1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 1365 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of supply: Department of Labour estimates.

Mr. Chabot — 1365

Hon. Mr. King — 1371

Mr. Chabot — 1374

Hon. Mr. King — 1375

Mr. McGeer — 1375

Hon. Mr. King — 1382

Mr. McGeer — 1382

Hon. Mr. King — 1383

Mr. Wallace — 1383

Hon. Mr. King — 1385

Mr. Wallace — 1385

Mr. Chabot — 1386

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1973

The House met at 8:15 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I have been in receipt of a very

unusual gift. I would like to share the pleasure of this gift

with the MLAs before these pictures are hung in my office.

This is the 75th anniversary of this building being opened

as a Legislative Assembly. This week two photographs were

brought to my office as a gift; one of which is a picture of

the inside of the chamber, just as it was when it was completed

before the first sitting. Another picture is one of the

building from the outside, just when the building was completed

75 years ago. So with the permission of the House I would like

to pass them around and let the Members view them — then return

them to me.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Who was the

donor?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who was the donor? He must remain

anonymous. A friend. A friend of the Legislative Assembly.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

Vote 124: Minister's Office, $72,978.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure for me to take my place and

discuss labour with the rookie Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King) of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a pleasure for us to see you over

there. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: I'm going to find it rather difficult to be as

critical as some of his friends are, because it wasn't too long

ago one of his close friends said that the Minister is a

walking disaster looking for a place to happen.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: However, it's also difficult to criticize

because the Minister, since he's been in office, has done

nothing, absolutely nothing. So it is difficult to be

critical.

Also, the fact that the matter of labour relations is under

scrutiny in the province at this time makes it rather difficult

to be critical of the existing policies because they might be

changed maybe some time in the future; maybe not on the

schedule that the Minister originally gave to the people of

British Columbia — that two or three years from now we'll have

amendments, and so forth.

He's hastened his decision on the basis of pressure from

some of his friends.

I was rather amazed at the very early dates on the part of

the Minister in which he related to the Press what his position

would be while he's the Minister of Labour. While speaking to a

reporter in the community of Revelstoke, he had this to

say:

"Revelstoke-Slocan MLA Bill King has only been a cabinet minister for two weeks, but already he says

he is becoming a seasoned politician because he has learned how

to say, 'no comment', to questions by reporters.

"Mr. King admitted the reporters have a job to do, but it becomes a bit much when every other phone call is

from some newspaper, radio or television reporter. He has now

appointed Dale Compton as his executive assistant, who happened

to be one of his chief campaign men in the last election. In

Mr. King's words, 'the role of Mr. Compton is to keep those

reporters off my back. That will be his role.' "

Whenever in the future you read a newspaper story, or hear a

broadcast which goes something like, "sources from the Labour

Minister's office said this or that," you'll know that

source is Mr. Compton. It doesn't come from the Minister; it's

Mr. Compton. I want to know, Mr. Minister, who is setting

policy in your office, you or your political appointee? Who's

setting policy in your office?

"Trying to keep reporters off his neck doesn't seem consistent with Mr. King's objectives as

Revelstoke-Slocan's MLA or B.C.'s labour Minister. He said

unequivocally that he wants to establish better communications

and better dialogue with his constituents, and between labour

and management."

There's an inconsistency very early in your career as

Minister of Labour. I think your role really as Minister of

Labour is one of mediator between two forces — organized labour

force and the management force — as well as ensuring that those

people in British Columbia who are not organized, who are

workers in this province, are protected as well. Not one to

say, "No comment." "I want to keep this guy and that guy off my

back."

Not too long ago, in August of last year, there

[ Page 1366 ]

were some policy decisions brought down, and it wasn't in

the Watkins manifesto; it was in the newspaper

article or the

"Democrat" or whatever you call it — "New Deal for People" — and

it had this to say on labour-management negotiations.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Get it right for a change.

(Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: We just heard from the Premier's shadow. You

know, that Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) shadows the

Premier everywhere. When the Premier was outside this

afternoon, he was right behind him. When the Premier was

sitting here this afternoon, he was right behind him. Is he

your bodyguard or something, Mr. Premier? That Member for

Vancouver Centre, he's all over. I saw him on TV right behind

you.

MR. LAUK: That's the only way I could get on TV.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Shadow knows.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Member, if you're feeling

shut out, come down to my office and we'll talk about it.

MR. CHABOT: …I wouldn't be caught in the same company

with you, Mr. Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. CHABOT: You're the man who believes in socking it to the

farmers.

Now we're back to policy statements on the part of the New

Democratic Party, relative to labour management. One of their

policy statements was that there shall be longer vacations, and

shorter work days, or work weeks, will be encouraged to

maintain and expand employment opportunities in the face of

automation.

I'm wondering if the Minister, when he stands, will tell us

what kind of a programme he is preparing to ensure that these

particular objectives of the socialist Government will be

carried out.

Now, "labour-management relations will be firmly based on

free collective bargaining. Free from the interference of

governments or courts."

I've heard from the Minister, which I think was probably a misquote, but he

did certainly lead a group of labour leaders to believe that he is looking at

the possibility of eliminating court injunctions. I want the Minister to say

very clearly whether he is giving some consideration to this.

I think an injunction is a very necessary device in order to

protect personal property or businesses and public order as

well. I think there's justification in many instances for the

securing of a court injunction.

I'm wondering what the Minister's attitude is relative to a

statement that appeared in the "Democrat." It says that labour

negotiations should be free from interference by government or

the courts.

We've heard a lot about the Sandringham dispute. The

Minister, when he first became Minister, became a bit of a

tiger, and he was going to resolve that dispute.

I think I should go way back to 1971 when the then Leader of

the Opposition moved a resolution in this House. The resolution

reads as follows:

"Moved that the Select Standing Committee on Labour be authorized to investigate the labour dispute

presently existing at Sandringham Private Hospital, with full

power to call witnesses, examine hospital staff, financial

records, employee records, trade union officers concerned, the

National Nursing Homes Ltd. management personnel and directors,

and to make recommendations respecting the said dispute and the

future of the said hospital to the Minister of Labour and if

need be to the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance."

Not too long after the motion was put on the order paper,

there were several NDP MLAs of the day, who are now Cabinet

Ministers, who did demonstrate in front of the Sandringham

Private Hospital to draw attention to the plight of the workers

there.

I'm wondering why there's such inaction on the part of the

Select Standing Committee on Labour during the current session

if their concern at that particular time was genuine. Why

hasn't the matter been referred to the Select Standing

Committee for examination?

You were concerned two years ago about this dispute. Where

is your concern now? The Minister certainly did make an

attempt. He came in like a storm on the question of Sandringham

Hospital. He wrote a fairly abusive letter to the owners of

Sandringham Hospital, in which it said:

"I have outlined in some detail the extensive efforts

that have been made to negotiate a collective agreement with your

company by the trade union which is legally certified to represent your

employees, because I am deeply concerned about your apparent lack of

responsibility."

"I have outlined in some detail the extensive efforts

that have been made to negotiate a collective agreement with your

company by the trade union which is legally certified to represent your

employees, because I am deeply concerned about your apparent lack of

responsibility."

Your apparent

lack of responsibility.

He called the owner of Sandringham Hospital over to Victoria

to confer with him. Mr. Shepherd found himself too busy in

Vancouver to come over to Victoria to talk to the Minister

about this labour

[ Page 1367 ]

dispute, so the Minister packed his bags and went over to

Vancouver to discuss the matter with Mr. Shepherd.

Really very little has happened since he has been over there

in Vancouver. He's had a brief meeting here in Victoria with

the parties concerned, CUPE and Mr. Shepherd or his

representatives.

The Minister was very determined at that particular time to

ensure resolution of this longstanding labour dispute.

However, he's changed his mind very drastically since that

time. When questioned by newspaper reporters, he's had this to

say:

"Suggestions for settling the Sandringham Hospital strike

have not been accepted by the hospital, Labour Minister Bill

King disclosed today. 'The proposal which we had for their

consideration was not accepted. But there is a possibility of

another approach being undertaken.'

"King said he prefers not to give any details, because

there is still the possibility of part of the proposal being

accepted and public discussion would not assist the matter."

In other words, "No comment."

" 'We are at present considering the whole matter in

considering a new course of action. I expect to talk to the

union in the next day or so.' "

That statement was made some time in the month of January.

We haven't heard too much from the Minister on the question of

Sandringham, and I'm wondering whether tonight he'll be able to

relate to us just where the dispute presently stands and

whether there is any possibility of its resolution.

I know it's an extremely difficult dispute. It's not a

dispute that can be readily or quickly settled, in my opinion.

However, I'm bringing this to the attention of the Minister

because he came in like a tiger when he first became Minister

and he was going to settle this terrible dispute in which he

criticized the former Minister. He had this to say:

"King said he would reserve judgement on Shepherd's role in

the dispute but criticized former Labour Minister Chabot for

allegedly 'failing to involve his department more actively in

the dispute.' "

It's quite obvious that the Minister has not familiarized

himself with the correspondence and what had taken place by

officials of the Department of Labour, because I'm sure they

would confirm to him that they had been more involved prior to

his becoming Minister than in the preceding three months of his

occupying that role.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: It's a very difficult dispute.

Unfortunately, the Minister's attempt at getting a labour inquiry throughout

the province was scuttled by certain people. Nevertheless he recouped fairly

well from that ordeal and the lashing given to him by certain people. He has

appointed a three-man advisory board to examine the labour laws and to make

recommendations to him on things that should be changed in the labour field

in British Columbia.

I am concerned, really, with the present approach you have

taken on this matter. You appear to support certain labour

spokesmen on the statements they have made in which they

criticized public hearings and public participation in the

question of new labour laws in this province.

I think that every individual in this province has a right

to be heard when it comes to holding hearings. It shouldn't be

a closed affair between labour and management. Every individual

in this province has a right to be heard. Every individual in

this province has an interest in labour disputes, because

they're affected indirectly in many instances, Some labour leaders have said, "We don't want any input from

kooks." Unless the Minister involves these people, gives them

an opportunity to speak out and be heard, I have to conclude

that he subscribes to the statement made by certain labour

leaders.

I hope the Minister will tell us what steps he proposes to

take to ensure that there is public participation in these

hearings which he is holding and which, at the present moment

at least, only labour and management are being invited to

attend.

Every individual in this province is concerned about what is

taking place in the labour field.

In British Columbia during the year 1972 the average labour

force was 949,000 people. There was a growth in the labour

force of 4.2 per cent, which means 38,000 new people joined the

labour force in our province. But there was a serious shortfall

in our ability to create jobs. We were able to generate only a

3.7 per cent factor of new jobs in British Columbia, which

means only 31,000 new jobs were created.

Certainly I must say that unemployment was high in 1972. But

I am fearful really that unemployment will accelerate in 1973.

There are clear-cut indications of this.

When one looks at the statistics in the month of January,

1973 — an actual figure of 9.9 per cent of the labour force in

this province were unemployed; 95,000 people were seeking work.

It's down to 8.3 per cent at the moment; still an unacceptable

percentage of people unemployed in British Columbia;

substantially higher than the comparable month of the previous

year.

I am concerned, and I think the Minister of Labour should

concern himself with the matter of job creation in this

province. I think that he should tell Members of his

Government, the Finance Minister (Hon, Mr. Barrett), the

"Takeover Minister," that he is concerned on the

question of job creation; that unless you're able to attract

investment capital into

[ Page 1368 ]

British Columbia, you're not going to create very many

jobs.

This session is a clear indication to me that there is going

to be a decrease in the availability of jobs in this province.

I hope that the Government will take steps to rectify some of

the irresponsible statements they have made that do jeopardize

our ability to encourage and to promote and to attract

investment capital in this province which does create jobs.

Whether you realize it or not, investment capital generates

jobs. I'm wondering what project the Minister has for job

creation; whether the Minister can tell us what he sees in his

crystal ball as far as what the unemployment picture will be

for 1973 in British Columbia.

In 1972 there was an increase in the number of elevator

inspectors from 11 to 14. There was a request from the

department which suggested that an addition of three elevator

inspectors would be sufficient to catch up on the backlog of

inspections and to meet the ever-growing needs of inspecting

new elevators that are being constructed in the province.

I have been rather appalled lately to have gone into

elevators to find that some had not been inspected for upwards

of three years, with an addition of three inspectors to the

staff. I am wondering whether the Minister can tell us what the

problem is and whether there is a need for additional elevator

inspectors.

There was an addition to the force of three inspectors,

which at the time appeared to be reasonable to catch up on the

backlog of uninspected elevators in the province.

We hear a lot about the Labour Relations Board these days.

There has been a tremendous amount of publicity in the news and

no doubt a fair amount of pressure on the Minister to fire the

present Labour Relations Board. The suggestions have come from

many corners. I am wondering whether the Minister is bowing to

these pressures, whether he is considering the removal of

existing Labour Relations Board, and whether he is considering

the appointment of a complete new slate of members to the board

and making the board a full-time board.

Also when discussing the Labour Relations Board, I am

wondering whether the Minister could tell me: would the

certification of a nonexistent unit be considered an

appropriate unit for collective bargaining? A very simple

question. I'm wondering whether the Minister, in view of

statements that are being made publicly these days, for reasons

for decisions from the board, is considering an expansion on

the present reasons which are given. I'm wondering whether the

Minister has given consideration — whether it is the present

board or whether it is a new, fully constituted board of new

members, full-time — to allowing a Canadian union member to be

on that board?

I personally think there should be an expansion of the board

to include a Canadian union member. The Canadian unions,

whether the Member for Vancouver Centre likes it or not, are

here to stay, and they are here to expand.

There is a matter which is before the board at this

particular time on the question of representation of a group of

workers at Trail, Cominco, Kimberley and Benson Lake. From all

indications it would appear that the Canadian Workers' Union is

in a fairly strong position to gain representation of these

workers. I am wondering, in view of the tremendous upsurge,

whether recognition will be given to this union force on the

Labour Relations Board.

The Minister has received a letter about ten days ago from

an individual….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there is a chipmunk in the back

chirping away. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: There's a dictator there too. The commissar. The

commissar of highways. That's what you are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Commissar of everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Commissar of insurance.

MR. CHABOT: When are we going to see the light in

Golden?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, there is a threat from the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — threatening to take away my

traffic light in Golden. Threatening to take it away. He

promised it this afternoon.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: I am wondering if you could relate to me, Mr.

Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, whether you have replied

and what information you have conveyed to the individual who

wrote to you on March 5, when he said:

"I, as an employee of Wagner Engineering Limited of

Vancouver, recently learned that the

[ Page 1369 ]

Marine Workers and Boilermakers Industrial Union, local 1,

has applied for and received certification at my employers. No

vote was held. Why? I believe that much less than 50 per cent

of the employees actually want a union."

This is just a matter

of opinion on his part.

"Please write me and explain why a vote was not taken."

I hope that when the Minister stands he will be able to

elaborate on that particular matter. I did miss a couple of

points in the Watkins manifesto. The Watkins manifesto, which

was presented to the people of British Columbia in bits and

pieces last August, suggested that the Department of Labour

would eliminate certain sections of the Labour Relations

Act which they considered discriminatory, and certain

sections of the Trade Unions Act .

I wonder whether the Minister is giving some consideration

to changing these, whether he is asking for input from these

three investigators on this very question, and, if there is no

input from these three investigators, whether he is going to

allow input for the deletion of these particular sections from

other than B.C. Federation of Labour and other unions. It has

an effect on many other groups in the province.

Now, with regard to the Hours of Work Act , there has

been a lot of talk in recent years, really, about the

shortening of the work week. The "4-40's" it's called — the

four-day, 40-hour week. They are experimenting in many areas

with the three-day, 36-hour week. Some of these reports are

coming back — most positive reports — that indicate to me that

there has been in certain areas an increase in productivity and

an increase in the morale of the workers. The Minister said he

believes that many of the problems of the workers come from

dissatisfaction with the monotony of their job and that there

should be job satisfaction. I am wondering whether the Minister

is prepared to allow the free choice of unions and management

jointly to decide whether they want to go for these shorter

hours or shorter work weeks.

I know that there are certain provisions in the Hours of

Work Act , through the Board of Industrial Relations, that

tend to be slightly inflexible. I'm wondering whether the

Minister is prepared to bring about legislative changes to make

the Act a little more flexible so that we don't have to go

through the lengthy procedure that is presently necessary in

order to get an approval of the shorter work week.

Consider the number of conflicts that exist on the job site and the jurisdictional

disputes that take place between the various unions. Is the Minister proposing

any changes there? Because I strongly believe that a union member has the right

to belong to the union of his choice. He shouldn't be forced out by any

section

or item of a collective agreement which has been entered into by an employer

and another union. He should have the right to exist, regardless of what union

he belongs to.

There has been a fair amount of evidence that unions have

been destroyed by not being allowed on particular job sites.

I'm wondering whether he is looking at this particular

problem.

The union hiring hall is of course another area which I have

brought up on different occasions. I think the union hiring

hall in some instances works very effectively. In some other

instances, not as effectively. There is room for intimidation

and harassment of the union members. You better believe there

is. In some instances we find that the union hiring hall is

used as a means of discipline of union members. Also, it's used

as a means of punishing contractors.

I'll cite you an example.

In 1970, a small electrical contractor was forced out of

business because — I'm not going to tell you which union — he

refused to supply tradesmen.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Local 213, IBEW. He refused to supply tradesmen

to the company, despite legal action taken against the union.

The appeal court upheld the right of the union to withhold men.

Further, the union hiring hall practices have been used as

harassing tactics against contractors in order to achieve union

objectives which are not covered by the collective

agreement.

I am wondering whether the Minister would give some

consideration to implementing a part of the Woods Task Force on

Labour Relations, which stated as follows:

"Where a hiring hall operates in an industry as the effective

avenue to employment in that industry, it should be operated by the Canada Manpower Service, "

I would change that to the Department of Labour —

"with the assistance and cooperation of the affected employer or unions through a joint labour-management advisory committee."

That was a recommendation brought in after an exhaustive

study of labour relations in the Province of Ontario. In my

opinion it appears to be fairly reasonable suggestion. I am

wondering what the Minister's attitude is on that.

We hear from certain labour leaders that they want to see

changes in existing labour legislation in this province so that

they can get on with the job of organizing the unorganized. I

am wondering whether the Minister is considering any changes in

legislation that would allow this type of approach to

organizing which is being requested. I am sure many requests

have been made to you in your office.

You have to take into consideration as well that there are

people in British Columbia who do not want to be organized, who

do not want to belong to a

[ Page 1370 ]

union. I think their wishes should be protected as well.

I think that the labour laws of British Columbia as they

presently stand are sufficiently flexible to allow union

organization. The proof of that really is that British Columbia

is the most highly unionized jurisdiction on the North American

continent. So if there have been roadblocks, they're only

hypothetical roadblocks, in my opinion. Certainly they are.

Because otherwise we wouldn't have the highest union membership

of any area on the North American continent — 42 per cent of

the workers in this province are unionized.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: 28 per cent across Canada. 42 per cent in

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at Sweden; look at France.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, look at it.

MR. CHABOT: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: You look at it.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Minister, I have a copy of a telegram here

which indicates very clearly that there has been a violation of

the Labour Relations Act . I won't read the entire

telegram, but I will read parts of it, It was a telegram sent

to the recording secretaries of various unions in the province

by Mr. Ray Haynes, and he said: "BY CONVENTION DECISION…"

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Are you insinuating the Minister of Labour is

not concerned about violations of the labour laws of this

province? Are you concerned?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: This just happened. This was a telegram sent on

July 25:

"BY CONVENTION DECISION THE FEDERATION WILL BE

ASSISTING TRADE UNIONISTS AND OTHER NDP CANDIDATES. THE ASSISTANCE MUST

BE PROVIDED WITHOUT DELAY. WE URGE YOU TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO

CONTRIBUTE TO THE FEDERATION'S POLITICAL ACTION FUND WITHIN THE NEXT

TWO WEEKS.

TO ENABLE US TO GET THE BALL ROLLING WE WOULD ASK YOU TO ADVISE BY RETURN WIRE WHAT WE MAY TENTATIVELY

EXPECT FROM YOUR UNION."

In view of the fact that I raised this matter in the Attorney General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) estimates and he

appears to be unwilling to take action against this counselling

of violation of the laws of this province, I have to consider

him derelict in his duties in failing to take action. The only

reason he is not taking action is because they happen to be his

friends.

Section 9 of the Labour Relations Act , subsection

C(i):

"No trade union and no person acting on behalf of a trade

union shall, directly or indirectly, contribute to or expend on behalf of any

political party or to or on behalf of any candidate for political office any

moneys deducted from an employee's wages under subsection 1, or a collective

agreement, or paid as a condition of membership in the trade union."

There was no assignment of union contributions by the members. There wasn't

sufficient time. There was no assignment. They had to have the money within

two weeks. Yet the Attorney General closes his eyes to the violation of

this law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you return to the estimates?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): You're attacking

Leslie Peterson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you return to the estimates please?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I wasn't the Attorney General then.

MR. CHABOT: No, the telegram just came to our attention

shortly after — July 25, 1972. I am wondering whether the

Attorney General is willing to reveal the type of funds that

have been contributed by various unions for the campaigns for

the NDP.

Mr. Minister of Labour, I'm getting back to you. I am

wondering whether there is any way that you'd bring this to the

attention of the Attorney General that there has been a

violation of the Labour Relations Act by the B.C.

Federation of Labour in counselling to violate the laws of this

province.

I am wondering whether you are willing to ask the Attorney

General to take action against these political activists.

Now I want to say just a couple of words on the question of apprenticeship

in industrial training. I'm gratified to see the increase in the number of people

that are being trained in this programme. There's been a substantial increase

from 1971 to 1971. I am, however, concerned about the present procedure of

indenturing apprentices to joint apprenticeship committees. The coordinators,

of course, are responsible for finding employment for these apprentices. I think

[ Page

1371 ]

that in many instances, because of this particular

procedure, the employers are not giving the type of attention

or interest to these apprentices that they would if the

apprentice were indentured to them as employers.

In the case of apprentices who are indentured to these joint

committees, the coordinator who is responsible for the

placement of them finds sometimes when the employee is finished

that he is returned back to the committee for placement

elsewhere. I don't think there is the type of attachment by the

employer to the apprentice that should take place. This is

because of the joint apprenticeship committees. I am wondering

whether the Minister if giving some consideration to this.

Not only does it become frustrating for the apprentice being

shifted from jobsite to jobsite — there is a fair amount of

control over the number of apprentices that are allowed to

enter into a programme, and there are many trades in British

Columbia that are short of tradesmen. Yet we can't get

apprentices to train, because there is an effort in certain of

these committees to cut down on the number of apprentices that

do take training. I don't think that's very good. Certainly

they can ensure that the quality is better, but I don't think

that we should close the gate to people who want to take

training, especially in a day when we find the highest

unemployment in British Columbia is of people in the ages from

14 to 24, people who need training and need it desperately in

order to fit into the framework of gainful employment.

Although we've had a substantial increase in apprenticeship

training in British Columbia, I don't believe that the number — which I think is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 9,500 — is

really sufficient. We have a labour force in British Columbia

of almost one million people, yet we find only approximately

9,500 apprentices in the training programme — less than one per

cent. Really, in my opinion, that's not good enough. There should

be a considerable improvement in this. I am wondering whether

the Minister will examine the procedures of indenturing

apprentices; whether he'll carry out a study. I think there

should be a fairly comprehensive study of the needs of

tradesmen in the various classifications of industry in British

Columbia. I think with a full study on this very subject we

could come to a conclusion as to the number of apprentices that

are required in British Columbia, and that we could provide the

necessary dollars and programmes and facilities to ensure that

these people are trained so that our unemployment rolls will

not be as high as they are at the present.

I have a few more questions. However, I've probably put out

enough questions for the Minister now, and I'll just let him

answer at the moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the

Member for Columbia River says, he certainly did put out quite a large quantity

of questions. I'm not sure the quality was all that impressive, but I'll try

to answer the ones that I can make sense out of.

The Member devoted his initial time to analysing certain

election material that was put out by the New Democratic Party

in the last election. You know, I hardly think that this is an

appropriate time to get into that type of analysis. I was

hoping that perhaps we could expect a little bit more…yes,

as the Premier says, the results of that campaign material

proved quite satisfactory to this side of the House.

But really, Mr. Chairman, from someone who occupied the

office of Minister of Labour for some time before the advent of

this government I would have expected something a little more

searching, something a little more penetrating, and something

that indicated that the Member for Columbia River had some

knowledge, some appreciation, of just what's involved in

labour-management relations. Some of his questions obviously

didn't do anything to heighten his credibility.

He brought up the Sandringham Hospital dispute. On that

particular issue he went wrong right on the first issue he

raised. He said that I had invited the owners of Sandringham to

Victoria, that they had declined, and then I had trotted off to

Vancouver to meet with them.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that I made no such

trip to Vancouver. The owners of Sandringham did meet with me

in my office in response to my call to them. I might add, Mr.

Chairman, that this was the first time that any direct action

had been taken by the Minister of Labour's office to bring the

parties together in that dispute — first direct action.

I might add also that, prior to my assuming the office of

Minister of Labour, the owners of Sandringham had been found

guilty of failing to bargain collectively within the meaning of

the Act. I think it's somewhat shocking that my predecessor

failed, in spite of that finding, to even use his office or his

influence to get a dialogue going between the union and the

owners again.

So certainly, Mr. Chairman, while we haven't resolved the

dispute, we have been actively and aggressively involved. We

had had a series of meetings with both the union and management

people, and we are still working on it, as a matter of fact.

Now I don't know what the Member for Columbia River would

suggest. Well, perhaps that's not true. I do know what he would

suggest; compulsory arbitration was the answer to all things

for the former

[ Page 1372 ]

administration, but I don't think it's a way to bring

lasting peace in industrial relations. Free collective

bargaining is what's being exercised right now.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, we are debating the

estimates of the Department of Labour today and, while I can

understand somewhat of a preoccupation with farmers from the

backbench across the way, I suggest that we address ourselves

to the issue before us.

The Member for Columbia River stated further that the review

of labour legislation which this department has undertaken has

been met with some opposition. Certainly this is true. I

certainly expect that I shall have disagreements with

participants in the labour and in the management field as we go

ahead, because that's the nature of this type of undertaking.

We are dealing with human beings.

I would expect differences of opinion on legislation, on

policies that should be undertaken and so on. But again, I

really would have expected a bit of a more mature response from

the former Minister. What does he want to do? Does he want to

stir up controversy and destroy a chance for improving labour

relations in the province? I wouldn't think so; so why get into

a commentary on disputes that may have taken place in the

newspaper between me and any element of the industrial

relations world.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, will the Hon. Minister be seated. If

there is no point of order, will the Member be seated.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I agree that the quality of

this discussion could be a lot better; but after all, I am

responding to the Member for Columbia River, so we have to

understand the situation. (Laughter). He further indicated that

in some way I no longer intended to pursue the policy which I

enunciated of inviting input from all areas of labour,

management and the public in a review of new legislation.

Now certainly there's been nothing issued from my department

to indicate anything of that nature. As far as certain people

in labour saying they didn't want input from kooks, well again,

I can understand the Member for Columbia River objecting and

being somewhat sensitive. But be that as it may, it's his

prerogative.

Now, he moved on to unemployment and suggested that this

department should be doing more to create employment. I'm not

sure whether he was confused between the Department of Labour

and the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce or not; but I think it is significant to note, Mr.

Chairman, that there was in excess of 1 per cent decline in

unemployment figures during this last month. I think that's

certainly a good sign.

I might point out also that the Department of Labour, for the

first time in history, is currently collaborating with the

Department of Manpower and Immigration, with industry and with

labour in setting up a new programme for special training in

the woods industry in the province. Certainly I think this is a

new initiative that was never displayed by the department

before under that Member's stewardship.

Now he asked the question, "Could a non-existent union be

certified?" Again, you know, I would think to most people in

the House that would be pretty obvious. I don't know how a

non-existent element could make an application. It's just an

incredible question. As I commented the other night, I don't

know how you can expect to get an answer when you don't

obviously know an intelligent question.

In referring to the content of the Labour Relations Board,

or the composition of the Labour Relations Board; yes, there's

been criticism of the Labour Relations Board. I have announced

in response to criticism of this nature, as well as criticisms

of a wider variety, that we are undertaking a review; that we

are prepared to listen to the criticisms and the

recommendations of labour unions, management groups and so

on.

Until this review takes place, and until we have analysed

the input which we've received and come up with an alternative

system, why, I'm quite satisfied that the Labour Relations Board

is acting to the best of their ability within the confines of

the law which the former administration placed on the statute

books. Certainly when you peruse that law, I think that they've

done rather a remarkable job of making that system work.

He mentioned the dispute which is going on at Cominco's

operation in Trail and Kimberley and Salmo, and made some

statements that I should indicate whether or not a vote will be

held.

MR. CHABOT: Not true.

HON. MR. KING: Well, I certainly gained that inference; that

the Member stated his views were that a hearing should be

provided so that the workers may make a choice of the union

they prefer in this type of situation. Obviously, I would have

thought that a former Minister of Labour would know. I would

have thought he would know that the Labour Relations Board

makes their decisions, makes their adjudications….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KING: Well he's starting to hurt a little

[ Page 1373 ]

bit now, Mr. Chairman, and….

MR. CHABOT: I can't stand lying….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Well, why don't you refrain from lying then,

Mr. Member for Columbia River. Why….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister please be seated.

Would you state your point of order.

MR. CHABOT: …that I have no point of order and to sit

down. I wish you'd tell that Member to be quiet and to shut

his big, fat mouth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) be seated, and would the Hon. Member for Columbia

River state his point of order.

MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that I wish the Member

would withdraw the inference that I am a liar. When the

Minister has been deliberately twisting everything that I've

said previous to this point….

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order,

MR. CHABOT: That is a point of order! You'd better believe it is a point

of order! I'm asking you to have that Minister withdraw that statement forthwith.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just caution both the Hon. Minister

and the Member for Columbia River that they should not impute

any motives unworthy of this House to each other. I would just

ask you to continue in peace.

MR. CHABOT: Well stop lying, Mr. Minister. Stop lying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River be seated?

MR. CHABOT: Stop lying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask your cooperation in treating this

subject with the seriousness that it deserves.

HON. MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your point is well

taken. I must plead innocent in this situation, though. I'd

suggest to the Member for Columbia River that if he can't stand

the heat, get out of the kitchen.

He said that he "couldn't stand lying." I assume that

he was having pangs of conscience, and I suggested he refrain

from doing so. Now I didn't accuse him of anything. He brought

the matter up, not me.

However, to continue, Mr. Chairman: the dispute at Cominco

in Trail-Kimberley will be adjudicated by the Labour Relations

Board in the normal way, free from political comment from my

office, free from political interference in any way. I would

suggest that if the Member for Columbia River really understood

the need for impartiality, for independence by the Labour

Relations Board, he wouldn't be making the kind of suggestions

that he's making here tonight.

I think it would be the most improper and a denial of

impartiality for me as the Minister of Labour to comment with

respect to the relative merits of either side of the question

in Trail or Kimberley and so on.

He brought up the matter of Wagner Engineering in Vancouver.

His assessment of that situation as I know it was also

incorrect. The unit applying at Wagner Engineering was a new

unit. There was no dispute in fact with another union seeking

certification. The unit making the application satisfied the

board that their cards were in order, that they were the

appropriate unit to represent that group of workers, and that

there was no conflict of application. Accordingly, they granted

the certification. That is a normal and customary function of

the Labour Relations Board.

Certainly it would be somewhat ridiculous to grant a vote

when they already have the indication of the wishes of the

members of that unit.

With respect to the compressed work week that the Member

questioned me on, there are a number of union and management

groups trying the compressed work week at the moment. The

Department of Labour is quite prepared to grant exemptions and

to grant the right, where there's mutual agreement between the

union and management groups, to experiment with the shorter,

compressed work week. So there really is no amendment to

existing legislation required to provide for that eventuality.

If it's satisfactory to the participants, both on the

employees' side and on the management side, then the department

is quite prepared to let them experiment.

Now with respect to the hiring hall abuse situation that the Member brought

up, it's hardly worthy of

[ Page

1374 ]

comment; he outlined one case of an abuse in that respect. I

realize that this is quite possible, but I think the indication

of one violation of that kind of arrangement is hardly a basis

upon which to bring about legislative change.

Certainly there are violations of the Labour Relations

Act on the part of both management and particular trade

unions throughout the year. I don't think the department should

respond to every violation with a threat of amending

legislation to bind them tighter than ever. Again, perhaps this

is a philosophical difference of opinion, but I think it would

be most irrational to take that approach.

The Woods Task Force recommendations that the Member drew to

the attention of the House were never acted upon by either the

federal government or any other provincial jurisdiction in

Canada. I would take the position that the hiring hall problems — and some problems do exist — could best be solved through the

joint efforts and joint cooperation of the trade unions

themselves and the management people rather than involving the

government in it.

The Member brought up my statements that I intended to

encourage greater organization of the work force in the

province. Yes, by all means, I said that. I made that

statement. I reiterate that statement tonight. I think this is

a highly desirable goal. Certainly all working people of the

province, I think, should be encouraged to protect themselves

with a trade union representation. I certainly make no

apologies for that.

I have stated further that I would certainly be receptive to

recommendations for relaxing the requirements for certification

of new units. Again I suggest that this is highly desirable. If

this House and the Members of it are sincere in their desire to

bring an upward mobility to those workers who are at the lowest

end of the economic spectrum, I suggest that this is only one

rational approach that could be taken to assist them. Certainly

I commend that approach to the House.

The apprenticeship applications, I think, was the final

comment that the Member for Columbia River brought up. I'm

assured by our director of apprenticeship training that

indentures, where they're requested by an employer, are

certainly available, of a particular apprentice.

The joint committee structure also has to be a mutually

acceptable situation to the industry involved and the unions

and so on. So I don't see any great conflict there. Perhaps

there has been in the past. I am advised by the department that

there is no great problem in that area now. Everything is

working satisfactorily, and I am pleased to report that to the

Member.

So I've tried to respond as well as I could to the questions that the Member

raised. I added a few comments that I thought were worthwhile injecting. After

all, in the spirit of levity, in which I think he put out some of the questions,

I wanted to respond in kind. But I hope that I have given a fair assessment

and a fair response to the Member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River

for supplementaries. But I would caution the Hon. Members, when

they're making supplementaries, that they are questions

arising out of comments that were made by the Minister to the

previous answers.

MR. CHABOT: First of all the Minister, in his reply to the

question of the representative matter taking place in Trail

between CWU and the steelworkers, suggested that I asked him to

interfere with the procedures which are taking place before the

Labour Relations Board. I think that if he'll listen to the

tape that is being recorded at the moment, and reads it

tomorrow, he will see how wrong he was.

I did in that matter ask a particular question — and that

was the reason for bringing up the Trail situation, if the

Minister was considering Canadian union representation on the

Labour Relations Board — which you didn't answer.

Another question he failed to answer was the question of

elevator inspections, what the status is there. I said that

there are elevators in British Columbia that are supposed to be

inspected on an annual basis that have not been inspected for

three years. What does the Minister propose to do about

this?

On the question of Sandringham Hospital, he said that his

department is very active, and "we're negotiating," and

"we believe in free collective bargaining." That isn't the

attitude you took when you said to the owner of Sandringham

Hospital that "I am deeply concerned about your apparent lack

of responsibility." That's what you said, Mr. Minister. If that

isn't taking sides, I don't know what is — accusing an employer

of being irresponsible.

That's what you did there. If you're as concerned as you let

on you are, why haven't you pursued referring the matter to the

labour committee?

I remember in the past, long before you were here, when your

Members used to sit over here and they used to say the

committee of labour never does anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order. I believe there is a

motion on the order paper standing in the name of Mr. Wallace — a motion that this dispute be referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Labour. Therefore I would ask you not to discuss

it other than in passing.

MR. CHABOT: I think that the Department of

[ Page

1375 ]

Labour has ways and means of helping the unorganized.

Certainly in many instances it is necessary for workers to

become organized in order to enhance their wage structure,

enhance their working conditions and so forth. But you have to

realize that there are workers who do not want to belong to a

trade union. They should have that right without your relaxing

the law to the degree that they will be harassed into a

union.

There is a free choice in this province today for people to

organize. There's a free choice of the union to which you wish

to belong. I don't think that the Minister should come out

foursquare and say that he believes in the "organization of the

unorganized," because that is primarily the

responsibility of the labour movement. It's not the

responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

You're a mediator. You stand between labour and management.

You don't weigh heavily on one side as you've indicated you are

prepared to do. You are there to respect and protect the rights

of the unorganized in this province, and you can change the laws

to protect those people who don't want to belong trade unions.

You can enhance their working conditions. You can enhance their

take-home pay as well. You have that power.

If you think that the unorganized in this province need

additional incentive, why don't you change your laws? I am

wondering whether the Minister will answer that question of

whether he's going to suggest or whether there will be someday

a representative of the Canadian union movement on the Labour

Relations Board. And I am wondering if he would answer the

question of the elevator inspections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I'll deal

with the last question first, the question of encouraging

greater organization of the unorganized in British

Columbia.

It's interesting to note that in 1971 there were some 26

convictions of unfair labour practices with respect to

certification applications for new units in the province. That

figure had grown to 42 for the year 1972. The Department of

Labour, through their industrial relations officers, is charged

with the responsibility of policing the Fair Employment

Practices Act . It has been the experience of the department

over the years, certainly during your stewardship and also

currently, that the new unit applications are very difficult to

obtain where you have an employer who is firmly opposed to

trade union organization. They employ all manner of tactics to

try to coerce workers from joining a new union.

So it's not just a matter of an employee's right to join a union and indicate the union of his choice. There's

the matter of his protection, his security of employment in

exercising that right. This is what I'm referring to when I say

I am sympathetic to a relaxation of the requirements for

certification in situations like this.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KING: Just wait and see. As the man once said, "You ain't seen

nothin' yet." I'm sure if the Member can be somewhat patient he'll find that

this Government is quite innovative, and certainly we're expecting a broad input

of suggestions from the review of the whole labour legislative area that we've

undertaken at the present time.

Now, he questioned me with respect to a Canadian union

representative on the Labour Relations Board. I have pointed

out to the Member that the composition of the Labour Relations

Board and the functions of it, indeed the whole legislative

structure of the Labour Relations Act , the Trade-Unions Act and the Mediation Services Act are

currently under review. So I am not prepared to announce

conclusions of that review before I undertake the hearings and

the representation which I expect to receive.

We have an open mind on what the functions of the board

should be, what the composition of it should be and so on. So I

am just not in a position to answer that kind of question at

this time.

[Ms. Young in the Chair]

He brought up the Sandringham issue again. Although I

appreciate that there is a motion on the order paper, Madam

Chairman, I am quite prepared to comment on it.

The fact of the matter….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KING: I'll respond to the Member's question. I have no objection

to cutting him off.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Mr. Minister, that is not in

order. It is on the….

HON. MR. KING: All right. The Member will have to rest without his answer

to that question then. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Madam

Chairman. It's been quite an evening with the Minister and the

former Minister battling toe to toe here. I thought that I was

never

[ Page 1376 ]

going to get an opportunity to speak up on behalf of the

union man in British Columbia.

Madam Chairman, for the benefit of the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), I'm about to do that right

now. The Canadian union man, Madam Chairman, because until we

have legislators in this country speaking up for the Canadian

union man, we are forever going to remain dominated by the

American labour movement.

Madam Chairman, make no mistake about it, every

international union is an American union.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poppycock.

MR. McGEER: There is only one union for which even a minor

case can be made, and this is the IWA, which has nearly half

its members as Canadians. But I would submit if the day ever

arrived when the IWA became dominated by Canadian workers,

there would be a breaking away on the part of the American

members of that union.

I say that there should be a number of changes made in

legislation in this country to give the Canadian union an

opportunity.

The first of these is that the infamous three-way pact

should be outlawed in British Columbia. This disgraceful

contract, arranged for between the Teamsters Union, the Building

Trades Council and the Heavy Construction Industry of British

Columbia, guarantees that a Canadian worker belonging to a

Canadian union will not be allowed on a construction site in

the Province of British Columbia.

This legislation, which discriminates completely and totally

against the Canadian worker, is something which is condoned by

the Government of British Columbia — present and past. And the

three-way pact has been used to violate the terms of the

Labour Relations Act . I intend to read to the Minister

and to the House testimony given in the courts of British

Columbia under oath which proves indisputably this fact.

I first want to read, Madam Chairman, what the Labour

Relations Act says in

section 6:

"No trade union, employer's organization or person shall use

coercion or intimidation of any kind that could reasonably have

the effect of compelling or inducing any person to become, or

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

member of a trade union.

The testimony that I shall read will show that without any

question of a doubt the Teamsters' union in British Columbia

has used intimidation against Canadian unions. Furthermore,

section 4 of the Labour

Relations Act says:

"That no employer and no person acting on behalf of an employer

shall seek by intimidation, by dismissal, by threat of dismissal, or by any

other kind of threat, or by the imposition of a penalty or by a promise."

et cetera, et cetera.

"To induce an employee to refrain from becoming, or

continuing to be a member or officer or representative of a

trade union." I think that spells out very

clearly, Madam Chairman, that in the matter of union

membership, whether it be a Canadian union or an international

union, threats, intimidation and coercion are a violation of

that Labour

Relations Act .

Having read the sections of the Act, I now wish to read

testimony given in the courts of British Columbia under oath. I

read the testimony given by Evan Jones, who is the general

superintendent of the Victoria Paving Company.

"In 1964, the defendant, Dominion Construction Company

Limited, was the prime contractor for the construction of the

expansion of the shopping centre known as the Town and Country

Shopping Centre, situated near the intersection at Douglas

Street and the Trans-Canada Highway.

"At the time, the Victoria Paving Company Limited had been

the low tender on the job and had gained the contract from the

Dominion Construction Company Limited for paving on this

particular job.

"The plaintiff had been engaged on that work for some two

weeks when representatives of the defendant, Teamsters' union,

local 213, appeared on the job and caused the job to be shut

down because our employees, members of the Canadian Brotherhood

of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234, were

engaged upon the job."

Madam Chairman, the situation was this,

and it has been repeated again and again and again throughout

British Columbia in the past decade. Members in good standing

of a Canadian union, under contract with an employer and that

employer under legal contract, working in a construction site

in British Columbia, were harassed by people who signed the

infamous three-way pact. The infamous three-way pact says: Only

members of the Amalgamated Construction Association, the

Teamsters' union and the Building Trades Council shall be

allowed to go on a construction site in British Columbia. And

to be a member of the Building Trades Council one has to be

member of an international union, i.e. an American union. The

testimony goes on:

"The defendant, Dominion Construction Company Limited,

stipulated that the plaintiff would only be allowed to do the

aforesaid job if Victoria Paving Company Limited

could guarantee there would be no union problem on the job."

In other words, the company, the Victoria Paving Company, having

bid and obtained a contract for work, was then subject to a

question being raised. Victoria Paving was only a

sub-contractor on the job. The main contractor, Dominion

Construction, said

[ Page 1377 ]

that before they would give that company a subcontract, they

had to guarantee there would be no trouble on the job. The

plaintiff company was able to give such assurance only after

the plaintiff sought and obtained permission from the local

business agents of the defendant, the International Union of

Operating Engineers, and local 213 of the Teamsters' union, to

do the said work and receive from the said defendant unions a

permit in that behalf.

The reason the permit was issued by the Teamsters' union and

the other defendant in this case, the International Union of

Operating Engineers, was because there was no company on

southern Vancouver Island that had members of this union that

could do the work. So if they insisted on the three-way pact at

that particular stage, it would have made it impossible for

this construction job to go ahead.

After that, here's what happened:

"Frank W. Peters, the business agent for the International

Brotherhood of Teamsters, local 213 and W.J. Wocknitz of the

International Union of Operating Engineers, local 115 asked

your deponent what the plaintiff company was doing in

connection with getting the plaintiff's employees into their

unions."

In other words, after this job was completed, the members of

these unions went around to the employer asking what they were

going to do to get their employees to join the Teamsters'

union.

"I told them that the plaintiff company could not break the

present agreement then held with the Canadian Brotherhood of

Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234, which would

remain in effect until February of 1968.

"After this meeting I received a telephone call or a visit

from either of the said Frank W. Peters or the said W.J.

Wocknitz at intervals of approximately every three weeks

through the fall, asking me what the plaintiff intended doing

about encouraging the employees of the plaintiff to join the

defendant Teamsters' union, local 213 and quit the Brotherhood

of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234, to which

I gave non-committal answers."

Clearly intimidation, Madam Chairman, on the part of the

Teamsters' union to destroy the CBRT by taking away the right

of people belonging to that union to work on construction sites

in British Columbia.

"Then sometime after Christmas but before New Year's, 1967,

the said Peters and Wocknitz came to the plaintiff's company

office and told your deponent that they were unhappy; that they

understood that we were again negotiating with the Canadian

Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local

"They told me that if they were to decertify the Canadian

Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 234, and certify

the members of the three-way pact unions as bargaining agents for the employees

of the plaintiff that they had to work quickly. They were only free to do so

within the three month date prior to the expiry of the present collective agreement

and they asked if we, the plaintiff, would assist them in this purpose.

"I told the said representatives of the said defendant

unions that we were not willing to attempt to influence our

employees to that end."

In other words, the company was abiding

by the terms of the Labour Relations Act . But the unions

were persistent.

"During the first week of March, 1968, a delegation of union

officials arrived at my office. The group again included Frank Peters, W.J.

Wocknitz, one John Schibli, who was introduced to me as the president of the

Victoria Building Trades Council, two representatives from the defendant Labourers'

union, local 1093, and others. Mr. Peters acted as spokesman for the group and

went over the same ground that he and Mr. Wocknitz had reiterated before. That

is, they were seeking certification of the employees; that they wanted the assistance

of the plaintiff in ousting the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and

General Workers, local 234.

"Then the said Peters went on to say that they, that is to

say the unions represented by the group, had no alternative but

to go to the contractors who had current agreements with the

three-way pact unions and tell them that they were not going to

allow us on any of their jobs that were currently in progress

or which were contracted for in the future unless the three-way

pact unions held certification.

"I asked the said Peters if they were striving to have only

the truck drivers of the plaintiff's company included in the

Teamsters' local 213, and he replied that this was not

acceptable. They wanted the plaintiff company to cooperate in

ousting the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and

General Workers, local 234, from both the plant and truck crews

and encourage our employees to join the appropriate three-way

pact union.

"On Friday, March 28, the said Messrs. Peters and Wocknitz

again reappeared and conferred with Mr. Robert Cleland, manager

and executive secretary-treasurer of the plaintiff and your

deponent.

"He again went over much the same ground and learned that

they had approached the defendant, the Dominion Construction

Company Limited, the day before in respect of the said

Simpsons-Sears Shopping Centre project and told the general

superintendent of Dominion Construction

[ Page 1378 ]

Company Limited that if they were thinking of having us on their

work this year, to forget it, as they would not allow it because we did not have

a union agreement with them. "

They said they also made it clear to the said general

superintendent of Dominion Construction Company Limited that no

permit would be granted to the plaintiff in respect of that or

any other job.

I could go on to refer to testimony on the case. I could

read testimony in court from a dozen other cases. They all add

up to the same thing: a conspiracy to destroy Canadian unions

through coercion and intimidation; a totally illegal approach

under the Labour Relations Act , contemptible in spirit;

as far as I'm concerned, a totally unacceptable way to behave

in the Province of British Columbia, one that should be totally

outlawed by legislation.

I say that the failure of the previous government to act and

of this Government to act is a course of action which condones

and encourages illegality and coercion, and that the people who

are the losers, as a result of this kind of thing, are Canadian

working men. They, in the first instance; but in the final

instances, all of the people of Canada. Because the Canadian

working man is caught in a vise.

One jaw of that vise is the iron discipline of the

international union structure, including the fact that Canadian

unions are not permitted to join the Building Trades Council,

excluded by American constitutions. On the other hand, there is

provincial legislation which makes it necessary for the working

man, to gain any work at all in British Columbia, to belong to

one of those unions.

I read from testimony in another court case. This is what

the CBRT itself has to say. In this instance I quote the

testimony of Lawrence Alexander McClung, who's been a member of

the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General

Workers for 25 years. This is in the Supreme Court of British

Columbia, Victoria Paving Company v. a whole long list of

defendants. He says that:

"The CBRT has made numerous attempts to join the Building

Trades Council of British Columbia. Indeed, the regional

vice-president of the CBRT, Richard C. Henham, has advised me

and I verily believe that he did, on behalf of the CBRT, inform

the said Building Trades Council that the CBRT would meet any

of their requirements in order to join the said council and pay

whatever was required to do so. But the said Building Trades

Council of British Columbia refused to consider the application

of the CBRT and, moreover, refused even to discuss the

conditions of application."

Why? Madam Chairman, there was only one reason why. That is

that the CBRT was a Canadian union Here's what Mr. McClung has

to say, Madam Chairman, under oath:

"It is clear to me, from my longer experience in the

Canadian trade union movement, that U.S.-controlled

international unions are using the media

[ Page 1379 ]

of the Building Trades Council for the purpose of attempting

to monopolize all work in the construction and transportation industry in British

Columbia for their members, and to force all employees presently members of

Canadian trade unions in this province and elsewhere in the Dominion of Canada

out of the Canadian trade union movement and into the international unions.

"So successful have they been in their attempt to strangle

the Canadian trade union movement in these said industries that

the CBRT, for example, is no longer certified for any

operations on the lower mainland of British Columbia, save for

the national railways. Many of the employers on Vancouver

Island for whose operations we have been certified have either

discontinued using CBRT members or have advised us that if the

present pressures on them by the defendant Teamsters' union and

their international associates to get rid of the CBRT is not

relieved, the said employers are going to be forced to

capitulate because of economic necessity."

Now, Madam Chairman, those are not my words, nor are they

the casual words of an experienced Canadian labour union man

made off the cuff. Those remarks were made under solemn oath in

the courts of British Columbia, and reflect — probably as never

before — the true state of our affairs in the union movement in

this province.

The state of affairs is quite obviously this: the laws of

the province are making it possible for Canadian unions to be

strangled by the Teamsters and other international unions who

form the Building Trades Council. Madam Chairman, I'm not

attempting in any way to defend past governments. I merely

condemn the practices that have gone on in the past and, Madam

Chairman, which continue to this day.

Yes, I give credit to the Minister of Labour because he

attempted to rectify that situation last year. The outcry,

Madam Chairman, was something to behold. The legislation that

was introduced did need amendment. But what the unions

requested and what the Minister of the day agreed to was to

lift that Bill 88, with the implied understanding that the

unions would clean house and end their outrageous

discrimination against Canadian unions.

Madam Chairman, what happened immediately after that? We had

the Teamsters' union moving around this province with what they

termed the standard B.C. contract. The standard B.C. contract

contained all of those offensive clauses. When Senator Lawson,

the head of the Teamsters, was challenged on this point, he

said: "Well, we didn't agree to make any changes. We only

agreed to study it." That was not an honest declaration to the

Minister of Labour. That was merely a device used to have that

bill hoisted. I submit that the Teamsters had no intention at

all of making any variation in that contract; nor will they do

so until they are forced to by legislation introduced in this

House.

Mr. Chairman, there was a four-month strike — Butler Bros.–Lafarge — because

that company had the courage to hold out against this intimidation of Canadian

unions. They had felt that some change would be made in the laws which would

permit their employees to choose a Canadian union if that was their wish. But

it was not to be, because the Teamsters had no intention of reforming their ways.

As a consequence of this, there was a four-month strike. One of the operations

employing truckers who were members of the Canadian union was forced to go out

of business.

There are other reasons, Mr. Chairman, why someone must

speak on behalf of Canadian unions. I want to make it very

clear now that I do not wish my remarks to be misinterpreted as

being in favour of non-union workers.

This is always the hue and cry whenever there is an

objection raised against this rampant discrimination. I'm

speaking for what I know to be in the hearts of Canadian

working men, which is a desire to be in unions run by Canadians

and for Canadians.

This is what we do not have in this country. Two-thirds of

the workers in Canada who are unionized are forced — forced,

Mr. Chairman — to belong to American unions. They're forced to

belong to American unions by Canadian legislation, which

discriminates against Canadian unions being formed and

thriving.

A year ago in this Legislature I raised the case of Canadian

working men who were tried in Washington, B.C., for a crime.

That crime was advocating membership in a Canadian union. Those

workers were from Kitimat, British Columbia. I think the

outrage of workers in that city was primarily responsible for

them switching their allegiance from the United States

Steelworkers to the CLU, local 1. I congratulate that union and

say that I hope that more locals of that union will be formed

in this country. It's an industrial union. They have been

emancipated from the American yoke.

But that can't happen in the craft unions in British

Columbia. Unless something is done, it can't happen in

transportation. Because I don't want to speak at length, Mr.

Chairman, I will not read the testimony of what happened to the

Canadian Ironworkers, No. 1. But Hon. Members may recall the

former Member for North Vancouver–Seymour — a champion, Mr.

Chairman, of human rights and Canadian workers' rights — standing in this House to object to a move by the International

Ironworkers Union to have that worker dismissed from his job

because he belonged to the Canadian Ironworkers, No. 1.

There were a number of so-called incidents. They're now

documented in the courts of British Columbia. They're part of

our infamous trade union history which explain how Canadian

ironworkers were harassed off their jobs. Their crime, again,

was belonging to a Canadian union.

Century Steel Services, under sub-contract to Bennett & White, who were

the general contractors at Squamish, received a threat from certain unions affiliated

with the Building Trades Council that a work stoppage might result from its

employing the plaintiff's members in the construction of a chemical plant at

Squamish — Canadian Ironworkers Union.

Construction of the Northwood pulp mill in Prince George: a

man named Larson decided that he would not allow any concrete

to be poured on this project unless they got rid of all the

people who were not associated with the Building Trades

Council. He said he told Shortreid he would have to get rid of

all these people who were not members of the Building Trades

Council. The business agents for the various unions went around

to their people, and all work ceased at 11 o'clock that

morning. Why? Because members of a Canadian union were on a

construction site in Prince George in British Columbia.

Another instance: a man name Archette — and this is all testimony; part of

the court decision of the Canadian Ironworkers Union v. the International Association

of Bridge and Iron Workers. Archette was told that members of local No. 1 were

working there. He said he told Archette, "You should have hired members of local

97." Archette got very angry and said, "I'm quite satisfied with the men I have

got." The end result — a work stoppage.

Powell River, 1966: a job with Western Reinforcing was

cancelled by the contractor because "if our men appeared on the

job, there would be difficulties because of our being certified

as local No. 1."

What some companies were doing, Mr. Chairman, to retain

their contracts on the job, was that they were cancelling their

companies which had contracts with the Canadian Ironworkers.

The next day, lo and behold, a brand new company was formed out

of the blue. This new company, without a single employee, would

suddenly sign a contract with the American union. Then they'd

go on with the same job, with one single difference, Mr.

Chairman. No longer were Canadian union members on the job.

They were turfed off, and the contract went to the American

union.

So, Mr. Chairman, it goes on until today, Though there has

been a breakthrough in industrial unions in this province,

there is no breakthrough for craft unions. The three-way pact

strangles Canadian craft unions.

I have had over the years many, many representations, not

just from Canadian unions but from members of international

unions who desperately want change, Mr. Chairman; who are

afraid to speak out because if they do so to their union

secretaries or their union presidents, they know they will not

get work in British Columbia. If they have courage to form

their own Canadian union and convince their fellow workers to

take that step with them, their fate will be the same as that

which came to the Canadian Ironworkers.

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Ironworkers did win their case.

They got a substantial financial settlement. But, Mr. Chairman,

what good did it do? The union

[ Page 1380 ]

was gone, and all the members had disappeared. It was a

matter of necessity as far as they were concerned. But it

wasn't what those members wanted. I am convinced that it is not

what the Canadian working man in British Columbia wants.

Somehow the grip has to be broken. I don't say that we

should outlaw international unions or, indeed, restrict them at

all beyond completely fair and aboveboard practices. Because,

Mr. Chairman, it's my belief that given an equal opportunity,

American unions will vanish into the night. They only persist

in Canada because of the control which they have been given by

legislation, by the powerful friends they have in politics and

by the intimidation that they are able to exercise over

employers, particularly contractors.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well, we can have a separate discussion. The

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) wants to learn about

American companies. Mr. Chairman, I think that's a very fair

discussion to have, but not under the Minister of Labour's

estimates. Mr. Chairman, I don't want the Attorney General or

any other legislator in British Columbia….

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

seated. Would you state your point of order.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would you ask the

Attorney General to return to his seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no requirement for a Member….

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, there certainly is, in this debate. There

sure is.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order states that a Member must,

if he wishes to address the House, rise in his place. There is

no other order to my knowledge requiring him to be in his

seat.

Would the Hon. Member proceed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's the rule.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there could be no more feeble and

weak-kneed excuse for continuing the abuses that international

unions are perpetrating on British Columbia than to justify it

by saying that we have international corporations. I say that

because the working man in this province wants to belong to a

Canadian union, made in Canada, dominated in Canada and serving

the Canadian worker and not the American worker.

Furthermore, certainly the senator is going to be angry with me — after all,

he is a vice-president of an international union. That is his responsibility.

That's where his future is. But that's not what his men want, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not speaking out against individual members of the Teamsters union any more

than any other union in British Columbia. I merely want them to know that there

is someone in this province who is prepared to speak on behalf of their right

to belong to a Canadian union if they wish to do so.

Whether they come from the Teamsters union or any other

unions that have been mentioned in this suit, I don't think the

members of those unions condone what has been done by their

business agents any more than I do. Those individual members

want only the protection of unions being on the job and their

right to receive a day's pay for a day's work. Those individual

union members never wanted to walk off the jobs, but they were

told to do so by their business agents, and they knew that if

they didn't obey they'd be blackballed, just like the Canadian

workers were blackballed.

So we are speaking out just as much for the workers who now

belong to international unions as for those who do belong to

Canadian unions. I am completely confident that the only ones

who have real loyalty to the American unions are the business

agents themselves, who have a vested interest in continuing on

with the practices that exist today.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Member will have an

opportunity to reply. Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to hear

from individual union workers. I don't want to hear from the

business agents and the secretaries; I want to hear from the

individual union workers. If they tell me I am wrong in saying

that I believe they wish to belong to Canadian unions, I will

stand up in this House and apologize. I know what the mail is

going to say, because I have been getting it for some time now.

The Canadian worker, whether or not he belongs to an

international union, wishes his union dues to remain in Canada.

He does not like a situation where his wages are checked off

and find their way across the border never to return.

We have the figures, those presented by Statistics Canada,

which list many, many millions of dollars of Canadian working

men going across the border and never coming back again. They

add to these great international pools and the….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: The Member says: "It's the opposite." Who knows

more, Mr. Chairman — Statistics Canada, or the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann)? I only quote Statistics

Canada. Mr. Chairman, I believe Statistics Canada on this

matter, and I think the average union man believes Statistics

Canada too.

[ Page 1381 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, you see, that Member has

been brainwashed too. But it can be obtained. Statistics

Canada, Mr. Member.

Next, not only union dues, but the whole matter of union

pension funds is something again which needs to come under very strong review by this provincial Legislature, because the

pension funds of these international unions should be very

closely scrutinized. There have been cases where Canadian

workers have contributed to these pension funds and they have

gone down to the United States and been misused.

I'm not going to go into the details of these instances. I

only say this: we do not have adequate control of union pension

funds to be certain that they are used exclusively for the

benefit of the Canadian working man.

Mr. Chairman, I merely ask the Minister if he is prepared to

introduce legislation to outlaw the three-way pact, if he is

prepared to put a Canadian….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member

that he cannot propose legislation or suggest to the Minister

that he introduce legislation. He may only discuss the

administrative aspects of the Department of Labour.

MR. McGEER: …with every respect, I do think it quite

appropriate to ask if the Minister would consider legislation.

It seems to me that I have heard many Members suggest the

desirability of bringing legislation forward, and yet this is

the first time I have ever heard a suggestion that it was out

of order.

Mr. Chairman, you yourself know that if the Members on this

side introduce legislation, as so many of us have done, it lies

on the order paper and becomes a matter of closure. Mr.

Chairman, I have been in this House nearly 10 years, and I hate

to think how many private Members' days have gone by without

the private Members ever having a day. It so happens that today

is private Members' day, but the tradition that went on for so

many years is unfortunately being continued which makes it

impossible for us to discuss our own legislation until the

Lieutenant-Governor is walking up the steps to prorogue us.

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

for a moment? I have on several occasions drawn the attention

of the House to this particular

section 1n May which says: "The

administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the

necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation

cannot be discussed in committee of supply." I think that's

clear.

MR. McGEER: I would like to put to the Member then, in that event, the

desirability of observing private Members' day in the House, of which this is

one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not a matter for

consideration at this time. If the Member wishes to bring that

matter up he should do it in the proper way.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member wishes to

make a point of order would he state that he wishes to make a

point of order?

MR. McGEER: I would suggest that on private Members' day — this being private Members' day — it would be most appropriate

for the Chairman to recognize the rights, direct or implied, of

private Members.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister understands the

gist of my remarks — at least I hope he understands the gist

of my remarks. They were merely to the effect that we needed

legislation. I'm not asking him now if he would bring it in;

I'm merely stating it as a fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Member proceeds, I would like to

respond to his point of order. I would say to the Hon. Member

that as the Chairman of the committee I receive my directions

from the House, and I am not authorized to change to private

Members' day or anything of that kind. Therefore I….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his

remarks to the matter of business assigned to us at this time,

and that is the consideration of the administrative aspects of

the estimates of the Department of Labour.

MR. McGEER: I feel that I must point out that there has been

this bit of inconsistency. You said you took your directions

from the House. The House expressed its wish, and I'm only

willing to be guided by the House if you will be, Mr.

Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check with your Whips.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are in committee of supply considering vote

124 by order of the House. Could we proceed with this matter,

please?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about dozens of

millions of dollars of Canadian workers' money earned on the

job by their sweat going down to the United States. Mr.

Chairman, if you can tell me how I can get across to the

Minister that this is

[ Page 1382 ]

wrong, and I know you agree it is wrong, I'll follow your

directions on how best to do that.

Somehow we've got to make this point on behalf of the

Canadian workingman. Again, it involves this three-way pact. It

involves pensions. But most of all, Mr. Chairman — and you'll

be pleased to know I'm going to sit down and give the Minister

an opportunity to reply — it involves emancipation of the

Canadian worker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just wondering

why the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey didn't continue

with his reading of the proceedings from the court. I wonder

what the decisions were.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister has the

floor.

HON. MR. KING: He seemed very concerned over the safeguards

contained in the Labour Relations Act and at one point

indicated that changes were necessary to protect the

preferences of the workers in this province. At the same time,

he was reading from a variety of court actions that were taken

on the very basis of violations or alleged violations of the Labour Relations Act . Certainly it would appear from

that that the workers to whom he was referring had the due

process of the law in resolving any violations of labour

legislation.

I appreciate the Member's point of view. I think that he's

probably genuinely sincere in his comments regarding the

choices and preferences of workers in British Columbia. But I

would just draw to his attention that at the present time, 77.7

per cent of the work force in the province do belong to

international unions. I doubt very strongly that the Member

would suggest that the Department of Labour indicate a position

in preference to either the Canadian trade union sections or

the internationals. Certainly the international unions

represent by far the highest proportion of workers in the

province. On that basis, I hardly think that their input and

their views can be ignored.

The number of certifications that are processed each year

are available to the Members of the House. I would point out

that the Canadian union has won certification in Kitimat. They

are proceeding before the Labour Relations Board in the Cominco

operations at Trail, Kimberley, Salmo and Benson Lake, I

believe. They don't seem to be too hamstrung by the existing

legislative provisions in the exercise of their preferences,

whatever they may be.

Certainly if the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) has a preference, he has every right to indicate that

preference. But I would strongly suggest that those on this

side of the House who are charged with an impartial

adjudication of these kind of applications would be remiss

indeed in indicating a partiality on behalf of either of the

disputing parties in a certification move.

I would point out, too, that the kind of problems that the

First Member for Point Grey discussed and charged the Teamsters

with is hardly relevant in the discussion of Canadian unions

vis-à-vis international unions. That type of thing goes on

between international unions in jurisdictional disputes.

Indeed, it goes on in jurisdictional disputes between Canadian

unions also. I don't really think it's relevant in the sense

that that Member put it forward, Mr. Chairman. Certainly that

type of thing is undesirable. Disruption and the type of action

that keeps people off jobs or ties up and halts industry is

undesirable.

I feel, though, that perhaps a better way to try to resolve

that problem is through the cooperation of the unions

themselves. I question strongly the desirability of the

government regulating to any degree the internal machinery and

structure of trade unions, or indeed any other social

organization within the province. I hardly think that that type

of regulation which the Member suggests is the answer to the

problem.

I understand that the former Minister of Labour was gravely

concerned about this problem. In response to consultation he

had within the building trades, some advances have been made in

reconciling the type of problems that the Member expresses

concern over. I'm satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that continuing

efforts are underway in trying to bring about a greater

reconciliation between the elements of the building trades and

so on, so that we don't experience the conflicts over

jurisdiction and membership and composition, and so on, that

the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has

referred to.

Those are about all the comments I have on it, other than to

say, Mr. Chairman, that again we are considering all ideas and

representations on existing labour legislation. We're inviting

the views of the union people and the management people and,

indeed, the legislators, if they have views for improving the

situation in the province. By all means, I invite the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to put forward his submission

to my office and my advisors that I've secured to assist me in

this exercise. Certainly they'll be considered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Just a supplementary question, Mr.

[ Page 1383 ]

Chairman. That was marvellous bafflegab from the Minister of

Labour. He didn't talk about legislation, but we're not

supposed to discuss that this evening.

I would like to ask the Minister, if he's merely seeking

cooperation of unions — when we get into this inter-union

warfare — how would he deal with a situation that conceivably

could occur regarding Canadian unions. If, for example, a union

like the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada had an agreement with

the pulp mills saying that nothing would be delivered to the

site except by the CBRT — that would be equally bigoted — but

then if a Teamster truck arrived on the scene, that would be

taken away — how do you deal with that?

We have had the equivalent, mind you on the other side. It

was the famous CPR case. CPR was building a hangar for its

aircraft at the Vancouver International Airport. It

manufactured the components in the east; delivered them across

Canada in freight trains by union people; they were picked up

by union people at the CPR shed; they were delivered to the

construction site at the Vancouver International Airport by

union people. Do you know what happened when they got there?

Teamsters appeared. No way anybody's going to work with that

stuff. Why? Because the CBRT delivered those components to the

Vancouver International Airport.

Now, all union all the way: CPR with the CPR union

manufacturing, transporting — their own CPR trucking company

taking it out to the site here in British Columbia, their own

hangar. No way that could be touched because Senator Ed

Lawson's union wasn't there to do the unloading. So what they

did was they trucked all the material back on CPR trucks to the

CPR sheds so the Teamsters could come and get it and take it to

the CPA hangar so it could be put up.

That kind of thing is absolute nonsense. It's disgraceful,

shameful. It would be just as bad if we had the equivalent

thing with a Canadian union. But if you're going to tolerate

it, Mr. Minister, with the Teamsters, there's no reason why the

shoe can't be put on the other foot by the Pulp and Paper

Workers of Canada and the CBRT. That would be to the detriment

of the union man in British Columbia, whatever union he belongs

to.

So, Mr. Chairman, some way other than just cooperation of

the unions has to be found. If that was all that was required,

this would have been cleared up a year ago. When the former

Minister of Labour lifted that bill, it was on the

understanding that these abuses would be cured.

I could accept the Minister's words, bafflegab and all, Mr. Chairman, had it

not been for the fact that the Teamsters turned directly around after this Legislature

prorogued a year ago, and didn't violate the direct words that were contained

in the commitment they made, but they certainly violated the spirit of the agreement

and the feeling of the House. That's why something has to be done, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: I'll just comment briefly, Mr. Chairman. I

don't know what this new and profound word is that the Member

has introduced — "bafflegab." I did try to indicate to him that

I think it would be

an act of folly to enter major changes in

the structure of our legislation now, when I have a review of

the total legislation of the province underway and when I have,

in fact, invited the views and suggestions of the industrial

relations world to make suggestions on proposed

legislation.

If we have problems of that nature, certainly they'll be

looked at. As far as hypothetical cases are concerned, I have

enough problems dealing with reality. I have no desire to set

up and deal with hypothetical ones, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'll be much more

specific in my remarks. I wish to talk a little bit about the

elevator strike existing in Canada since August 28.

This is the strike of the international union of Elevator

Constructors. I don't think we need to go into the specific

issues that caused this strike. It's a situation which arises,

to some degree, from technology. The dispute is the question of

the amount of prefabrication of elevators or the amount of

on-site construction of elevators. Because of technological

advance, elevator constructors are in less demand. In others

words, jobs are being lost.

But that isn't the point, Mr. Chairman. It introduces to

some degree this whole question of provincial, national and

international unions. The strike began in Ontario on August 28

of last year. Maybe many Members of this House think to

themselves: "Well, what's so vital about elevator

constructors?" I'd just like the House to know, Mr. Chairman,

that this is indeed a very vital feature of our modern

living.

I can speak with direct experience of two hospitals in this

city, particularly the Jubilee Hospital. Ancient elevators were

in the process of being replaced by new elevators when the

strike began. In one wing of the Royal Jubilee Hospital there

is one ancient elevator about 50 years old coping with the

total elevator needs of that building, which is four stories

high. On the fourth floor is the delivery room for female

patients in labour. We don't need to tell anybody how abrupt

and unexpected the process of labour can sometimes be — and I'm

not talking about

[ Page 1384 ]

the Minister's kind of labour.

I don't want to dwell on that, save to say that on the third

floor there are also patients returning from surgery. We have

one elevator serving all of the four floors. Sooner or later,

Mr. Chairman, there's going to be a problem, whereby either the

patient cannot get the one elevator to get to the fourth floor

or, as has often happened, the one elevator in service breaks

down or gets stuck halfway up and the patient will probably

deliver in the elevator. That isn't as unlikely as it might

sound.

It's not so humorous either, Mr. Chairman, if it happens to

be your baby that gets born in the elevator and probably runs

into complications. I know we all tend to joke about babies

being born in taxis and elevators and so on. The fact is, it

isn't that humorous if you happen to be the parent.

In the Gorge Road Hospital, which built an extended care

wing, as I mentioned in an earlier debate, we also have one

elevator serving a whole wing. This again may well not turn out

to be a tragic situation, but the potential for tragedy is

there.

We have many instances of apartment buildings which were in

the process of completion when the elevator strike began. The

buildings have since been completed. Either people cannot move

into the building or they move into the building and cannot

reach with ease the upper levels in the building. I'm referring

particularly to elderly citizens, some of whom have heart

disease and cannot just walk up four or six or eight flights of

stairs.

There is also the question that in British Columbia we have,

I think, in the order of 200 men on strike, and something in

the order of $80 million worth of construction involved. The

strike has been going on since last fall. To put the matter in

context and in fairness to the Minister of Labour, Mr.

Chairman, I sent a telegram to the Minister of Labour in the

late part of this year. He responded and took action and tried

to find out what the jurisdictional aspects of this dispute

were. The fact is that we're dealing with local 82 of an

international union which chose to have the head office of the

union negotiate in Toronto for all provinces.

The fact is that the employers took the matter to the

Supreme Court of B.C. The Supreme Court of B.C. found — and

this was further upheld in the Court of Appeal — that

collective bargaining as defined in the B.C. statutes had not,

in fact, taken place. On this basis the B.C. Supreme Court said

that the strike was illegal. This finding has since been

confirmed by the B.C. Court of Appeal.

To bring this matter to a head, the situation is simply that we have an illegal

strike involving 200 people and $80 million worth of construction and a very

considerable amount of hardship to many citizens in hospitals and in apartment

buildings. At this stage in the situation nationally, the Premier of Ontario

has announced that he considers the matter of sufficient public concern in his

province that he will bring in legislation to bring about compulsory arbitration.

The government of Alberta, while, it has stated quite clearly, Mr. Chairman,

that it would prefer national arbitration, has also said that if the situation

is causing a sufficient hardship to a large enough number of citizens it will

take action as Ontario has done.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that one of the features of

labour-management negotiations in our society which concerns

the average person like myself, who doesn't really know a great

deal about this subject, is that when these matters go to court

and a court decision is rendered, there sometimes seems to be

an unconscionable — if I can use the legal term — delay in

either government or the law itself taking its obvious course.

If I as a citizen break the law, there's not too much delay in

paying the penalty. Here we have a union in British Columbia

which has been on an illegal strike since August of last year,

causing very considerable hardship and even risking lives in

relation to the hospital problem I've outlined.

Here we are with this illegal strike being allowed to

continue and, as far as I'm aware, in this province there's no

sign of this Government deciding that the point has been

reached at which this dispute must end. We've been through this

kind of debate, to a degree, on the school strike in Victoria,

when the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education chose

to delay intervention until they felt that a certain point had

been reached at which the Minister could meet with the parties

and use his influence and friendly persuasion to end the

strike. That is what happened. We needn't go through all that

again, except that I think the strike should have been settled

sooner.

Society accepts the virtues and desirability of fair

collective bargaining until a point is reached at which it is

clear that the responsibility of government, by virtue of the

number of members of society who are suffering unfairly, is to

take measures to bring this kind of dispute to an end.

I would submit, in the light of the evidence from the whole

of Canada, and particularly Ontario and Alberta — and I suppose

I can be criticized in that both of these provinces happen to

have Conservative governments. But I personally don't associate

my own feeling or the feelings of people who have spoken to me

on the subject that this really is a partisan political issue.

It is the feeling of people most affected by this particular

dispute that the dispute has gone on many months. The parties

to the dispute have had a very fair and complete hearing in two

levels of the courts of this province. The decision by, first

of all, Justice A.B. Robertson and the subsequent decision by

Justice Nemetz are unmistakably clear that the strike is

illegal.

[ Page 1385 ]

People are suffering. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that we

would welcome a statement from the Minister of Labour tonight

as to his feelings in relation to the points that I've raised.

Does he agree or disagree? And what does he feel would be an

appropriate action for this Government at this time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The elevator constructors' strike has indeed been a tough

one to break. As the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

indicated, it is an international union with a national pattern

of bargaining. The sorry part of the situation, I think, is

that this is the first strike that has ever been taken by this

particular union, which serves to demonstrate, I think, that

they have been a rather responsible group — both the industry

and the union. That's a very admirable and commendable record,

I believe.

On that basis, certainly, it makes me somewhat hesitant to

interfere with the pattern of bargaining which seems to be

highly successful. I am quite well aware that we have a

tremendous amount of construction tied up in the province and

indeed across the length and breadth of Canada.

Perhaps I should comment first of all on the dislocation of

elevator service at the hospital that the Member spoke of, Mr.

Chairman. The union, I understand, has agreed to make services

available for hospital elevators, maintenance and so on. The

only work they would not undertake was new construction. So I

believe that in emergency situations, where the health and

indeed the life of hospital patients is involved, they

certainly do have access to the services of this particular

union.

We're in the position that Ontario — with all deference to

the Member, regardless of the political stripe of that

government — has in fact been carrying the ball for all the

rest of the provinces. There has been close collaboration with

the Deputy Minister, Mr. Dickie, and my Deputy, Mr. Sands, as

well as with the Minister of Labour in Ontario. Certainly

they've persevered to a great degree in keeping the parties

together in trying to achieve a formula for settlement.

The action that was taken by the companies in British

Columbia was on the premise that collective bargaining had in

fact not been undertaken in the province. While this was true,

they found that the strike was in fact illegal. So they have

taken an independent action against the union on that basis, I

understand, for damages incurred in an illegal strike.

Now this is a court action. Certainly under existing legislation they're quite

free to proceed with this type of thing. What I question is whether or not this

is really relevant to our interests in terms of trying to resolve the impasse.

As I indicated earlier, we have been in constant touch with

Ontario. We have received no indication as yet that that

province's Department of Labour has thrown up its hands and

said, "No, there's no hope of settlement." They are in fact

still endeavouring to settle the thing, and until they indicate

to the rest of the provinces that it's futile from their point

of view, I think we should be willing to bear with them and try

to see if it can't be settled in an amicable way.

I'm quite aware of the disruptive impact of it. I have also

met with both the elevator constructors' national bargaining

committee and with the union's national bargaining committee.

We've had preliminary discussions here in British Columbia; but

at this point I can really see no change in the relative

positions that the two parties have taken that could be

achieved by transferring the current discussions from Ontario

to British Columbia, because you certainly transfer the same

problems and the same obstacles to a solution. I don't think a

change of venue, as it were, would be the device that's

required to do the trick in this particular strike. So that's

where it's at now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if I might follow up a little bit

on the Minister's answer, I'd like to quote from the statement

of Mr. Justice Nemetz. He pointed out at the beginning of the

negotiations — and I realize this is a tricky matter; even I can

see that — that the negotiations began with an effort to obtain

a national agreement for all provinces. Local 82 had given to

this national negotiating body the power to negotiate a

national agreement. I'd like to quote Mr. Justice Nemetz, who

says:

"Local 82 took no action of its own when it became

apparent that negotiations in Toronto had reached a standstill." He

(Justice Nemetz) said that the local had two choices: "either it could

have told the international negotiators to bargain with a view to

reaching an agreement covering B.C. only; or…" — and this I think is

a very pertinent part of the argument — "it could have bargained itself

for a purely B.C. agreement.

"But if after such bargaining Local 82 had failed to

conclude an agreement, then in my opinion it would have

complied with B.C. law and would have been free to authorize a

strike."

Now the fact is that it chose neither of these two

alternatives. It decided to go along with the stalemate that

existed at the national negotiating level in Toronto and is in

effect now carrying on an illegal strike, which as I say has

been proved at two levels of the courts of this province.

Could I put the question another way, Mr. Chairman, to the

Minister: would he consider as a

[ Page 1386 ]

positive step to solving this dispute, at least for British

Columbia — and that's what we in this House must be concerned

about — in the light of the Justice Nemetz statement that one

of the alternatives which this union local 82 has would be, in

the light of failure nationally, for the B.C. local to now

proceed to try and negotiate its own agreement with the

employers here in British Columbia.

Now granted, the Minister might get a "yes" or "no". But it

would seem to me that in the light of these court findings this

would be a very reasonable compromise/ We would not be

compelling the workers to return to work, but on the other hand

we would be giving them an avenue which the justice of the

Court of Appeal has said would be acceptable and would

constitute legitimate collective bargaining. So could the

Minister please tell us whether he would consider advising the

local now to proceed to bargain for B.C. alone?

HON. MR. KING: I'll take that suggestion under

consideration, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister did say something — he must have been mumbling because I didn't get it — on the

question of public input on the investigation of the labour

laws of British Columbia. I am wondering what form this will

take — whether it will be in the form of public hearings across

the province or whether, because he stood in the House this

evening and said that, "If you have any suggestions to make,

just write to the three investigators that I've appointed" — will you be informing the general public that you will be

accepting briefs on this very matter? Will you be also

informing the general public what the terms of reference are,

under what matters they should express their point of view?

I think it is most important. I think you should do it. I

don't know whether you are going to have public hearings across

the province or not. If not, I think you should, through the

process of the news media, inform the general public that they

have a particular deadline to make submissions to you so that

they will also have an opportunity of input in this matter of

changing of labour laws in the province.

A little earlier I did put a question to the Minister to

which I am still to receive the answer, and it has to do with

elevator inspections. I put the question twice before. I said

that while I was Minister of Labour last year we did

appoint, on a suggestion from the department, three additional

elevator inspectors. We increased it from 11 to 14, which at

that time was felt adequate to look after the backlog of

inspections that had to take place as well as provide for the

increase in elevators that were being installed in the

province.

I'm wondering why — just a few, months ago, two or three months ago

— I enter elevators still displaying signs indicating these elevators

have not been inspected for three years. I'm wondering what the

problem is on these inspections; whether there is a need for additional

staff? When will they catch up with the backlog? It is an important

matter, because we are dealing with public safety in public buildings. I

think it is worthy of consideration from the Minister to answer this

particular matter.

Now the question directed to the Minister dealing with the

Labour Relations Board: I'm wondering whether it would be

possible for a union to obtain a variation of certification to

include a classification of workers that are not employed by

that particular employer. If it is possible, under what

conditions or under what circumstances would this take place?

There has been a variation of certification that has included

employees that have never been employed by an employer, and they

are now included in a variation of certification.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. Unfortunately I don't have the

direct information with me, but this is the fact. I hope you

will give me an answer indicating to me whether it is possible

for this to take place. Now, one other point which was touched on very briefly by a

Member was the question of national agreements. I'm wondering

whether the Minister would give the Members his attitude on the

question of national agreements in the province. I am sure he

is aware that it is not necessary for those national agreements

to conform to the working conditions in the province and the

labour laws of our province as well.

I really believe that in many instances these national

agreements do interfere with the settlement of labour disputes

in the province. They really do provide in many instances a

source of funds to continue strikes in the province. They

continue a source of employment for employees that are laid off

in another local strike situation. I think it is not in the

best interests of the workers of British Columbia and of the

industry of British Columbia — these national agreements.

Those national agreements, in my opinion, were required in

years gone by when British Columbia was a younger province and

we didn't have the type of contractors that presently exist in

the province, contractors that could take on a huge project

such as a pipeline or a pulpmill or things of that nature.

In British Columbia we have contractors today that can cope

with almost any type of construction project. I think some

consideration should be given to them to protect them in the

province, and I think it is in the best interest of the workers

too. I'm wondering

[ Page 1387 ]

what the Minister's attitude is relative to national

agreements.

Now, one other short point: it's been reported in the Press

that the Minister has had a discussion with a labour group in

his office dealing with the question of court injunctions. The

report of his meeting — which is not a direct quote from the

Minister but of the group that met with him — suggested that

the Minister was quite sympathetic towards the abolition of

injunctions in labour disputes.

I'm wondering whether this is his real, genuine feeling. I

think injunctions have a very necessary place to protect the

public interest and to protect public property as well. I think

the courts have a very important role to play in granting…and I am sure that judges of the supreme court are very

cautious when they do grant injunctions in labour disputes.

They weigh their decisions very carefully.

I'm wondering whether the Minister is giving some

consideration to doing away with this practice, because it has

been recommended by the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Mr. Chairman left the chair at 11 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report progress and ask leave for the committee to sit

again.

Leave granted.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We will carry on with the vote. I thought

some kind of discussion around the time-table had already taken

place, but I guess I misunderstood.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I certainly did.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada