1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 553 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

On the motion of the Honourable C.M. Shelford, Bill (No. 39), intituled Synthetic Food Products Act.

On the motion of the Honourable L.R. Peterson, Bill (No. 36), intituled

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, Motion 14 on the Order Paper.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Order, I would like to refer to

section 27, page 8, Standing Orders (interruption).

Mr. Speaker, there was no agreement last night. I asked what the House

leader had in mind for today. He had not, then, made up his mind as

what was on for today. There was no agreement existing whatsoever. I

refer, on a Point of Order, the Speaker to page 8, order 27,

section 1.

This being Private Members' Day, Motion 14 does not have precedence, in

my opinion, over the other motions on the Order Paper,

MR. SPEAKER: The House passed, on the opening of the Budget

Address, or the day prior to the Budget Address, a motion which

requires the House to go into Committee of Supply at the opening of the

sitting; otherwise, it will require leave to move over the Committee of

Supply.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

The committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I call now for Motion 14 on the Order Paper.

MR. BARRETT: Point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well.

MR. BARRETT: I refer to page 8,

section 27, number 1 of

Standing Orders, subsection 2, that Government business has precedence

every day, except Wednesday and Thursday, which is Private Members'

Day. The Premier, in my opinion, would have to ask unanimous leave of

the House to call the motion before the other motions on the Order

Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter was called to my attention prior to

the sitting. In the very brief time that I have had to look into the

matter, I find a ruling by Mr. Speaker Irwin, in 1956, which appears on

page 131 on the Journals of that year, which very briefly

states that, whenever Government business has precedence, Government

orders may be called in such sequence as the Government may deem fit,

and the right is reserved to the administration of placing Government

orders at the head of the list on every day, except Wednesday and

Thursday, today being Wednesday. From the foregoing, you will

appreciate that any departure from the order of business set out in

Standing Order 25, previously mentioned, can only take place on a

motion to suspend the appropriate Standing Order and such motion being

a substantive motion requires due notice or the unanimous consent of

the House before it can be made without notice. However, the Speaker

goes on to say that, "The rigidity of this rule is relaxed by Standing

Order 48, under which a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day (as

opposed to routine proceedings) may be made without notice, " Journals,

page 131, 1956. It would, therefore, appear that if the Government

wishes to move to Motion 14, it would be neccessary for a motion

without notice to be made that we may do so. The Honourable the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: In speaking in opposition to that motion, I

don't know the exact wording of the motion. I imagine it would be

submitted in writing to the House. I'd like to see the motion we are

debating, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Since no notice was indicated, when we are

moving to Orders of the Day, I should think that this would be

acceptable, as has been the case in the past, by a verbal motion. This

has been done on many occasions.

MR. BARRETT: May I have the wording of the motion verbally, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The wording of the motion is that the House proceed to Motion 14 on the Order Paper.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. In opposing this Motion, Mr. Speaker,

I think that we are in danger of eroding the practices and the

procedures of this House that we have established over many, many years

of trial and error in the parliamentary system. There are only two days

of the week that are Private Members' Days, those days being Wednesday

and Thursday. It has not been the practice, unfortunately, of this

House that those days have been set aside regularly for private

members. As the result, there are a number of motions already on the

Order Paper and there are also private bills on the Order Paper, by

private Members, that haven't yet been called.

Mr. Speaker, the amount of time involved by the Government, if it

wishes to proceed to Motion 14, would be nothing more than allowing the

mover of the motion to stand up and make his statement on the motion in

a democratic fashion. If the Government then wished to adjourn the

motion it could have a backbencher or a Cabinet Minister stand up and

adjourn that particular motion and work orderly, in precedent and,

under the rules, down to Motion 14. It would not unnecessarily delay

the House. It would not cause any undue delay in debating 14, because

14 could have been called yesterday, if the Government had felt that

the emergency was so great. What is at stake, here, Mr. Speaker, is

simply the precedent of running over the established procedure to

protect the rights of the private Members. There are only three motions

prior to 14 and it is very, very easy, under the existing orders,

without supporting this motion, to get to Motion 14 and still protect

the rights of the private Members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion. I do so because of the precedent of the House. I do so because of the precedent of

[ Page 554 ]

the British Parliamentary system, which, in my

opinion, Mr. Speaker, has not and should never, by this sort of motion,

overrule the rights of private Members of this House. By overruling the

other motions that sit on our Order Paper, the Leader of the House is

suggesting that his motion, which happens to be 14, is of more import

to this House than the other motions that now sit on the Order Paper. I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is open to considerable debate, when

you consider the nature of Motion 7, which has precedence on theOrders of the Day .

Motion 7 deals with the entire future of this Province and the entire

future of the ecology of this Province. I suggest that, under no logic,

could the Premier, who has moved this motion, suggest that his motion

should take precedence on the basis of implication of import to this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion, I also draw to your

attention, as I have just now looked at Rule 48, that it says, too, "No

notice is necessary of a motion to proceed to theOrders of the Day ."

That is not the motion we are considering. The motion we are

considering at the moment is to proceed to a specific part of theOrders

of the Day

. I would ask your consideration of that. I can appreciate that 48 says

that the Government can introduce a motion to go to Orders of the Day,

but we are not doing that. We are going to a specific part of theOrders

of the Day and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable Members allow me just a moment, please?

The motion, in effect, suspends our Standing Orders and, Standing

Order 48, by implication, indicates that, if we are going to suspend

the rules in order to get into private bills, notice would be required.

So, by implication, it would appear that, if we were going anywhere

else, no notice would be required. Reading that, together with Mr.

Speaker Irwin's ruling, I would rule that the motion is in order and is

indeed debatable, without notice. The Honourable Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): I point out that you have

to read that in the light of the clear statements in Standing Order 27

(2), "…whenever Government business has precedence." Now, of course,

today, it hasn't. Government orders may be called in such sequence as a

Government may think fit. In other words, on those days the Government

may set the Order of precedence of Government motions. But this is not

one of those days. This is Private Members' Day and the right is

reserved to the administration of placing Government orders ahead of

the list on every day, except Wednesday and Thursday.

Now, the order of business the Honourable the Premier seeks to get

to is Motion 14. It is my submission that we should have a motion to go

to Orders of the Day and suspend the rules, in effect, under Standing

Order 48. That's what we are debating really is Standing Order 48 to go

to theOrders of the Day . Now, if we do that, we can do it by motion

but I still say, because it happens to be Wednesday, the Government

doesn't have precedence on Wednesdays on selection of the particular

items on the Order Paper under Standing Orders on motions. Therefore,

we would have to go to the motions as they are, as they occur on the

Order Paper and certainly private Members' motions are first on the

Order Paper. You would have to go through them to get to Motion 14,

which this side of the House, perhaps, would be only too agreeable to

do.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to express the appreciation of the Chair

for the assistance that has been provided by the Honourable Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds. I would point out, however, that his case rests on the

presumption that the matter of motions is Government business, which,

in reality, it is not. Government business would be public orders and

bills rather than motions and adjourned debates on motions. So, we're

not really discussing the priority of Government business or the fact

that it is Private Members' Day today. We're trying to ensure that a

motion made, after having got into theOrders of the Day , to proceed to

a certain motion, under "Adjourned Debate on Motions" and motions

themselves is in order. This is the motion that's before the House.

Under these circumstances, I cannot sustain the viewpoint that is put

forward by the learned Member. I do believe that the motion that is

before the House at the moment is in order.

MR. DOWDING: We have always had in this House, as long as I

can remember, the courtesy of calling motions in order. You don't go

jumping all around.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

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

do not rise to challenge your ruling that the motion which is before us

is one which is proper and without notice and debatable. That's the

motion that we proceed to theOrders of the Day. What you're….

MR. SPEAKER: This is not the motion that's before the House, with respect.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I could see…if it were written, we could see it. Perhaps, we could debate….

MR. SPEAKER: It is not usual to write the motion into the order of business.

MR. WILLIAMS: If it were a question, Mr. Speaker, to proceed

to a particular motion on the Order Paper ahead of any others, I would

refer you, Mr. Speaker, to 27 (1) which is quite specific — that all

items standing on Orders of the Day shall be taken up according to the

precedence assigned to each on the Order Paper. Now, there is in

brackets, the words, "except Government orders" and you, Sir, have just

now said, that "Government orders" refers to bills, not to motions.

Therefore, the motion, which the Honourable the Premier is attempting

to have brought before the House, now, is not a Government order in

view of the ruling you have just made — because it isn't a bill. We

are, then, thrust to the words of 27 (1) which says that all items

standing on the Orders shall be taken according to the precedence

assigned to each upon the Order Paper. We are bound, therefore, to take

the order that's on the Paper and the motion to which he wishes to

proceed is fourth in precedence.

MR. SPEAKER: The learned Member may have overlooked reading Standing Order 48.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I may respond, I have not overlooked 48, Mr.

Speaker, which only means that to proceed without notice is to proceed

to Orders of the Day. I will admit that

[ Page 555 ]

without notice we may go to Orders of the Day.

That's where we are right now. The question under debate is whether

Motion 14, which you, Mr. Speaker, have said is not a Government order,

is entitled to precedence. There is nothing in 48 which takes away the

specific precedence which is granted by 27 (1).

MR. SPEAKER: That was not the view of Mr. Speaker Irwin, in

1956. It is not my view today. I do declare that the motion that is

before the House dealing with Standing Order 14 is in order and I think

we have dealt with the Point of Order in some depth. I must now rule

that the motion is in order. Any further discussion, then, should be on

the motion itself.

The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, I wish to challenge your ruling.

Upon appeal to the House, the Speaker's ruling was sustained.

AN HON. MEMBER: …challenged?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the ruling was challenged. There was no division. The Honourable Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I want to speak to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The division has been called. There can be no debate.

MR. MACDONALD: I thought it was on a Point of Order, surely.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Let me clarify the

situation. The Speaker made a ruling that the motion before the House

was in order. That ruling was challenged by the Honourable Member for

North Vancouver–Seymour, upon which challenge the House did not divide.

Subsequently, the motion is now before the House, upon which the House

is now dividing, that the House proceed to Motion 14 on the Order

Paper. This is the position that we are in, is it understood?

The House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Messieurs

Wallace

Tisdalle

Wolfe

Ney

Bruch

Smith

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Kripps, Mrs.

Jordan, Mrs.

Capozzi

Mussallem

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Price

Kiernan

Chant

Vogel

Williston

Loffmark

LeCours

Bennett

Campbell, D.R.J.

Chabot

Peterson

Brothers

Little

Fraser

Shelford

Jefcoat

Campbell, B.

Richter

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

Williams, L.A.

Barrett

Lorimer

Macdonald

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

PAIR:

Messieurs

Merilees

McGeer

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Labour.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Vancouver Burrard, Motion 14, which reads as follows:

Whereas it is predictable that a work stoppage in the transportation

industry in the current dispute between certain trucking firms and the

General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 31 will not only

interfere with the freedom and rights of many of the people of British

Columbia to carry on their lawful and chosen activities but will also

discourage and divert investments in industrial undertakings within

British Columbia and adversely affect the economy and welfare of its

citizens:

And

whereas it is expected that the parties engaged in the dispute will respect and observe the laws of the Province:

This House recommends that, in order to protect the public interest

and welfare the work stoppage resulting from the dispute between

certain employers in the transportation industry and the General Truck

Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 31 shall immediately cease, and that

the normal operations of those employers shall be resumed forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Would the Honourable the Minister of Labour be seated? The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my Point of Order is that, in my

opinion, the motion is out of Order, as it is a motion that has two

"whereas's" which give assertions rather than statements of fact. There

is an assertion and, according to the rules of this House….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable Member be good enough to quote the rule.

MR. DOWDING: It has been ruled many times, Mr. Speaker, that no

preambles are permitted.

MR. PETERSON: …to debate the recitals as well as the operative part of the motion, Mr. Speaker, and… (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The honourable Member has

had an opportunity to present his Point of Order. Surely, the

Attorney-General has a similar right.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is common in motions to have recitals to express the intent of the resolution and the

[ Page 556 ]

reasons for the resolution. If they find them

objectionable, they are subject to amendment, in the same way that the

other part of the motion is or, indeed, they are not compelled to vote

in support of the motion. I suggest that the recitals and the operative

part of the motion can all be taken into consideration during the

course of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: There was a period, when they started using

preambles in this House, that they were ruled out of order by Mr.

Speaker Irwin and they were ruled out by previous Speakers. Starting

back in the 1930's, they were ruled out of order and we've never done

it since. The idea is really strange that we are expected to buy

assertions in "whereas" clauses that may or may not be true. The

Honourable the Attorney-General cannot possibly in this House, in this

debate, back up such assertions as he makes in those

preamble clauses.

That's why the Speakers have always ruled them out (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is some doubt in my mind,

that has been raised by the Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds and I

think that there is substance to what he has had to say in connection

with the

preambles to motions placed before this House. I haven't the

Speakers' Decisions before us and, if the House has no objection, I

would say that we proceed with the substantive part of the motion and

that I would bring in a ruling at a later time for the future guidance

of the House. I have no….

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would be agreeable to have only the operative part of the motion and to not debate the recitals at this stage.

MR. SPEAKER: I would recommend the House adopt that practice under the circumstances. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is there permission from the seconder to delete the two clauses?

Do you agree to delete the first two clauses, Mr. Member? Yes? Well,

I just wanted to make sure that the seconder agreed. If it's agreed

with the seconder, we accept that. We are debating, now, the last

paragraph in the amendment, which is in order. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Labour.

MR. PETERSON: May I now proceed to indicate why this motion

is before the House and the argument in support of it? Under the

provisions of the Mediation Commission Act,

it is the prerogative and it is the responsibility of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council to determine when it is necessary to

intervene in a strike or lockout, or an anticipated strike or lockout,

in order to protect the public interest and welfare and to bring such a

dispute to an end.

The primary purpose, as honourable Members who were here when that

particular bill was presented to the House will recall…the primary

purpose of that legislation in giving to the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council that authority was to prevent any unnecessary delays, to

prevent the expense of calling a special Session of the Legislature;

however, when the Legislature is in Session, it is the policy, and I

trust will continue to always be policy, that it will be the

Legislature that is called upon to make that determination. That's why

this motion is before the Legislature today. That's why the operative

part of the motion is sufficient to indicate the intention of the

Legislature as to whether or not the Government should intervene to

bring this dispute in the transportation industry to an end.

I have some argument to advance to the House, which is a normal

procedure on motions. I think, Mr. Speaker, in support of the motion, I

do want to refer to the transportation industry, generally, first of

all. I think that we have to acknowledge that the transportation of

merchandise, of supplies, the transportation of equipment, as well, is

the lifeblood of commerce in this Province. It is an important economic

activity in itself. More important, yet, is the link that it provides

between production, on the one hand, and the distribution and

consumption of goods and services, on the other hand. In this overall

operation, the trucking industry does perform a very vital function in

the overall transportation system. It is essential, of course, to our

export trade, and I would ask the honourable Members to remember that

Canada and, in particular, British Columbia are primarily export

Nations. We rely very heavily on foreign trade and the trucking

industry is an essential operation insofar as the continuation of our

export market is concerned. Therefore, when transportation services are

withdrawn, other economic processes are inevitably curtailed to the

detriment of our total economy.

The work stoppage in this industry commenced on Friday, just a few days ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean the lockout commenced on Friday.

MR. PETERSON: Well, there was an initial small strike. The

reason I am referring to it as a Work stoppage, Mr. Speaker, is very

simple, because there is both a strike and a lockout. The strike was

initial, but the lockout is the much greater problem because that

affects many more employees and many more employers — the lockout of

the Teamsters' Union. I think because…I'm sure the Members understand

a strike against an individual employer and then a lockout against the

whole industry by the employers, that the fairest way of referring to

it, as I have in this resolution, is to a "work stoppage."

It's already being felt, Mr. Speaker, even in these few days. I

would suggest it is a far more serious dispute than the transit

dispute, that we've just come through. More serious because, on the one

hand, the transit dispute was confined to two centres in the Province — Vancouver and Victoria — and, also, in that particular dispute it was

possible and many did find alternate means of transportation. Earlier

in this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, we commented on and commended the public

for the way they responded in that particular dispute in helping others

and providing transportation. But this is not the situation in this

trucking industry lockout and strike situation.

The construction industry, in particular, and I would ask the

Members to recall this industry was shut down for a long period of

time, just a short while ago…I would ask the Members to remember, as

well, that it is this construction industry that we are relying on, to

a large extent today in terms of providing new jobs for people. The

impact of this trucking dispute work stoppage is being felt in the

construction industry today. I am advised that there has been some

[ Page 557 ]

shut-down of deliveries to construction sites. It

is always difficult, and I found it extremely difficult this summer, to

determine how extensive the shut-down is. Nevertheless, I am advised

that prestressed concrete beam deliveries, for example, are completely

shut down and structural steel and reinforced steel deliveries are 80

per cent shut down at this particular time. The indications are that

many major construction projects will be completely shut down within

two weeks. On the other side, of course, in terms of deliveries to

railways and to the docks, these also are affected. I understand that

deliveries to and from docks have been estimated as high as 85 per cent

shut down.

This is just the beginning of this particular work stoppage. It only

started on Friday, Mr. Speaker. There can be no question that the

continuation of the dispute would be contrary, in my submission, to the

public interest and welfare. It is predictable that the work stoppage

will adversely affect the economy and welfare of the citizens of this

Province. In other words, we know it's going to happen. Anyone with any

common sense can see what's happening. What should we do? Sit back and

wait for the damage to be done? Or should we move now? That's the

question and that's the issue.

It's not an easy question. I'll be the first to concede that. It's

not easy to determine precisely when intervention should be made in a

dispute of this nature, remembering that, by that intervention, we

bring to an end the lockout, we deprive the right of the employers to

continue the lockout, we deprive the right of the employees to continue

their strike. So it is not an easy question to be put to the Members of

this Legislature, or to anyone, for that matter. I suggest that there

are circumstances where intervention is preferable to the consequences

of continuing a work stoppage. I suggest that this is one such case. I

propose to offer further reasons in this respect.

I want to say, as well, that I personally regret the necessity of

intervention in this case because it has been my experience over the

years while I have been Minister of Labour, that the particular union

that's involved in this dispute has been a very responsible union. It

is a union that has enjoyed a very able leadership, Mr. Speaker, and I

think, too, it would be safe to say that it has provided leadership as

well to the rest of organized labour, in times when leadership was

thoroughly needed. So, Mr. Speaker, this union, I suggest, has an

excellent reputation and has done much to improve the reputation of

organized labour as a whole in the Province of British Columbia. But,

notwithstanding this record, I do suggest to the Members that each case

and each dispute has to be considered on its own merits. I told Senator

Lawson, as I tell you, in my opinion, the timing of the shut-down in

the trucking industry couldn't be any worse than it is today. If we

allow the dispute to continue then we would be imposing an intolerable

burden on the economy of the Province, and I am going to tell you why,

in my opinion, that is so.

Currently, we have unemployment levels in the neighbourhood of

80,000 people. There has been a lot of talk, and quite rightly so,

about the number one problem — unemployment — how to create jobs for

the people of the Province of British Columbia. I ask the Members to

bear in mind, as well, that of these 80,000 people, many of them have

been out of work for a considerable period of time. Now, we are

approaching the period, and this is normal as we move into the second

quarter…it is normal for the economy to pick up for greater economic

activity, for more jobs to be created. At this particular time I

suggest that we cannot afford a disruption of the kind that is

inevitable with a work stoppage in the transportation industry. It not

only affects the industry directly and those employed in the

transportation industry, but it affects many other industries in the

Province. It would, I suggest, effectively suspend the anticipated

improvement in economy that I referred to, as well as add a crippling

blow to those who are now looking for employment, especially when we

rely on the construction industry so heavily for employment.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the results and they must be very fresh in

our memory. The results of strikes in the towboat industry,

longshoring, Post Office, all facets of communication and all important

features of dependable trade with other countries. I suggest to the

Members that we can't, on the one hand, condemn, as Members of all

Parties have done, the delays on the part of the Federal Government in

dealing with these disputes, when these disputes came under their

jurisdiction, if we are not prepared to act now when there is a dispute

affecting the transportation system that comes under Provincial

jurisdiction. I think, as I indicated in an earlier address, that we

have to bear in mind that, if we are going to establish a reputation in

the world as efficient and dependable suppliers of goods, if we're

going to improve the prosperity, in other words, of our people, and

create jobs then we must ensure that production or delivery is not

seriously delayed through work stoppages. That is the purpose of the

motion.

Apparently the only issue that has brought about this dispute is

whether a "struck goods" clause is to be included in the new agreement.

This is a clause under which union members would have the right to

refuse to handle the products shipped by an employer involved in a

strike — as to whether that should be included in the collective

agreement in place of a provision which is presently in the agreement,

that is, the expired agreement, which permits the union members to

refuse to cross picket lines set up by another union. That is the issue

that brought this work stoppage into being in the first place. I take

this position that this issue, this change in principle, is certainly

not of sufficient importance to the people of British Columbia to

justify the adverse effect of a continuation of the work stoppage and

the adverse effect that stoppage would have on the economic life of

this Province. It is as simple as that.

I suggest that these are factors that have to be taken into

consideration as to why we should be moving, at this particular time,

to bring an end to this dispute.

What would follow the passage of this resolution? I want the Members

to clearly understand the situation as to the procedures I would

propose, assuming that this motion meets with the approval of the

Assembly. First of all, if the motion were passed, Mr. Speaker, then I

would recommend to the Executive Council that the dispute be referred

to the Mediation Commission for a binding award. This reference is

necessary if we are to accomplish the object of the motion which is,

namely, the resumption of the normal operations of the trucking

industry. But before I would be prepared to make that recommendation to

Executive Council, notwithstanding the passage of this resolution,

before we'd pass the necessary Order-in-Council, I would want assurance

from the employers that they are prepared to pay the new rates of pay

that were the subject of tentative agreement between the parties. In

other words, we don't want the workers to be prejudiced by returning to

work at lower rates than those which have been agreed to on a tentative

basis.

[ Page 558 ]

Once operations… (interruption).

That's right — Tentatively. Once a strike or work stoppage takes

place it's possible for everything to come into dispute again. It

certainly is possible, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. That's been my

experience. I hope it's not so. But, in any event, unless this took

place, they would go back, not at their agreed rates of pay, they'd go

back at the old rates of pay and the old agreement. That's what we

don't want. That's why I'm making this submission. Once operations do

resume, I also want to make it clear that I hope it will not be

necessary for the Mediation Commission to commence hearings. Should it

be necessary, in other words, to pass the Order-in-Council, thereby

bringing an end to the lockout and strike, I want it to be very clear

that there will still be sufficient time given to the parties to

negotiate, to resolve their own differences. Admittedly they haven't

been successful up to this time, through the negotiations, in resolving

the issues in dispute. But, on many occasions when that has happened,

when the work stoppage is intervened, it still is possible to go back

and through negotiations, resolve the dispute. That's item number one

that we would ask the parties to do and not have the Mediation

Commission jump in immediately and hold hearings.

Secondly, assuming that they are not able to agree to negotiations,

to discussions and bargainings on their own, then I would suggest to

the parties that they consider the possibility of agreeing upon an

alternative procedure — to hearings before the Mediation Commission. In

other words, they may agree to have their dispute settled by a single

arbitrator, especially, if they agree upon only one issue in dispute — and a technical one, I suggest, as to a "struck goods" clause compared

to the "hot goods" or refusal to cross picket lines. This is the type

of thing that could well be considered by some expert who they could

find as a single arbitrator. They may indeed want to agree upon a

three-man board. In other words, we would not want to impose upon the

parties any particular procedures to settle the dispute. There is a

procedure there, should they not be able to agree, themselves, through

negotiations, or through alternate procedures, then, I suggest, there

must be, when we compel them to return to work, there must be some

alternate procedure provided and that would be provided through the

Order-in-Council. Our concern, Mr. Speaker, is simply this — that the

matters in dispute be resolved within the confines of an operating

transportation system rather than a shut-down system for this one issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: First of all, I'd like to express the opinion

that the Attorney-General is making a mistake with this motion. Without

going into too many details of that, and I will comment on that

further, I'd like to point out to the Attorney-General that he's done

very little research on the motion to begin with. First of all, we

found it necessary to delete the two clauses beginning with "whereas."

Now that we debate the last, I'd like to point out to the

Attorney-General that, even if this motion passes, even if this motion

goes to the Cabinet, and even if an Order-in-Council is passed on this

motion, the dispute will continue. You have not researched the dispute

enough to find out, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is more than

one local of the union involved. The motion itself, even though it

passes, becomes a fruitless motion that does not serve to solve any

problem at all simply by the lack of basic research on what the dispute

is, who it involves, and where it's going.

I'd like to point out to the Attorney-General that his wording

states here, "This House recommends that in order to protect the public

interest and welfare the work stoppage resulting from the dispute

between certain employers in the transportation industry and the

General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 31 shall immediately

cease… " When the First Member from Vancouver East brought to the

Attorney-General's attention, when he said it was a work stoppage, the

First Member interjected your remarks and said to you that it was a

lockout, and you said, "No, it dealt two ways. It was a lockout and a

strike." But the Attorney-General either has been misinformed or is

ignorant of the facts. Local 31 is indeed on strike against one

operation and that is named here in this motion. But Locals 181 and

213, which are not named in this motion, are locked out. The motion, as

it is worded now is directly aimed, not at the employers who have

locked out the men, but has picked on only the men who have chosen,

through democratic rights, to go on strike. It shows the haste, it

shows the lack of information and it shows the lack of understanding of

what this dispute is all about. The tragedy, too, of the wording, Mr.

Speaker, is that it gives weight to the accusation by the leader of

that union, Senator Lawson, that the motion was inspired, not by the

Department of Labour as he has accused, but by the employers

themselves. If Mr. Lawson wanted evidence to that accusation, which I

make no comment on, if he wanted evidence to that accusation, all he

would have to do is read the wording of the motion and find that it is

not an attempt to solve the work stoppage, it is an attempt to stop a

strike of one local against one employer. That makes patently

incorrect, and I might suggest, false, the Government's argument that

they are indeed moving to resolve this problem on behalf of the people

of British Columbia. Even if this motion passes, the lockout can

continue legally — can continue legally because neither Local 181 or

213, which are the locals involved in the lockout, are named in this

motion. Unless the Attorney-General… (interruption).

It is too late. You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of

correction. That is the kind of correction we receive after the debate

has started. It is an admission that there has not been a research of

facts in this case at all. It is an admission by the Attorney-General

that even though the plausibility of this argument being heard in this

Chamber is one advanced by the Attorney-General, he admits to us

publicly that the Order-in-Council will be altered, any way he wishes,

at any time, after this debate.

Look, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has bungled this thing right

from the beginning. He has tried to modify his approach to this. He

says that Mr. Lawson is a respected trade union leader. All trade

unions have respected leaders. That's how they get there, by the vote

of their membership. They are respected by their membership and if the

membership doesn't like them, it turfs them out. I don't have a vote in

trade union affairs, Mr. Speaker, neither does the Attorney-General.

I'd like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the membership dictates

the terms of the leadership of any democratic union. I'd like to say

further, that when he gives the aura of praising Mr. Lawson, which none

of us disagrees with, he then says, in his comments, and lists a number

of options that are available to these disputing parties, after he

holds a shotgun at them and says, "These are the options."

I challenge him, Mr. Speaker, to state why not one of

[ Page 559 ]

these options was offered publicly to the

disputants last Friday? Why was there a delay in offering these

options? The timid approach — first of all, you say to this House, "We

can't call upon the Federal Government to interfere, unless we're

prepared to interfere ourselves," and then you say, "But, but, but,

but." If these options are, indeed, available, why weren't they offered

on Friday? Why wasn't your Department put to work over the weekend to

test every single one of these options you listed to the two

responsible parties. That wasn't offered at all.

As to the emergency, that indeed is a matter of opinion, Mr.

Speaker, indeed a matter of opinion, because there has been no body of

evidence presented to the Members of this Chamber that any one of the

charges of inconvenience listed by the Attorney-General is, in fact, an

occurrence that is taking place at this moment. It is pure speculation,

hearsay and conjecture. Although he may very well attempt to solve this

dispute through hearsay and conjecture, what does his action now mean

to free collective bargaining from here on out in this Province? It

means that, no matter what the facts are in the dispute, the

Attorney-General will, himself, determine what may possibly happen from

the dispute and, from hearsay and conjecture, make his decisions based

purely on nonfact.

What are the facts? We have had no body of evidence. We have had

submissions made, I don't know if anyone else here has received a

telegram from the union, but I have a submission from the union. I

don't know if the Attorney-General has the same copy. I have no way of

knowing, whatsoever, if the submission by the union is correct or

incorrect. I see you have the same submission, signed by Mr. Lawson. I

suppose you have the same and I'll read it. This is what Mr. Lawson

says, "As of this date, February 23, 33 trucking companies have signed

new agreements with our union, including "struck goods" clause.

Thirty-three companies employ approximately 1,200 Teamster members. In

addition, bakery products continue to be delivered by other Teamster

locals, under agreement. Milk and dairy products continue to be

delivered uninterrupted by other Teamster locals. Fuel supplies and

groceries continue to be delivered by trucking companies under Teamster

agreements, uninterrupted. In addition, freight companies whose

agreement runs for one more year continue to operate. Concern for

public welfare is being protected. Trucking services available to all

areas of the Province"

There is no valid basis for the unwarranted Government intervention

in this dispute, that threatens the end of free collective bargaining.

If indeed, Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the head of this union

are correct, then the Attorney-General has either misinterpreted the

facts, or is misinforming the House, because basic supplies are

available to every citizen in British Columbia and have not been

interrupted. If the Attorney-General cares to pursue the argument that

he has given, that the transit strike was less harmful because it meant

interruption only in two urban areas, I point out to the

Attorney-General that even during this strike, the elderly citizens of

British Columbia can still walk down to the corner store and buy their

groceries and buy their staples, but under the transit strike they were

denied, for 30 days, the opportunity of going downtown and doing other

shopping that may have been far more essential for them. So it is not

correct, it is simply not correct to say that, on the one hand, the

transit strike was confined only to the urban areas but that this

strike is inconveniencing everyone in British Columbia, when the union

makes the claim that such indeed is not the case. Staples, groceries,

food, milk is available, delivered by trucks, throughout this Province.

What has been the result of the Attorney-General's interference? You

are dealing with very hard feelings and very committed parties — on the

one hand, the trade union which is obligated to fight for the best

possible deal for its membership, and companies which are obligated to

fight for the best possible deals for their shareholders. They take, by

their very nature, hard-line, positions in bargaining. That's the

nature of bargaining. That's the nature of fighting in this House, even

though we might be great personal friends, in some instances, on policy

matters. What divides us is a space on this Floor and ideology. But,

once we come head on, in this House, there is an exchange of a point of

view. There is hopefully some learning from each other but decisions

are made freely, openly and shared with each other. That, in a small

part, is exactly what goes on in a collective bargaining process. Two

people with very hard positions come together and try to resolve those

differences.

How would you feel, Mr. Speaker, if someone else came into this

Chamber and announced that they didn't like your process of arriving at

decisions and it was delaying the public business, as sometimes the

public business is delayed in this House, and it is necessary,

therefore, to apply compulsory arbitration to the decisions of this

House'? How would you feel about it? You would know that it would be a

negation of the whole process of a democratic society. You would not

accept that kind of arbitrary decision and that, in its own way, is

exactly what has happened here — but happened too early, happened, not

only wrongfully, but too early. As of last Friday, one-third of the

union members concerned had signed with nearly 40 per cent of the

companies concerned, freely, in a free collective bargaining process,

agreements that were binding and lasting. What could have happened and

what might have happened, if we are indeed to debate in the area of

conjecture, as the Attorney-General has only allowed us to do, because

we cannot call witnesses on this motion — what would have happened if

we had allowed to let our minds think about it? What would have

happened over the weekend if the Government had not interfered? There

may have indeed been more signing. There may have indeed been more

negotiating periods. There may have indeed been a solution to this

problem found freely by the two disputants. But as soon as the

Attorney-General appeared on the scene, he indeed did throw sand in the

gears and stop the natural process of two very strong parties coming to

some kind of mutual agreement.

Now what has he done to those two parties? Psychologically he has

created a condition where the companies must stand fast.

Psychologically he has created a condition where the unions must stand

fast, because now it doesn't become a test of free collective

bargaining, it becomes a test of power and of strength — and that's a

mistake. We have a great deal to learn from the Japanese in this

regard, Mr. Speaker. They have an expression known as "allowing to save

face." But once the big hand of interference comes in, based, by

evidence here in the motion, on ignorance, once the big hand comes in,

there is very little room to save face and you force both parties

publicly to take a hard line and, in effect, erode the free collective

bargaining process. That's the danger. That's the danger of this

motion, and the danger is compounded by the complete ignorance of the

Attorney-General as to the facts. He is basing his argument purely on

conjecture.

[ Page 560 ]

There is no possible way, no way, that any Member of this group can

vote for a motion that is based on conjecture. It is difficult at the

best of times, Mr. Speaker, to make responsible decisions in this

House. Many, many times we must do that on bills, when we don't even

know all the facts of those bills. Time is so compressed in this

Legislature that we make decisions here, as Members, without fully

knowing all the facts but, at least, through committees, those that are

functioning, at least, through debate here, in the House, we do achieve

some knowledge and some information.

No one can tell me, Mr. Speaker, that, on the evidence presented by

the Attorney-General and the fact that he doesn't even name all the

disputants in this particular motion, no one can tell me that we are in

any condition, whatsoever, to make a responsible decision on this

particular motion. Therefore, we must vote against it. We must negate a

proposition that has been presented on the basis of conjecture and

conjecture, alone. That's not the way I was elected to make decisions.

That's not the way I want to make decisions. That's not the way

decisions should be made in the area of human relationships, especially

between management and labour. There are enough problems already. I

cannot help but say this, Mr. Speaker, that there is a feeling within

me that part of this motion is politically inspired, politically

motivated, on the basis of further dividing the people of our Province,

of labour against farmer, poor against rich, the haves and the

have-nots. It is a mistake to further divide our society. It is a

mistake, as responsible legislators, to not reach out in the sensible

way to embrace people and their ideas and bring them together,

hopefully, in closed rooms, so that they can resolve their problems

together. I have a suspicion that, because of the manner in which this

was presented, because of the haste with which it was presented,

because of the lack of hard facts in the presentation of the

Attorney-General, I have a suspicion that the motion was politically

motivated.

Then if you take that suspicion one step further, that it was placed

on the Order Paper on Friday, and there has been no indication that new

evidence was available to the Attorney-General between Friday, Tuesday

and Wednesday, why was the motion not called yesterday? There was no

opportunity for the Opposition, yesterday, to ask that its motions be

heard. No need, yesterday, to interfere with the rights of Private

Members' Day. No negotiations going on, yesterday, that would have made

it necessary to delay this bill.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the motion was delayed by

24 hours because the Government was weighing the political factors of

the motion, rather than the object that has been expressed by the

Attorney-General. I think you've made a terrible blunder, through you,

Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a mistake to use this House, in the

democratic process, to force people to come together in decisions that

are not valid without having the facts. The fact is that you don't even

know who the disputants are, you haven't even named them, and you

suggest to correct that you are going to add it to the

Order-in-Council. I suggest to you, for all of us to save some face,

for this House to have some grace, for this House to retain some

dignity in the eyes of the people of this Province, that the

Attorney-General should stand up and move adjournment of this debate

forthwith, leave the House, offer the options that he has made

available to the disputants, now, and give them some time to consider

those options before calling the adjourned debate on this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition,

in his remarks, has raised questions as to the speed with which the

Honourable the Attorney-General brought this matter before this House

last Friday, by placing it on our Orders. I believe it to be true that,

in the days and weeks to come, the Honourable the Attorney-General and

the Government will need to answer why it was done so quickly, just as,

in the same way, they will need to answer why they did not act quickly

in other disputes with which this Province has been affected over the

past year. But that's not what we are debating. I say to the Members,

"Don't be moved from the point of this motion by the rhetoric of the

Leader of the Opposition. He tries to spell out the words in the motion

and suggests that there is something wrong. Well, I read them and read

them very carefully and I think they do embrace the matters which are

before us today. In his remarks the Leader of the Opposition, I think,

clearly spelled out the reason for this motion. He said that the

bargaining parties in this dispute had got to the stage where the

attitudes had hardened, where the union negotiators were concerned

about the rights of their members, where the employer negotiators were

concerned about the rights of their companies and the shareholders of

those companies. This is why the motion is before us today, because,

while those two groups can be concerned about their own special

interests, we, in this House, must be concerned about the public

interest. If it hurts the feelings of some members of some groups in

this community then let them be hurt, because we have seen enough

instances when, for their own private interests, the public interest is

damned and it shall not happen any longer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has not in my view, and I

will agree with the Leader of the Opposition in this regard, firmly

placed before this Assembly the full facts upon which we could make a

determination. I find it interesting that in his opening remarks the

Honourable the Attorney-General said that, under the legislation, it

was the responsibility of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

determine whether a dispute was contrary to the public interest, but

that now that the Legislature was in Session, the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council would allow this Assembly to make that determination.

I would, with respect, draw the Attorney-General's attention to the

Statute, because a determination is not what we are asked to make, nor

is it what the Cabinet is asked to make. All that the

Lieutenant-Governor need do is to voice an opinion. All that we are

being asked in this motion today, Mr. Speaker, as Members of this

Assembly, is to consider the matters as they may come before us and to

make certain recommendations. Based upon those recommendations, the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council will be aided in reaching that opinion.

Therefore, we are not called to sit in judgement and make a

determination upon evidence, as it is suggested by the Leader of the

Opposition, but merely upon such information as is presented to this

House, either by the Attorney-General, or by the Leader of the

Opposition, or by private examination by each Member of this House.

From the moment that notice was put on the Order Paper last Friday,

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it became the responsibility of

every Member in this Assembly to take what steps he could to ascertain,

as best as he was able, what the facts of the situation were right up

until the moment when

[ Page 561 ]

this motion was called. The Leader of the

Opposition said he did. Well, I wish to assure you, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that I did likewise, and I found that those remarks made by

the Honourable Attorney-General today are supportable and they must

therefore, have a bearing on my opinion. I also find that while

companies, some 33 or 34 in number, employing some 1,200 Teamsters have

signed contracts, there are companies which are either struck, or

locked out which employ 3,500 workers and they are involved. I also

find that, as early as this morning, the strike has spread to other

operations and indeed in the Courts of this Province, in the city of

Victoria this morning an employer was obliged to seek injunctive relief

because pickets from the Teamsters had shut down some operation not

connected with this dispute. Such injunction was granted and is

returnable on Monday.

AN HON. MEMBER: No problem then.

MR. WILLIAMS: So far as this one employer is concerned, no

problem, unless you consider, Mr. Member, that it is some problem that

you should be forced into the Courts of this Province, in order to

resolve disputes of which you are not a party. The indications are,

from my examination, Mr. Speaker, that other projects in the lower

mainland of considerable significance to this Province and to its

economy are threatened with the same kind of shut-downs. So that the

strike, although it is only a few days old, is having, right today, a

wider spread effect than just the interests of the two parties

concerned. It is to be regretted that this procedure is required. There

is not a Member here who would not wish that these two parties could

have resolved their differences. That's what free collective bargaining

is all about, but no State can allow itself to be placed in the

position, when two parties are unable to settle their differences by

free collective bargainings, to be left powerless. That is the first

purpose of this motion. So long as the public interest is

disadvantageously affected — from my examination, I find that I am

reluctantly compelled to the conclusion that the public interest is so

disadvantageously affected.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the Honourable the Attorney-General

suggested all of the many and varied avenues for resolution of this

matter, other than going to the Mediation Commission, to a binding

conclusion. I trust that he is right. I know that, within the scope of Mediation Act, the

Government has wide powers to move in various and mysterious ways.

Indeed we have seen this over the past year. But as I read the Act, Mr.

Speaker, I find that the words are obligatory (interruption) .

Yes, I'll tell you how you move in mysterious ways. I don't think, Mr.

Speaker, that the Honourable the Attorney-General does blunder. I think

that he moves in these mysterious ways with planned precision as a

matter of fact. One of the mysterious ways in which you move is when

you come to another strike of great public interest, or series of

strikes and work stoppages and that was the construction industry, when

the Government went the full way and used the Mediation Act. Over the

weekend they compromised their position, they compromised the law. Now,

what did they do in that case? They didn't go to the Mediation

Commission. No, Mr. Speaker, they appointed the Deputy Minister of

Labour to sit down with the parties. They got the parties to agree. It

was all very nice and quietly done over a weekend, after having invoked

the provisions of this Act.

In the case of the forest industry, which was heading for a conflict

of tremendous proportions, the Mediation Commission was involved but,

at that time, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, by Order, approved

the appointment of someone of very special knowledge and skill to meet

in that dispute and to resolve it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, since the

formation of the Mediation Commission and the establishment of that

august body, it would appear that the Government has done its very best

to avoid placing before that body any dispute of significant

consequence. With good reason I suspect, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I

think that there is great danger in proceeding in this direction, if

this dispute is to find itself in the hands of the Mediation

Commission. I think that, by its very nature, the matter at issue

between these two parties is one of technicality which needs to be

resolved by some person with special knowledge and skill. I think,

because of the importance of this industry to our economy and

consequently the importance of this union to that industry, that they

are, at least, entitled to the same kind of treatment as was made

available to the forest industry and to its labour union and unions.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we are, in this House, to make a

recommendation with regard to the public interest, I think we must also

concern ourselves with a recommendation as to how this matter might

best be resolved also in the public interest. We would hate to find

that the direction taken by Government, which may eventually be to the

Mediation Commission, was to provoke a situation between the management

and the labour group which perhaps might lead to lawlessness, because

that, too, would be against the public interest.

I will say one other thing about the manner in which the

Attorney-General suggested…or one of the alternatives that he

suggested that might be used, this depended upon the agreement of the

parties with him. I think it would be a tragedy if we were to accept

that as one of the solutions, only to find that either one of the

parties, for whatever reason, was not prepared to give its agreement. I

am sure that the late Teddy Roosevelt would have been proud of the

speech that the Honourable the Attorney-General made today because it

certainly was one of those "talk softly, but carry a big stick"

speeches.

Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Attorney-General and the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council wishes to have recommendations from this

House that they must be complete and they must be responsible.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I have given notice, I propose an amendment

to the motion before us which is standing on the Orders, as follows.

Seconded by the Honourable the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, I

move that there be added to Motion 14, the following words: "And that

some person or persons having special knowledge in the matter be

appointed to endeavour to bring about agreements between the parties in

relation to all matters in dispute, or, alternatively, to make

recommendations for settlement of the dispute."

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General on the amendment.

MR. PETERSON: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I am

somewhat reluctant to indicate to the honourable Member that the

amendment is not acceptable, because I think the address that he just

gave is probably one of the finest he's given in the House. I do

appreciate the way in which he has put forth the argument in support of

the main motion. My reason, Mr. Speaker, for finding his amendment

unacceptable is primarily that, with the motion

[ Page 562 ]

as it stands, we have a large number of options

open to us which I tried to indicate when I spoke a few moments ago.

The amendment narrows this down to one procedure only and that is the

appointment by Government of a special person or persons to make

recommendations. Now, in the past, when others have been involved, and

the honourable Member made reference to two of the occasions, one in

the construction industry where the Deputy Minister of Labour served as

a mediator and made recommendations, this, Mr. Speaker, was not by

appointment. This was by agreement of the parties. In the other

dispute, in the coastal forest industry, when the services of Mr.

Justice Nemetz were procured, this, likewise, was the agreement of both

parties. In neither case were appointments made, as such. It was a

matter the parties, themselves, agreed upon. I've already indicated

that that course of action is open, as well as other options, because

it is not our desire to set down to the parties a mandatory procedure

and say, "You must follow this." Our concern is that they must get the

transportation industry back in full gear and then whatever they can

agree to to settle at, then, fine. We don't want to restrict them in

any way. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, would be a restrictive amendment

and, therefore, would not be acceptable.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment, I

will be very brief. We are opposed to the amendment. We are opposed to

any amendment that would try to justify the particular motion of

compulsion. We also oppose the amendment because it is testimony to the

position of that Liberal Member, and I'm not going to predict the other

Members' votes, but it is testimony for that Liberal Member's position,

that compulsory arbitration is an acceptable form in dealing with

labour disputes. We cannot buy that proposition. We cannot accept it.

Beyond that, the Attorney-General has made a valid point. He has made a

range of options and why should this, under any circumstances, confine

ourselves to one option? The vote for this amendment means a vote

completely in support of the Government. If that is the position the

Liberals wish to take then they should remain silent in this debate and

vote with the Government. Not try to walk down the middle of the road

and have it both ways. It cannot be done.

I am suggesting the defeat of this amendment. I'm suggesting again,

on a defeat of this motion, that the Attorney-General take the

opportunity of withdrawing the motion stating publicly to the disputing

parties, withdrawing the nonamended motion and give the parties the

options directly, setting aside this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

am pleased to second this amendment. I want to say, first of all, that

the necessity for this debate to be held at all must sadden me, as I

think it saddens everybody in this House. In my opinion, we shouldn't

even be discussing the amendment or the main motion. The problem is

that it's been called. As yet certainly in my opinion, and I think,

listening to the Honourable the Attorney-General as he spoke

originally, he did not demonstrate that there was an immediate

emergency. He did demonstrate conclusively and I certainly confirm, as

many of us have, that there is going to be a serious situation in a

matter of a very few weeks. It seems too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister of Labour, with all of his knowledge supposedly of labour

affairs in this Province could not have allowed the due processes of

collective bargaining to function. If you have any confidence in it at

all, you have to give it a chance to work. Above all, in this kind of

matter, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to develop a feeling of good

relations, good personal relations, in these kinds of negotiations.

Labour negotiations are a very personal thing. Many of us in this

House, I'm sure, have been involved in them and you know how

personalities and feelings creep into them whether you wish them to or

not. It is virtually unavoidable. So when you impose the kind of thing

that the Attorney-General did last Friday, this fast precipitate

action, you certainly don't improve the climate of personal

relationships, you damage it. People get locked into harder-nosed

positions and they find it more difficult to come together. A feeling

of bitterness develops and, I'm sure, that many of us have found in

talking to some of the people concerned in the last few days that this

feeling has been developed.

I look back with some very bitter memories, Mr. Speaker, to last

summer. I was very much personally concerned in the construction

industry, in the construction work stoppage. I suffered many of those

problems firsthand. The weeks and the months went by and there was no

move from this Government. Nothing. There was no recognition then of

the suffering, the losses and the damage to the whole economy of the

Province, as well as to the individuals. They laughed it off at the

beginning. It wasn't nearly as bad. They didn't pay any attention to

it. By the end of the summer and later on the fall they started to

think about it and pay attention to it.

If I can read part of the

preamble to this motion and think of the

words in this

preamble, in terms of the construction industry last

summer "…interfere with the freedom and rights of many of the people

of British Columbia to carry on their lawful and chosen activities but

will also discourage and divert investments in industrial undertakings

within British Columbia and adversely affect the economy and welfare of

its citizens." Well, if ever a strike, or lockout, or a work stoppage,

was affecting the economy and the welfare of British Columbia, it was

the construction strike last summer, the construction stoppage, and the

Government did not act as the weeks and the months went by. But who did

get the help from this Government? The forestry industry. Last summer

they gave some help and they moved very quickly. On July 7, there was

an Order-in Council. Mr. Justice Nemetz was appointed before any strike

or lockout took place and he solved that dispute very quickly and with

a great deal of respect and prestige from all sides. Last summer, Mr.

Speaker, the Government neglected the construction industry for many

weeks. They said, "Let the collective bargaining process work." Why

didn't the Government appoint someone like Mr. Nemetz last summer to

solve the construction industry? Surely, if the urgency is as great as

the Attorney-General has tried to describe, and as I would say it is

going to be in a very short number of weeks, the trucking industry is

entitled to similar treatment to the forest industry from last summer.

Mr. Speaker, it is already very clear the low esteem in which the

Mediation Commission is held, certainly by organized labour, certainly

by the public, and certainly by this Government. The Government, on

several occasions now, with agreement on both sides, has by-passed the

Mediation Commission. It has shown there is no confidence. The public

[ Page 563 ]

has certainly lost confidence in the Mediation

Commission. It's been made so clear that this is not a body in which we

can place any confidence at all. The one union that did try to use

their services and to follow the law because it said, "This is the law,

we will try to cooperate, we will try to do it,"…the one union that

tried that was double-crossed and was betrayed by the Mediation

Commission.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking in this motion….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BROUSSON: I'll withdraw the word "doublecrossed."

Mr. Speaker, we propose this amendment to ensure that a means be

found that is acceptable in this very highly technical matter that

remains in dispute in this particular situation. You gave this kind of

help to the forest industry. Surely, while you provide compulsion to

the trucking industry, you can also provide the kind of prestige and

expert help that is needed.

If I may comment, Mr. Speaker, finally, on the objections of the

Honourable the Attorney-General, he suggested that this amendment

limits the option. It does not, in any way, limit his options. In the

first place, the main motion is only a recommendation and, finally,

this is a suggestion for the first step to be followed, not the final

step necessarily. I have pleasure in seconding the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Order. Are we voting now on the amendment to the motion as stated, as amended, or possibly amended?

MR. SPEAKER: No, we are not voting on the main motion. We are

now voting on the amendment. It was moved by the Honourable Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound and seconded by the Honourable Member for

North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but the main

motion, the wording of the main motion…. Pardon me, it is

conceivable, I believe, to argue that the final motion, as amended,

would depend on the original motion that we would consider.

MR. SPEAKER: If this motion were carried then, of course, the

motion would be whether or not Members would support the motion, as

amended. But we haven't dealt yet with the amendment which is the first

matter before the Legislature. We must dispose of this amendment one

way or the other. Are you ready for the question?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Would you please give

us an indication as to whether or not you have ruled that the two

preambles to this Motion 14 have been struck out or deleted.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I hope I'm not setting any precedent here

by allowing some discussion during the time we're waiting for a

division. If the House will forgive me, I will say that the matter was

raised as to the propriety of the

preamble, by the Honourable Member

for Burnaby-Edmonds. I agreed with what he had to say at the time, that

it is not the practice of the House to allow

preambles to motions. The

suggestion made by myself was that the House may wish to consider the

principal part of this particular motion. The Leader of the Opposition

rose and said that he would consent, if the seconder would, likewise,

consent. The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard

consented to the amendment by a deletion of the first two portions of

the motion. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition then consented

to allow it to proceed. No further objections were raised to the Chair

and, under the circumstances, the motion was allowed to be debated. I

hope that clarifies the situation (interruption). I'm sorry but, at

this particular time, I can't allow further debate. When this motion

has been taken care of, I will allow you to raise a Point of Order.

The question is that Motion 14 standing on the Order Paper be

amended by adding thereto the words: "and that some person or persons

having special knowledge in the matter be appointed to endeavour to

bring about agreement between the parties in relation to all matters in

dispute, or alternatively to make recommendations for the settlement of

the dispute."

The House divided.

The amendment was negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 4

Messieurs

Brousson

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

NAYS — 47

Messieurs

Wallace

Dowding

Bennett

Ney

Nimsick

Peterson

Marshall

Barrett

Fraser

Cocke

Dailly, Mrs.

Campbell, B.

Hartley

Vogel

Wolfe

Lorimer

LeCours

Smith

Hall

Chabot

McDiarmid

Williams, R.A.

Little

Capozzi

Calder

Jefcoat

Skillings

Wenman

Tisdalle

Chant

Kripps, Mrs.

Bruch

Loffmark

Mussallem

McCarthy, Mrs.

Campbell, D.R.J.

Price

Jordan, Mrs.

Brothers

Clark

Dawson, Mrs.

Shelford

Macdonald

Kiernan

Richter

Strachan

Williston

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: You said you would allow further discussion, at

this point, on the question the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has

raised. Now, perhaps if I'd made myself more clear in my earlier

statement, we could have avoided this. Mr. Speaker, I am asking for

clarification as to whether or not you have ruled that the motion we

are now debating contains the

preamble or whether it does not

[ Page 564 ]

contain the

preamble.

MR. SPEAKER: I have not ruled, but it does not contain the

preambles, by consent of the House.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the rules are

that a motion may be neither withdrawn nor amended without notice or

leave of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition indicated leave and no one raised objection. So leave was presumed.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a vote was not called.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there was no vote called.

MR. CLARK: He did not ask for leave. Mr. Speaker, in the

years that I have sat in this House, I have never heard someone had to

move that leave be granted.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no one moved that leave be granted — just no

objection was raised. Would the Honourable Leader of the Opposition

care to clarify this situation as he recalls it.

MR. BARRETT: As I recall it, the Attorney-General stated that

he would withdraw the two paragraphs. My objection was whether or not

the seconder agreed. At that point the seconder said he did agree,

through the mouth of the Premier. Then the two paragraphs were deleted.

At that point I accepted the deletion. I didn't accept on behalf of

anyone else except myself!

MR. CLARK: The motion we are debating is still the motion that is on the Order Paper. You have not ruled whether or not it's out of order (interruptions).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Are there any further observations

to be made? The Member proceed. The Honourable the First Member for

Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the main motion, this

is a very significant debate for the people of British Columbia — a

watershed debate really. I think it spells what we're doing here today,

Mr. Speaker, as the death knell of free collective bargaining in the

Province of British Columbia.

I think that in a free society, we're leaving the corporations free

to manage prices and to fix prices to the detriment of working people

in this country. We're leaving the financial institutions free to set

their interest rates, to charge their rents and fees but, in the case

of the labour

section of the community, Mr. Speaker, and I include in

this all working people, organized or not, their interest is vitally at

stake in this kind of action we are taking today. In their case, they

are going to be denied the use of economic power when that economic

power is freely and regularly used against them. They are going to be

denied free collective bargaining even though that's continuing and was

continuing up until the introduction of this resolution.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we're seeing a definite swing in our

society, where those who are in positions of power and wealth and

privilege will be in ever-increasing positions of power and wealth and

privilege in our society, and the working people will have very little

redress. If you destroy free collective bargaining, as we are doing

here today, with this kind of a resolution, and you leave the working

people powerless, and you leave the working people in this particular

strike powerless, where they are striking on a question of principle, a

question of labour principle, don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that really

you are leaving all the working people of the Province of British

Columbia naked against the economic power that is used against them for

all time to come. You are shifting things in this Province to increase

the power of wealth and privilege in the big corporations and you're

going to make it a very lot harder task for any kind of a working

person, organized or unorganized, to get for himself a decent wage,

decent standard of living and decent conditions of work.

We have come along way since Bill 33 was introduced in the year

1968. We've come a long, long way, Mr. Speaker. At that time, on

Thursday, February 22, 1968, when the bill was introduced, according to

the Vancouver Sun , Mr.

Peterson told reporters, after introduction of the bill, that a minute

number — those were his words — "a minute number" of disputes will be

referred to the Mediation Commission for binding decision. Pressed by

reporters for elaboration on the types of dispute the Cabinet might act

upon, Peterson mentioned municipal garbage workers, policemen, hospital

workers and other groups employed by public institutions. We have come

a long way when a dispute, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed

out, where any Government attempt to negotiate a settlement has not

been made, where the public interest has not been affected. It may be

affected two weeks from now. Compulsory arbitration is invoked in this

kind of resolution at this time. That is not what the Attorney-General

or the Minister of Labour, he was both then and he still is, was saying

at that time. He was saying to use it in a minute number and he was

talking about the policemen and institutions and so forth. I know the

bill is broader, Mr. Minister of Labour, but that was the basis on

which it was introduced and presented to the people of British Columbia

— not that it would mark the end of free collective bargaining whenever

the Government chose to put an end to that bargaining on behalf of the

employers.

Then, again, later in the same debate, March 28, the Minister of

Labour said, "…that Bill 33 does not mean the Government is trying to

push a panic button in labour relations." That's exactly what we are

doing today. We're pushing a panic button even while…until the

introduction of this resolution in the Legislature, the matter was

being settled by companies signing up.

AN HON. MEMBER: One after the other, settling up.

MR. MACDONALD: Settling up in the area of free collective

bargaining, with the worker having a chance to preserve this principle

for which he is striking. You can agree with it or not, Mr. Speaker,

but that principle is, "I am my brother's keeper. I want to help

somebody else in an industrial dispute. I don't want to handle struck

goods." That's labour solidarity. That's a question of principle. Like

it or not, they have a right to project that in free collective

bargaining and not have that bargaining cut off by compulsory

arbitration. You can't arbitrate a principle of that kind, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the Mediation Commission going to do with that one? Are they for it or against it?

MR. MACDONALD: On the same date, the Labour

[ Page 565 ]

Minister said, and this is March 28, "The Debate is

centred about the pros and cons of compulsory arbitration. I am opposed

to compulsory arbitration of all disputes. It is absolute nonsense to

suggest this bill does away with free collective bargaining." That was

two years ago and the good, kindly Dr. JeykIl has slowly turned into

Mr. Hyde, insofar as the working people of this Province are concerned.

The effects of it are not going to be felt particularly in this

particular dispute, Mr. Speaker. These are long-term effects and the

working people of this Province are going to be hurt in their

pocketbooks and in their conditions of work by the kind of precipitate

action that the Government wants us to take today. Later on, the

Minister of Labour said this, "It is ridiculous. It is fallacious

thinking to say that this bill ends collective bargaining. It will

encourage better collective bargaining than we have ever had in the

past."

Yet, Mr. Speaker, while that process of collective bargaining was

going on and a number of the trucking firms were reaching agreements

with the Teamsters' Union — I haven't got the figures of how many — this resolution was put upon the Order Paper of this Legislature and

that kind of a process came to an end. The settlement came to an end.

So the panic button has been…41 have been settled. The process was

carrying on.

We are asked to approve this resolution before the public interest has been affected, contrary, surely, to the spirit of the Mediation Act, if

not to its words. We are asked to step in, as a Legislature, because

this Government has failed to present any kind of a workable labour

policy to this Legislature or to the people of B.C. For two years, Mr.

Speaker, ever since 1968, we have been staggering blind from one

industrial relations conflict to the next — flying blind. One time, we

try to deal with the thing this way, another thing, that way, but never

before have we gone to the extent that we are going today. There is no

labour policy of which this Government can boast. There has been no

consistent labour policy that has come out from the Government benches

in the Province of British Columbia over the last two years. The

attempts of the Opposition to get a rational dialogue in one of the

committees of this Legislature, so that an industrial relations policy

acceptable to the various interests in this Province could be worked

out, have been thwarted, time after time, by the Government majority.

You have refused to discuss labour relations, industrial relations,

where it could be fruitfully discussed, in a committee, hearing

representatives of the employers, representatives of industry,

representatives of the public and experts in that field. Instead, this

Government has pursued, as it is pursuing today, its vendetta with

organized labour, from which I suppose they expect they can extract

votes in the ballot box, Mr. Speaker. I say this is far from being a

labour policy. This is a declaration of bankruptcy, a declaration of no

labour policy and no willingness to discuss a labour policy, on the

part of the Government benches.

So, it is this group that will oppose this because there are

long-term indications, as I've said. This is going to be a very bad

precedent for all the working people of the Province of British

Columbia. We oppose, as we must oppose, this kind of hasty,

ill-considered and ill-prepared action at a time when the dispute was

in process of being settled, and the principle for which this union is

standing — which is a pretty human principle to help your other fellow

trade unionists, to organize, or if they are not organized, to get a

union, and to not handle struck goods — a pretty good principle which

is being sold down the river by this hasty, ill-considered action, Mr.

Speaker, which this group opposes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, there is

one phrase on the tips of all British Columbians, today, be they

management, labour, the average citizen or politician. That phrase is,

"There has to be a better way." We have had this cold war between

labour and management in British Columbia for far too long. The public

has been hurt, the labour movement has been hurt, management has been

hurt, the economy has been hurt, during this decade of the 1960's, and

now on into the 1970's there has been no improvement. All these years,

Social Credit has been in power. You're the Government that is supposed

to provide the leadership for all the people of British Columbia

(interruption). "We've done it," that's what the Minister of Public

Works says. Yes, you've done it, Mr. Minister. In 1970, nearly 3

million man-days of work lost; in 1968, 406,000, and so on, down

through the decade. But, at the start, in 1960, 35,000 man-days of work

lost; in 1961, 34,000; 1962, 32,000. These figures were bad enough but

then, after you got entrenched in power and your policies began to take

effect, then we began to see the changes as your confidence grew and

your arrogance grew. In 1965, 104,000; 1966, 272,000; 1967, 327,000;

1968, 406,000; 1969, 450,000; and 1970, 2.1 million. What kind of a

record is that? What sort of leadership have we had from this

Government?

Now read what happens in unemployment, because that has been the

consequence of this policy which has led to soaring man-days of work

lost. Believe me it is continuing into 1971. There are more man-days

lost in January of this year than in the first three years of the

decade, each one of those years. Now we are into February and another

major confrontation.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way and your Government

hasn't found it. The consequence is severe. Look at the unemployment

figures for last year. July, 76,000; June, 87,000; May, 72,000; and

what is it today in British Columbia? 82,000. This is the consequence

of a bankrupt labour relations policy. It's the consequence of lack of

leadership on the part of the Government. It's the consequence of this

cold war which is becoming no longer a cold war but is escalating into

a hot war. All the while, Mr. Speaker, the Government has made more

claims of victory than the Pentagon has made claims of victories in

Vietnam — because your words and your actions don't agree. You are the

man who took the false promise to the people of British Columbia,

saying to them, in that 1969 election, "It's going to be take-home pay

with Bennett, or strike-pay with Berger." What happened after that? Did

the people get take-home pay? No, they have had strike pay, and

unemployment and lay-offs and misery. "The Liberal Government didn't do

their job," says the Member from Esquimalt. Yes, there were disputes

last year, that were under Federal jurisdiction… (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. McGEER: Yes, there were disputes, Mr. Speaker. Those

disputes, in total, equalled less than 3 per cent of all the man-days

lost. The other 97 per cent was Provincial responsibility. Last summer

when the labour management wars were carrying on and jobs were going up

in flames,

[ Page 566 ]

that's when the Premier went to Japan. That's when

there wasn't a public crisis — when there were 2 million man-days of

work lost. There wasn't a public crisis last month, not when the people

had to walk during the snow, not when the transportation wasn't

functioning. No. The Premier asked, at that time, for the people to

telephone him to tell him how much inconvenience there was. Now this

situation comes along and he can't pile in fast enough.

Mr. Speaker, the Mediation Commission was set up to solve all these

problems. I can still remember the fanfare of the Minister of Labour

and the Premier when that Mediation Commission Act

was brought in. How it was going to solve all our problems. All it has

done, Mr. Speaker, is to create problems. The Mediation Commission has

been an utter and complete failure and, during this period of time, the

most regrettable thing of all is that no lessons have been learned.

Nothing was gained from all those strikes and lockouts of last summer.

All we're doing is preparing the way for a confrontation that will make

what happened last summer seem like peanuts. Each time that we have one

of these confrontations, the sides dig in a little harder, each time

the lack of the leadership on the part of the Provincial Government

becomes more evident and each time the public of British Columbia has

to suffer a little more because they don't want the cold war. They

don't want an escalation into a hot war. They want to find a better way.

The Minister of Labour isn't producing that better way and the

Premier isn't producing that better way and the Mediation Commission

isn't producing that better way. Yet, it has to be found, Mr. Speaker,

and we regret profoundly that this motion was brought in, because it is

quite clear from the motion, itself, that the Teamsters' Union is not

receiving equal treatment with the other unions in British Columbia. I

suspect, if had it been the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Government

wouldn't have dared a confrontation of this kind but, because it was a

Teamsters, the motion was brought in before the day was out. You can't

blame that union, that has a record for abiding by the law and

accepting decisions that are distasteful to them, for feeling that they

have been stabbed in the back, to use the words of their president.

This is a union that has won the respect of the public of British

Columbia because it has been willing to work with management and with

Government to find this better way.

One of the reasons why we have profound regret about this motion is

because a union we could have looked to for leadership has been singled

out for particularly harsh treatment on the part of the Government that

has lacked the courage to face the B.C. Federation of Labour at a time

when they should have been faced, and faced squarely.

Mr. Speaker, the second reason why we have profound regrets about

this motion being brought in is because there is no way an intelligent

person can argue that the public interest has been affected to the same

degree as in disputes when the Government stood idly by — and I refer

to the construction crisis of last summer and I refer to the

transportation strike of last month — because in both these cases, the

economy was much more greatly harmed and the public much more greatly

inconvenienced. Yet in neither one of those times did the Government

see fit to stand up for the public interest. Yet now in a lockout which

really has not affected the economy to a severe degree as yet, though

it will if it's allowed to continue, this motion was brought in. The

consequence of that motion, and I have no doubt when I say this, Mr.

Speaker, having myself discussed the problem with both sides, has been

to end the process of discussion as both sides began to retreat and

wait for Government to insist on the terms of the settlement.

Now, we have another reason for profound regret, Mr. Speaker. That

is that the Mediation Commission has failed to solve a single major

confrontation in all its history and there is no reason to suspect its

record will improve, in this instance. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker,

we have managed to avoid at least one major strike in this Province by

appointing a respected mediator, and I refer, specifically, to Mr.

Justice Nemetz and the service he did to both sides and the people of

British Columbia by avoiding a strike in the forest industry this past

summer.

Mr. Speaker, we put forward an amendment this afternoon designed to

see that someone would be inserted into this particular problem — to

get Mr. Nemetz to solve it….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Member may not reflect on a decision already taken by the House. Proceed.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I won't pursue the outcome of that

amendment. I only wish to express the regret our Party has at the way

this particular dispute has been handled. We don't see it in isolation.

We see this as another battle in this continuing labour-management war

in British Columbia. We see no end to these disputes as long as the

Government and its policies remain. We think there has to be a complete

change in the personalities involved before we are going to have labour

peace in British Columbia. We think there has to be new leadership,

sound leadership, that will provide the kind of climate where these

warring groups can settle down and begin to work in harmony for the

betterment of British Columbia. But, at the same time, you have placed

our Party in a position where we have no choice but to declare what we

should do in this particular situation. Our position is consistent, Mr.

Speaker. We think these strikes and lockouts are wasteful. We think the

damage that has been caused to the economy of British Columbia is

unacceptable and we think that the positions of the leadership,

Government, labour and management are untenable. We will support the

motion, Mr. Speaker, but we will support it with profound regret.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): In speaking in favour of

this motion, I do so because I believe it is not a censure of the union

movement and I'm sure it is not a censure of the Teamsters' Union in

this Province.

This motion has one sole purpose and that is to put people back to

work. I think it can be conceded that putting them back to work is not

going to be anything more than an inconvenience, at the most, to the

union leaders. It is not going to be an inconvenience to the truckers,

themselves, because from the instructions we have heard from our

Attorney-General these men are going back to work on terms that have

already been decided upon, in some ways, and there will be no loss of

wages which means that, if they go back to work, they will not be

losing any wages. If they went out on strike they certainly would. I

think that this is a very important matter.

I think that the public of British Columbia should be thankful that we have such a thing as the Mediation Commission Act, to which we can refer union struggles in this Province. It's pretty obvious, from the history of strikes

[ Page 567 ]

in this Province, that they always end up with some

form of compromise, one way or the other. In trying to make sure that

this strike does not get any worse than what it is, all we are doing is

shortening the period in which the workers can do nothing but lose

money. I'm of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is taking

the only action it can take. I think that it is far better for these

men to go back to work and settle as they earn because this is the best

way to serve the general public of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, this debate today,

I think, is one of the most important debates that has faced this

Legislature. I'm rather surprised that there are so many empty seats in

the House when the debate is taking place. I think it is really an

important debate and I don't think it should be underestimated. I don't

think the Government Members have a right to take it as a fait accompli

that it is already settled as to how it is going. There wouldn't be

much use of debate, otherwise. I think that everybody should be

interested in studying this resolution and motion and taking

part in

this debate.

I never thought for one minute that the Government would be so naive

as to bring this motion forward in this House. Somebody did ask me what

I thought but, knowing this Government, and that they are looking,

hoping and wishing for a real confrontation, knowing that that's the

reason they brought this forward. You are naive in relation to the

basic problem that you are discussing here today. That is the problem

of free collective bargaining. Don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that the only

product that the working people, and I mean all working people, from

nurses right down to the man who works in the mines, the only product

they have to sell is their labour power. That's the only product

they've got to sell. Yet, now you are going to dictate, when you don't

dictate it to anybody else in the Province….You don't tell the

business people that they've got to do this. You don't tell them when

they price the articles on the shelf. You don't say anything about

them, but you are going to use the blacksnake whip on the workers to

tell them what to do. We're not in slavery days today. You can take a

horse to water, and this is one of the principles, Mr. Speaker, that

they must remember. You can take a horse to water but you can't make

him drink.

Mr. Speaker, you're making them worse than horses, I say to the

Honourable the Premier. You are making them worse than horses, because

you're making them nothing more nor less than a pawn in the game.

That's what you're making them, a pawn in the game. We're not living

under slavery, Mr. Speaker. Back in the old days when the master could

wave the blacksnake whip, then, they made the men do what they wanted

them to do. Today you're using Bill 33 in compulsion, as the blacksnake

whip. That's what you're doing. They tried this, back in 1800, in

England, and they had to withdraw the bill after a few years because it

didn't work. You cannot make people do something against their will. We

know that. Hitler tried that. That's exactly what we're trying here

today. We are trying to force the workers to accept something that we

think is better for them, or that you think is better for them than

they, themselves, think, in their negotiations. By so doing you are

making nothing but a mockery out of the labour laws and the collective

bargaining in this Province. Don't forget that the working people,

practically everybody is a worker in the Province, don't forget where

the battle has come from. We've had a long battle in the labour

movement to get recognition even. It's only back in 1937 that even

collective bargaining was recognized. But, since 1949, 1950 and 1952,

this bargaining right has been squeezed and squeezed and squeezed, by

this Government, and by management with the blessing of this Government.

The bill that you brought in in this arena last year, where you

allowed the employers all to collectively bargain and tied them all

into the bargaining unit, that has created a problem. This is creating

a problem, not only in this case, but in the case of the pulp workers,

where pulp mills have signed agreements with workers and now they

refuse to live up to those agreements for the simple reason that the

other pulp mills haven't signed up yet. This could go on for a long

time. But you do nothing about that; therefore, you've added to the

problem by the bill that you brought in here last year in tieing all

the industries into one movement.

Since 1952, we have had a steady decline of the rights of labour.

Bill 41, Bill 42, right down to Bill 33, until you took away

practically all the rights. At that time the Honourable the Minister

said, "We only use this as a last resort and only in conditions where

it is against the welfare of the public." "Against the welfare of the

public." This is what the Honourable the Minister said at that time.

But, since Bill 33 was passed this Government has been getting bolder

and bolder all the time. At the time Bill 33 was up before the House,

this is what I said. There's no doubt in my mind, "You of the

Government think that you have many of the working people with you and

so you have had, because they accepted your promises of a few more

crumbs and because so many of the workers fail to see you are the

'false prophet,' which you really are. That is why they have voted for

you."

Working people are not hard to satisfy and as long as they have

something to wear or something to eat and a roof over their heads, with

a little pleasure, they go along without concerning themselves too much

about politics and how necessary an interest in politics is if they are

going to hold their advances. This is exactly what has happened. Since

1968, I said at that time that there would be no confrontation with

workers at that time and that they would be waiting to see how this

bill worked out and what this Government was going to do with this

bill. Finally, it deteriorated and the Government got bolder. First

they threatened. Then they put an Order-in-Council through. Then they

waited with the transit strike for a whole month. Then they put a

resolution on the Order Paper and they found out that the strike was

settled, so they withdrew that resolution. This time, they even move

before the strike was practically called, or the lockout was called.

They scrambled, they wanted to have a handle to hang on to so they

could demonstrate to the Chamber of Commerce and to the business people

in this Province on whose side they belong.

I'm saying that to every one of you. You people are workers and you

represent workers in this Province. Don't forget, all the workers are

in this bag. All the workers, because every worker in the country is

benefiting from the struggle that labour has been through for the last

hundred years. The pensioners and all of them are benefiting from the

struggles that labour has gone through. When you think, Mr. Speaker,

that labour is something separate and apart from society, when you take

that attitude, this to me is a damaging attitude and a poor attitude,

because, as you get bolder and you ask for a confrontation with labour,

when you do this, undoubtedly your main vendetta is against the

organized

[ Page 568 ]

trade union movement. This is your main vendetta.

But, while you have this vendetta against the organized trade unionist,

the vendetta is against all working people throughout this country — every worker in this country. If the trade union movement were smashed

tomorrow, let me tell you, every worker would suffer right down to the

very last one of them and every pensioner would suffer.

I am rather surprised at some of the Members over there who belong

to trade unions and they won't get up and say anything in regards to a

motion such as this. I say this is the kind of a motion that you've got

to consider very, very carefully because, as you get bolder and bolder,

and while, maybe…I'm not saying that if you pass this motion the

Teamsters' Union won't go along with it and maybe will return to work.

But, sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, the confrontation will come just as

sure as it came in the past. Years ago, when they passed it in 1800,

when they passed the combination bill in England, they had a

confrontation. When you get that confrontation, when labour will be

solidified throughout this Province against a motion such as this, then

you'll find that you can take a horse to water but you can't make him

drink. That's what you will find out in the final analysis (interruption).

Mr. Speaker, the Member said, "Sit down." This is far too important a

motion to just sit down or to go out of the House and not take any

interest in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a motion to stand up on, I'll tell you. Stand up and be counted.

MR. NIMSICK: This Government has steadily felt the water.

They have felt their power and arrogance all the time, building up and

building up, because, each time, labour compromised to their decisions.

This will not go on forever, I'm warning you, because it hasn't done

that in the past and it'll not do it now, in the future. It's

inevitable eventually. This one may work but, eventually, sooner or

later, you win come up full force against the real confrontation. This

is something I said in 1968, too, "I realize just as well as you do

that many of the workers will not wake up to what this bill is really

doing to them and they will continue under the illusion that employers

today are not like they were 50 years ago until they come face to face

with the effects of such bills. With this brief history that I have

given you, I am sure that you will understand the struggle that the

working people have gone through over the years. They came from a point

where they were considered as a nobody and they had to fight with

blood, sweat and tears, every inch of the road. Every improvement they

got in legislation came only after somebody sacrificed their livelihood

or their life to bring it about."

Let me tell you, the business people of this Province and everybody

depend on the payroll they have. Don't forget that lockouts or

strikes…there's nobody affected as badly as the men themselves. When

the people realize that labour is the most important factor in our

society….

AN HON. MEMBER: People, people.

MR. NIMSICK: Labour or people. This is what Lincoln said,

"Labour is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the

fruit of labour and could never have existed if labour had not first

existed. Labour is the superior of capital and deserves much higher

consideration."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's speech are you quoting from?

MR. NIMSICK: My own speech, and I am quoting Abraham Lincoln from my own speech.

This motion does not recognize that fact. When there's a strike on

in a community, once they are out on strike for a while, the business

people are crying and everybody is crying — and don't forget the

strikers are hurt — but when those people hurt themselves then they

come to the Government and they ask it to put restrictive legislation

in to force these people back to work so they won't get hurt. You're

not worried about the worker getting hurt, you're worried about

business getting hurt. That's what you're worried about! You're worried

about capital getting hurt!

That's exactly what you're worried about, Mr. Premier, through you,

Mr. Speaker. You're worried, Mr. Premier, about the capital that it is

going to hurt because it was admitted there, that our export products

are going to suffer. This is what he said (interruption).

Listen, I'm willing to suffer as long as free collective bargaining is

given a chance to work and you sure didn't give it a chance to work in

this case.

This is another quote from my own speech, Mr. Speaker, "This bill

before us does not recognize this right and will not bring peace

between management and labour because it relegates labour to an

inferior position. It does not recognize the working people as people

but rather just as a commodity in the production of our country. The

only time that we will have peace in this regard will be when the

working people are considered as part of society and able to share in

the fruits of their labour, not by how cheaply industry can purchase

that labour, but by the ability of the country to produce." This is

when we will have labour peace, not until then. Don't forget when you

pass this motion ask yourself in all conscience, each and every one of

you, because you are all part of the working force of this

Province…maybe you're getting beyond that now, but you're all part of

the working force…and when you're stabbing one working man in the

back, you're stabbing them all in the back, organized or unorganized. I

say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a sad day for Government in

British Columbia and it is a sad day for the people of British

Columbia, because this is only one step towards that absolute

dictatorship where you are trying to grind labour under the iron heel

that they were under years ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I think that it could be properly said that the reluctance to discuss this motion that was exhibited when it was first introduced is quite understandable.

I think, in all fairness, that we on this side should say that we had

the same concern and reservations in the period of time when we were

considering the import of this motion that those people had on the

other side of the House but we came to different conclusions.

My friend, who has just taken his seat, is a highly respected labour man, but he gave the key….

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's not.

MR. VOGEL: Now, just a minute. We have to be fair. He gave

the key to the philosophy that he expressed when lie spoke in terms of

1800 — 1800! When Bill 33 was debated on

[ Page 569 ]

this Floor, Mr. Speaker, I had a few comments as many of the Members

had at that time. I was quite interested in the import and development

of the philosophy that had to do with the rights of working people and

spoke about the days of the robber barons. Most of us who read widely

when we were young and reformers and so on are quite familiar with all

those problems that arose in that day. Following the debate on Bill 33,

we had an election and, as far as my area was concerned, Bill 33 and

all those things that we had debated on this Floor, was a paramount

issue. I didn't try to duck that issue, Mr. Speaker. I presented that

issue wherever I spoke, simply because if we are going to continue to

talk about 1800 in 1971, we're just demonstrating that we are

completely out of date with our thinking. Working people… (interruption). No, no. What we're saying, Mr. Speaker, is that

sensible free collective bargaining should endure, but how can you have

free collective bargaining if one side is going to put themselves in a

position where they hold a shotgun at the other fellow's head? That's

not free collective bargaining. What we are trying to do is unload the

shotgun and get down to sensible, intelligent bargaining based upon

statistical facts. What are you talking about when you talk about

keeping the trucks rolling? What are you talking about? You're talking

about keeping the pay cheques coming, too. If these people who speak so

emotionally and without real constructive thought on this issue, if

they forget that the pay cheques to those working people are not

important, let them remember the wives of those people. Don't forget

that fact. That was why the public generally accepted what was

presented in good faith — Bill 33 — an attempt to resolve what is fair

and proper in the returns to the working people, in terms of sensible,

intelligent, constructive debate, based upon statistical facts. That

has got to come if we are going to keep the standard of living that we

have achieved through our technological development in this country.

The whole thing, Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see is that we are not

back in the days of 1800, when people were struggling for just a

pittance — that's perfectly true — to keep a roof over their head and

some oil for the lamp to put in the window and a bit of firewood and so

on. We are talking about the days of two automobiles in the garage,

modern homes, and everything like that. You can't sustain that without

continuous productive efforts. You cannot do it and that is what my

friend has forgotten over there. I say, Mr. Speaker, that anything we,

as a responsible Assembly, can do to ensure that the highest degree of

productivity can be maintained on a continuous basis and ensure also

that having done that, there will be a fair and reasonable distribution

of the benefits of that production, then we are working in the

interests of all the working people of this country.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the principle that lies

behind the motion that we are now considering rises far above the

specific dispute that is mentioned in the motion. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, I will not support the motion.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, during this

Session, has been waiting for an opportunity to shift the

responsibility of his Cabinet onto this House and to shift the

responsibility of his mismanagement of the Labour Portfolio onto this

House. Mr. Speaker, the motion suggests that compulsion in a free

market economy can and should replace the strike or lockout. I do not

accept that principle. The motion removes the incentive for voluntary

agreement and it will remove it in this dispute, and it will remove it

in all subsequent disputes in this Province. Mr. Speaker, this is not

strike control. This motion in no way is strike control. It is

settlement avoidance and clearly so. The motion opens the door for this

union and the companies involved to prepare not for settlement, but for

compulsory arbitration.

From this date forward, these two sides in this particular dispute,

and I suggest in others, will no longer be looking to the bargaining

table for settlement but will be devoting their efforts instead to

their arguments before some board of arbitration, regardless of what

phrase the Minister of Labour may attach to it.

Mr. Speaker, I further suggest that this motion turns a labour

dispute into a political issue. I stated in the debate on Bill 33 and I

state again now, Mr. Speaker, that when labour disputes become

political issues, the Minister of Labour and the Government in office

of that day will decide the action in a labour dispute based on

political advantage, rather than what is right for the workers or what

is right for the companies. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this

dispute as the Labour Minister attempted to do in the Hydro dispute, he

is basing his actions on political advantage and really not on what is

right for both sides.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear.

MR. CLARK: Now, Mr. Speaker, after a year… (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you wish to object, stand and make your objection.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, now, since Bill 33 passed in this

House, British Columbia can join itself to all the other experience

that has accumulated in the world. Experience that has occurred in

other countries which have injected compulsion into labour-management

relations. We can now be added to the long list of those who have

proven that compulsory arbitration has never provided a positive force

for labour peace. Never, anywhere in the world. Mr. Speaker, when I

made my contribution to the debate on Bill 33, I made four statements

which I would ask the Members to again consider in light of what has

happened since that debate on Bill 33. Those four statements were: that

compulsion, once threatened, will be threatened again, and that

compulsion, once used, would be used again. This has happened in

British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I will go further and suggest that each

time compulsion is threatened, the threat will come easier. Mr.

Speaker, each time compulsion is used, the use will be easier. British

Columbia proved that during this past summer and this motion further

proves it.

Mr. Speaker, having said that and made my position clear, I could

not ignore the news that the Premier brought to the House. I just wish

that the actions of the Minister in Manitoba were contagious to the

Premier's Cabinet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I propose to support

this motion but, because I consider it to be a very important topic, I

want to state briefly and I hope clearly,

[ Page 570 ]

my reasons for doing so.

Perhaps I should say at the outset that I do not claim any expertise

in labour affairs; however, I think that all Members of this House are

aware of the fact that the early settlement of this dispute is vital to

the public good of this Province. I don't see any point in delaying it

any further because, although I believe that good progress had been

made toward a settlement up to last Friday, and I would like to believe

that maybe the differences could have been resolved by the end of this

week, if they had been left untampered with, the damage was done last

Friday when this motion was brought into this House so quickly after

the beginning of the strike. I think that the effect of bringing this

motion to the House last Friday was to effectively destroy any further

bargaining because the scales had already been tipped in favour of

management at that point. This is my point of view, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I,

too, recall when Bill 33 was debated I believe for over 16 hours in

this House. Every Member in our Party, the New Democratic Party, spoke

against it and voted against it because, at that time, I believe we

could see the very serious ramifications, particularly of

section 18 of

that bill. Certainly, the motion which the Labour Minister has produced

today proves how right we were at that time. For this motion, which

focuses on the public interest, is indeed a very weak and dangerous

motion. I would like to quote from a very well-known U.S. arbitrator,

Professor Robben Fleming, who said, "The public interest is a very

appealing but ill-defined concept." Another famous French professor, a

political scientist, also stated that public interest is an indefinable

concept. I would like, also, to remind the House of an

article by that

famous humorist, George Bain, who wrote recently on Trudeau and

strikes. George Bain came to the conclusion that the Prime Minister's

pseudo-liberal, logical comments on the postal strike simply boiled

down to an argument against any wage increase to anyone ever.

This is what concerns me about this motion and why I consider it a

very, very dangerous motion, because one could boil it down to the fact

that this Government could be embarking on a policy in the Province of

British Columbia which means that no strikes by anyone ever will take

place in this Province. That is why I will not support this motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, during the

discussion on the motion today we've heard a great number of comments

from people referring to various sides and to various groups. We've

heard references to clauses and changes and certain small particulars

of the bill, whether it was one local or the other local. It seems that

somehow in all the middle of this part of the discussion, that perhaps

this House has lost sight of what the debate is really about on this

resolution. The Member from Kootenay made a statement that one side

didn't represent labour or one side didn't represent management.

Perhaps, in this House, Mr. Speaker, at this moment there is need for

someone who represents one other group that, to my knowledge, hasn't

been heard from here today. That is a very large and a very quiet

group, unfortunately — the very large group of the unemployed in the

Province of British Columbia at this moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CAPOZZI: We are not dealing with a question of whether

anyone on this side or on that side of the House is here today to force

someone back to work to satisfy some question of principle. We are here

today, Mr. Speaker, or at least as far as I am personally concerned,

and I know I speak for many of the others here, for the one and only

single issue: how can we put our people back to work.

There was a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition about

this being a political move. Mr. Speaker, I say this, that if it is

political to want those people who are unemployed back in honest

employment, then it is political. If it is political to turn and ask

the father of a house, who is presently not working, whether he wants

to go back to work, then it is political. If it is political to try to

get some of the young people, whom we have heard so much about, back

into the employment stream, then, Mr. Speaker, I say that it is a

political move. But I would point out from the discussions that we have

heard from the various Members, I would direct only one question and I

would direct it to management and I would direct it to the