interested party" would be easily

definable and that the information and the written reasons need

not be spread far and wide to people whose involvement was

distinctly remote or questionable and where they were seeking

the information, as the Minister says, to be a nuisance, Again, I think we're losing sight of a fairly important

principle: you look after the interests of the majority but you

do not sacrifice the interests of the minority. There may be

minority reasons why somebody interested in a dispute and the

settlement of a dispute or a decision would want to have the

written reasons.

I really feel that the Minister must have some reason for

putting this clause in this way. I wonder if, even at this

point in time, he could tell us on what experience he's basing

this particular phraseology in this

section and why this is so

much better than what we're asking in the amendment I have on

the order paper to the effect that: "upon the request of any

interested person, give written reasons…within a reasonable

time."

HON. MR. KING: Well, I would just respond, Mr. Chairman,

that not one jurisdiction in Canada requires the board to give

written reasons in each and every case. The problem involved in

the

interpretation of "interested parties" can certainly be

quite broad. I don't know who you would define as an interested

party. That could be very, very broad indeed.

Again, I can only reiterate, I would prefer to give this a

chance to work. If the abuses emerge that the Ministers are

apprehensive about then we'll act on it, but we're acting on an

unproved hypothesis at this time and I'm not sure it's well

founded.

Amendment negatived.

Section 23 approved.

section 24.

MR. GARDOM: On behalf of the Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) I would move the amendment which is on the order

paper. I've a copy

[ Page 916 ]

here for you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, it's to the effect of amending this

attestation clause. In the third line thereof you will see the

words "perform the office of member." The amendment is to the

effect of now reading "perform the office of chairman or

vice-chairman or member." It is submitted that the affirmation

clause as it is now phrased does not cover the chairman or

vice-chairman. In that regard, the Hon. Minister and his

capable assistant could refer to

section 12(2) wherein we find

definitions of chairmen and vice-chairmen, and of members. I so

move on behalf of the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson).

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

legislative draftsman that "member" does include those people

designated as chairman and vice-chairman of the board. There is

no attempt here to relieve those people of the obligation to

take the oath of office that is provided in the section. I

would suggest that, under those circumstances, the amendment is

not really necessary because what you are trying to accomplish,

and what I agree with, is in fact accomplished under the

language of the current section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): The Minister's views were my

own when I first read

section 24, but then I looked at

section

12(2): "The board shall be composed of a chairman, one or more

vice-chairmen, and as many members equal in number

representative of employers and employees, respectively," et cetera, et cetera.

I looked at

section 13(3)(

c) and it says: "the chairman, or

a vice-chairman, and one member representative…and one

member representative…" and

section 13(3)(

d) where it

said: "the chairman, or a vice-chairman, and members…." In other

words, in sections 12 and 13 a clear distinction was drawn between

members, the chairmen and the vice-chairman.

Now, I checked the definition

section and there is no

definition of member. I might add — as my hon. friend for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has brought to my attention — the same question of distinction between these three groups

of citizens — chairmen, vice-chairmen and members occurs in the

quorum

section under 14.

Therefore, I concluded that a reading of the bill indicates

that there is no provision for the chairman and vice-chairman

to be members. If they were members, sections 12 and 13 and 14

which we have already passed become very questionable indeed. I

would think they would have to be redrawn.

So the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom), I think, is very much in order. It's a drafting alteration which takes

care of a drafting failure. It is not something which brings the courts into

play, which this government has no wish to do, apparently. It's not something

which in any way alters the provisions of the Act. All it does is cover a drafting

oversight and is precisely the type of constructive amendment this party has

been consistently putting forward in this debate.

I would suggest that the amendment would be nothing but the

rectifying of an error already made in drafting. It would be

rectifying it for greater certainty to prevent any

misunderstanding. It's an amendment which I think if the

Minister wants to show his flexibility in accepting opposition

amendments he could do without the slightest qualms at all.

HON. MR. KING: Well, I'm less impressed and concerned with

showing my flexibility than I am with the practicality of the

amendments put forward.

I am not convinced that the Member's argument is correct. As

I indicated earlier, the best legal advice I could obtain — I

admit I didn't seek the legal advice of the Second Member for

Victoria — but the best legal advice I could obtain assured me

that "member" does in fact include those people designated as

executive members of the board. "Member" is not a generic word.

It is a word that is not defined in the Act. It is explained to

me in the terms that it's not a word of art so it is not

restrictive as it applies under this Act.

Despite my disagreement with my friends across the way, if

they are concerned about it, I'm quite prepared to accept the

amendment. I am sure it is implicit in the Act, but for double

certainty and to assuage any apprehension they have, I'll

accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment approved.

section 24 as amended.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, briefly, the oath or affirmation

which the chairman, vice-chairman and members of this board

must take is a very important step in the formation of the

board. It is restrictive, I suggest, that the oath only

precludes the disclosure of any evidence or any other matter

brought before the board. I would like to amend by adding the

words "or otherwise coming to my knowledge in the course of my

duties as a member of the board."

I suggest that because of the wide scope that the board and

its members will be given to deal with matters, either in the

board or as a panel of the board, they will become apprised of

much information which will not necessarily fall into the

category of evidence. It may, indeed, not be a matter in the

strict sense brought before the board. It would come to their

knowledge. I think that it would be

[ Page 917 ]

appropriate to oblige them at the time of their taking

office to keep confidential those matters as well. The

amendment does not in any way offend the words that are there.

It only extends them so that there will be no question as to

the rule of confidentiality that would have to apply to the

members of this board.

HON. MR. KING: I don't really think this amendment is

necessary. I think the wording that requires the

confidentiality of any matter coming before the board is pretty

broad in scope. I think any conceivable relationship that would

require confidentiality of a board member would have to relate

in some way to his capacity of a board member. Therefore, it is

covered in the language "evidence or other matter brought

before the board."

Now, we have to differentiate between one's private life

and their responsibilities as an appointee to the board. I am

quite sure that the wording of this particular

section protects

the broad interests and needed confidentiality of the

position.

The reference of the board includes "panels of the board" so

any conceivable matter that would be brought before a member,

whether he was sitting in panel or on the entire board, would

be covered under

section 24.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved with amendment.

section 27.

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

Section 27 deals with the

objects and policies of the board. In the

section it says: "…the board may from time to time formulate general policies

not contrary to the Act for the guidance of the general public

and the board;…" Beyond that it says: "…but the

board is not bound thereby in the exercise of its powers or the

performance of its duties." In subsection 3 it says: "The

board shall publish all policies formulated under this

section

and all amendments or revisions thereof."

Well, they are going to set policy which they hope there

will be some semblance of guidance from the public, yet this is

policy that will not be subject to guidance to the board. Yet

in one particular aspect it says here: "the board may from time

to time formulate general policies not contrary to the Act for

the guidance of the general public and the board;…"

If it is for the guidance of the board, I don't know why it

should be necessary for the board to disregard a policy

decision which they've brought down when the Act says it is for

their guidance. But apparently they don't have to be bound by

that as general policy statement or position.

HON. MR. KING: I would point out that this provision simply

allows the board to make rules and establish its policies to

assist parties appearing before the board in the preparation of

their case. I think it is an important innovation that will

assist the parties in understanding, from precedents and

administrative decisions published by the board, the processes

and functions which would assist them in preparing their

cases.

The board can similarly, in addition to making such

publications, conduct hearings and call for any evidence from

interested parties in establishing policies that are consistent

with the efficient functioning of the board.

I think it would be a mistake to bind the board by

precedent. I think there has to be some flexibility here in

terms of general customary outline and guidelines. I think it

would be a real mistake to bind them by precedent as the courts

have done, because that's the very inflexible approach that we

are trying to get away from in terms of industrial

relations.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

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

standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 28 approved with amendment.

Section 29 approved.

section 30.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we feel that there is just one

simple word there that should read "shall" and not "may": "The

board may upon application or on its own motion,"

et cetera, "file in the Supreme Court a copy…of any order…." We feel, so that any order will in fact be registered in

the Supreme Court, to enhance the efficiency and the effect of

that order, that the word should not be "may" but should be

"shall." I so move.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WILLIAMS:

Section 30 is necessary to permit the board to

make certain that its actions are not frustrated. It simply

prescribes that once having made an order it may file that

order in the supreme court and henceforth the order is then

enforceable as if there had been a judgment of that court. I

don't quarrel with that.

But, Mr. Chairman, when we are dealing with the

[ Page 918 ]

enforcement of court orders it has long been considered

appropriate in our country to make certain that those people

against whom orders are enforceable know of the existence of

such an order and recognize that it is enforceable. It is for

that reason that judgments of our courts have always been

delivered to the person against whom the judgment is

enforceable.

I'm not suggesting that in this case the board should be put

to the task, when taking the authority under

section 30, of

delivering a copy of the judgment to each person against whom

it is enforceable, but I suggest that notice that such an order

has been filed and is therefore enforceable as a court order

should be given to such persons.

Therefore, I move an amendment to

section 30 by adding

subsection (2), which reads simply: "At the time of the filing

of such order the board shall give notice thereof to every

person against whom compliance with such order is

enforceable."

In this way, Mr. Chairman, there will be no occasion for any

person to find that an order made by the Labour Relations Board

and filed in the supreme court and therefore enforceable as an

order of that court, that no person who may be obliged to

comply could ever say "I didn't know" once the notice is

given.

Amendment negatived.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, in moving the amendment to this

section, a copy of which you have, I would mention to the Hon.

Minister and the Members that there is a similar amendment to

section 33, and a similar amendment to

section 34, too.

This is more than just a housekeeping amendment. It is much

more than that because it is in order to comply with the

amendment to

section 150, and this appears to be the

appropriate time to discuss it, Mr. Chairman.

What this amendment does is simply this: it enshrines a

right of access to the courts of this province in two ways.

Firstly the board may, on its own initiative, apply to the

supreme court for an opinion on any question of law respecting

the

interpretation of the Act or, with the permission of the

board, so may any party to proceedings before the board seek

the assistance of the court in dealing with the problems of the

interpretation of this very difficult and innovative

legislation. I'm not going to dwell on this point, Mr.

Chairman, because it was debated at length last night.

Unfortunately at that time it was voted against,

notwithstanding the fact that it appears, in my view and in the

view of the total opposition, to be a most beneficial suggestion for

labour-management harmony, for the assistance of the board and

for the assistance of the people who appear before the

board.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will give

jurisdiction to the B.C. Court of Appeal. It will give the B.C.

Court of Appeal jurisdiction to set aside an order of the

board, or to remit to the board matters for its

reconsideration, or to stay proceedings. But only on three

grounds: (1) the misbehaviour of a board member or his lack of

capacity to fulfil his duties; (2) an error of law affecting

the jurisdiction of the board; (3) an error resulting in the

denial of natural justice.

Now we heard some discussion yesterday evening from the Hon.

Attorney General about his

interpretation of the Act and the

fact that it protected the philosophies and the doctrines of

the concepts of natural justice. But it does not, Mr.

Chairman.

These are philosophies and principles which have caused very

serious conflict over the years. I suppose you could say it was

spawned by the barons in Runnymede in 1066. One of the most

notable abuses of the principle of natural justice was during

the days of George III which gave rise to the American

Revolution and which in fact is creating at least half of the

havoc that is besetting the United States today, and this is a

disregard of the basic protections of the rule of law.

I am advocating in this amendment something that is

absolutely analogous to

section 108 of the Minister's own Act.

Under

section 108 a person has a right to go to the court of

appeal in arbitration proceedings, for exactly the same reasons

and on exactly the same grounds as I am suggesting here, for

any abuses that may happen in front of the board.

Now we all know, Mr. Chairman, that forgiveness is divine.

But erring is most evident otherwise and the capacity for error

is an apparent and obvious and continuing and existing human

characteristic. This board is supposed to be very human, but

they are going to make mistakes. Make no mistake of that fact.

And to suggest infallibility of performance without recourse to

any higher authority, to cure abuses or direct rehearings or do

justice or equity, is something that is not only smacking of

so-called regal right from regal might but is absolutely,

basically and unquestionably unfair.

There must be protection, Mr. Chairman, from errors. There

must be protection from abuses and there must be protection

from wrongs and mistakes. And, if there have been denials of

natural justice, there must be an access to the court of appeal

as has been suggested with this amendment.

And that's all that we are asking, that the concept of not only the possibility

but in all likelihood the probability of error be recognized and that as far

[ Page 919 ]

possible we see that safeguards are built in, protections are afforded and

avenues for remedy are installed within the legislation.

You know, day after day we've heard arguments in here — and

most often, strangely enough, from the Hon. Attorney General — that it's all right to grant the right to abuse power if the

abuse is not planned to be exercised. But what I'm advocating

and what he apparently is very reluctant to agree with is to

create the right to prevent the possibilities or probabilities

of the abuse of power, and to see that we have a statutory

check to prevent this denial of natural justice.

I would suggest that the premise I'm arguing for has far

better historic, ethical and moral qualities than the arguments

of the Attorney General. But in the socialistic state that has

been created in British Columbia you're using as a means to

your end — your end conceivably is to be a structured

socialistic society — you're using as your means the

incorporation of a raft of power bills — a raft of power

bills.

It's a power not to the people, but vast and unlimited power

to the cabinet of this government to the detriment and the

lessening of the power of the people and the. lessening of

individual and group rights and freedoms, and without checks

and without balances and without recourse of appeal to the

courts — and without even hope for some help, save and except

the ballot box.

You see this in the powers in the land Act, in the powers in

this bill, Mr. Chairman, in the agricultural bills, the mining

legislation, the energy legislation. Yet the Attorney General

continues to say, and the Minister continues to support him,

that, "We want this kind of power but we're not going to be

using it."

I'm asking for protections for the individual. They say they

won't give that but they'll try to see that the individual is

not harmed. Well, if they're prepared to agree that the

individual should not be harmed, they should be prepared to see

that that protection for the individual is built right into the

statute. Otherwise we're going to have to rely, as a test for

mercy, upon the length of this government or the Attorney

General's left foot, both as to the prevention against

excessive power and as to providing built-in rules for natural

justice and fair play for the individual.

Well, the chancellor's foot in feudal days used to be

considered at one time the time-honoured manner in which to

judge mercy, but fortunately that has been outlived and

changed. I certainly think it should not be something that

should be resurrected by this government in this day and age.

But it is.

We've heard from the Minister over and over again how the courts have failed

in labour-management situations. I say they've not failed. That's not a popular

stand to take. The courts have not failed; I'd say that the law has. And I would

say that the citizens' responsibility to conform to the law has failed. That's

the fault of the parliament and that's the fault of the litigants.

In management-labour situations it's been pretty evident,

Mr. Chairman, that both sides have certainly abused the

judicial process. Some of the litigant disputants in these

confrontations have blatantly stated that they won't follow the

law under almost any circumstances. They've advocated one law

for management and one for labour and one for the rest of

society.

I say it's absolutely impossible to have any stability

within a country or equality of standards or mores for its

citizenry with attitudes such as that. That's not what the

people want; they don't want three laws, one for management,

one for labour and one for everyone else. I think that's

totally unacceptable and a Balkanization of principle.

What we're saying here is this: enshrine the concept of

natural justice; give this built-in protection; do not say, Mr.

Minister, as the Attorney General did totally erroneously, that

it is within the statute. Because it is without the

statute.

This statute has become a law unto itself. To reiterate, I'm

saying that if we find these situations of misbehaviour of a

board member or of lack of capacity to fulfil his duties if

there is an error of law respecting his jurisdiction or an

error resulting from a denial of natural justice, give the

people then the right to go to the court of appeal to seek an

effective remedy — to have the matter referred back to the

board to see that justice shall be done.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I can't find anything in

section 31 that gives the cabinet any authority or any power

whatsoever. I'm not quite sure what the Member was debating in

that sense. But I would like to point out to the Hon. Member

that he makes a very strong case from a legalistic point of

view for power of appeals, the right to appeals and so on. But

there's an important difference to be drawn between the Labour

Relations Board and the courts that that Member's so familiar

with.

This is an administrative tribunal. This tribunal has now

power to assess punitive damages as does the court in criminal

or civil law. I have outlined last evening and again today some

of the important safeguards that are contained in this

legislation to prevent abuses of power.

I suggest that to try to draw an analogy between the courts

of the land and this board is somewhat unrealistic because

they're in existence for totally different reasons and dealing

with totally different situations. I think that adequate

safeguards are provided in this legislation to ensure that

there are no abusive powers that mitigate against the

legitimate interests of any individual.

[ Page 920 ]

MR. GARDOM: With all respect to the Minister's argument,

he's missing the point. If the abuse of power occasions — and

it can — if there is a denial of justice, which can happen — let us hope that it won't, but it can happen — under those

circumstances the board today is infallible unto itself. If a

board member misbehaves, if he does not have the capacity to

fulfil his duties, the board is omnipotent unto itself and no

one can go forward to another jurisdiction to compel that

person to perform or to suggest that there should be a

rehearing by other people or that there should be a reversal of

the position taken by the board.

If there is a denial of natural justice, it comes to a

complete end. There's no appeal to anybody; there's no appeal

to yourself under these circumstances. So you're saying, "Make

the board almighty and omnipotent, and if they err, it's too

bad."

You say no, no. You tell me where there's one check and

balance if they make a mistake that's illegal. There are none.

No, no, my foot! Last night the Attorney General was giving us

a great discussion about the denial of natural justice and

saying there are built-in protections in this Act.

Now he's had a whole night to read the statute again for the

second and third time and he's starting to quote cases left,

right and centre — and so far we've got 153 sections. Of the

153 sections, you just name one whereby it is possible to go to

another jurisdiction or seek another remedy if this board does

deny natural justice. Go ahead.

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

don't want to repeat myself, but there's a clear distinction

between appealing a decision…

MR. GARDOM: This is not appeal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know, just let me finish.

…or questioning a decision that's made within the

board's jurisdiction in terms of whether it's right or wrong.

The requirements of natural justice, which you don't spell out

in

an Act — you never spelled it out in the Act….

MR. GARDOM: You didn't spell it out in this one.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It doesn't require to be spelled out in

an Act, but it does require that inferior tribunals, as they're

known, must observe the rules of natural justice. If the Hon.

Member will read the leading cases on that subject starting

with Board of Education and Rice, you'll find that there is no

section under which somebody moved to defend the rights of

natural justice. That's part of the common law. All inferior

tribunals…. The Law Reform Commission is looking at this, as

you know, too.

MR. GARDOM: Do the prerogative writs apply to this bill?

Yes or no.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They could.

MR. GARDOM: The Minister says "no."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They could, but not in terms of any

appeal. This is lawyers' talk. They couldn't in terms of

appealing because the decisions are made by the board. But in

terms of the board peremptorily cutting somebody off without

any hearing, for example: yes, they could.

MR. GARDOM: You think they could?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's no question in my mind about

that.

MR. GARDOM: If the Hon. Attorney General is of the opinion

that the principle he's advocating to the House should apply,

let's have it built into the section. Let's stand this

section

over, because the Hon. Attorney General is failing to take into

consideration that the very thing I am arguing here this

afternoon you have provided under your own

section 108.

You can go to the court of appeal if an arbitrator

misbehaves or if he's unable to fulfil his duties. You can go

to the court of appeal if there's an error of law affecting the

jurisdiction of the arbitration board. And you can go to the

court of appeal if there was an error of procedure resulting in

denial of natural justice. I'm saying, have a similar provision

for the Labour Relations Board. You cannot advocate one

solitary logical reason why that should not apply.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Except it's unnecessary.

MR. GARDOM: Except it's unnecessary, the Hon. Attorney

General says. Why is it necessary in arbitration proceedings?

And why is it unnecessary in proceedings before the Labour

Relations Board? Would the Attorney General care to answer

that?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Minister wants to take a crack at it.

Okay.

HON. MR. KING: (Mike not on)…that there is a supreme

court decision, a finding that an arbitration board is not,

indeed, an inferior tribunal. Therefore it's not equatable with

the Labour Relations Board and the issue of natural justice

would have to be spelled out in legislative language to apply

to that type of tribunal. Now the question arises that you

[ Page 921 ]

cannot find an

article in this

section granting natural

justice. Can you find one

section preventing it?

MR. GARDOM: Yes!

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

Member cannot make a case for natural justice without

legislative language empowering him to do so I wouldn't

recommend him as a lawyer.

MR. GARDOM: Well, that's awfully kind of you. I return your

retainer, thank you. (Laughter.)

What was your question again? I've forgotten. (Laughter.) Oh

yes, you said: where within your bill is there a denial of

natural justice? There is a denial of natural justice by not

permitting the very things that I'm advocating be established

as statutory enactment. That's it, because you have made the

board omnipotent unto itself.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: They're not? You can go to an ombudsman and he

may hold a few hands, and that's about his total authority

under the thing. About the only check here is the ombudsman,

and that's all.

There's no recourse for anyone to see that board abuses can

be properly cured one way or another, and the capacity to abuse

is built in within this statute. The prevention to seek redress

from the capacity to abuse is also built into this statute. So

you have therefore eliminated redress to any other area for

help or assistance. I'm not talking about appeals — the Attorney

General knows that and you know that too.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Silence can't eliminate natural

justice.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

NAYS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

PAIRED

Curtis

Radford

AN HON. MEMBER: Record the division.

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

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

section 31 as amended.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper, which is an amendment

section 31(l)(

b) dealing with the fact that it may be

possible for employees to act in a manner which would be

inconsistent with their responsibilities and which would harass

or slow down the employer's operations in a manner which we

think would be interfering with normal operations. We would

like, just as there are other prohibitions here which are given

to the board for exclusive jurisdiction, to add in a subsection

to make the whole

section more even-handed.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that in

section 31(1)(

b) you

have the restraint or prohibition from any person or group

"ceasing, or refusing, to perform work, or to remain in a

relationship of employment," and you have a prohibition

against "picketing, striking, or locking out…communicating

information or opinion in a labour dispute by speech, writing,

or any other means of communication."

I would like that to be amended so that, "the harassment of

employers, by concerted employee action to cause slowdowns,

sick book-offs, overtime bans, or other methods of interfering

with normal operations" be similarly given to the board for

exclusive jurisdiction in accordance with lines 1 and 2 of

section 31(l).

I have the amendment in my hand and I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the question of overtime

permits is a matter which lies within the jurisdiction of the

Board of Industrial Relations. I question the wisdom of

transferring that authority to the Labour Relations Board,

which, I am quite confident, is going to have quite enough

problems to adjudicate during the course of their preoccupation

with mainly industrial relations problems. I think the

provisions of

section 31 deal with any conceivable disruption

that could occur as a

[ Page 922 ]

result of an industrial relations problem, and the amendment

the Member moved would certainly affect the structure of the

department and would reduce the responsibility of the Board of

Industrial Relations which has the background, the personnel

and the expertise to do an adequate job in terms of regulation

of overtime permits. I oppose the amendment on that basis, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is perfectly

correct in stating that the Board of Industrial Relations is

responsible for overtime permits, and we would certainly not

suggest in any way that this power be taken away, changed,

altered or otherwise affected.

What we are dealing with here under 31(

l) is the

jurisdiction of the board in a case where there is harassment

of employers — those are three of the first four words of my

amendment — by way of overtime bans. In other words, overtime

might well be permitted by the Board of Industrial Relations;

it nevertheless would result despite their views that it could

take place. We might find overtime bans being used strictly to

harass employers.

Under those circumstances, with this amendment, the board

that we're talking about under this Act would then have the

opportunity of stating that such an overtime ban, used for the

purpose of harassing the employer and his operations, was the

type of thing that they should have under their authority.

I agree that the board will work very hard, as the Minister

has indicated, but if we are to go through (b)(i), (ii) and

(iii) — "ceasing, or refusing, to perform work…picketing,

striking, or locking out…communicating information…."

et cetera — this really does no more than flush out and make

more even-handed the existing subjects which are given to the

board for its exclusive jurisdiction with respect to a

complaint under

section 28. I would, with respect, suggest to

the Minister that the Board of Industrial Relations'

jurisdiction over overtime is in no way affected by this

amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WALLACE: On

section 31, entitled "Jurisdiction of the board,"

I will try not to cover all the ground we covered last night, since obviously

we've got differing points of view. I think we should put it very clearly on

record that we in this party do not accept the extent to which the Minister

has taken this new direction in setting up a board with powers of exclusive

jurisdiction as described in line 2 of

section 31.

Based on the fact that it has given this board tremendous power and that it

wanted to get labour disputes out of the courts, we feel, as the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has put it so eloquently, that even with this

change of direction and this differing thrust, there should still be some mechanism

of appeal. As that Member also stated very clearly, the implication right through

this bill is that the board is going to be perfect and not make mistakes. That

really is quite an overwhelming conclusion for any piece of legislation to make.

The Attorney General is always keen on going back to 1066

and talking about common law and the Magna Carta and everything

else. If it's so easy to do all this by implication and general

acceptance, why are documents like the Magna Carta ever written

in the first place; why do we have the Human Rights Act or any

other written document or statute which guarantees the

individual certain rights? If it's all so easy-going and

everybody understands this and we don't need it written down

and it's just an accomplished understanding for the last seven

centuries, then I would submit that the great deal of time and

trouble we spend in writing and debating statutes is quite

unnecessary.

But I don't think the practice shows that. I think the

common acceptance of courts of appeal superior to other courts

means that even judges make mistakes, either by judgment or by

interpretation of the law. I think the attitude of this

government is really shocking by the extent of power it has

given to this board without the right of appeal.

Furthermore, people are liable to suffer damages of one kind

or another, but the decision of the board is final; it excludes

any party from seeking damages in court. Now, Mr. Chairman, I

think that's just going a bit far.

I think that the Minister has a sound idea in trying to

minimize the involvement of the courts in management-labour

disputes; we certainly agree with that aim. But again, I think

that if you look at the record and all forms of judicial or

quasi-judicial bodies, they certainly make mistakes. I'm not

able to put it in the legal language of the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), but certainly as a layman

and as a person who sees human beings making mistakes every day

in life — and judges and other people — I think it's just

ridiculous to suggest that the decisions of this board shall be

above any question or any mechanism of appeal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who do you appeal to from the surgeon?

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: Well, at least, Mr. Member, if the surgeon

makes a mistake you can still take him to court and sue him for

disability or damages or what-have-you.

Interjections.

[ Page 923 ]

MR. WALLACE: Well, at least there are some avenues of appeal

on behalf of the widow and the children. (Laughter.)

The fact is that appeal mechanisms exist. All that the

Member's comment proves is that every human being is fallible:

surgeons make mistakes, politicians make mistakes and ministers

of the church make mistakes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, St. Peter did.

MR. WALLACE: And that's why, Mr. Chairman, there is all this

business about the accepted traditional ideas of common law and

the guarantee of natural justice, et cetera, et cetera. If the

government really believes — as the Attorney General has said

twice in the last 24 hours he believes — that such measures of

natural justice will be available, what is to stop us putting a

written guarantee of that in this bill?

That brings me to the first amendment to subsection (2): to

delete the words following the word "thereof" in line 5. My

amendment would have the effect of permitting parties who

dispute the judgment of the board to at least enter suit for

damages.

Mr. Chairman, I'll seek your direction; I presume we should

vote on that amendment and then proceed to the second part of

the same amendment. With advice from my legal neighbour here,

I'll move the whole amendment.

I would like to just expand on the whole question of the

appeal mechanism. For example, a question has been asked of me:

is there any…?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I suggest

that the House dealt with this bill in second reading and gave

unanimous approval in principle. The Member's amendment would

destroy the whole principle of the bill, which that Member

voted in favour of. I suggest that the Member is out of order

and in complete variance with the approval in principle that

was given to this bill in second reading.

MR. WALLACE: Might I answer that point of order, Mr.

Chairman? If the Minister would care to consult the Hansard , he

will find that when I spoke and supported this bill in

principle I said that with any bill of 153 sections it would be

ridiculous if there were not a few sections which we opposed.

If you consult the Hansard , Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, you will find that I pointed out very clearly that my

main reservation in supporting the principle of the bill in

second reading lay in exactly this

section and in this aspect

of the bill.

I think it would be unreasonable for any Member who strongly disagrees with

one or two sections out of 153 sections to damn the whole bill. This is the

kind of thing that opposition politicians are always being accused of. Negative,

negative, negative, oppose, oppose, oppose.

I'm supporting the bill in principle but I object to one

particular aspect of lack of appeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that it is reasonable that you

can speak about the amendment you are suggesting. Nevertheless,

if the amendment changes the principle of the bill, and it is

deemed that it does, then we regret that the amendment is out

of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who deems that? Who deems that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is my ruling.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'll challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry, but I have to challenge that ruling. This is a part

of the total principle of the bill and I would like to argue on

your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. WALLACE: The fact is that I'm accepting, Mr. Chairman,

the concept that we should have a stronger Labour Relations

Board. I'm only saying that as part of that strength there

should be a method….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think there's any further debate once

you are challenging the ruling that the amendment is out of

order.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee has been discussing

a proposed amendment to

section 31; it is the amendment

standing in the name of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I

ruled the amendment out of order and the Member has challenged

my ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The question that has to be determined is

whether the Chair will be sustained on its ruling.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: That was the most unjust decision you've handed

us this session. That's for sure. You can't even let me discuss

it. You had to cut me off. Why can't you let me debate it? It's

ridiculous!

Interjections.

[ Page 924 ]

HON. MR. KING: You'd been debating it for half an hour then,

as well as last night.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you want to close off debate to me — is

that it? You just can't argue that point because it is the

principle of the bill.

HON. MR. KING: Well, be consistent. You voted for it in

principle. Now you are trying to destroy the principle. Be

consistent. Be consistent.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon.

Members that, under the rules of standing orders, debate on the

question cannot occur. All I can do is put to the House whether

the Chairman's ruling shall be sustained. I've done that and

the Hon. Member has asked for a division. Do you still wish for

a division, Hon. Member? Yes? One Member is all that is

required.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

PAIRED

Curtis

Radford

The House in committee; Mr. Liden in the chair.

section 31.

MR. WILLIAMS: On subsection (2) which is the extreme limiting subsection

which might in any way give the courts of this province any right to adjudicate

with regard to the jurisdiction of this board, I think it is perhaps important

for the Members of the committee to note the serious step that is being taken

in dealing with this section.

The Minister said in the course of debate a few moments ago

that this Labour Relations Board, as an administrative

tribunal, was something different from a court. And he's right.

I think the members of the committee should recognize the

significant distinction between a court and this Labour

Relations Board.

The significant distinction is this, that the Labour

Relations Board is an arm of the executive of government. It is

a creature established by statute but appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It's part of the executive

branch of government.

The courts of this province on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, are

completely independent of the executive branch of government and it has

always been intended that that would be so. We don't have the

separation of a written constitution, as is the case in other

countries, but we do have adequate safeguards to ensure that the judges

of this country, this province, do remain independent of the executive

arm of government.

Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that the Members of this

committee and the Members of the government have not learned a

lesson from what has occurred in the United States of America

in the last seven days. Here we are, hearing from the Minister

of Labour that we are advancing in this new area where we shun

the courts, regardless of what rights a person might have

otherwise to go to the courts of the land. The exclusive

jurisdiction is being given to this branch of the executive of

the government.

Now it was the actions of the executive of government in the

United States of America which created all the problems of the

last few days and weeks and months. Mr. Chairman, thank God

that there were separate courts in the United States of

America! Thank God that the people in the United States of

America still have access to those courts! But here we are

establishing the administrative tribunal — that's a fine

sounding name, administrative tribunal; here we are

establishing an arm of the executive of the Government of the

Province of British Columbia against which no citizen has any

right of appeal.

Don't you recognize what we're doing? Are you in favour of

this? Do you want the people of this province to have no rights

of access to appeal from improper activities of the executive

branch of government? Is that where you're leaving us in this

province?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. Right on.

MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, what we

[ Page 925 ]

have just seen in the past few minutes indicates clearly to

me that that's exactly what you do want. Not only is there to

be no access to the courts once this board is established,

we're not even able to have the right to debate about it on the

floor of this committee; nor to introduce amendments, because

as soon as we do introduce amendments which might ensure that

the people of British Columbia will have access to the courts

once this Labour Relations Board makes errors, we're told the

amendments are out of order. The Chairman has so ruled and the

government, to a man, has stood in his and her place in this

House and upheld that ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. WILLIAMS: You know, we shouldn't have any right to

challenge the ruling of the Speaker, but thank goodness in this

case we have. Because now it is available, to every person who

cares to look, to recognize how far this government and their

supporters in this House are prepared to go in the limitation

of freedom and liberty in British Columbia. That's what it

comes right down to; no access to the courts.

The Attorney General is getting ready to make a speech and I

hope he does. I hope that the Hon. Premier, when he sends out

his press release this week, will include a verbatim transcript

of what the Attorney General has to say, so that the people of

this province can recognize how badly advised they are on

matters as fundamental as this.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I heard what you said last night. Unless

you're prepared to recant from what you said last night,

anything you say today will only substantiate my opinion.

We take the most serious step when we say to the people of

this province, "When you come before such an administrative

tribunal as this, regardless of the error it may make, you're

not going to have any access to the independent courts of this

province."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's shocking.

MR. WILLIAMS: "We will appoint people to the Labour Relations Board

whom we see fit," so says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, "and we'll remove

them, and that Labour Relations Board will be empowered to run things as we

think they should be run." That's executive decision. That's executive decision

without even reasons as we've heard in the debates earlier this afternoon. And

when that situation comes about there's no appeal to the courts of this province.

That's what we're talking about in

section 31, and that's what we're seeing

repeated in

section after

section after

section of this Bill 11.

We've an amendment standing on the orders with regard to a

subsequent

section which, in view of the ruling of the Chair

this afternoon, supported in a standing vote by the NDP, can

never be moved in this House. And they all interfere with the

freedom of the citizen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Open government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. WILLIAMS: They all destroy the citizen's access to the courts against

the unlimited, unbridled exercise of executive authority through administrative

tribunals established by the executive. We've almost come to the stage where

we should have a written constitution which will have enshrined in it….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against the unwritten constitution in England,

eh?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not against the unwritten constitution of

England, but the actions of this government are convincing me

that we should be concerned that what has heretofore been

deemed to be the source of our freedom is being taken from us.

And the Attorney General smiles. He thinks it's funny.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I think you're wrong, that's

all.

MR. WALLACE: Let us debate it anyway. Are you going to cut

if off again?

MR. WILLIAMS: You won't stop us from debating it.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yeah, well you sure made a mistake five minutes

ago when you cut it off.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's cut off if you don't follow the

rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ho, ho, ho!

MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if any

support is needed for the intention of this government to take

away from the citizen that freedom, it's found in

section

31(3), which does extend in a very narrow, closely-limited set

of circumstances a right to go to the courts. And if, as the

Attorney General is suggesting from his seat — and as I trust he

will testify when he rises to his feet

[ Page 926 ]

— that what they're doing is not taking away the

jurisdiction then why, Mr. Chairman, is there a special need in

subsection (3) to provide that the courts shall have

jurisdiction in a very narrow, limited case?

No, Mr. Chairman, we are seeing here not the erosion of

liberty and freedom; we're just seeing big bites being taken

out of liberty and freedom. A hastening of the erosion we saw

in the previous administration is taking place today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the British constitution,

province in 1858 and it's never been abrogated. Part of that

constitution, as the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) pointed

out, is written: we have Magna Carta; we have the Bill of

Rights.

A great body of it is unwritten common law and none of that

is being abrogated. And when I suggest in this bill that the

right to go to the courts in terms of a denial of natural

justice is still present, I say that it's present in terms of

all of our inferior tribunals in the Province of British

Columbia. I wouldn't call them parts of the executive

branch.

Let's take the Workmen's Compensation Board for a

minute.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh I know, you want to wriggle off the

hook. You don't want to look at another example of where we

have, in the legislation and Workmen's Compensation, and with

the full approval of the Liberal Party of British Columbia,

provided that a workman cannot go to court.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, for good reasons, because both

sides recognized that endless appeals and damage actions were

not the way, so they denied access to the court.

In the Workmen's Compensation Act — do you agree with that,

Hon. Member?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, do you agree that the Workmen's

Compensation Act denies action to the courts? Do you agree with

that?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, never mind that. The Act as it is

written denies access to the courts, and I suggest you vote for

that quite regularly.

Now, I wouldn't call the Workmen's Compensation Board the executive branch

of government; I would call it a quasi-judicial tribunal. I think, increasingly

in modern life, we will find that specialized tribunals will deal with special

problems. We have set up small claims courts and you may say that's part of

the system — is it? It's a provincial court created with limited jurisdiction.

We set up Workmen's Compensation Boards. It may be that in terms of family law

we'll go some day in that direction. That's debatable.

This is similar to the Workmen's Compensation Board. There

is spelled out here limited access to the court, but over and

behind that, when my friend says that regardless of any error

there is no access to the courts, I would remind him that the

prerogative writs which have existed from Star Chamber days in

British legal history….

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, we will. We are going to have

supper together. We have no legal disagreements whatsoever. Our

disagreements are in the field of sports, entertainment, other

things. On this bill, we are of one mind.

It isn't true to say that regardless of any error there is

no access to the courts. This is similar to the Workmen's

Compensation Board and I ask the Hon. Member who has taken his

seat whether, apart from the sections in the Workmen's

Compensation Act which specifically deny access to the court by

either the employer or employee, there is written into that Act

a private

section which says no writ of certiorari and so forth

under any circumstances can lift to the courts a question which

has been before the Workmen's Compensation Board. I don't think

there is any private

section in this bill, is there?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is? Okay. Let's deal with this

section, but let me just say this: in spite of that section,

the rules of common law apply and the question of natural

justice applies. There have been all kinds of cases. One by Tom

Berger, who is now Mr. Justice Berger, in terms of the

Workmen's Compensation Board established clearly that in

Canadian law the principles of natural justice apply to that

tribunal.

I suggest that there is no difference here and I suggest

it's a mistake in terms of labour relations, which is what we

are discussing, to try to drag back into the courts, with their

technicalities and with their delays and with their expense,

the actual questions of labour relations. In the opinion of

this government in this bill, that kind of a dispute could not

be settled in the courts. It wasn't really a legal conflict

under the adversarial system between employer and employee; it

was a social problem and a

[ Page 927 ]

labour relations problem which had to be looked at in depth

in those terms. So we propose a more appropriate tribunal.

We are doing nothing here that hasn't been done under the

Workmen's Compensation Act . As I say, the unwritten laws of

England apply to this inferior tribunal as they do to the

Workmen's Compensation Board.

HON. MR. KING: The Attorney General has made the point very

well, and I won't comment further in that regard. But I would

like to make the point in response from the Hon. Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace), who shouted "Closure" on a question of order

on the admissibility of his amendment.

My point of order was simply on the basis of rules on the

basis of law that you are very concerned about. I felt that

your amendment was certainly injurious and in conflict with the

central intent of the legislation which the House supported

unanimously in principle.

That in no way curtails your right to discuss the particular

section that you moved the amendment to. You are free to debate

that as long as we sit this evening and all day tomorrow, if

you so wish. I just resent the inference that there is any move

to stifle the debate or impede your right to express your

opinions on this particular

section of the bill or any other

section during the course of this committee stage.

MR. WALLACE: The explanation given by the Minister seems to

me picayune in the extreme. I am now allowed, apparently, under

debate on this

section to say anything as long as I like till

kingdom come but I wasn't allowed to say the same things under

the amendment — is that what you are saying, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. KING: I thought you had finished with your

amendment when you moved it. You had been discussing it for 30

minutes.

MR. WALLACE: Now, that is exaggeration in the extreme, but I

don't propose to get in a long-winded argument with the

Minister. Let's get back to facts and principles. I expect your

indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

I feel that I can support this bill in principle by saying

that there is good reason to minimize the involvement of the

courts in labour-management disputes. Because I do believe that

to be a reasonable point of view, I supported the bill in

principle because in large measure I feel that a well-appointed

board of experienced people with expertise could do a better

job than has been done in the past.

How, by accepting that fairly obvious principle, I should be considered to

be contradictory when I put forward the point of view that you've gone too far

in that principle, I am just at a loss to understand. All I am saying, as far

section 31 and jurisdiction of the board is concerned, is, namely that in

my humble opinion you've gone too far in the power that you are giving to the

board.

I still am at a loss to see how my amendment could be out of

order simply because, to a degree, it differs with the overall

principle of the bill. We could have 153 sections that cover

ombudsmen and special officers and a whole lot of things with

which I entirely agree. Yet, because I oppose one part of it, I

am expected to oppose the whole bill in principle on second

reading. I think that is a very regrettable

interpretation by

the Minister.

I've said time and time again in this House that the problem

with opposition politicians is that they are so often given to

opposing just because we are on this side of the House and you

are over there, and that the whole democratic parliamentary

system thereby loses a lot of its meaning. That's all I'm

trying to say this afternoon.

I feel that in all faith and conscience I can support this

bill in principle with one or two exceptions. One exception to

me is very, very, very important, and that is that in giving

more strength and power to the board, giving it this extent of

jurisdiction, you have simply exceeded your good intentions.

You have gone too far by completely — or not completely…. In

section 31 agree that where an immediate and serious danger to

life or health is occurring, or likely to occur, the court can

issue an order.

I think that just bears out our point completely: that by

including that very slender exception to your general rule, you

admit that there may be times when the board might not be in a

position to act or might make a mistake. If there are times

when the court has to have that degree of authority to issue an

order, I submit there are also going to be times when the board

will make mistakes, either of fact or of law, and there is no

way that the injured party can either claim damages or even

claim justification of the fact that he has been wronged.

I met a man in the hall 10 minutes ago — and the Attorney

General knows Mr. Bedford very well and the Attorney General

might even have comments to make. He is a man who has been

blackballed, and he tells me that he is now in a position where

he has no access anywhere. He can't get a job because he can't

get into a union and he has no mechanism of appeal other than

to go to the courts.

I suggest that if this man — and I don't know the details of

his problem, but he tells me that he has been looking for a job

for many, many months and the Attorney General has been trying

to help him prior to the present time — goes before the new

Labour Relations Board under the new Act and they make a

mistake, where can he go?

[ Page 928 ]

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, let's look at it in another way, Mr.

Attorney General. Under the jurisdiction under

section 31,

supposing this gentleman's problem arises now and he goes to

the Labour Relations Board and, for whatever reason, they

misinterpret law or fact; where can that man go to get any

further consideration of his future livelihood; of his right to

work; of his ability to be employed, to be a member of a union

or not to be a member of a union? Where does he go? There is

nowhere to go in this bill — none.

HON. MR. KING: There is. What about the ombudsman?

MR. WALLACE: The ombudsman — that's right. He has no power.

He has the power of inquiry, the power to report. But he has no

power; he has only the power of inquiry. The power of

persuasion, the Minister says. Well, all I know is that I am

busting my guts here today, and my power of persuasion as to

the need for appeal doesn't seem to be falling on very

receptive ears.

I would say that if we can open the door this little bit

where there is serious danger to life or health, can we not

open the door a little wider to allow people or parties before

the board some mechanism of appeal? That is all I am asking. I

don't think that that is anything other than a very reasonable

approach.

The Minister keeps repeating that this is not a court

because they can't enforce penalties. Okay, I'll accept that.

But the fact is that that's about the only power they do not

have. Certainly they have the power over parties, employers or

employees, to make a decision, and other than their own right

to reconsider their own decision, which is a…. I don't

accept that as being adequate either, otherwise we wouldn't

have the legal system we have in the province.

When one body or one level of court makes a decision which

is questioned, the reconsideration doesn't take place before

the same people. This is like asking a person to reconsider his

own decision. Surely the reconsideration should take place in

front of other parties, another board or another court.

The Minister, the Attorney General, has made it quite plain

that, at least by tradition or precept or habit, this kind of

concept has existed for centuries. If he believes that and says

that in this House, Mr. Chairman, why is it so immensely

difficult that we cannot get just one little clause — one

eensy-weensy sentence — in there to say that a person or a

party may have some right of appeal.

I just can't imagine the absolutely stubborn, unrelentless opposition to what

I think is a very reasonable request. It does nothing, on the other hand, to

weaken the board, in my opinion. It is the one area where the board would be

perhaps strengthened in that parties appealing before the board, if they knew

that they had some right of appeal, would perhaps have that much greater faith

in the board's actions and deliberations.

I think it is a very frightening example of this

government's attitude that parties will appear in disputes

before the board knowing very well that this is it: once the

board has given the decision, the parties before that board

have nowhere else to go — other than to the ombudsman, who I

think is a very poor and second-rate mechanism by which to try

and insure that parties in disputes receive every measure of

fair play and just decision that human beings can possibly

provide in our very complicated society today.

I submit that this has to be one area that surely the

Minister, in the light of the pleas from the other parties in

the opposition…it isn't just this party. There is real

concern that there is no such mechanism of appeal. By providing

some mechanism you would, in fact, strengthen the bill, you

would strengthen your own government's awareness of the

importance of individual rights and freedoms and it would also

make it quite clear that you really, as a government, honestly

believe and are willing to put in writing the precept and

concept that your own Attorney General has stated last night in

debate and again today.

As you quite rightly said, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, I have been repetitious. This is one of the most

important, if not the most important, aspects of this bill. You

are setting an example, which I think is also dangerous, that

this session or next session or a year from now, I fear that

we'll come back with other bills setting up other judicial or

quasi-judicial boards, and the same argument that the Attorney

General has presented by way of the Workmen's Compensation

Board will be thrown back at the opposition next time

around.

Well, what are you getting all upset and excited about?

There is no appeal mechanism in the labour code. That's what we

will be told a year from now when we complain about some other

bill that you are trying to bring in with the same power. Two

wrongs never made a right and two blacks never made a white.

The fact is that I may not….

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): That's for sure!

MR. WALLACE: I must make it very plain, Mr. Chairman, that I

wasn't talking in racial terms.

I think this argument that because some particular was

omitted from some previous existing legislation…it should

not be used logically as some excuse or justification to keep

on doing it that way.

I keep coming back to the point that if the

[ Page 929 ]

Minister accepts that this right does exist and it is just a

matter that it isn't usually written in the statutes, what is

to stop us from being as innovative as the bill itself and put

this kind of appeal in black and white in the bill?

I just feel that for all these various reasons we must most

strenuously oppose

section 31. I would say further that if this

is symbolic of some of the other bills that we are going to be

debating in future sessions based on the same premise that you

can give this amount of power because the right of appeal and

rights to the individual are guaranteed by custom rather than

by writing, then I think we will have many lengthy debates

which will be repetitious.

But I hope that the government, by virtue of seeing how

concerned we are about this, will reconsider 31 and will give

greater consideration in future legislation to incorporating

very important basic individual rights.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I meant to add to what I said a while

ago that there is a lot to be said for what the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay is saying. The unwritten law, while in my opinion, it

applies here, is something that should be examined to make sure

that it is effective in modern terms, be