1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1025 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction

Presentation of David Lewis to the House. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1025

Mr. Richter — 1025

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1025

Mr. Wallace — 1025

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Tabling of emergency measures Act. Mr. Smith

— 1025

Taxation of Plateau Mills. Mr. Wallace — 1025

Barrett-Lewis rip-off parleys. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1026

Design studies on Gabriola ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 1026

Withholding of information re emergency measures Act. Mrs. Jordan — 1026

Sexual discrimination in government salaries. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1026

Contract settlements with B.C. Rail workers. Mr. Phillips — 1027

Price control and guaranteed maintenance of natural gas supplies. Mr. McGeer

— 1027

Canadian Cellulose tax appeal. Mr. Smith — 1028

An Act to Amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act (Bill 95).

Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 1028

An Act to Amend the Soil Conservation Act (Bill 94).

Hon. Mr. Stupich. Introduction and first reading — 1028

Guarantee of Natural Justice Act (Bill 98). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 1029

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

stage.

section 76.

Mr. Williams — 1029

Hon. Mr. King — 1029

Amendment to

section 77.

Hon. Mr. King — 1029

section 78.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1029

Hon. Mr. King — 1030

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1030

Mr. Williams — 1030

Hon. Mr. King — 1031

Amendment to

section 81.

Mr. Wallace — 1031

Amendment to

section 84.

Mr. Wallace — 1031

Amendment to

section 85.

Mr. Chabot — 1031

Hon. Mr. King — 1032

Mr. Williams — 1032

Mr. Chabot — 1032

Division on amendment to

section 85 — 1032

section 85.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1033

Hon. Mr. King — 1033

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1033

Hon. Mr. King — 1034

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1034

Amendment to

section 87.

Mr. Gardom — 1034

Hon. Mr. King — 1035

Mr. Gardom — 1035

Hon. Mr. King — 1036

Amendment to

section 88.

Mr. Williams — 1036

Division on amendment to

section 88 — 1037

section 90.

Mr. Williams — 1037

Hon. Mr. King — 1037

Mr. Williams — 1038

Amendment to

section 93.

Mr. Wallace — 1038

Hon. Mr. King — 1038

Mr. Wallace 1038

Hon. Mr. King — 1038

Amendment to

section 94.

Mr. Wallace — 1039

Hon. Mr. King — 1039

Amendment to

section 96.

Hon. Mr. King — 1039

Mr. Wallace — 1039

Hon. Mr. King — 1039

Amendment to

section 109.

Mr. Wallace — 1039

Hon. Mr. King — 1039

section 116.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1040

Hon. Mr. King — 1040

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1040

Amendment to

section 114.

Mr. Wallace — 1040

Amendment to

section 121.

Hon. Mr. King — 1041

Amendment to

section 122.

Mr. Wallace — 1041

Hon. Mr. King — 1041

Amendment to

section 126.

Mr. Gardom — 1041

Hon. Mr. King — 1041

Mr. Gardom — 1042

Amendment to

section 133.

Hon. Mr. King — 1042

Amendment to

section 137.

Hon. Mr. King — 1042

Amendment to

section 138.

Mr. Gardom — 1042

Amendment to

section 139.

Hon. Mr. King — 1042

Amendment to

section 143.

Mr. Gardom — 1043

Amendment to

section 145.

Mr. Gardom — 1043

Amendment to

section 146.

Mr. Gardom — 1044

Amendment to

section 150.

Hon. Mr. King — 1044

Mr. Gardom — 1044

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1045

Mr. Williams — 1046

Hon. Mr. King — 1047

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1047

Division on amendment to

section 150 — 1047

Amendment to

section 152.

Hon. Mr. King — 1048

Report stage — 1048

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act (Bill 40).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. King — 1048

Report stage — 1048

An Act to Amend the Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance Act. (Bill 39).

Committee, report and third reading — 1048

An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act (Bill 43).

Committee, report and third reading — 1049

Medical Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 81).

Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1049

Mrs. Jordan — 1049

An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964 (Bill 82).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1053

Mr. Wallace — 1053

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1054

Department of Consumer Services Act (Bill 48). Committee

stage.

Mr. Phillips — 1054

Hon. Ms. Young — 1054

Report stage — 1054

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act (Bill 68).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Williams — 1055

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1055

section 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1055

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1055

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1055

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1056

Mr. Williams — 1056

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. Wallace — 1056

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1057

Division on amendment to

section 3 — 1057

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill 96). Hon. Mr.

Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 1058

MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, frequently we have

many guests in this House, but rarely do we have a guest with

such national significance as we have today. I'd ask the House

today to welcome the national leader of the New Democratic

Party, a man who has had the most envied career in public life

in Canada. As a founding member of the CCF and later the NDP,

David Lewis has given tremendous service to the people of

Canada. I'm proud that he's able to spend a few moments with us

today.

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

behalf of the official opposition, we wish to welcome Mr. Lewis

out here to British Columbia, really the choice part of Canada.

I know that he gets a little bored sometimes in Ottawa; it's

always nice to come out here and be refreshed and we welcome

you here today.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it's with great

pleasure that I join in welcoming Mr. David Lewis to our midst

today. During over four years in parliament, when we were both

Members of Parliament together, I enjoyed many opportunities to

speak with him and get to know him well. It's a great pleasure

to see him here.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We also in the Conservative

Party would like to welcome him to British Columbia. We hope

that you find the weather a little more pleasant than Ottawa,

and that you take back our good wishes to the House of

Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the House that there are 44 students from Gladstone

High School in my riding in the gallery along with their teachers — Mr. Campbell,

Mr. Dobson and Mr. Mellislav.

I sincerely hope that education at Gladstone is better than

it used to be. My wife fortunately graduated from that high

school when standards were lower. (Laughter.) She didn't

develop the kind of judgment which I'm sure girls from

Gladstone would have today. I bid them welcome.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Wait till he gets home.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like, before we go on, to introduce two

fine native carvers from the Queen Charlottes who are now in

Victoria — Mr. Jones and

Mr. McFadden, who are in the gallery just above the clock.

They are the source of my carvings.

Oral questions.

TABLING OF

EMERGENCY MEASURES ACT

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Hon. Premier.

In the last few days a number of statements have been made,

Mr. Premier, concerning a particular Act that has never been

presented to this House. It's referred to as an emergency

measures Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: The Act was drafted. When will it be filed with

this Legislative Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is a rule that anything

that's on the order paper is not the subject of the question

period. There's a notice of motion and a motion on the order

paper, put there by the Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: There's a motion regarding a matter of censure;

there's not a motion on the order paper concerning the question

that I have just posed to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: I would not want to misunderstand the Hon.

Member, but I gather he's talking about the same subject matter — a message bill that is not before the House that he is asking

the Premier to disclose at this time in the House — when that

very matter, I believe, the Hon. Member has appointed on the

order paper by motion. Is that the very matter to which you

refer?

MR. SMITH: I'm asking the Premier a simple straightforward

question: when will you file that Act or that proposal on the

Table of this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Again, I point out that that's the subject of

debate relating to a question that's ordered on the order

paper. Consequently, under Beauchesne's rules and under the

rules of May it would not be appointed in question period.

TAXATION OF PLATEAU MILLS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources a question regarding the

direct government ownership of Plateau Mills. Would the

Minister comment on the approximate sum of federal income tax

which it is anticipated will be saved the company?

Secondly,

[ Page 1026 ]

does the Minister anticipate that this action will lead to a

depressing of the shares of competitive companies?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid Mr. Speaker, that we don't

have any firm figures with which I could provide the House at

this stage regarding the question of corporate income tax at

Plateau Mills. But I might note that we did acquire companies

that had related problems, such as Ocean Falls. And we saw

Plateau Mills as an opportunity for some form of profit in

relation to other enterprises that might not be profitable at

all. It now appears that most of the enterprises we have will

be profitable. I'm sorry we made that mistake, but that is the

fact.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: if this

advantage to one particular company depresses the fortunes of

other companies, does the government then intend to buy into

the other companies at the depressed prices?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We certainly don't expect that there will

be any depressing effect on other companies. But as I indicated

on Friday, I believe, Mr. Speaker, there is a case for the

government looking at ways in which we might serve the

communities better in regions such as this. We'll seriously do

that.

BARRETT-LEWIS RIP-OFF PARLEYS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Premier whether his

flagrant case of government favouritism and corporate rip-off

has been discussed with the leader of the national NDP?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not a question of corporate rip-off,

Mr. Speaker — it's the people getting their own back.

DESIGN STUDIES ON

GABRIOLA FERRY TERMINAL

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Transport and Communications: could he bring

the House any new information with respect to early design

studies for any possible ferry terminal on Gabriola Island — the status of the work that is going on in the design stage

now?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): We're

still waiting for the wind and wave studies, which will determine where the

terminals will be. We can't start to design them until we know exactly where

it's going to be.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: therefore no

specific location has been selected to date with respect to the

shoreside facilities.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not to date, no.

MR. CURTIS: And a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may:

could he give us any indication as to the likely time of the

completion of the studies to which he's referred — a matter of

two months, six months, a year…?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've asked for them as soon as possible.

I prodded them last week to get me an answer very soon.

WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION

RE EMERGENCY MEASURES ACT

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Hon. Premier. Last night on a news television

broadcast known as "Capital Comment" the searching questions of

one of the reporters, Marjorie Nichols, caused the Premier to

reveal the presence of action taken by this government that was

not known to this House. And my question is: did the Premier

intend to reveal this information to the House, had Miss

Nichols not tripped him up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is covered by a

prohibition in Beauchesne which is to the effect that matters

anticipated on the orders of the day shall not be subject to

questions during question time. Therefore I have to make

exactly the same….

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that he was

tripped up several times last night, not just on the B.C. war

measures Act?

MR. SPEAKER: I have no knowledge of what he was doing. All I

know is that if you look in our Votes and Proceedings you will

find a transcript of what was alleged to have been said,

submitted by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith).

Therefore it is the subject of orders of the day and should not

be in question time.

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN

GOVERNMENT SALARIES

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

of Labour. May I ask him whether he has taken up the question

of blatant sexual discrimination in government jobs with the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), responsible to the Civil

Service Commission, whereby, in last Saturday's

[ Page 1027 ]

paper, starting salaries for men and women in the Queen's

Printer were 85 cents apart and top salaries were $2.14 apart?

It occurs, Mr. Speaker, on page 26.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I am informed that the

chairman of the Human Rights Commission has been in touch with

the Provincial Secretary's department to remove any references

to sex which exist in their advertisements for jobs.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask a supplementary? If we are just

going to delete the references, perhaps we are no more ahead.

But the starting salary for men is $3.24 and starting salary

for women is $2.39; top salaries are $2.14 apart. Has the

Minister taken any steps in the year that he has been

Provincial Secretary to stop this blatant discrimination of

unequal pay for equal work?

HON. MR. KING: I would suggest that the Human Rights Branch

of my department has been very actively engaged in removing

many of the old discriminate anomalies that have existed over

many years with various departments of government between

females and males. I would suggest further that if the Member

has specific representations he would want to make, he would

make them to the Director of the Human Rights Branch.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a final question. May I ask

the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to make the

Human Rights Act apply not only in private industry but also in

public service? At the present time there is no way we can use

the Human Rights Act and no way we can use the Director of the

Human Rights to get at discrimination being practised by the

Provincial Secretary's department.

HON. MR. KING: That will require legislative change and I

will have something to say on that, Mr. Speaker, within the

not-too-distant future.

CONTRACT SETTLEMENTS

WITH B.C. RAIL WORKERS

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

direct a question to the President of the British Columbia

Railway. The president of the railway is aware that we just

finished an untimely strike on the railway which was damaging

to the economy of British Columbia. I would like the president

of the railway to tell me how many contracts are still

unsettled with the workers on the railway.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Two.

MR. PHILLIPS: What progress is being made toward settlement

of these contracts with the idea of not having any more strikes

on the railway, Mr. President?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are both negotiating, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In case

negotiations fail and we are faced with another strike, are

shippers of perishable goods going to be given sufficient

warning this time, Mr. President?

MR. SPEAKER: We are not permitted hypothetical questions in

question period.

PRICE CONTROL AND GUARANTEED

MAINTENANCE OF NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES

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

Premier, Mr. Speaker. In view of the presumed price increase

for crude oil in eastern Canada, can the Premier tell us

whether he has the power, in his view, to prevent price

increases for heating oil and gasoline in the Province of

British Columbia this winter?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We don't have the power at the present,

Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Somewhat along the same line. I wonder in

relation to the solution of the natural gas crisis last week if

the Premier is in any position to give some details to the

House with particular reference to the source of the additional

supply. If this involved National Energy Board approval, could

he tell the House whether the National Energy Board has given a

form of approval, let us say, to Westcoast Transmission or to

Alberta and Southern Gas Co. when, in fact, they did not choose

to give this government any guidance?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I find the question not only

most interesting but the speculative answers absolutely

intriguing. In this situation the best I can do in answering

your question is by a matter of speculation.

It appears that the Government of British Columbia, not

receiving a formal answer to the specific question asked by the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) in regard to the

maintenance of gas supplies in the Province of British

Columbia, was informed by a private carrier, Westcoast

Transmission, that somehow they had made arrangements to

guarantee our supply. To this day we have not yet had an answer

from the federal government. I can only presume that phone

calls or

[ Page 1028 ]

exchanges of communication took place between Westcoast

Transmission and the National Energy Board because, at this

moment, we have not heard from the National Energy Board,

against or for the position taken by Westcoast.

We find this an anomalous situation, which I am sure is

embarrassing to the Ottawa government, where a private

corporation seems to have direct contact with the National

Energy Board while the duly-elected provincial government

received no reply whatsoever on a request made to the federal

Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald).

We did receive a reply acknowledging the telegram,

attempting to interpret the telegram as some difference of

opinion between Mr. Rhodes and this government. As of this day

we have not had a policy decision from the federal

government.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I just repeat the first part

of the question. Does the Premier know at this point in time

how much of the additional supply will be provided from Beaver

River and Pointed Mountain and how much from Alberta? Do we

know that fact?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know the source of the guaranteed

maintenance of supply. It may be that Westcoast will actually

cut its American consumers down the whole 10 per cent that was

to be shared, relatively speaking, across all the production in

British Columbia. All we have is a letter from Westcoast saying

that they will guarantee our supply in the Province of British

Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental to that, Mr. Speaker. Can the

Premier tell the House if, in fact, he has any information at

all as to the fact that Westcoast has verbally received

approval from the National Energy Board to cut exports?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I have no information on that at

all, Mr. Member. I must say, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case,

it is an insult to the Government and the people of British

Columbia that such an arrangement would take place between the

National Energy Board and Westcoast without us being

informed.

MR. McGEER: I would like to direct a further question to the

Premier, Mr. Speaker. Has he consulted with the Attorney

General as to whether the government indeed does have power to

prevent price increases in oil through the Energy Act we passed

last spring?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There are sections of existing Acts that have not

been proclaimed that apparently have that power.

CANADIAN CELLULOSE TAX APPEAL

MR. SMITH: My question is to Hon. Mr. Barrett. Has CanCel

advised the government that the tax appeal at Prince Rupert

would be held up and not proceeded with at this time with

respect to

section 37 of the Assessment Equalization Act?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as noted.

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION

IN GOVERNMENT HIRING

MR. McGEER: To the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Has

the Provincial Secretary given instructions to the Civil

Service Commission to eliminate any discrimination in pay for

jobs in the government service with respect to sex?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Yes, Mr. Speaker, that

is an ongoing policy of the government, and the commission has

been advised that that is the policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker, may I also say, in connection with the previous

question which perhaps could have been addressed to me, that I

am advised by the Queen's Printer that the information in the

advertisement which the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) mentioned is really not quite the case given to the

House. The advertisement is for the bindery department. The

people are not doing the same job and it reflects the wages

settled for the different jobs in the bindery department with

the trade union concerned.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

COAL MINES REGULATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 95 intituled

An Act to Amend the Coal Mines Regulation

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 95 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SOIL CONSERVATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 94 intituled

An Act to Amend the Soil Conservation

Act .

[ Page 1029 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 94 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

GUARANTEE OF

NATURAL JUSTICE ACT

Mr. Wallace moves introduction and first reading of Bill 98

intituled Guarantee of Natural Justice Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 98 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

LABOUR CODE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

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

chair.

section 76.

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

the Minister would indicate whether over the weekend he's had

an opportunity to consider the reference to arbitration in

section 76(1) in the light of the amendment that he moved to

section 74 and why, if he's not going to move an amendment, he

gives the parties the opportunity to provide for settlement of

technological change disputes by means other than arbitration

and yet, when you come to

section 76, that alternative method

is not made available to the parties?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, this was

discussed on Friday last. I gave an indication that this was a

drafting requirement, which is not indeed inconsistent in legal

terms, and that's the answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't wish to go on in the

matter, but I don't understand the Minister's response that it's a "drafting"

matter. It simply says that where the employer has introduced technological

change that does certain things, either party may refer the matter to an arbitration

board. What's wrong with using the other method of settlement which you've also

given the parties the right to have under

section 74? Why do you have to force

them into an arbitration board?

HON. MR. KING: The concept here, Mr. Chairman, is that there

is and has been for many years a provision in collective

agreements for the final resolution of contractual grievances

arising during the term of a collective agreement by

arbitration without work stoppage. It seems to me that the

provision for resolution of questions and disputes that arise

with respect to technological change should be settled on the

same basis wherever possible.

Now the provision does reside with the board to use other

devices should arbitration fail to solve the problem. Indeed,

there are five different steps which can be taken before the

right to strike is granted on any technological change

question. So I see nothing inconsistent.

Section 76 approved.

section 77.

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

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 77 approved with amendment.

section 78.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, this is the

question dealing with

definitions for the technological change.

The point I'd like the Minister perhaps to make clear, as he's

had an opportunity over the weekend to go over the discussion

we had when this was discussed in the light of

section 74, is

precisely what change in equipment or material might constitute

the technological change?

The concern that has been expressed in the industry is, I

think, a very genuine one. The difficulty that arises under

this very broad definition is that they believe any change of

one type of material for another might well be considered a

technological change and they feel that their whole system of

contracting can be disrupted as a result. I wonder whether the

Minister would like to give a definitive comment on this, which

of course can be used by the board in the future when they are

searching for Ministerial intention and also for legislative

intention when we pass this section?

[ Page 1030 ]

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

section 76(

i) one of the provisions states: "That the change

be made in accordance with the terms of the collective

agreement unless the change alters significantly the basis upon

which the collective agreement was negotiated." Now the board,

when taking into consideration any question that comes before

it on the technological change issue, would surely recognize in

the construction industry that the contractor indeed has no

control whatsoever over the materials the architect and the

engineers require in the specifications for a particular

contract. So in my view by no stretch of the imagination could

the contractor, who is the employer, be held accountable for

any change in material on the premise that that constituted

technological change.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for his comments.

The point on which I would like perhaps to have a more specific

word is the fact that there may be relatively few people in one

union engaged by a contractor for certain specific jobs. A

change in material — brick for wood or wood for brick — might

mean that all but, say, two out of the six would be laid off.

To those people concerned — the four laid off of course, or

two-thirds of the people employed — it would be a pretty

substantial alteration for them, thinking from their own point

of view which of course they very properly should.

Under those circumstances the union would, I feel, have a

pretty good complaint under

section 78 if two-thirds have been

laid off because of a change in material. Surely that's

precisely what

section 78 is talking about; and of course

section 78 read in conjunction with 76.

Now under those circumstances, where a relatively small

number of people are employed in a specific and perhaps very

highly-skilled trade, a large number of them, maybe the

majority, would be laid off by what is overall a relatively

small alteration in the building. If I were a member of that

union, I would feel that we had been savagely hit by

technological change because a material is being substituted. I

would feel personally somewhat dissatisfied with the reply of

the Minister which indicates that the contractor could

nevertheless continue to operate because overall, in terms of

the whole project, this is a very minor matter.

If it's two out of six, it's a major matter to the people

concerned. I wonder if the Minister might just give us a word

on that, whether or not under those circumstances his general

statement might be modified or whether his general statement

would indeed hold true?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to indicate that a change

in material is not a technological change. If a change in material worked to

the detriment of the employment of carpenters, for instance, and the alternate

material being used provided work that fell within the jurisdiction of another

union, then of course there's no net result, there's no net decrease in the

number of jobs available. I question very strongly that that type of situation

can be categorized as technological change. The employer per se has no control

over that situation. The materials that he'll use are dictated to him by the

owner, the architect or the engineer.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, I think from the vantage point of

reasonable confidence in the new Labour Relations Board, that

they certainly will have the perspicacity to discern between

those kinds of situations.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, we're delighted to hear

the Minister say so clearly that the change in the use of a

material would not be a technological change. If that's the

case, I wonder why he's put the words in this section.

It very specifically says: "the introduction by an employer

of a change…in equipment or material from that equipment or

material previously used by the employer…." It would seem

to me that what the Minister indicates is his view of what the

Labour Relations Board would decide in a given situation.

It would be better to take the word out altogether and

substitute something more in keeping with the expression of

philosophy which the Minister has just given us. If

"technological change" is to mean simply a change in the method

of doing work which results in a net reduction of the number of

employees who are employed in a particular industry, then it

would seem to me appropriate to say so; but to use other words

and to trust the wisdom of the Labour Relations Board in

arriving at the same kind of decision that the Minister has

reached in his mind I suggest is to cast uncertainty upon this

section and to create very, very serious problems.

Now as the Minister has pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the

problem in such instance is not — in the first instance at any

rate — likely to be that of the employer. But so long as these

words remain here, then you can imagine exactly the reaction

that the carpenters' union is going to have when there in fact

is a change in material from one that carpenters are employed

to work with to material where some other union, maybe metal

workers, are going to be engaged in.

As soon as that occurs, regardless of whether the employer

would class it as a technological change, it certainly is going

to appear to be that to the union because of the use of the

word "materials" in this section. I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, if

there isn't a change made in this definition to express more

clearly the intention of the Minister, that we will provoke

jurisdictional disputes in respect of which the

[ Page

1031 ]

employer has difficulty.

The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), a long-standing member of the carpenters' union,

shakes his head. I'm sure that means that his union would never

be involved in a jurisdictional dispute. But perhaps the

Minister might put my mind at rest, at least, as to why these

specific words were chosen, because it does create this

possibility.

HON. MR. KING: Once again I can only stress that I feel that

the Members across the way are confusing two situations. I

think you're confusing the question of jurisdiction between

trade unions with the question of technological change. Now

there is a jurisdictional board set up in the construction

industry. There's a blue book which governs the jurisdiction of

the trade unions and their inherent jurisdiction in that

industry. Management and the unions decide this question on any

given issue.

We're not looking here at which trade union holds the

jurisdiction to perform certain work. That is a question that

is outside the provisions of this

section that apply to

technological change.

I would point out that the

definitions here are quite broad.

We are conducting a debate here, it seems, which is confined to

the circumstances existing in one industry. But the key to it,

I think, is that the application is what's going to be

important rather than the breadth of the

definitions. The board

is going to have to be very discerning in their

application.

It is provided here, as I pointed out earlier, that one of

the questions the board will ask is: "Did the employer sign a

contract with the knowledge at hand that some material change

in working conditions was going to alter the terms and

conditions upon which that contract had been negotiated in good

faith?"

I point out to you again, Mr. Chairman, through you, that

the employer you were referring to in the construction industry

does not have the kind of control of his product which would

bring that situation into question.

Sections 78 to 80 inclusive approved.

section 81.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The whole question of strikes is

included in

section 81. We feel that everyone acknowledges the

severe hardship of prolonged strikes and the fact that the

longer a strike goes on the harder the positions of the

opposing sides tend to become, with a lack of ultimate

solutions sometimes, or with an unsatisfactory solution.

We have an amendment on the order paper, which I needn't repeat word for word,

Mr. Chairman. It has the effect of stating that after a strike has been in effect

for 21 days, there should be another vote. Subsection (4) is added also to suggest

that as long as a strike does continue, a vote of the employees should be taken

at intervals of 21 days to give strikers the opportunity to review their decision

based on what has happened in the meantime and on the various factors that have

come to their notice, or changes in their own thoughts or decisions about the

strike.

We feel that this is just one mechanism whereby we might be

able to cut short some of these extremely long strikes which

cause so much hardship to the employers, the employees and to

the economy of the province.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment standing

on the order paper to

section 81.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 81 to 83 inclusive approved.

section 84.

MR. WALLACE: We have an amendment to

section 84 which is

just introduced to avoid conflict with

section 4. It just means

putting before the word "a" in the first line, the words

"except as otherwise provided in this Act." As I say, this is

simply to avoid misinterpretation of

section 84 in terms of

section 4.

Amendment negatived.

Section 84 approved.

section 85.

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

section 85 deals with the

spectre of picketing. We see a new concept being introduced in

this

section 85 called an "ally." What it appears to do is to

legalize the secondary boycott.

I think it can best be defined by projecting an example of

what might take place by the application of the ally in the

picketing — the ally of the particular plant that's involved.

It would be quite conceivable, by using the example of a

supermarket, that all the suppliers to the supermarket could be

struck because they're allies in providing the goods that might

be moved to the supermarket by supervisory personnel.

We see the spectre of the transportation companies as well

being involved in being an ally because they're transporting

goods to the supermarket; and, of course, they in turn might be

getting their goods from the airlines. And the airlines are

another ally, part of the chain. The ship line as well, because

certain goods that move into a supermarket come into Canada by

ship — they could be part of the ally structure.

[ Page 1032 ]

Also, the B.C. Hydro supplies electricity to a supermarket;

they might even be classified as an ally. And the oil and gas

that might be supplied for heat could be classified as an

ally.

It appears to me that the application of this ally clause in

the legislation is a broad enlargement of the right of

picketing in British Columbia, one which will be most

disruptive, in my opinion.

We see also the possibility of goods manufactured under fair

conditions, in a particular plant that might have been struck

six months or a year after the goods had been manufactured,

whereby the goods, probably being in storage, would be

unavailable in many instances because of the application of the

ally clause to these goods.

So it appears to be a very troublesome clause. The burden of

proof rests upon the individual who is classified as an ally

with the board. It's one which will cause a lot of disruption,

a lot of delays, and will be most inconvenient for the workers

of British Columbia. It appears in the definition and the

interpretation that the workers of British Columbia could be

used as pawns.

It's not the type of

section that I could support because I

think it's one which expands unnecessarily the right of using a

very brutal and ruthless weapon — the right of secondary

boycott. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the definition of "ally" is

contained in

section 85 quite clearly in subsection (2) of

section 85: "For the purposes of this

section "ally" includes a

person who, in the opinion of the board, in combination, or in

concert, or in accordance with a common understanding with the

employer, assists an employer in a lockout, or in resisting a

lawful strike."

I submit that the significant language there is "in

combination, or in concert, or in accordance with a common

understanding." I think that outlines very, very clearly that

the apprehension expressed by the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) is an apprehension without foundation. I think the

intent of the provision is extremely clear and I submit that

the philosophical justification for this clause is that trade

unions do not have the right, under the picketing, to extend

their picketing activities in an unrestricted way.

If employers who are not directly involved in a dispute wish

to remain free from the conflict, then I suggest that it's only

reasonable to expect them to remain impartial and to not form

in concert with a struck employer to minimize the effectiveness

of a strike. In my view, it's even-handed. It is a correct

approach, and I oppose the amendment on that basis.

MR. WILLIAMS: I suggest to the Minister that the important

words in

section 85(2) are not the words "combination"…"concert" or

"common understanding," but are in the first line in the words

"includes a person." It means that the definition of "ally" essentially

is: any person who, in the opinion of the board, is an ally. It also,

incidentally, includes people who fall into those three categories. So

the definition is as wide as the horizon, Mr. Chairman.

If the Minister is prepared to suggest that an ally is only

a person whom the board finds is acting in combination or in

concert with others, or in accordance with a common

understanding, then let him restrict the definition of ally to

people falling into those three categories. Then we'd be happy

to accept this

section and to reject the amendment. But the

Minister, I suggest, has not carefully considered the

circumstances here and is leaving to the board some indication

of what the category "ally" includes, but no limitation at

all.

MR. CHABOT: The problem here, I think, is that, in many

instances the original

interpretation, or the original

definition of an ally, will be outlined by the union. The union

will feel that a particular employer is an ally of a particular

other employer who is probably on strike or in a lockout

situation. In their

interpretation of an ally a plant which

might have no relationship whatsoever, in the eyes of the

board, might be struck and inconvenienced and be forced to

appear before the board to justify that it's not an ally in the

dispute.

That's the problem that's really going to be created here

because, in many instances, they'll find that plants have been

shut down and the employer will have to appear before the board

to justify that he's not an ally.

It's going to cause a lot of inconvenience not only for the

plant involved, but for the workers as well.

Does the Minister agree that there is a possibility this

might happen? Would you like to say it out loud, Mr. Minister?

No. He says, "No, he wouldn't like to speak on it."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

NAYS — 34

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

[ Page 1033 ]

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. CHABOT: When reporting to the House, I would appreciate

it if you would inform the Speaker that a division took place

in committee and ask leave for recording the results of the

division in the Journals of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, 85(1), Mr. Chairman. Here we have a

provision whereby people could be hired for the purpose of

professional picketing. It's a subject we discussed before, I

believe, in the definition

section when we were dealing with

professional strikebreakers and the need for even-handedness.

The fact is, if I understand it correctly, that at that time

the reply came back that professional picketers were not

inconsistent with the Act and were not equivalent to

professional strikebreakers; but in my mind they are.

If we are to bar the assistance that one side may hire, I

think we should bar the assistance that another side may hire.

If a person is not willing to go on strike himself, I feel,

perhaps, that he should not be in a position of hiring others

to do his work for him. So I would think that in this

section

85(1) in the second line where you have, "A trade-union, a

member or members of which are lawfully on strike, or locked

out, or any person authorized by the trade-union, may picket…" — I would like to have "or any person authorized by the

trade-union" deleted so that those who actually take

part in

picketing are actually people affected and not people simply

called in at a certain price to take on a job which I would

think would be essentially that of the person who would be on

strike.

The situation might be whereby funds are plentiful, whereby

a union could employ large numbers. Yet a union which had

perhaps fewer members, less money and perhaps a much more

justified case, a much more justified reason for striking

against an employer, would be in a far less powerful economic

position because they are simply not able to hire professional

picketers. To equal-up and even-out the power between these

trade unions relative to one another I would move that we

delete the phrase in here which allows for professional

picketers. I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment put

forward by the hon. leader of the Liberal Party. I would point out that in the first instance

the employer does have the right to continue to operate with

any employees who may choose to ignore the strike. He has the

right beyond that, should his employees exercise their option

to strike, of hiring individuals off the street in an effort to

continue his operation. It would seem inconsistent to me to

prevent a trade union from receiving assistance from a brother

union or indeed from hiring pickets, if they so chose, when the

employer has the right to go beyond the unit in terms of

finding personnel to continue his operation. I would say that

that is an equivalent and a synonymous right and I would

suggest that we should not weaken the position of either side

in that respect.

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

that it is possible for someone to be hired off the street for

the purpose of continuing an operation during a strike, despite

the definition

section dealing with professional

strikebreakers, despite the comments about professional

strikebreakers, it would indeed appear that this would be an

even-handed provision and I would agree that my amendment under

those circumstances would be inappropriate because it would not

even up the point in terms of employer-employee. In terms of

the point I made about the relative position of two unions, of

course, the validity would be there.

But I am troubled by this reference, once again, to a person

being hired off the street for the purpose of continuing

operations during a strike. It appears to me that in the

definition

section on page 3, line 2: "a professional

strikebreaker means a person who is not a party involved in a

dispute whose primary object," in his and "in the

opinion of the board, is to prevent, interfere with, or break

up a lawful strike…."

Now, the question is: what does "interfere with" mean? I

would say that where a person is hired off the street and comes

and works for an employer and prevents the employees from

legally and rightfully putting their economic muscle to work to

prevent that employer from making the same type of product or

the same profits that he had previously, then they are having

their rights seriously interfered with if indeed the employer

can go off and hire who he wishes. If there was anything which

I think describes a professional strikebreaker, it is someone

being hired off the street to continue operations regardless of

the strike so that the employees are under a disadvantage. The

legitimate certified trade union and the employees who are

members of that union are at a total disadvantage to put the

economic pressure that they would like to on the employer

because he can go out — as the Minister has now said, I

believe, three times in this Legislature — and hire anybody off

the street.

If this

section in the definition

section about

[ Page 1034 ]

professional strikebreakers doesn't mean what it says, the

last thing we should permit is a situation to develop in

British Columbia where, despite picket lines, despite

legitimate employee grievances with the employer, we have a

situation where he can go out and engage in what I believe is

strikebreaking, namely hiring people whose sole purpose it is

to prevent those employees of his, the previous employees, from

taking on this type of work.

I only suggest that the Minister reconsider the many

statements he has made about other labour disputes existing in

the province — Sandringham Hospital is one. I just don't think

that we are going to have much in the way of labour peace if

the Minister continues to offer open invitations to employers

to prevent strikes from being effective by allowing them, or

stating that he intends to allow them to go off and "hire

people off the streets," to use his own words.

What does the definition

section mean, if it doesn't mean

that you cannot hire people whose sole objection it is is to

break up the strike by way of working for the employer? If I

can take the Minister's words which he just put forward, it

would only mean people who come to rough-up the strikers, I

guess — people who are there to prevent the strikers from

walking up and down the sidewalk. If that's the only thing that

interferes with a strike in the Minister's opinion, I'm very

surprised. I would think that interfering with a strike would

be taking work at a company or in an industry where the other

employees, the ones who are certified, have decided they are

going to withdraw their services.

Now, if strikebreaking means something else other than the

definition, we should know now because I just don't believe

that the definition of professional strikebreaker, as it

appears in the definition

section on page 3, would permit

hiring off the street, which the Minister has indicated any

employer is free to do when his own employees have struck.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to believe

that the hon. leader of the Liberal Party has such little

experience in the field of industrial relations that he cannot

differentiate between two situations.

Employers have historically had the right to hire off the

street to replace strikers.

Reference to the Sandringham Hospital dispute was made. That

hospital is now full of people who failed to recognize the

picket line and have gone in to perform the jobs which were

traditionally performed by the strikers.

I take the position, Mr. Chairman, that a picket line is a matter of conscience.

And if the leader of the Liberal Party is suggesting that we should introduce

legislation which would prohibit a citizen of this province from exercising

his option to take a job with a struck plant, then I'd be very surprised and

find that very inconsistent with the attitude he has displayed to the rest of

this legislation.

"Professional strikebreaker" deals with a type of organization which is

specified quite clearly in the legislation which has as its primary purpose

the breaking-up or interfering with a strike. There are such organizations,

as I pointed out earlier, in Canada which exist for this sole purpose, and charge

very handsome fees. There is no intention for a lasting relationship of employment

with a struck plant; rather they come in and indulge in tactics which would

impair the effectiveness of the strike and then their specific function is over.

But I think we should leave it up to the conscience of the

workers of this province as to whether or not they wish to

respect the picket line. Similarly, I think we should leave it

up to the conscience of individuals as to whether or not they

wish to serve picket duty. Those are internal decisions and

ones based on conscience, I presume. I doubt the wisdom, quite

frankly, of attempting to legislate that kind of provision and

that kind of an obligation upon the citizens of this

province.

So if the leader of the Liberal Party can't discern between

a private citizen's right to accept employment, even though a

strike might be underway, and an organization which comes in

and perhaps employs dogs or a variety of electronic bugging

devices, and so on, in an effort to break-up and interfere with

a legally-conducted strike, then I don't know what I can add to

persuade him.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question of dogs and bugs and other

things is interesting and it does shed quite a bit of light on

what is meant in the definition. If the Minister only believes

that the professional strikebreaker as defined is an

organization or a group of people whose sole purpose it is is

to physically interfere with the operations of the strike as

opposed to keeping the industry or business going, well, his

definition is quite different from what I expected the

definition to be and quite different, I might add, from what I

thought the definition was when we first looked at this

Act.

If that is the case, I'll be quite willing to withdraw my

amendment. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, leave of the House to

withdraw the amendment standing in my name on

section

85(1).

Leave granted.

Section 85 approved.

Section 86 approved.

section 87.

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

[ Page 1035 ]

First of all, I was unfortunately not in the House this

afternoon when introductions of guests were given, and I hope I

am not duplicating things, but I see a very good friend of mine

in the gallery, Mr. Bud Dobson, with a group of students. I

indeed wish them a very happy time in Victoria today.

Section 87(

a) as it now reads, Mr. Chairman: "No action lies

in respect of picketing permitted under this Act for (

a) trespass to real property to which a member of the public

ordinarily has access."

Before moving my amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would draw to

the attention of the Minister that it's pretty obvious that

members of the public have access to stores and offices and

warehouses, to factories, ballpark stadiums, even to press

galleries, I suppose, and to almost any kind of land or

premises one can name. If picketing happens to constitute a

trespass to real property, to land or buildings, and damage

results from that — for example, broken windows or tom fences

or ripped partitions, or what have you — those are special

damages, namely out-of-pocket expenses, and obviously there

will be a cost of repair.

In my view, that should be paid for because your section, as

it now reads, gives a picketer a right to wreck with impunity

and no one in society should have that right. Trespass at

common law is provable without damage. That is, it's enough to

appear in front of the court and, providing one can show the

other party went over the property line, that is sufficient to

give cause to a successful action, even though actual damage

did not occasion.

If damage does happen, Mr. Chairman, the

section the

government has proposed here will have the result of saving the

negligent or the wilful or the property-wrecking picketer from

suit. I say that that's an invitation to assault to land or

assault to premises. It certainly is an invitation to create

breaches of the peace and cause serious and expensive physical

damage. This is a very ghastly concept.

So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, a copy of which you have had

filed with you, would read as follows: "No action lies in

respect of picketing permitted under this Act for (

a) trespass

to real property to which a member of the public ordinarily has

access" — and I'm adding these words: "save and except for all

special damages occasioned and proven."'

That's the substance of the amendment. So if there is

trespass to real property arising out of picketing, and actual

physical damage does happen, then a member of the public or the

owner or whoever has unfortunately experienced actual damage,

has the right to maintain a suit for reparation. Because you've

got to remember that your bill, as it is now phrased, has

emasculated all access to the courts — totally.

I'm providing this as an avenue for a suffering person, corporation, group

of people, whoever it may be, who has sustained actual damage, to be able to

recover that damage as the result of the kind of expenses or fault, call it

what you will, that can arise from picketing.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have no argument with the

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

s) intent

here, but I do submit that the

section does not insulate any

person from actions which would accrue from acts of violence or

acts of negligence. It simply provides that no action will

accrue from the act of trespass. Only that. But if there were

broken windows or if there were personal injury, a civil action

would lie under either negligence or assault or something of

that nature.

MR. GARDOM: Brought about by the trespass.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, but the point is that we don't want

trespass in itself to be the criterion upon which an action

results. What we're trying to provide for here….

MR. GARDOM: That's what I put the amendment in for.

HON. MR. KING: No, it's a situation whereby a

supermarket-type operation may be struck and there may be one

or more entrances and exits to that place of business housing a

multiplicity of employers. Surely the union has a right then to

picket the store or the business enterprise to which their

strike is directed.

In that type of common unit we could have actions for trespass by

seeking to picket in a legitimate way and in compliance with this act

otherwise. But I stress that in the wording of

section 87, it makes it

clear that trespass is the only

act which will not be actionable in terms of the courts. If there are

any of the other results which the Member has expressed concern about

that flow, action is indeed available on those particular points.

MR. GARDOM: Number one, where is it available under the

statute? Perhaps it would be interesting for the House and for

all of us if the Minister would indicate exactly where under

the statute it is available. You've made a statement here. You

just show us within your bill where the thing that you stated

is available can be seen, because I haven't found it in your

bill.

The second point is that your argument, the statements that

you've made in the House, thoroughly support the premise that

I've raised here. I'm not talking about the situation of not

permitting trespass. I'm saying for trespass that causes

damages, under those circumstances, there should be

[ Page 1036 ]

a remedy. And you agree with me; you agree with me. So

that's why I put the amendment in. I said, "trespass to real

property to which a member of the public ordinarily has access"…no action lies there…"save and except…" — and here's

where you join with me, and this is the amendment: "… save

and except for all special damages occasioned and proven."

Perhaps I could illustrate the situation of special damages.

The special damages are the actual cost of physical damages

that have happened — breaking of windows, knocking down of

walls, breaking in of doors — the actual damage, not the

question of walking across the property line. So you see,

really you're agreeing with me.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

section 87 says that, "trespass

to real property to which a member of the public ordinarily has

access." Now if damage accrued from a picketer traversing a

thoroughfare or a street to which the public ordinarily had

access, I would suggest that that damage would be based either

upon negligence or criminal intent or something of that nature,

and there is nothing in this Act which seeks to prohibit

actions in the civil or criminal courts for such

situations.

If the Second Member for Point Grey can indicate to me any

section of this Act which withdraws a citizen's recourse to the

courts for that type of situation, then I certainly would be

receptive to amendment. But I submit that that is not the case,

Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Section 87.

Amendment negatived.

Section 87 approved.

section 88.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman,

section 88 is a strange

section

as it is presently worded. It would seem to suggest that there

are some specific provisions in this Act under which a trade

union or other persons are entitled to picket. Following upon

section 87 which says, "No action lies in respect of picketing

permitted under this Act," I'm compelled to conclude

that

section 88 was intended to make clear that certain

permissions or authorizations were required.

Now if I may just go back briefly, Mr. Chairman, to sections 84 and 85, I must

say that, when I first read through this bill and in all my subsequent readings

of this bill, I was delighted to find the words in

section 84. I've always felt

that for too long the trade unions were under severe limitations which didn't

apply to employers with respect to many of the activities that trade unions

were entitled to carry on in this province.

They were precluded, I thought, from disseminating

information which was very pertinent to the continued operation

of a trade union — lawful information made unlawful by statutes

of this province. I agree that trade unions should be permitted

to disseminate information concerning their particular

activities, whether there's a strike on or not. I'm certainly

in favour of sections 84 and 85.

But, Mr. Chairman, picketing is one activity carried on by

unions which has very dire consequences if there happens to be

something in error in the decision as to whether the picket

should be mounted or not. It has very serious complications for

the trade unions and the members of trade unions.

Too often a responsible member of a trade union is faced

with a situation where, arriving at his place of work or at

some other place of employment where he has to carry on some

lawful activity — and I'm speaking, say, of truck drivers who

suddenly arrive at a place of business for the purpose of

delivering goods — and they see someone walking up and down

across the driveway or on the sidewalk carrying a sign. Now

they don't know whether it's a sign which is advertising a

bingo game or whether there is, in fact, a lawful strike in

progress.

Yet that individual workman, that individual trade union

member, suddenly is faced with a serious decision for him to

make. Now he can, of course, park his truck and get out and

phone his employer or the dispatcher and phone his trade union

and say, "What's going on? Am I entitled to go into this place

or not?" But it is a decision which too often the individual

workman must make, and because under

section 84 we are

extending the opportunity, not only to trade unions but to

other persons as well, to communicate information in certain

ways at various places….

I recall the remarks made by the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), who wondered if he would in

the future be able to take

part in picketing or the

dissemination of information, say with regard to the sale of

California grapes or other products of that kind. I think that

section 84 would permit him to do that, but if that was not

truly a picket because there was not a work stoppage, then I

suggest that it might be the kind of picket line that a

responsible member of a trade union could cross. It will still

place as a very serious decision before the individual workmen

or trade unionist, and it could all be so simply solved.

With this new Labour Relations Board, with the chairman

having the powers that he has and with various panels being

established I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it would be

convenient and speedy and proper for any person wishing to

disseminate

[ Page

1037 ]

information or to picket, in the case of a lawful strike, to

first of all make application to the Labour Relations Board, or

to an officer of that board, or to a panel of that board, for

approval of the activity which was to be carried out, and if it

was approved — and this would cover as well the opportunity of

picketing at a supposed ally of an employer — then there would

never be any question raised as to whether a responsible trade

unionist should or should not cross that picket line. If, on

the other hand, it was simply an information picket to

advertise some particular event and not one which might

therefore be binding upon the conscience of a trade union

member, then that could be indicated as well in the approval

given.

Two things would be accomplished. First of all, it would

ease the difficult decision that trade unionists must make as

to whether or not they should be bound by what appears to be a

picket line. Secondly, it would put a stop to some unfortunate

activities that have been carried on which have created very

bad relationships and much criticism of trade unions, and that

is the so-called "mystery picket organization," where

picketing is carried on and the trade union gets a bad name

because serious hardship and interference is caused to an

employer and to the general public without good cause.

It could all be solved by making the application to the

Labour Relations Board first. Then the board would be able to

consider whether the circumstances were appropriate to permit

the picket; if not, they could refuse to disallow it. Having

disallowed it, it would then very simply solve the problem

which is created by

section 87 as to whether or not the

picketing was permitted under the Act, and it would also solve

some of the problems which will arise out of the next section,

section 89, which deals with whether certain activities are

actionable or not.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have pleasure in moving an

amendment to

section 88 by deleting the

section in its entirety

and substituting the following: "No person shall communicate

information, or express sympathy or support, or picket in

accordance with the provisions of

section 84 and 85 unless

first authorized so to do by the order of the chairman, the

board, or a panel thereof." I move that amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

NAYS — 33

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Stupich

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, when you rise reporting,

would you advise the Speaker of the division on the amendment

section 88 and ask leave to record it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed.

Sections 88 and 89 approved.

section 90.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would be

pleased if the Minister would indicate the reason for the

inclusion again in this particular part of the legislation,

section 90, the right for the board to issue declaratory

opinions in such a narrow compass as is provided in

section

I would point out to the Minister that there's a declaratory

opinion provision earlier in the Act, but in this case it is a

declaratory opinion as it relates only to a complaint of a

person having his "employment, business, operations, or

property…damaged by reason of an agreement or combination

that…affects trade and commerce…." I would like to

know precisely the reason why the Minister, feels that this

should be included in this particular part of the legislation,

and I would ask him if he would indicate what effect he expects

such declaratory opinions to have.

HON. MR. KING: This section, Mr. Chairman, deals mainly with

those situations which arise in boycotts and "do-not-patronize"

lists and so on.

I would point out that in many areas of industry in the

province provisions for this type of activity are contained in

the collective agreement. We simply seek to authorize the board

to pass a declaratory opinion on some of the very complex

situations that will accrue partially from the party's

authority to regulate their own affairs and partially because

we recognize that that contractual right in some circumstances

will transcend that particular area and go into other

situations where the board should

[ Page 1038 ]

have jurisdiction to give direction.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, do I

understand that the Minister would hope that the board in this

way might be able to persuade employers or trade unions to

discontinue some boycott or "do-not-patronize" activities which

heretofore have created difficulties between the parties in the

hope to make sure that we engender this better spirit of

cooperation?

HON. MR. KING: That's right.

Sections 90 to 92 inclusive approved.

section 93.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move our amendment

standing on the order paper relating to subsection (2). Where

there is no stated clause in the collective agreement then

subsection (2) says that "it shall be deemed to contain the

following provision…." This really amounts to binding

arbitration by an individual arbitrator, as I understand it.

Either of the parties to the dispute "may…submit the

difference to arbitration and the parties shall agree on a

single arbitrator." The decision of that arbitrator is "final

and binding upon the parties."

We just feel that there is a much better mechanism than

having one single arbitrator who can, in fact, impose a

decision. We would like to move the amendment standing in our

name which states:

"Each party shall appoint one member to the arbitration

board and those two appointees shall agree upon a chairman. The

arbitration board shall hear and determine the difference, and

shall issue a decision, and the decision is final and binding

upon the parties and upon any employee or employer affected by

it."

I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I presume the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) realizes that a provision for arbitration of

disputes during the course of the collective agreement has been

contained for some time in the statutes of the province. I

would suggest that a provision requiring an arbitration board

composed of three people would really only contribute to delays

in the selection of a board and the time which would be

required for them to come to grips with the issue at hand.

I would point out further that we do seem to be witnessing a trend towards

more mutually-agree-upon industry arbitrators in a variety of the industries

in the province. I don't think we should do anything to discourage that trend,

so in the interests of expeditious handling and in recognition of the trend

that is developing for trade unions and industry to be able to come to mutual

accord on the choice of some person to act as an arbitrator in their particular

industry, I suggest that this provision is the most advantageous way to go.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask the Minister

then if he is, in effect, saying that it is easier to find a

single arbitrator acceptable to both parties than it is to have

a group of three, one representing each party and an agreed

upon chairman? In this case, I'm assured that that is the

reason you want it, not so much as saving time in finding three

people. I wouldn't have thought that the time and energy

involved in getting a three-man group instead of a one-man

group should surely be the issue at stake. The issue should be

the justice of the decision that's made, whether it's made by

one or by a board of three.

But am I to understand from the Minister's comment that

really the principle he is following is that it is easier to

find a single arbitrator acceptable to both parties, even when

the wish for arbitration might be at the request only of one of

the parties, which is the way this reads in subsection (2): "…either

of the parties…may…notify the other party…and the parties shall

agree on a single arbitrator "? I

just feel that it would have been simpler to set up a group of

three, as the amendment suggests.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, just to comment a bit further,

one of the acute shortages in the Province of British Columbia

is the shortage of qualified, experienced arbitrators. I think

that from a departmental point of view we're certainly going to

have to do something about that in the ensuing months and

years.

The point I tried to make, Mr. Chairman, is that many

industries have a permanent arbitrator which the parties agree

upon. He remains available to arbitrate disputes that arise

during the course of that collective agreement. Now, it's

difficult for me to appreciate just how the parties may agree

to a board of three, which would stand in readiness and be

available for arbitrations when they occurred. So that would

result in an ad hoc appointment for every grievance that

emerged,

whereas under this provision it recognizes that single

arbitrators have been accepted by certain industries and

unions, and they stand ready and prepared to undertake this

kind of function.

So from both standpoints — from the standpoint of the

expediency of dealing with these things and from the standpoint

of recognizing the emerging trend — I think that it's the way

to go.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 1039 ]

Section 93 approved.

section 94.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment there, and

really it is just including the words "such other method agreed

to by the parties."

Section 93, in subsection (1) (

b) states:

"for final and conclusive settlement without stoppage of work,

by arbitration or such other method as may be agreed to by the

parties…." It would just seem reasonable to include that

same phrase in

section 94, and I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, what this provision

seeks, to do is to allow the Minister to modify arbitration

procedures contained in a collective agreement to ensure that

they are, indeed, workable and that they will satisfy the

intent of the previous section, which requires the parties to

resolve disputes during the term of the collective agreement

through arbitration.

I might, just for clarification, point out to the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay that over the past few years we have found

that some of the statutory requirements for contractual

provisions have been misunderstood or have been complied with

in such a way that the intent was violated, with a consequent

result in labour turmoil and conflict. This is a provision

simply to ensure that when they do comply with the provisions

section 93 they do so in an effective way with a procedure

which will, indeed, come to grips with their problems and

provide for a reasonable and practical way of handling those

disputes.

Amendment negatived.

Section 94 and 95 approved.

section 96.

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

section

96 standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am referring specifically to

section 96 (c) (ii) which states that they may "inquire into

the difference and, after such inquiry as the board considers

adequate, make an order for final and conclusive settlement of

the difference," while subsection (1) (

a) refers to

either party to the collective agreement having the power to

either seek a special officer or to refer to the board. What

subsection (c) (ii) really does is a form of compulsory

arbitration at the request of one party to the dispute.

If I have misread this, perhaps the Minister will correct me, but it seems

to me that, based on the language in 96 (1) (a): "if at any time…either

party to the collective agreement requests the board…" for some form of

assistance in the form of an officer and then there are certain options open

as to how the dispute can be handled; in (c) (

i) one of the methods in which

it can be inquired into means that it can result in an order for final and conclusive

settlement of the difference. In my

interpretation that means that this is a

form of compulsory settlement at the request of one party.

The amendment I would offer to

section 96 (c) (ii) would be

to inquire into the difference and, after the inquiry the board

considers adequate, make recommendation to the parties for the

settlement of the dispute. We think this is following in line

with the general principle that where there is any measure of

compulsory settlement at least both sides to the dispute should

have an equal and fair opportunity to be heard and to have as

much influence as each of them can have in reaching the final

decision.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, under

section 96 (ii) the

parties can write their own provision for the arbitration that

the Member is concerned about. If they are not prepared to live

with the condition contained in the Act, they can simply write

out an agreement which is tailored to and suits their

situation.

What we simply do here is provide a minimum requirement. If

they are not prepared to accept it or find it too restrictive

in any way, they are not precluded from negotiating the terms

of their own arrangement. I think that's quite flexible enough

to serve the interests of both parties.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 96 to 108 inclusive approved with amendment.

section 109.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the

amendment to

section 109 standing in my name on the order

paper. We are going back over old ground, but I am simply

restating that we should acknowledge the fact that there is no

mechanism for appeal to the courts. The amendment on the order

paper states that we delete all the words after "conclusive" in

the second line. I so move.

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

section 108

specifically provides the appeal which the Member for Oak Bay

seeks to amend

section 109 to provide. I submit that the

amendment is not necessary.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 1040 ]

Sections 109 to 115 inclusive approved.

section 116.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in 116 you have:

"Where a special officer makes an order on a matter not

provided by the collective agreement, or where the order differs from the provisions

of the collective agreement, the order is binding on the parties to the dispute

or difference for a period not exceeding thirty days."

The difficulty that I see is the fact that the order may

well differ from the agreed-to decision of the two parties, and

here we have a provision for the special officer coming in and

setting aside the collective agreement. It is a principle which

I think we should accept only with the gravest of reservations

and only after due explanation by the Minister.

Surely collective agreement must be honoured as far as

possible. If there is any need to set it aside under certain

circumstances, I am sure the Minister would like to indicate

exactly how and when he envisages the collective agreement

being suspended by the operation of a special officer's

decision.

HON. MR. KING: In response to the Second Member for

Victoria, I would point out that there is no intention here to

set aside a collective agreement per se; there is a recognition

that under certain circumstances it is necessary to vary the

provisions of a collective agreement, where no provision exists

or has been anticipated, to come to grips with some of the very

complex and unique disputes that come to light in the province

during these troubled days.

With new technology, with a work force ever expanding into

the more isolated regions of the province, it is difficult to

provide in a collective agreement for provisions to govern

every type of situation which will be encountered on the job

site and which will ultimately lead to a dispute that can tie

up an industry.

What this

section simply does is recognize that you can't

compact into the terms of a collective agreement every dispute

in which the Department of Labour receives a request to

intervene. Experience has proven that many of these disputes

transcend provisions of collective agreements and, we have to

have some resources and some devices for coming to grips with

those unusual situations.

I reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that there is certainly no desire

to upset collective agreements which are negotiated in good

faith between the union and employer; but by the same token we

cannot continue to be restricted from coming to grips with

disputes simply because there is no mechanism in the collective

agreement governing that kind of dispute.

So that is the intent here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to thank the Minister, Mr.

Chairman, for his remarks, which apply correctly to the first

part of

section 116.

section 116 however, is a two-part

section.

I quite appreciate the need, where there is no provision in

the collective agreement, for some sort of provision for the

special officer to make an order. That makes a great deal of

sense.

The concern I have is here the two parties have specifically

come to agreement on the provisions of a collective agreement

and this is thereafter set aside. I think this opens the door

to agreements arrived at in good faith being set aside, or at

least the effort being made to set them aside by use of a

special officer, by the threat of labour disputes or by the

threat of a slow-down, shut-down, strike, lockout, whatever it

might be. There might well be the use of the special officer to

get around the provisions of a collective agreement.

I would amend this

section by leaving it completely intact as far as

the arguments of the Minister go with respect to matters not covered by

collective agreement but amend it by deleting "or where the order

differs from the provisions of the collective agreement." It would then

read: "Where a special officer makes an order on a matter not provided

by the collective agreement, the order is binding on the parties to the

dispute for a period not exceeding 30 days." It would delete the

reference to the officer putting aside terms of a collective agreement

and refer only to areas where the 0 collective agreement is not clear

or does not cover the situation.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WALLACE: May I ask leave of the committee to go back to

114? You moved along very quickly and I missed an

amendment.

Leave granted.

section 114.

MR. WALLACE: The amendment I would like to move in

section

114 is to delete subsection (

e) which states that a special

officer may "arbitrate such dispute or difference himself." We

just feel that for this person who is an appointee of the

Minister, this is an excessive amount of power that is being

granted to the special officer to arbitrate the such dispute or

difference on his own. This is the amendment on the order

paper; and I so move that we delete subsection (e).

[ Page 1041 ]

Amendment defeated.

Section 114 approved.

Sections 117 to 120 inclusive approved.

section 12 1.

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

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 121 approved with amendment.

section 122.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this

section deals with an

Industrial Inquiry Commission, and again we feel that the power

granted to this commission is more than we can be pleased

with.

In particular, in subsection (7) we feel that all the powers

of the Public Inquiries Act should not be made available to the

Industrial Inquiry Commission set up under

section 122. I would

move the amendment on the order paper to the effect that we

delete subsection (7). That is, as I say, the

section which

says that during its period of appointment the Industrial

Inquiry Commission would have the powers under the Public

Inquiries Act.

We would seek to delete subsection (7).

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to observe that the

powers contained in subsection (7) are the identical powers

which were contained in the previous legislation for an

Industrial Inquiry Commission. While that in itself may not be

justification to take unto itself powers, I do suggest that in

the kind of inquiry that many Industrial Inquiry Commissions

are constituted to serve it is essential to come to grips with

the circumstances on the job, perhaps — circumstances which can

contribute to a confrontation and to a strike, Certainly if the inquiry is commissioned to deal with a

rather inflammatory kind of situation like that, then it's

essential that they have the authority to go on the property to

view the circumstances on the job. It could well be that the

dispute itself is related to safety on the job, or some such

other issue. Certainly we don't want to delay that kind of

inquiry by having the commission run to the courts in order to

obtain permission to exercise its legitimate functions.

Amendment negatived.

Section 122 approved.

Sections 123 to 125 inclusive approved.

section 126.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, under

section 126 the Minister has

the right to enter at any time during regular working hours any

place where work is done by employees or, similarly, any time

during working hours he can enter any place where an employer

carries on business, and he is entitled to inspect anything.

He's entitled to interrogate any person, dealing with any

matter or thing that is taking place or has taken place

concerning any matter referred to under this very, very broad

legislation.

These are extreme powers. They are very strong powers and

they are very obviously labour-weighted powers. I say that

there should be equity and there should be balance. We should

have fairness. If it is quite satisfactory, within the

reasoning behind 126, to enter any place of management, any

place of an employer, certainly it should also be quite

satisfactory to look into the offices of any. trade union.

I would like to point an example to the Hon. Minister in

support of my amendment, which is to include as 126 (

d) the

words: "a trade-union carries on business; or" — and you have a

copy of that amendment filed with you, Mr. Chairman. If, for

example, a trade union fails to maintain or keep proper records

under

section 143, we don't see the powers of the Minister to

go into that office, into that trade union office, and see that

it has complied with the terms of

section 143.

So I am merely saying that there should be a similar right

of entry here into trade union offices as there are provided in

the other subsections under

section 126.

HON. MR. KING: Well, it would appear, Mr. Chairman, that my

friend and I have a basic disagreement. I feel that the labour

code seeks to govern the relationships generally between

employees and their employers. It seeks to set the framework by

which those two parties will negotiate and regulate their

relationship in the factories and the plants of this province.

To suggest that it is equivalent to regulating that

relationship and ensuring that they comply with the laws of

this statute to making internal investigations of a trade union

is, to me, somewhat unrealistic.

I would suggest that that proposition would have as its

equivalent prerequisite the entry, the investigation and the

interrogation of the Employer's Council or the Construction

Labour Relations Association, and so on. In short, I suggest

that these organizations are independent. They are organs that

simply represent the two parties in the regulation of their

business. I don't think the Member's

[ Page 1042 ]

amendment is well-founded.

MR. GARDOM: I would mention in closing, Mr. Chairman, that

it's the Minister's language that is so broad and expansive.

There is a power to inspect any matter or thing that's taking

place or has taken place concerning any matter referred to him

under the Act. He could well have a reference to him under the

Act that a trade union was not maintaining records or books and

not furnishing information to its members as is required to be

furnished by the statute under

section 143; and the Minister's

not giving himself the right to enter and inspect under those

situations of default.

That is the reason for my amendment: to provide the Minister

with equality of approach to trade unions as is given to him

against employers under

section 126.

Amendment negatived.

Section 126 approved, Sections 127 to 132 inclusive approved.

section 133.

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

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 133 approved with amendment.

Sections 134 to 136 inclusive approved.

section 137.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment approved.

Section 137 approved with amendment.

section 138.

MR. GARDOM:

section 138 is the penalty section. It is a

section dealing with fines concerning people who commit

offences against the Act. But the

section as it stands, Mr.

Chairman, does not provide any rights or remedies for

individuals who have suffered loss or default as a result of

illegal strikes or as a result of illegal lockouts.

The amendment standing in my name reads, as adding

section 138 (2): "Every

person who commits an offence under this Act, or the regulations, or refuses

to carry out or observe an order made under this Act, and in so doing causes

special damages to any person who is not a party to a dispute herein shall be

responsible for all such special damages occasioned and proven."

That is the substance of the amendment and it is very clear

the way it stands. It stems, Mr. Chairman, perhaps from the law

of negligence with that long-established principle that one is

not entitled to injure one's neighbour. In the event that one

does cause injury to his neighbour as a result of

an act or

omission, then you are responsible at law for that injury or

that damage.

By virtue of the tremendous interdependency of society

today, we find the general public in the situation where they

can suffer substantial loss and damage resulting from an

illegal strike or an illegal lockout. I fail to see why the

third party should have to sit idly by if the situation of

illegality presents itself and they incur all sorts of

damages.

Just by way of illustration, say the Minister of Transport

and Communications got into a violent argument with the

Minister of Mines and they started to become involved in

fisticuffs. As a result of that, one of them knocked the

Minister of Agriculture out and he lost a tooth. Well, under

those circumstances I don't think it would be unreasonable to

suggest that the Minister of Agriculture would have a remedy

against each of those combatants. As the result of their

illegal act themselves, they caused damage to him. He should be

able to seek remedy and seek rectifications through the

courts.

This is the very same principle that I'm advocating here. If

management and labour through illegal stoppages cause harm to

other people and those people can prove that they have suffered

special damages, they should be entitled to a remedy.

So far we've seen the greatest thrust of this statute has

really been to deny the common law precepts that have existed

for hundreds of years, to deny access to the courts. I feel it

is necessary, as a little bit of counter-balance, to have built

into the legislation a protection for the innocent third party

from illegal strikes and illegal lockouts.

If that innocent third party suffers damage, Mr. Chairman,

he, she or they should be entitled to claim.

Amendment negatived.

Section 138 approved.

section 139.

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

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 139 approved with amendment.

[ Page 1043 ]

Sections 140 to 142 inclusive approved.

section 143.

MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment standing in my name on the

order paper, Mr. Chairman, which provides for better

accountability than the

section we have in front of us from the

government side. The one proposed by myself is very akin and

very parallel to the provisions of the Companies Act, which is

now in force in this province and came in as a result of this

administration's Act. It's contemplated that it will work very

successfully with corporate structures. I do feel that we again

should have some kind of an equality here.

I'd like to inform the Members of the House of the substance

of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, because in hearing it I'm sure

they will all agree — and certainly the Minister — that it

better states accountability than has been proposed by existing

section 143. The amendment reads as follows, Mr. Chairman:

"

(1) Every trade-union and every employers'

organization

shall keep proper accounting records…" — the duty spelled out — "…of

all its transactions, which said records shall be kept at the principal

address of the trade-union and employer organization in the Province of

British Columbia."

I emphasize there that we're stating that these records have got to

be maintained in B.C. and not in Atlanta, Georgia or Columbus, Ohio.

Subsection (2) is very much the same as the government subsection (1):

"Every trade-union and every employers' organization shall

make available, free of charge, to each of its members, before

the first day of June in each year, a copy of the audited

financial statement of its affairs to the end of the last

fiscal year, signed by its president and treasurer or

corresponding principal officers."

Subsection (3):

"No person shall be the auditor of a trade-union or employer

organization if he is not independent of the trade-union and

the employer organization and their respective affiliate

members, officers, and directors."

This provides for the independent auditor which the

government amendment does not do.

Under (4):

"The financial statement shall contain information in

sufficient detail to disclose fairly and accurately the

financial condition and operations of the trade-union or

employers' organization for its preceding fiscal year, and

shall be in accord with generally accepted accounting

principles,"

Subsection (5):

"The board, upon the complaint of any member that the

trade-union or employers' organization has failed to comply

with subsection (2), may make an order requiring the

trade-union or employers' organization to file with the board,

within the time set out in the order, a statement in such form

and with such particulars as the board may determine."

And

finally, subsection (6):

"The board may make an order requiring a trade-union or

employers' organization to furnish a copy of a statement filed under subsection

(5) to such members of the trade-union or employers' organization as the board,

in its discretion, directs, and the trade-union or employers' organization shall

comply with such order according to its terms."

So, I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that within the amendment as proposed we

have a far, far better defined process for accountability. Accountability is

the name of the game with this section. Without any question of a doubt, I consider

this to be an improvement upon the measure suggested by the Minister.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Amendment negatived.

Sections 143 and 144 approved.

section 145.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing on

the order paper in my name, which is to the affect that,

"Every trade-union, employer, and employers' organization

shall maintain a principal address within the Province and

shall file written notice of the same with the board and every

party to a dispute shall in writing notify the minister and the

other party or parties of its principal address in the

Province."

The object of this is that there will be an address

within the Province of British Columbia. This is what we're

talking about, and we don't want to have to find addresses for

unions outside of B.C. for the purposes of this. If it happens

to be an international union, let them maintain a principal

address within the Province of British Columbia.

It provides for legal notice to be effectively handled

within B.C. Your section, as it now stands, does not.

Amendment negatived.

Section 145 approved.

[ Page 1044 ]

section 146.

MR. GARDOM: I'd similarly move the amendment to

section 146.

It is to the effect of deleting the existing

section 146 and

substituting this, Mr. Chairman:

"A document may be served on a trade-union, employer, or

employers' organization

(

a) by leaving it at or mailing it by registered post addressed

to the principal address of the trade-union, employer, or employers' organization;

(

b) by personally serving any officer or director of the trade-union,

employer, or employers' organization."

This again is terminology that is consistent and is parallel

to the Companies Act. I fail to see how the existing 146 came

into being. If the Minister is able to advocate a better reason

for his than for mine, I'd be happy to accept it, but I cannot

see it.

Amendment negatived.

Section 146 to 149 inclusive approved.

section 150.

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

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

section 150 as amended.

MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman, a copy of

which you have; it now stands in my name on the order paper. It

is to renumber sections 150 to 153 and to add a new

section

150:

"

(1) The board may either on its own motion, or with leave

of the board on a motion of any party to any proceedings before

the board, state in the form of a special case for the opinion

of the Supreme Court of British Columbia any question of law

respecting the

interpretation of the Act."

"(2) (

a) The Court of Appeal may set aside an order of the

board or remit matters referred to it to the board for

reconsideration or stay the proceedings before the board on the

following grounds only:

"(

i) That a member of the board misbehaved or was unable

to fulfill his duties properly; or

"(ii) That there was an error of law affecting the

jurisdiction of the board;

" (iii) That there was an error of procedure resulting in

denial of natural justice.

" (

b) An application to set aside an order or stay the proceedings

of the board shall be made within fourteen days next after the order has been

made.

"(

c) The rules governing appeals to the Court of

Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court apply to proceedings under

this section."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment is very,

very obvious. We had some very weak-hearted and weak-sistered

protestations from the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) that the common law of England, from its inception

until 1858, and the common law of Canada, from then until this

day, truly applied to this bill. These prerogative writs which

have emanated from the 13th century on sprung initially from

the curia regis or the King's Council; they are royal

protections from the abuses of power of governing officials. It

would seem, upon a close analysis of the legislation, that

these writs have disappeared for all practical purposes, save

and except one small illustration which the Hon. Minister

brought in by way of amendment.

We have 600 years of precedent with these writs and 600

years of protection applied through thousands, and literally

hundreds of thousands of fact situations in all of the

Commonwealth countries in the world. These writs have been able

to do justice and perform equity and to see that might was not

right. We find these historic protections essentially dashed to

smithereens in this chamber.

Later on, Mr. Chairman, the evolution of the common law

first of all came upon something known as "a writ of error"

which turned into a form of appeal. We also see that that is

emasculated within this bill.

We have heard some very cheerful statements from the Hon.

Attorney General that the rights I'm speaking of continue to be

able to be applied under this statute, but, cheerful though it

may have been, it's nothing more than cheerful nonsense.

We also find that the law of natural justice is certainly

not built into this legislation one bit. There are very strong

statutory shackles in this bill, and the strongest one is under

section 34 which says,

"A decision, order, or ruling of the board…is final

and conclusive, and is not open to question or review in any court, and no proceedings

by or before the board shall be restrained by injunction, prohibition, or any

other process or proceeding in any court, or be removable by certiorari or otherwise

into any court."

Then the Hon. Minister aided and abetted that

section — as sort of an accessory

after the fact — by eliminating any vestige of hope for any degree of protection

for these historic and basic freedoms by bringing in, as his final guillotine,

his amendment to

section 34 where he said, "… the board has exclusive jurisdiction

to decide for all purposes of this Act any

[ Page

1045 ]

question." For all practical purposes he has absolutely closed the doors of

the courts and ended the hopes and the protections that have been offered by

centuries of judicial freedoms under the common law system of jurisprudence.

So there it is, Mr. Chairman: the board is an organization

that has been legislatively spawned in 1973, that is unto

itself for all reasons, without question and without the

ability to be questioned. It has the right to determine as it

may deem fit, and only it, without restraint, without

guidelines and without precedent, save only unto its own

adjudication. It's pretty well a hydra unto itself.

I'm glad I've got the attention of the Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) because I remember the very passioned

speeches he used to give in this House in the field of

workmen's compensation. He made some excellent points indeed,

and I'm glad to see that some of the measures he advocated

during opposition have now come into being. One of the

strongest ones of all was the right of appeal, because he

recognized the capacity of man to err.

But within this government we don't find any right to sue

it, and I find, with their daily dictating, the erosion of

civil liberty in this province. It's very peculiar to me why we

haven't heard a great deal from the civil liberties union; it's

very strange to me why we have not heard a great deal from the

Members of the government side who are officers of the court,

for example, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce (HON. Mr. Lauk) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer), all of whom have claimed to be great civil

libertarians over the years., Their silence is absolutely

deafening now.

I'm making this plea, once again, that the Minister give

thought to the introduction of a safeguard, of a check and of a

balance.

I read this morning, coming over to Victoria, a statement on

the editorial page of The Vancouver Sun written by Dave Ablett.

He was essentially talking about one of the rights to sue the

Crown; I quote what he says:

"So those who argue that a Premier would not place himself above the law and that it cannot happen

here are correct. A Premier, acting as Premier, cannot place

himself above the law because the law itself allows him to

remain beyond legal challenge. There are few greater

powers.

"'This is all more than vaguely disquieting.

"If we have a system of law that will allow a head of government to do legally what we consider, in another

system, to be contrary to democratic ideas, is not this part of our system, in itself,

contrary to democratic ideas?

"And does it not also raise a question as to whether we,

indeed, live under a rule of law? Is it not fair to say that when one man, a

Premier, can determine that the legality of his actions will or will not be

tested in court, then it is that man — and not the law — that determines whether justice

is done?"

We can apply that, of course, to the fact that within the

Province of British Columbia there is no right today — and the

word is right; this is not privilege — there is no right to the

citizen to take action against his government. In this bill you

have given almighty, earthly power unto this board, and still

we find citizens who cannot go to any source whatsoever but the

person who first was the judge and the jury; they have to go to

them for appeals.

We cannot sue the Crown in B.C.; we don't have that check

and balance. Surely it's not an unreasonable thing to suggest

that the check and balance of a right to proceed to appeal

should be enshrined within this legislation as opposed to being

emasculated from it.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the

premise that was raised by one or two government Members. I

think the Minister, when he got into a heated debate under Bill 11, once said that we're trying to go ahead and have our

labour-management relations back in front of the courts. That's

not the substance of the argument one bit. We're attempting to

provide safeguards from human error. This is the way to do it;

you have provided none.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This amendment is fairly important to us

in this party. It has been explained extremely well by my hon.

friend for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

We see in this amendment the word "may." It's not a question

of the board having things forced down its throat; it's the

board "may either on its own motion, or with leave of the board

on a motion of any party…." The board is being asked that

where it has perhaps misbehaved, where there is an error of law, an error of procedure, it shall be possible to have appeal

to the courts.

It's not a question of appealing to the courts on whether or

not the board made a correct judgment in accordance with the

facts before it, We're not asking them to appeal on the grounds

that the judges in the court may have a different opinion from

the members of the board; it's not that type of appeal at all.

It is a very specific appeal, and in my mind it is critical to

the continued system of democracy as we know it — the Canadian

system of law — that appeal be permitted. Appeal here is for

excessive powers and it is an appeal which I think we certainly

should introduce into the legislation.

The amendment to

section 34 of the Minister's that was

mentioned was passed quickly; we'd had our major discussion

before that about appeal on

section

[ Page 1046 ]

31. But I do feel that this amendment here, which

specifically sets out the type of appeal in a very limited

form — the type of appeal the Attorney General talked about as

though it was implicit in the Act, which to my mind is not — is

really critical to the proper functioning of legislation in

this province.

We have no separation of powers in this province,

legislative and executive; none in the British parliamentary

system. We've seen virtually no desire, with the possible

exception of two Members, one from Richmond and one from North

Vancouver–Capilano, to vote against the executive on any issue.

The Legislature, to be realistic, in the present situation

affords absolutely no check whatsoever on the executive, none

whatsoever. It may in the future, when the backbench realizes

that they have been asked to erode some very time-hallowed

traditions of our system, but at the moment it doesn't. We have

no way of checking in that regard.

We've seen the American example over the last few months

where appeal through the courts and a separate legislative and

a strongly functioning legislative branch effectively prevented

executive abuse. We have seen these things and yet we are here

asked to grant powers which are just staggering in bill after

bill after bill. We in this party regard the amendment of the

Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) as absolutely

vital.

I mentioned earlier today, Mr. Chairman, when questioning

the Minister, an advertisement which led one to believe,

correctly — I have checked it out since — that pay for men and

women would be different. I then found out that the reason for

this — which made things twice as bad — was, as the Provincial

Secretary explained, that women wouldn't be allowed to do

certain jobs and men wouldn't be allowed to do other jobs. In

addition to pay differential and pay discrimination we had job

discrimination. The Minister's reply to me was, "Well, go and

see the director of Human Rights." But there's no way in this

province that this type of legislation can be applied against

Crown agencies or, indeed, to the Crown or Crown corporations

in so many instances.

If we turn back, at this stage, the modest amendment of the

Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, we would be doing a

tremendous disservice, in my view, to our public and to us in

our role as legislators. We simply wouldn't be acting

responsibly and in accordance with our oath of office.

Mr. Chairman, the minor amendment here, carefully thought out and carefully

worded, would in no way send questions which are properly before the board to

an appeal court for reconsideration of questions of fact. It would only be in

the case of misbehavior, error of law, error of procedure and denial of natural

justice. Under those circumstances, I find it impossible to believe that the

legislative branch, the Members of this House, would fail to accept such an

amendment.

Examples are legion; examples south of the line are just as

obvious as can be about the need for protecting the rights of

courts under certain limited circumstances. If there is any

criticism of this amendment, my only criticism would be that my

hon. friend has simply not gone far enough and that the right

of appeal should have been extended. Given the modesty of the

amendment, I just fail to see how we can fail to accept it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to support this amendment. We are

seeing in this country today a proliferation of administrative

tribunals and of individuals and groups of individuals

established under legislative authority, too often under the

authority of the executive of our government in this province

or the other provinces of Canada — in fact the national

government as well. When we find, as we do in this bill, that

the wide-ranging, all-powerful authorities of these

administrative tribunals are beyond the review of the courts of

the land, then we must have the gravest of concern.

It is easy to suggest that somehow or other the courts

interfere with the smooth and expeditious working of

relationships between individuals or groups of society, and

this is given as an excuse for this kind of legislation without

any of these safeguards. But consider, Mr. Chairman, what the

courts were established to do. The courts were established to

regulate the interrelationship between citizens, and they have

that full responsibility. Yet when we come to deal with a

matter of this kind, when we find that labour unions,

employers' organizations and, indeed, individual employers and

individual employees under the most difficult circumstances are

thrust into opposition one with the other, and very serious

problems are raised for determination, those citizens,

employers and employees, are denied the right of access to the

courts.

It is unthinkable to me that this government would permit

this to happen. It is even more unthinkable when you consider

the refusal of the government to accept amendments similar to

this earlier in the legislation as being undeniably the result

of the refusal of this government to allow this particular

board — as I said before, an arm of the executive of this

government — to be challenged in any way. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is all-powerful; there is no

question. Yet they wish to clothe these 10 or more men or women

forming the Labour Relations Board with similar infallibility,

similar omnipotence and the absolute, unfettered, uncontrolled

right to deal with the rights of men and women and groups of

men and women in our province.

[ Page 1047 ]

It's not a matter of whether or not we stand for the courts,

as opposed to any other group in the resolution of disputes.

Great opportunities are given in this legislation for the

resolution of differences by arbitration by arbitrators or

arbitration boards, or by the use of special officers.

Certainly there is a wide-ranging right of review given to a

labour ombudsman. But, Mr. Chairman, when it comes right down

to the final crunch between the individuals involved in these

matters, they are denied access to the courts. It is

retrogressive; it is anti-democratic. I support the amendment

and I urge all Members to do likewise.

HON. MR. KING: There were some rather exaggerated statements

made, I feel, by the three Liberal Members in describing the

powers of the Labour Relations Board. Really we have basically

had this discussion a number of times in respect to different

provisions in the legislation.

I would point out again that this is an administrative

agency. It is not an executive branch of the government; it is

a quasi-judicial agency.

MR. GARDOM: Can't they make mistakes?

HON. MR. KING: Certainly they can make mistakes, in the same

way that the Workmen's Compensation Board makes mistakes. I

don't think the Hon. Member would suggest that the funds that

are developed and earmarked for the prevention of industrial

accidents and the rehabilitation of injured workers should be

used up in litigation in the courts.

MR. GARDOM: But that's not the point.

HON. MR. KING: Nor do I think that in these circumstances

the important question of industrial relations should be

frequently appealed to the courts on various points of law

simply to open the door to the question and the adjudication of

industrial relations matters in the courts, which has proved

not to be the most appropriate agency for dealing with this

question.

In terms of the powers of the board, I would suggest that

the Legislature certainly sits every year. Any question or

inference of unbridled powers without checks and balances are

always subject to review in this Legislature, which is the

highest law-making agency in the land. If any of the grave

concerns of Members on that side of the House, who are

incidentally all members of the legal profession, prove to

become a reality and if they can come before this Legislature

and demonstrate a factual case for any of the hypothetical

concerns they state, then we can certainly change and amend and

reduce the powers of the Labour Relations Board.

I feel that there are adequate checks and balances.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, we have for the first time

in the Province of British Columbia an ombudsman who will have

powers to focus the attention of public opinion on any abuse of

the individual liberties of anyone involved in industrial

relations. This is a new check and balance, and I think it is

adequate to ensure that the interests and the rights of the

parties are protected.

We had a debate, particularly from the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), on the question of natural

justice. He rather stubbornly refuses to accept either the

Attorney General's position and advice or the position that I

have put forward on the basis of the best legal advice I could

obtain that the course of natural justice is, indeed, open to

the parties at all times.

We have had this debate before and I certainly don't intend

to get into a prolonged debate on it. We do appear to have a

difference of opinion. Be that as it may, I suggest that when

the vote comes that division will be revealed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, just one point to the

Minister. For 20 years we had the Legislature; for 20 years

we've had public opinion; for 20 years we've had the checks and

balances that he was talking about. Am I to sit here and listen

to him say all that was perfectly adequate and that really

during that period there was no need for legislative protection

of the citizen? If that is the case, there is no way we could

possibly support this bill.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

NAYS — 32

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Hartley

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

[ Page 1048 ]

PAIRED

Curtis

Barnes

Gabelmann

McGeer

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, when you make your report to the

Speaker it would be much appreciated if you would inform him of

the division that occasioned in committee. I would ask leave

that it be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Section 150 approved with amendment.

Section 151 approved.

section 152.

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

name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 152 approved with amendment.

Section 153 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Labour Code of British Columbia Act , reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports that divisions took

place in committee on amendments to sections 85, 88 and 152.

and asks leave that these divisions be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

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

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 approved with amendment.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 40,

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act , reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

SERVICES AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 39,

An Act to Amend the Department of Health Services

and Hospital Insurance Act , reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 43, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE HUMAN TISSUE GIFT ACT

[ Page 1049 ]

The House in committee on Bill 43; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 43,

An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Second reading of Bill 81, Mr.

Speaker.

MEDICAL CENTRE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to open debate on second reading of Bill 81, Medical

Centre of British Columbia Act, I'd just like to say what the purposes of the

Act are.

The purposes of the Act are to actually create a body known

as the B.C. Medical Centre. I think that probably I've

discussed to some degree here and to some degree prior to this

sitting — or that is, prior to this session of parliament — many of the reasons for setting up this body.

The reason that we mainly felt it to be absolutely essential

was that the health services as they relate to education were

having a great deal of difficulty. The health services, as they

relate to tertiary care, were having a great deal of

difficulty, and we just knew of no other way than to tie the

services together under an umbrella organizati