1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4029 ]

CONTENTS

Human Rights Code of British Columbia Amendment Act (Bill 145).

Mr. D.A. Anderson. Introduction and first reading — 4029

Privilege

Accuracy of statements made by Minister of Human Resources re incentive

programme. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4029

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Cancellation of rental housing council grant.

Mr. Phillips — 4030

Application by Mrs. Bremer for teaching position. Mr. Wallace —

Bedrock credit cards. Mr. Curtis — 4031

Bargaining zones for teachers. Mr. Gibson — 4031

Railroad concession at Fort Steele. Hon. Mr. Hall answers — 4031

Advertisement on mailing of social assistance cheques, Mr. McGeer —

Indian blockade on BCR. Mr. Fraser — 4032

BCR annual report. Hon. Mr. Nunweiler answers — 4032

Income assurance for egg producers. Mrs. Jordan — 4032

Municipal Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 103). Third reading — 4033

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 84). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4033

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. King — 4038

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Smith — 4038

Amendment to

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 4039

Amendment to

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 4042

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 4043

Division on

section 3 as amended — 4044

section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 4045

section 6.

Mr. Gabelmann — 4046

section 7.

Mr. Wallace — 4047

Amendment to

section 7.

Mr. Wallace — 4047

section 7.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4048

Amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. King — 4051

section 8 as amended.

Mr. Steves — 4053

Amendment to

section 8 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 4054

section 8 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 4055

Amendment to

section 9.

Hon. Mr. King — 4056

Amendment to

section 10.

Hon. Mr. King — 4056

Amendment to

section 11.

Hon. Mr. King — 4056

Amendment to

section 12.

Hon. Mr. King — 4056

section 12 as amended.

Mr. Gabelmann — 4056

Amendment to

section 13.

Hon. Mr. King — 4059

Amendment to

section 14.

Hon. Mr. King — 4059

section 14 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 4059

Amendment to

section 21.

Hon. Mr. King — 4060

Amendment to

section 22.

Hon. Mr. King — 4060

Amendment to

section 26.

Hon. Mr. King — 4060

Amendment to

section 27.

Hon. Mr. King — 4060

Amendment to

section 31.

Hon. Mr. King — 4060

Amendment to

section 32.

Hon. Mr. King — 4060

section 33.

Mr. Gibson — 4060

Report and third reading — 4061

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 142). Committee stage.

section 11. Mr. McClelland — 4061

Emergency Programme Act (Bill 61).

Order for second reading discharged —

Appendix — 4062

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would

ask the House to join me today in extending a very, very warm

welcome to Dr. Peter Umland, the consul-general of the Federal

Republic of Germany, who is now located in his Vancouver

office. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to

him.

Introduction of bills.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. D.A. Anderson, Bill 145, Human Rights

Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Hall presents the final report on Family and

Children's Law with the seventh report, on Family Maintenance,

the 10th report, on Native Families and the Law and the 13th

report, which is The Commission and the Community.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on a point of

privilege, yesterday in answer to a question from me about a

change in his department's incentive programme, the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) stated — and I'm quoting here

from the Blues : "What we have done is to reassert the fact that

there was always a six-month limit and it could be renewed

based on recommendations." He then added: "There's no change in

policy. It's not a change in policy."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I checked the information I had and I

discovered — and you will appreciate my concern — that there

are documents which seem to contradict the Minister's

statement.

I have in my hand three documents. The first is serial

letter number 551/445, issued by the Minister's department on

May 6, 1975. It's headed: "Social allowances: earnings,

exemptions and incentive allowances."

It begins: "The Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of the Department

of Human Resources, has authorized the following policy

changes, effective immediately…" And if that was not

clear enough, on page 3,

section 10 of the document, we find

the phrase: "Allowances may be granted for a maximum…"

and on it goes.

In addition is the circular from the Department of Human

Resources field service, dated June 2, 1975. It's addressed to

all organizations hiring incentive workers, and it goes on to

say that as of June 1, 1975, all incentive workers can be

authorized up to six months only, and that a further extension

of six months may be authorized by the district supervisor if — and it is underlined — the recipient is definitely preparing

for employment or a mutually-agreed upon self-improvement

programme.

Now in the first document I mentioned, it says that it

replaces serial letter 502/407 of March 1, 1973, which is the

third document I have here, Mr. Speaker. On page 2 we find the

following statement: "2(a). The length-of-opportunities

allowance payment will be made on the basis of a plan

established between the social worker and the

opportunities-allowance recipient." No indication here of the

cut-off date.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I take it the Hon. Member is raising this

to, in effect, contradict the information which has been

supplied. But I point out that there's nothing in what he said

that indicates that there was any knowing or deliberate

misleading that I can see in what he's saying. Obviously,

there's a difference of opinion on this.

If the Hon. Member wished to make a motion of some kind,

under a motion of privilege, he would have to do so. I'd

suggest that possibly he wants some further answer from the

Minister on this question, and it could properly be done during

question period.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that certainly is one course, Mr.

Speaker, but you have often said that Ministers need not reply.

But when they do reply, I think it's important that they make

sure the facts are correct. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is

rather pointless to put a motion on, or anything of that

nature. I will accept your suggestion and have the Minister

make a clarification today, or ask the Minister to make a

clarification in question period.

MR. SPEAKER: I think there's another problem we have under

the rules, and which should be borne in mind. In question

period, though, we have the other problem — that it must not

impugn the accuracy of information conveyed by a Minister to

the House. But I would assume that there's been an error on the

part of either the Minister or the information that is at hand.

Now one or the other may exist or it may be well cleared up by

a simple statement by the Minister on the question, if he's

prepared to inform the House or inform the Hon. Member. But I

don't think that it really calls for a matter of privilege when

you get this type of problem.

[ Page 4030 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the problem is that we have to

accurately inform our constituents. In following your

suggestion, Mr. Speaker, perhaps at this time the Minister

would make a statement clarifying what the true policy is so

that we would not have this time taken out of question

period.

MR. SPEAKER: It would be more desirable than during question

period, which would really be a violation of question period to

do it then, too, I'm afraid.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Well, what kind of

precedent are we setting right now?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know what the question is. Are you

asking the Hon. Minister to clear up what he has said, or to

clear up the information you've received?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the information that has

gone out, over the name of the Minister, stating that there are

policy changes, totally contradicts what he said in the House

where he said that there are no policy changes. I wonder

whether he could straighten the matter out. Have there been

policy changes in this area or not?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it's entirely up to the House. I have no

motion in front of me and I presume we shall just have to go

ahead with the question period unless somebody seeks the

floor.

Oral questions.

CANCELLATION OF

RENTAL HOUSING COUNCIL GRANT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question, but he's not in

the House. I wanted to ask the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) a question, but he's….

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture is here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there he is. Oh, thank you very much.

Would the Minister advise me if he found an answer to my

question?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, we

have tried to meet with Treasury, but haven't been able to do

so yet. The Treasury did meet this morning and will be meeting

again this afternoon.

APPLICATION BY MRS. BREMER

FOR TEACHING POSITION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Education regarding an inquiry which I have

received from a constituent in Oak Bay, Mrs. Ann Bremer, the

wife of John Bremer, with respect to her application for a

teaching appointment with the Sooke school district. Inasmuch

as she was fully qualified for the post, and the fact that the

supervisor for special services recommended her appointment to

the superintendent of education, can the Minister tell the

House if she or any of her departmental staff were consulted

about Mrs. Bremer's application?

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

the Hon. Member: neither I nor my staff was even aware that

Mrs. Bremer had applied for a job. Secondly, it is entirely up

to a school board to make their decision on the hiring of

teachers. Any implication that the department would interfere

in that, I think, is something that should be made quite clear

from here: this is never done.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

Minister's answer, but the fact is that Mrs. Bremer has been

given differing explanations by different levels of authority

in the system for the rejection of her application. Regardless

of the Minister's rightful respect for autonomy, the fact is

that justice really must be seem to be done.

I wonder if, under the circumstances, the Minister would

consider carrying out an inquiry into the circumstances of her

rejected application since there does seem to be a possibility

that her human rights have been denied because she happens to

be the wife of John Bremer.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of

teachers who apply for jobs — thousands, in this province.

Surely you don't expect the Minister of Education to hold an

inquiry for every teacher who makes an application and does not

get hired by a school board. It is entirely up to the school

board to make their decision. Any concern from Mrs. Bremer

relative to not being hired by the board should be taken up

with the school board.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is obviously not within the

jurisdiction of the Minister from what the Hon. Minister said

in answering the question.

MR. WALLACE: I am asking about human rights, Mr. Speaker, I

am not just confining this to the

[ Page 4031 ]

question of education.

MR. SPEAKER: I think human rights comes under the Minister

of Labour.

MR. WALLACE: Well, could I ask the Minister of Labour that

since there are examples of individuals in this province who

have been unable to find employment because of previous

disagreements with the Department of Education, has the

Minister of Labour made any decisions about measures that could

be taken to protect the human rights of spouses with particular

reference to their obtaining future employment when their

partner has had this problem?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would

suggest to the Hon. Member that if he has knowledge of anyone's

rights being abridged in any way through discrimination, he

should most certainly place those facts before the director of

the Human Rights branch and they will certainly be investigated

as to their validity.

If there is a case to be made, a board of inquiry would be

assembled and remedial action would be ordered, including the

possibility of damages if in fact anyone's rights have been

abridged.

But I think anyone who comes up with the kinds of inferences

and suggestions contained in what I understood from the Member

should certainly be prepared to lay those facts and that

evidence on the table and, as a responsible Member of this

House, proceed with some charges.

BEDROCK CREDIT CARDS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Hon.

Minister of Consumer Services, who was quite helpful last week

with regard to an unusual kind of negative credit card operated

under the name Bedrock Business Services.

MR. SPEAKER: What?

MR. CURTIS: I didn't select the name, Mr. Speaker.

(Laughter.) At that time, the Minister indicated that the

matter was under review by her department. I wonder if she

could tell the House now if that review is completed and

secondly, if it is felt by her or her department that some

consumers may have been misled by this particular service.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Yes, Mr.

Speaker, my department completed their investigation. They

found that in fact the company was not breaking any provincial

law in the distribution of these cards. However, it was our

considered opinion that the cards are valueless.

If somebody wants to spend $5 for a card that says to the

merchant, "I'll negotiate the rates with you that you would

otherwise pay to a credit card company," a person can do

that verbally. He doesn't need a card. He doesn't need to pay

$5 for a card to do it.

Estimating that you could negotiate, say, a 4 per cent

reduction or something like that, you would have to spend $100

in order to get the return on your investment of $5 for the

card.

I think it was perhaps a squirrelly idea in the beginning.

(Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary to the Minister. Has her

department or has the Minister herself attempted to contact the

two individuals who have put their names to this operation in

an attempt to "discourage" them from this activity?

HON. MS. YOUNG: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, they contacted

my department. They wanted the endorsement of the department.

Quite appropriately, we refused to give them any such

endorsement. I think that indicates the view that the

department holds on this matter.

BARGAINING ZONES FOR TEACHERS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Minister of Education. Pursuant to the

legislation passed earlier this spring, has the Minister as yet

entered into any consultations with the BCTF or the BCSTA with

respect to the establishment of bargaining zones?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Both parties have been asked to meet

separately and draw up some of their own suggestions. Then I

will be meeting with them about the middle of July.

RAILROAD CONCESSION AT FORT STEELE

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, the Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) asked me why the concessionaire

or qualified steam engineer who has operated the railroad

concession at Fort Steele for the last six years has been

replaced by a Victoria resident after having been advised last

year that the concession would be put up for tender this

year.

I replied that the concessionaire who operated the railroad

concession at Fort Steele until 1974 indicated he would not be

back for the '74 season. Consequently, it was advertised by the

Parks department and a new person was selected. The tender for

the concession was not advertised each year if the service was

satisfactory, and the new concessionaire gave very satisfactory

service in '74.

[ Page 4032 ]

That elicited my question, almost to myself, supported by

the Member, that we should really look into the question as to

whether the old concessionaire prior to '74 was advised it

would be up for tender.

My investigations have been concluded enough, so after that

carefully checking with those concerned in the parks department

I'm told that Mr. McTavish, who had the railroad concession up

to the year mentioned, was informed that the concession to

operate the railroad has been awarded to the Victoria resident,

and that the performance of operation would be reviewed at the

season's end as to whether the permit should be renewed or

re-advertised.

I think that probably a misunderstanding has arisen around

that meeting. It was found, after a season's probation, that

the operation was most satisfactory and the permit was not

re-advertised. This is the usual procedure.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the point in time this session is

at, if the Member has any further information he wants to give

me regarding Mr. McTavish's position, I would be pleased to

engage in correspondence with him. That's the compilation of my

investigation, and that concludes all the questions I had taken

as notice, save the one on the Capital Improvement District

Commission for the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

ADVERTISEMENT ON MAILING OF

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE CHEQUES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): This is concerning

an advertisement that appeared in the Vancouver papers earlier

this week from the Vancouver Resources Board, about the mailing

of social assistance cheques for the current period.

I wonder, since these are going to be hand-delivered,

whether the Minister could give an explanation why this costly

procedure has been entered into by the Vancouver Resource

Board.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker,

this is not the first month that this has happened. This has

now happened, I think, for the last three months, because we

have not been able to get any guarantee from the post office

that mailing can happen within a reasonable amount of time. So

the direct issue has been going on to my knowledge for three

months now. This is the third month.

It relates, really, to the post office and the fact that

they can't give us a date when the cheques would come in, when

they would be received and when they would go out.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary. Could the Minister give us some idea of

the comparative cost of these two methods? Our checks with the post office indicate

that these things would be delivered without difficulty.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, it is not only that. The delivery is

done by some of the staff to some of the places where people

live. The other method of distribution is by use of Chalmers

church on 12th Avenue, where people come down. There have been

two methods used for distributing cheques.

INDIAN BLOCKADE ON BCR

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister

Without Portfolio regarding the blockage on the BCR in northern

British Columbia. Is there any progress being made to have this

blockage removed? Things are getting fairly serious up there. I

would like to know what progress has been made.

HON. A.A. NUNWEILER (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr.

Speaker, the problem is severe. We recognize that. I am not

able to report at this time on the extent of progress, but I

can assure you that we are continuing to de everything we can.

We've got a potential solution in the Tanla band which is not

complete yet, but it looks very encouraging. That is the band

that is further up the line.

BCR ANNUAL REPORT

HON. MR NUNWEILER: While I am up, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to answer a question raised yesterday by the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett). He was asking when the detailed

financial statement under the statutory expenditure Act is

going to be filed by the British Columbia Railway. The deadline

for that is July 1. I would mention that the auditors and the

comptrollers have been very busy over the last six months,

burning the midnight oil, trying to come to a solution, and

there is every indication they will meet the deadline to file

this report.

INCOME ASSISTANCE FOR EGG PRODUCERS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Agriculture. Would he please confirm to the

House whether or not the B.C. egg producers are now in fact

covered by income assurance?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Agreement has been reached between the

negotiating committee and my department and myself. Regulations

have not yet been presented to cabinet. Until these regulations

have been approved by cabinet, that plan is not in force,

although it has been agreed in negotiation that it will be

effective April 1, 1975, when it does come into force.

[ Page 4033 ]

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary. Would the Minister please

advise the House if there were any conditions imposed upon the

egg producers before presenting the regulations to cabinet that

were not imposed on any other qualifying commodity group?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Member could be

specific as to what…. I don't just know what she is driving

at, because there are all kinds of things that can enter into

negotiations.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, there seems to be some concern that the

willingness of the B.C. egg producers to sign themselves into a

central marketing scheme is part of the conditions of these

regulations being approved, which would then ratify the scheme

as announced by the Minister on June 2.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, supply management is an

essential part of this particular scheme. Supply management

means agreement to remain part of CEMA within the terms of the

agreement signed by the B.C. Egg Marketing Board. Notice was

given in December, 1974, that they would be pulling out within

a year. I did insist that they live up to that agreement they

had signed as part of the condition of entering into an income

assurance agreement with them.

Orders of the day.

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

leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we did mention we'd do Bill

84 first but I think we'll go on the order, which is a report

on Bill 103, followed by Bill 84.

Report on Bill 103, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 103 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 84.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 84; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I wonder whether the Minister

could indicate why there is a need to change to 1(1)(a). What

was the reason for this? By the way, on

section 1, I would like

to congratulate him for broadening the definition under 1(c)(iv).

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

basically just a drafting amendment which clarifies the status

of dependent contractors. It makes it clear that a corporation

can, indeed, be a dependent contractor, and that persons who

operate through a company for legitimate taxation or other

business reasons are not restricted in terms of being

recognized and fined as a dependent contractor.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

I'd like to ask the Minister to comment on the removal of the

exclusion of professional employees from the code. Generally

speaking, I would suppose — I'm speculating here — professional

employees, where they would be organized into a unit, would

generally be organized into a separate unit. I'm making that

assumption — the Minister may suggest that's not the way it will

be. I would ask if this probable development doesn't lead to

more fragmentation in particular industrial situations, and

more of a possibility of closedowns because of just one more

addition of a kind of a bargaining unit to the process. Or

would it be his thought that, generally speaking, these

professional associations should go in just as a component of

an existing trade union in whatever company it might be?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it's always been the position

of the Department of Labour that we in no way act to comment on

or advocate the particular design of a unit. That is the clear

responsibility, as it always has been, of the Labour Relations

Board. I think the Member might be interested in noting that in

the

section 32 of the bill, which amends

section 152(a), there

is a transitional provision to ensure that any professional

people, who may well meet the test of an employee, are not

seconded into an existing unit unknowingly and unwittingly. In

other words, there must be a test before they can be swallowed

up just by essence of the coming into force of this

section.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, for a few

minutes I'd like to pursue with the Minister this matter of the

new definition for the term of "dependent contractor". It would

seem to me that if this term is now to include a corporation,

this could very well mean that every one of the independent

truck loggers, and their employees, in the Province of British

Columbia, who operates as a

[ Page 4034 ]

small, private corporation, will now be included in the

definition. They could be subjected, because of this change of

definition, to any master agreement or contract between the

employer, who is the prime contractor in the woods, and

themselves. And they would lose their present position of

independence by their own free choice, if they desire to

continue working in the woods. Is this correct, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. KING: No, Mr. Chairman, indeed that is not correct.

In the first place there's nothing mandatory in the dependent

contractor definition. It simply indicates, as was pointed out

in the debate on the Labour Code when the dependent contractor

provision was introduced, that these people can be deemed to be

employees for the purposes of organization. But in terms of

whether or not they wish to exercise that right, that is

strictly up to them through the democratic process of a vote

where a majority of a group would have to support and vote in

favour of organization before that would occur — in precisely

the same kind of exercise that units of employees become

organized in the industrial sector or any other sector of the

work force. So there's nothing mandatory or compulsive about

the section.

MR. SMITH: On a supplemental question, Mr. Chairman. I don't

want either myself or the Minister to be hung up on semantics

in a case like this, because I think it's important that we

know exactly what is intended.

It would seem to me that the people who operate presently as

independent contractors throughout the Province of British

Columbia, if they are incorporated and they work in an area of

the woods where the majority of the workers are covered by a

collective agreement, by IWA or whoever represented the

workers, then they in turn would become subject to that

contract, whether it was their will or not, because they would

certainly be in the minority working in that particular

operation in the woods.

Even though they may not have held a vote or expressed any

interest in becoming part of a union, would they not be

required to join a union as a result of the master contract

which was in force, affecting the majority of the people

involved in that particular operation? I think this is one

thing we need a definitive statement on, Mr. Minister, because

it is important to many of these small contractors throughout

all of British Columbia who by preference choose to operate as

a non-union shop, and their employees prefer that, as they have

expressed at times.

It would look to me that they could be prohibited by this definition from working

in the woods or any logging show or operation where a master contract or a collective

agreement had been negotiated between the majority of the workers in that particular

area and the employer. Do I interpret that correctly or not?

HON. MR. KING: No, the point is, Mr. Chairman, that if an

existing union, a certified bargaining agent, applied for a

group of dependent contractors to be included in the existing

certificate, than a majority of those dependent contractors

would have to sign cards indicating their willingness to enter,

and they would be bound in that way by the majority expression

of the dependent contractors involved.

If there was a question or a dispute as to whether or not a

clear majority of cards had been obtained, then undoubtedly the

Labour Relations Board would conduct a ballot to determine the

wishes.

MR. SMITH: Thanks, Mr. Minister. I'm not suggesting that

what you say is incorrect, because I do believe it's an

important point. As you know, in many operations throughout the

Province of British Columbia the independent contractors

involved in any given logging operation in any given part of

the province are generally in the minority with respect to

numbers. If the people who are employed in that particular

phase of the contracting process sign a card to become

unionized, that's one thing and that's their business to either

sign or not as they desire. But if because of a collective

agreement in force with the majority of the workers in that

logging operation they were considered to be union whether they

desired to be or not, that's something else altogether, in

their opinion.

You are telling us this afternoon that unless the union

approached the independent contractors, who are not part of the

collective agreement presently in force in that particular

logging operation, unless they got a majority of the members to

agree to becoming union, then they could remain operating in

the woods without a collective agreement. Is this correct?

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

separate two things. I am not referring in any way to a private

contract that might be arranged between two parties — namely

the forest industry, as an example, and their workers. If they

sign a two-party contract, which in some way imposes a

condition on a third party, that becomes a legal question as to

the applicability and extent to which that two-party contract

can be enforced upon a third party. That's not for me, I don't

believe, Mr. Chairman, to attempt to interpret or comment on in

the House.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): I wanted to

comment on sections 1(

b) and 1(c).

In the question of 1(b), I just want to express my

appreciation to the Minister for making the change

[ Page 4035 ]

which now allows farm workers and domestic workers and

professionals and trappers and other categories of workers to

be covered by the code, so they too can organize like all other

workers. The only comment I'd make in passing is that I wish

that had been done a couple of years ago so I wouldn't have had

to vote against that at that time.

I wonder, though, if when we're comparing this kind of

question and exclusions whether or not we should take note of

the fact that there's a phenomenon happening in the country in

relation to management personnel. One of the things happening

at B.C. Hydro, certainly happening within the government

itself, is that both professionals and management people are

beginning to organize unions or associations of their own, and

they, for their own reasons, seem to feel a kinship and seem to

think that they should be lumped together in an association for

collective bargaining purposes. What the code does is to

prohibit that. The management personnel, who are becoming an

increasing number in most situations, are left out in the cold.

I think we're going to have to begin to address ourselves to

the question of where, in fact, management personnel fit — I'm

talking about middle-management people — in the bargaining

structure or the unit structure in each company.

For example, at B.C. Hydro I know that management and

professional employees had hoped to be able to bargain together

as one collective unit, but that will not now be possible

because the professionals themselves will be set aside.

However,

section (

b) does make great progress and I want to

express my appreciation for that.

Section (

c) makes a major change to the definition of

strike. What it does, in effect, is to say that a strike is no

longer what we have thought of as a strike, but also adds to

the question of slowdowns and presumably work-to-rule, because

it's very difficult to differentiate between that and a

slowdown, as the proposed amendment suggests: "…to

restrict or limit production or services." I would say that for

any factory that's producing 1,000 widgets a day on average,

when the production goes down to 800 widgets a day, that

presumably would be a slowdown. Therefore it's a strike,

whether it's because there's been a bad day between management

people and the workers or for whatever reasons, it could be

considered to be a strike, particularly in the days leading up

to the final conclusion of an agreement.

I'm not particularly happy about that. I think it takes one further weapon

away from the trade unions in their economic struggle with management. In my

view, management has almost all of the weapons already. They have the power

to shut the factory down and operate in another part of the country, or shut

the factory down and operate in another part of the world. The workers don't

have those options. The workers have to work in the community in which they

live and have to take the job in the factory or plant that they are already

working at. They don't have the option of closing down for "economic reasons."

I think that by including this kind of definition we've taken one further weapon

away from what is really an arsenal that already is far too weak, in terms of

keeping a balance between labour and management.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to speak on that last point. We

heard this morning from the BCR management about the slow wheel

and the fact that, according to the BCR management — and the

transcript will undoubtedly support this — this is more

damaging than a strike in terms of the fact that the railway

must keep operating during such a slowdown. They are not able

to or they didn't want to shut down completely. The losses

mounted at a far more substantial rate than they would have had

the whole operation been shut down.

I would not wish this amendment to go through without again

congratulating the Minister and pointing out that there are

cases where a non-strike weapon is more effective than a strike

in terms of disrupting the operating. Therefore I think he is

to be congratulated for grasping this particular nettle and

pointing out that where there are actions which essentially

close down an operation, or weaken an economic operation just

as much as a strike would, the same general provisions of

strikes and lockouts should prevail.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like

to address my comments to the same

section as the previous two

speakers have dealt with. In reply to the Hon. Member who just

spoke, I believe the Hon. Minister last night pointed out that

the work-to-rule clause was covered by

section 4(2) which says:

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

and no employee &hall support, encourage, condone or engage

in any activity that is intended to or does not restrict or

limit production or services."

In the situation that the Hon. Member has just mentioned, if

this was one being dealt with by the Labour Relations Board,

they could already use that existing clause to deal with it.

They have those powers now.

My objection to this amendment that's in now is that it

actually outlines work-to-rule as a strike. In my own

experience, while I recognize that teachers aren't covered

under the Act — we'll talk about that in a minute — in

negotiating on behalf of teachers in my area, this is one of

the things that we used to use quite considerably in dealing

with problems that might arise other than salary negotiations,

problems dealing with teaching and learning conditions and so

on. I think there is a parallel here between other

[ Page 4036 ]

occupations where these problems may arise.

When we used work-to-rule, it was generally to cease with

activities that really were not part and parcel of our job —

things like extra-curricular activities and so on, after-school

sports activities and things like that. What we're doing here —

if teachers are included under the Act, and I hope some day

they will be — is saying that that type of work-to-rule,

whether it's with teachers or any other groups that are covered

by the Act, would be regarded as a strike. The situation then

on the job would be allowed to get worse and worse until it was

bad enough that you actually had a strike situation. So instead

of using work-to-rule, you would be forcing a strike situation,

which could be even more serious than simply work-to-rule or

slowdown on the job. I think a direct confrontation is worse.

So rather than being a moderating influence, I think it is one

that could lead to further confrontations.

As I say, the Minister quite correctly pointed out that it

was covered under

section 4(2). I think that that is adequate.

I don't think that defining it directly as a strike is really

necessary.

With regard to other portions of

section 1, I am very

pleased to see the domestic workers, farm workers and

professionals being included under the Act. I hope that groups

in those fields will start to organize and take advantage of

this Act in the coming years and use the full legislation that

is available to them under this Labour Code.

Mentioning teachers, they are still excluded, as they are

covered by the Public Schools Act. I believe that teachers are

gradually now coming to a feeling that they may join the ranks

of labour again as they were in the past. I hope that this will

happen, that the teachers' federation had the teachers

themselves will eventually join the ranks of labour. When they

do, I hope that there would be a way found to include teachers

in the Public Schools Act under this legislation as well so

that all groups are covered by similar legislation.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I only have a few

words on this vote in regard to the farm workers and the

domestic people. I am most pleased to see that they are brought

under the labour legislation. I would certainly like to commend

the chairman of that committee, Colin Gabelmann, and the

Members who went around the province and the effort they put

into seeing and seeking every side of the problem that they

could.

Myself, being a farmer, I can see many problems that are going to evolve from

this legislation due to the imports that we have from out of the province and

from out of the country. I just want to warn the public and the legislators

here in this gallery that a very careful eye is going to have to be kept on

the situation because we're in a position where the workers will be controlled

and they will have the right for certain wages. But the farming segment of the

population hasn't got that same control. They are told what they will receive

for their product. This is really evident in regard to what has happened with

beef production throughout the last year.

So I feel that we have a responsibility in regard to seeing

that the farmers themselves are protected as well at the same

time. Possibly the farmers themselves are also going to have to

organize into a very strong union type of organization the same

as everybody else has. We have to realize that we're in a

dog-eat-dog situation in this country and throughout the world.

If this is what they have to do to protect themselves, then

they'll also have to follow the same line.

It's not fair to the people who are working for them that

they should sacrifice their hours and their time to protect the

rest of society.

I'd just like to say that I'm sure that the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) will certainly have an ear wide open when

the farming organizations come in and say: "Okay, we need some

help now too, Hon. Member for Oak Bay. Will you stand up and

support us?" I'm sure he will. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll say: "Woof, woof, it's a

dog-eat-dog situation."

MR. LEWIS: I don't intend to carry this on but I would just

like to say that I am pleased that the committee and the

Minister of Labour saw fit to bring this legislation forward.

It's a forward step but there have to be some safeguards for

the farmers themselves.

MR. SMITH: Just a couple of more brief remarks, this time

with respect to provisions of

section 1B. I was also one of the

Members who travelled with the Committee on Labour and Justice

and I expressed some concerns at that time and I'll re-express

them now.

That is that inclusion of domestics and particularly

agricultural workers in the provisions of the Labour Code

without first of all defining how we're going to take care of

their specific problems that become involved in the farming

industry, is a cart-before-the-horse approach. I still believe

that to be true, because I believe that we had an obligation as

a committee to outline to the people involved in these specific

areas of employment, how we would overcome their particular

problems and that hasn't been done, Mr. Minister.

The legislation is before us now to include them. I think

what we have to realize is that most farm crops are very

perishable, that there is a selected period of time in which

they can be harvested and that if, through union activity or

whatever happens there is a withholding of labour at that time,

we could very

[ Page 4037 ]

well lose the benefit of the entire crop.

The other thing is that I would hope that the Minister has

given some consideration to how he's going to handle this

problem of extended hours and long work-weeks involved in

occasionally by people — particularly in the farming community

who must for a short and intensive period become involved in

working more than the regular hours. We should be able to

provide some means to alleviate the problem which would mean

that we have to envisage that the farm-owners cannot really get

involved in double time or time-and-a-half and so on, provided

that as they often do, they give days off and weeks off and

certain other considerations somewhere down the line.

I don't want to get into a long discussion on it this

afternoon except to bring it to the attention of the Minister.

I know he's aware of it — the problem — but, Mr. Minister, if

you consider it desirable to involve these people at this

particular time in the Labour Code of British Columbia, then I

suggest to you that you have even a greater obligation at this

time.

That is, before the harvest season becomes a full-scale

problem this fall, if you're going to proclaim these amendments

before fall, you have even a greater obligation to provide some

means in regulations to alleviate the great problems that could

be experienced in the farming industry, particularly in this

province. The last thing we want to become involved in is the

loss of perishable crops because of the fact that somebody

decided it was expedient to withhold labour.

MR. STEVES: Actually I hadn't intended to really get into

this debate again until the previous speaker started talking

about farmers. I guess, as the one that raised it in the first

place, I should reply to him.

Someone here said the previous speaker didn't know it was

there until we just told him.

MR. SMITH: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for North Peace River on

a point of order.

MR. SMITH: The point of order is simply this, Mr. Chairman,

I happened to have served on the committee that sat throughout

this province. I'm quite aware of what was involved in this

particular

section of the bill, and I don't think that the

Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) has any right to suggest that

I do not know what's involved….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is not a point of order.

The Hon. Member is entitled to correct the record after the

Hon. Member for Richmond finishes. The Hon. Member for

Richmond.

MR. STEVES: It was said in jest. If any offence was felt on

it, I apologize.

Actually, as far as the organization of farmworkers is

concerned, in the first place as it regards farmers this year,

to organize a farmworkers' union takes time. I don't see any

on the horizon at the present time so I don't think anybody

really has to worry about it for awhile until this happens.

What has happened in jurisdictions where farmworkers'

unions have organized and this is largely in Britain and

Europe, hasn't happened here in Canada. It is happening in the

States, but where this has happened, actually it's found to

have very good benefits to the farms and the farmers

themselves.

What has happened in these jurisdictions is, once these

working people working for the farmers have organized, this has

actually forced the farmers themselves to evaluate their own

positions and they have done just what the Member for Shuswap

(Mr. Lewis) suggests.

The farmers themselves have set up their own unions — and I

can think in Canada somewhat along the lines of the National

Farmers' Union — and they have been able to negotiate with

their own workers and with the businesses they sell their

produce to.

So, in jurisdictions where this has happened, it was

probably one of the best things that has actually been able to

save farming and to save the farmers themselves when their own

people get organized, because it forced them to recognize their

own situation and to try and do something about it. It has been

very successful in jurisdictions where farm workers'

legislation has been brought in.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should say to

the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) that I'm not sure,

but I think that he is making a bit of an error in terms of the

recommendations made by the committee on labour and

justice.

The extent o f the adoption of their recommendations

contained in this amendment is very, very limited. It is

limited only to the question of the right to organize, and I

wouldn't want the Member to get that opportunity and that right

confused with the labour standards legislation which regulates

hours of work and a whole host of other matters such as penalty

payments for overtime, and that type of thing, hours of work.

That is something that we will be looking at in the very, very

near future, but it is not contained in this bill.

The proposition, though, that we should extend the right to

organize and to bargain collectively with some contingencies

which would preclude the possibility of occasional tie-ups in

production, is something that I do not accept. Occasional

tie-ups are certainly inevitable, in my view, in terms of the

bargaining process.

[ Page 4038 ]

Now we at this point have no knowledge of whether the

agricultural workers choose or wish to take advantage of their

right to organize, in the first instance, and of course if we

do, we certainly hope that they will be responsible and capable

bargaining units.

But I am not prepared to extend the right on any limited

basis. They should enjoy the same rights and the same

privileges and the same breadth of function as any other trade

unionist, in my view.

Now if course there is always a propensity and some danger

of the occasional tie-up. But I do suggest that in totality,

the number of man-days lost due to strike activity in this

province is relatively small when compared to a whole variety

of other problems which I have discussed in this House on other

occasions. It is a problem, but that is one of the social

disturbances that we have to accept as the price for the

freedom and the rights of working people to bargain with

respect to the price that they choose to sell their labour

for.

I would like to say, in brief response to the Member for

Richmond (Mr. Steves) — and I covered this partly yesterday — I

just want to respond very briefly and say that one of the main

points in the amendment to 1(c), I believe it is, pertaining to

the definition of a strike, is the fact that there were some

anomalies under the existing apparatus, as I pointed out

yesterday.

It is possible and in fact has occurred, where a trade union

was in a legal strike position, had served their 72-hour strike

notice, and would have opted — in fact did opt — for the right to interject and impose some

limited form of job action. They were prohibited from so doing,

despite the fact that they were in a legal strike position.

That produced the very anomalous situation where they were free

to go on token strike, but prohibited from taking some kind of

limited job action to exert economic pressures on the employer.

That is indeed an anomaly in my view.

The only other real change is with respect to clearly

defining that workers do indeed have the right to be the judge

of conditions as to whether or not their work place is safe, or

whether the hazard obtains to the degree they would consider it

injurious to their health and safety.

If they make that judgment, it would not be deemed to be a

strike. That is clearly spelled out and I think that's a very,

very distinct advantage for workers in this province.

The other point I would like to make is with respect to this question of work-to-rule

campaigns. We don't know what the board might find in that kind of situation.

A work-to-rule campaign might indeed be justified, but it would relate to the

evidence and the circumstances of the case and be subject to that test, the

same test as other kinds of labour industrial relations conflict. So we don't

propose or intend to make any hard legislative decision on

that question.

Section 1 approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

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

section

3 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. WALLACE: I want, very briefly, to welcome the amendment

because of the clear implication that without the amendment the

employer was left with little opportunity, during the

organization period, to suspend or fire a worker for due cause.

I think that the Minister's amendment clears that up very

nicely.

Amendment approved.

section 3 as amended.

MR. SMITH: I'm just asking the page number for the

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pages 15 and 16 on the order paper.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I haven't had time to completely read the amendments, Mr.

Minister, but one of the things that seems to be a cause of

concern to many people is

section 3(b). That is that wherever a

union desires to exercise the provisions of

section 39(1),

which is application for certification, they may now require

the employer to deliver to them a complete list of names,

addresses and telephone numbers of the employees in the

intended unit.

It would seem to me that there is a provision there which

many people would consider an invasion of privacy, and I think

rightly so. If someone wished to challenge this particular

provision in court, he would have every right to do so and

could probably come out with a decision where the court would

uphold their right to privacy.

It is one thing for a union representative to go to an

employer and say that he wishes to canvass the employees and

ask them if they are willing to sign a card or allow a vote for

certification. It is another thing for the employer to be

forced by law to reveal not only the names and addresses of his

employees, but also the home phone numbers of each and every

one of those people. I think perhaps he has gone a little too

far in that respect, Mr. Minister. If this

[ Page 4039 ]

information is offered voluntarily, fine. I would think any

employer would first of all canvass his employees to see if

they were willing to have that information offered. But where

they are required to do it by statute, whether the employee

agrees or not, is going a bit too far.

I would be very surprised if this type of an amendment is

not challengeable in court. It does invade the privacy of the

individual who may not object to being approached on the job,

but has still at least the right, I think, to enjoy peace and

quiet in his own residential premises.

MR. WALLACE: MR. Chairman, I have an amendment pretty much

along the lines outlined by the Member for North Peace River. I

think two points are involved: the unfair invasion of privacy,

even down to the extent that this amendment suggests that the

telephone numbers of the employees be provided by the employer

to the trade union. In another respect, I feel that you are

asking the employer to do the trade union's work for them. If

nothing else, if the trade union wants to organize, which it

has every right to do and should have every right to do, I

don't see that the employer should be obligated to do their

work for them in the administrative aspects.

More importantly than that, and far and away beyond the

administrative aspect, is the fact that there may well be

employees who have unlisted telephone numbers. That is also an

individual right of a person in our society — to have an

unlisted telephone number. The reason you have an unlisted

number is for privacy. If your employer, without even asking

permission, gives that telephone number out along with a list

of names and addresses, it certainly invades the privacy of

that individual, I think, in a very serious way.

While I would prefer to see the whole amendment dropped, I

think the very least should be left off is the telephone

number. I think you are really going too far in that respect. A

compromise might be to at least delete the two words "telephone

number."

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper:

that in

section 3, line 13 of the proposed new

section 3, after

the words "intended unit" add the words "with the written

permission of each employee".

At least that, I think, is a compromise approach — that the

individual employee is given a chance to say whether he or she

agrees to the disclosure of that kind of information.

Presumably, in most cases I would expect that the majority of

the employees who are in favour of becoming organized would

disclose that information anyway. Probably not the telephone

number, but they would certainly disclose the information the

Minister is seeking.

On the other hand, let's remember that one of the most vital functions of a

democratic system is to protect the rights of minorities, and I would suggest

that here is a clear example where the rights of a minority should be given

greater consideration. For that reason I move this amendment.

On the amendment.

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

proffered by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay. I recognize that

there is a serious consideration here, relative to the privacy

of individuals. But I think there's another dimension that is

overriding, and which has not been touched on or recognized by

any of the opposition spokesmen when discussing this provision.

And that is the right of working people to gain knowledge and

access to an option they have in law. That option is whether or

not to associate themselves, along with their fellow employees,

in the voluntary exercise of determining whether or not a union

should be certified to represent them.

Now, obviously, there are distinct advantages in being

represented by a trade union. I think this House should

recognize that. The growth of the trade union movement itself

is completely indicative of the trend toward working people

demanding that they have some say in and some control over

their destiny in the workplace. So I think it's a safe

assumption that there's certainly merit and benefit.

But there are a whole variety of cases and incidents where a

trade union would not be aware of who or how many employees

were engaged in a unit that they sought to organize. There's a

whole variety of reasons why at least some of those workers in

that unit would not even be aware that a union was discussing

the wisdom of applying for certification in that plant.

All Members of this House are very concerned about the

democratic wishes of the majority. I draw to your attention

this problem: a trade union could conceivably talk to 40 out of

60 employees in a plant, apply for and obtain certification,

hence representation over all of those employees, and 20 of the

employees in the plant were not even aware that an application

had been made. Now you must weigh that consideration against

the need and the import of ensuring that the union has access

to all of the employees involved for the purpose of discussing

with them the advantages of joining and supporting the

union.

The other point is that the Members should recognize that

although this is a new legislative initiative in Canada, it's

certainly not a new legislative initiative in North America. It

has been held and it has been found in the U.S. to be an unfair

labour practice for employers to withhold the names, addresses

and telephone numbers of their employees from a union seeking

to organize the plant. That decision has been upheld in the

Supreme Court of the

[ Page 4040 ]

United States. So I don't think anyone would agree that the

question of the need for people to have privacy in terms of

their addresses and telephone numbers overrides the prior and

higher interest, in my view, of their options of discussing

with a proposed bargaining agent the relative benefits of

joining that association and playing a

part in determining

their own destiny.

So I reject the Member for Oak Bay's amendment, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think it rather interesting

this afternoon that we've come up with a very clear difference

between that side of the House and this side of the House. I

believe very strongly in the fact that in our society today

groups, not just unions, various organized groups of authority

and power are eroding the right of the individual citizen. And

this is just one more little step along that long road, a

well-intended road.

The Minister's pointed out the rights of the majority and I

respect him, but I think his statement just clarifies crystal

clear one of the big differences between the socialist approach

and our approach.

I believe in the right of the individual which would not, in

my view, greatly hinder or hamper the majority, as the Minister

suggests it might. Down through history it's always been that

little voice of one or two people telling the majority not to

wield the kind of power that they might have just because of

numbers.

You know you just give away a little bit in one piece of

legislation and next year it's a little bit in another, and

before we know it we have power-groups of various kinds — not

just unions, power-groups in management, power-groups in

various parts of the structure of our society. But every time

the individual loses just a little bit of that right to his

various accepted rights such as privacy.

I think we have a very unfortunate trend. Now the world's

not going to come to an end tonight because we pass or reject

this amendment, but I think that so often we lose sight of some

of the very vital elements in our society, not the least of

which is the element of protecting each and every one of us our

individual rights.

I know the Minister's aware of that, particularly because of

his own concern to set up a Human Rights branch and many of the

other actions he's taken. But I think that the trend and the

ultimate degree to which the individual in society may well

finish up being seriously penalized because of the growth of

power in the hands of majority groups is a very serious and

sinister prospect that we should all take note of, regardless

of our political stripes.

I feel that all I'm asking in this amendment is that the individuals concerned

— the employees — at least be approached or asked "is it all right if the employer

gives out your name and address?" and in the case telephone

number.

If even the Minister would agree that the approach be made

to the employees, and even if the employee says "no, "

just protecting his right to say "no," I think, is something

important.

It's the old argument that I may disagree entirely with what

you are saying, but I would fight to the death to preserve your

right to say it. I think that if even the employee was given

the right to say to the employer, "well I disagree with this,

but I know you have the power in law to disclose this anyway," I think even that would be just a little step towards

minimizing the erosion of individual rights.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we're definitely making

progress in this House. We now have the Leader of the

Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) quoting a socialist

philosopher and I welcome that.

MR. WALLACE: Rousseau, I think, wasn't it? Voltaire?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, two points I'd like to

make.

One regarding the

section itself. It should be read and

should be studied. It says: "…that the board may." "The

board may" which means again that that administrative tribunal

is able to look at the facts and the circumstances of the case.

Now they may not order this kind of provision in every case…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure they will.

HON. MR. KING: …in every case. That's something that they

are better able to do. It'll light up the circumstances

surrounding the application.

The other point I wanted to make, and I appreciate the

sincerity of the Member's concern for individual rights and

liberties, but just let me trace for you an actual case which

took place right here in the City of Victoria.

An application came in for certification of a very large

plant after an organizing campaign had been under way for some

period of time. The employer files his objections with the

Labour Relations Board, pointing out that although a majority

of employees in his main plant were in support of the trade

union, that unbeknown to that union there was an adjunct to his

plant in another location physically, but the same operations,

with a number of employees there which upset the balance

altogether. So that in fact, taken as a unit — and the board

under those circumstances, would be highly unlikely to separate

and fragment that kind of unit — certainly these amendments

would require that that employer provide in totality the names

of his workforce.

But under the circumstances that I've outlined the

[ Page 4041 ]

union made their application secure in the knowledge that

they had a majority of the employees within that unit, only to

find out that the employer had another small operation in his

pocket with a, number of employees in there who, for various

reasons, such as selective hiring, relationships and so on,

fortuitously for the employer upset the balance.

Of course, this was all in the absence of any knowledge of

the union, or any opportunity for the union to even have the

chance to talk and to try to persuade the totality of the

workforce what the advantages of unionism were. So you see

that's the kind of situation you get under the existing law and

I think that requires a remedy.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): There are a variety

of ways that the situations described by the Minister of Labour

could be overcome without invasion of privacy of the

individual.

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

Member that we are discussing the specific amendment of the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

MR. McGEER: Yes, and I intend to support that amendment. The

Minister of Labour has indicated his intention to reject it and

has put forward a number of specious arguments. I want

to demonstrate to him and to the other Members of the House

that might just go along with the Minister that there are

certainly ways of correcting the problems he's raised without

encroaching on a man and his castle.

What disturbs me, Mr. Chairman, is that the sorts of things

one reads about are not the kinds of things referred to by the

Minister, but they're stories of harassment of individuals in

their homes, by goon squads…

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Oh, come

off it.

MR. McGEER: …for the purposes…. That's what gets into

the newspapers. You should, as people charged with the

responsibility of protecting a man and his castle, to granting

human rights above and beyond the tyranny of the majority, be

certain that that individual can have solace in his home and

take the kinds of objectionable muscle that sometimes go into

the process of unionizing a plant out of that individual's

private life, away from his children, away from the rest of his

family.

I consider this an ugly and a sinister amendment — not

amendment, bill. I support the amendment. I'll get to other

sinister things coming from the Member for Oak Bay.

But if the problem, Mr. Chairman, is communicating information to the employees

in a unit, then it would be easy for us to put on the books legislation that

would require an employer to distribute to every employee any information that

the union wished to have distributed. Make that a requirement. Leave the name

and telephone number of the union agent. Let the employee call him, not have

the union representative become a telepest to that individual.

How often we've heard the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) stand up in this House moaning about telepests,

insisting that people have the courtesy of privacy in their own

homes. That's their castle. When you start moving the laws of

the land and the rights of unions into a man's home, you've

gone too far, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Minister that if the problem is the union

realizing how many people they have to sign up in order that

they get a majority, why not place something on the books that

would require the employer to state exactly how many employees

he has so that the union is never in any doubt as to the

numbers they must obtain in order to have a majority? That's a

perfectly fair thing to have on the books. But home addresses

so that they can pay midnight visitations? Telephone numbers so

that they can call on weekends or any time of the day and night

and bother the children and the wives? Come, come, that is an

invasion of privacy.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): You're making a

mountain out of a molehill.

MR. McGEER: I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. The

individual in his home should have a right to privacy. That's

what he has a home for, to shut out anybody that he wishes not

to meet, not to discuss anything with. It's his castle. Stay

out of it. There are other ways of achieving the objectives you

outlined. If there are abuses on the part of the employer, for

heaven's sake let's correct them, but not place the individual

in the position where he can be harassed in his own home.

I personally would support anything that were put on the

books that would require union literature to be distributed,

that would require the employers to disclose the names, if you

like, of the individuals, to disclose the numbers that have to

be signed up in order for a majority to be reached. But his

home address and his telephone number so that person can be

pestered in his residence? Never, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey has done his usual research on Scare-West, and their

library facilities are obviously quite extensive.

Interjection.

[ Page 4042 ]

MR. GABELMANN: He may well have been, but he didn't learn

very much today. That's the most incredible bit of pap I have

ever heard in this House from that Member. Let me say, Mr.

Chairman, that's telling you a lot, because we've heard a lot

of nonsense from that Member. He obviously has never been on

either side of an organizing drive in his life. He's probably

never been out of the laboratory at the University of British

Columbia, and he doesn't have a clue what the problems are.

If he expects that a trade union organizer is going to go

around, when he is attempting to secure the membership of a

person who works in a plant, and hassle that family, hassle the

kids, hassle the wife, hassle the employee himself or herself

and pay midnight skulking visits…. How easily do you think

that union organizer is going to get that card signed? That's

just utter nonsense. I wish the Hon. Member would try to avoid

the headline-seeking kind of speeches he makes that have no

basis whatsoever in fact.

He suggests that the employer should, in fact, do the

communicating with the potential employee or the potential

union member. Think about that! Mr. Chairman, ask that Member

to think about that for 30 seconds, if his mind can stay on one

topic for that long. He will quickly, quickly see that that is

absolutely absurd. Does he think that the employer will not

colour the request of the union?

Let me just make one other point so we can make some

progress on this bill, Mr. Chairman. Does he not know that the

employer already has the names, addresses and the telephone

numbers of the full list of people in that potential unit? What

he is suggesting is that what the employer has, the union

shouldn't have. That kind of double-standard — that kind of

double-think — is typical from that Member. If, in fact, he

wants to extend his reasoning to its full conclusion, the

employer should not be allowed either to have that telephone

number, address or other information. Then I wonder how the

employer will know how to get hold of that employee when he

wants to tell him that the plant won't be operating next week

for various reasons. It's utter nonsense.

Really, Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't have to be subjected to

those kinds of speeches in this House as if we were grade 3

students who don't know any better — and the Member thinks he

can con us with those kinds of fatuous and phony arguments.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to say very much. The Member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) said it very well. I just want to

make the additional point that the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey obviously

has some prejudices in terms of his views of our fellow citizens in this province

who happen to belong to trade unions. The kind of tactics he outlined would

be employed in organizing would be clearly illegal, would be

clearly a breach of the law and dealt with in that way in the

same manner as any other breach of the law. I think it's rather

regrettable that he tries to infuse that dimension into an

issue where it has no place whatsoever. I regret it.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

I'd just like to say that neither the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour nor the Minister got to the language of the

amendment, which is very simple and very equitable, it seems to

me. It says: "with the written permission of each employee." It

leaves it up to the employee.

MR. GABELMANN: Who is going to ask for the permission?

MR. GIBSON: It leaves it up to the employee, Mr. Chairman,

to decide just how he wants the information as to what his

private home address and telephone number are to be made

available. That seems to me entirely equitable; I support

it.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I would just like that Member

to be able to answer me the question: who is going to ask that

permission — the employer?

MR. GIBSON: That permission, it strikes me, could be asked

by union representatives at the place of employment.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: So in other words, the union representative

could go into the plant and get the list of names so that he

could go around and get that permission. Fine.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not trying to delay the debate but I would

just like to introduce the amendment to

section 3(2)(b), line

2, to delete the words "and telephone numbers." I feel that the

telephone is a very specific kind of communication and access

to the individual. If we can't persuade the Minister with my

arguments in the earlier amendment, I do feel that names and

addresses are one thing; telephone numbers are a different

thing. I do feel that it can be a very distressing invasion of

privacy to be phoned or to have your phone number given out

when possibly it is unlisted and you have no wish to use it

other than for your own outgoing calls. I don't feel that this

is an unreasonable request, to delete the words "and telephone

numbers."

[ Page 4043 ]

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Oak Bay's amendment is clearly

out of order. I think it flies completely in the face of the

intent of the section. I would say it is out of order on that

basis.

I would just point out further that if Members do seek

private unlisted telephone numbers, they have that prerogative

and would in this case in the same as any other situation. I

suggest the amendment is out of order.

MR. WALLACE: It's not unlisted once you give it out,

Bill.

HON. MR. KING: You can't give it out if it's unlisted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order raised,

the Chair would rule that the amendment is in order in that it

doesn't impair the general intent of the section.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am assuming that the employer

as part of employment would want the telephone number for the

reason that the Member for Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) mentioned.

The mistake, I would suggest, that the Member for

Vancouver-Seymour is making is that he is putting two things in

the same hat. He is suggesting that the individual who is quite

happy to give the employer his phone number might not be happy

to give his number to a trade union. I'm talking about a

minority of people in the total work force in that plant.

It's wrong, I think, to assume that, because an individual

who depends for his employment on the employer might be willing

to give his employer an unlisted telephone number, but is not

necessarily keen to extend the availability of that number to

administrative staff, for example, of the trade unions.

I think that is rather a simplistic conclusion to assume

that if the employer has the number, it should be available to

anybody else.

But be that as it may, I just feel that this would not be

any major hindrance to the intent of the Minister's amendment.

For that small number of people who would want to maintain

their privacy and to that degree and because of the very

specific nature of access to the telephone and the disturbance

that it can be at the wrong time, mealtimes, or whatever other

times, I think it is an important step the Minister could take

by just restricting his own amendment to names and

addresses.

Amendment negatived.

section 3 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: A question for the Minister with respect to subsection (

a) which would prohibit "the alteration of any term or condition of employment

of the employees of the intended unit." Later on in a further amendment, the

Minister makes provision for dismissal of an employee for just and reasonable

cause. What about cases, also with proper cause, that might relate to suspension

or transfer or lay-off? Would this be deemed to be a change in the condition

of employment and therefore not possible under the terms of this section?

I see the Minister is nodding his head. If this is so, I

would ask how he would deal with the case of large bargaining

units where, during such a 30-day period, it is almost certain

that just cases of suspension or lay-off or transfer would

arise?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I feel that any proposed or

pending changes, either with respect to discipline or with

respect to lay-off, can certainly be held in abeyance for a

period of 30 days to absolutely ascertain that that device,

that policy, is in no way related to affecting the balance of

the unit being sought by a trade union's organizing campaign.

In the industrial relations world, these are the common devices

of employers who seek to dissuade and discourage their

employees from joining a union.

That decision, by law in this province, as in every other

province, is within the sole judgment of those employees'

option and basically has nothing to do with the employer. It is

not for him to intervene in any way. One can see then, that

various lay-off actions by the employer can act as a signal to

employees that perhaps if they are associated with the union's

organizing campaign, they too will be laid off.

Certain disciplinary action that is threatened could well be

used as a device for the same kind of discouragement to

employees to join a union. That is what we seek to make

absolutely certain will no longer happen in this province.

It happens very, very frequently. Witness the number of

unfair labour practice charges that come before the Labour

Relations Board every year. I suggest that the restriction on

the employer for a 30-day period is not so severe or extreme

that it can reasonably be held to impede his operation in any

serious way.

MR. GIBSON: Just a further clarification. The Minister has

made provision for dismissal during that period for just and

proper cause. I would ask him if it is not the case that many

dismissal offences are normally, before the dismissal,

pre-dated by a period of suspension while the offence is

investigated, while there is time to grieve or to bring various

other evidence to bear. Would that be prohibited in this

particular case and therefore, if allowed by the contract, the

employer would be forced to go the

[ Page 4044 ]

immediate dismissal route rather than suspension?

HON. MR. KING: Of course, the employer would be called upon

and required to provide just cause. But the important thing,

the reason I opened it up to that extent, is through a

consideration of conduct that could be so blatant that it would

be altogether unacceptable to ask an employer to suffer even 30

days with an employee. That is a possibility. There could be a

variety of conducts by employees that would be so blatant and

so destructive that dismissal would be imperative very

quickly.

If it is a matter that is so questionable or not so extreme

that temporary suspension could be considered, then I submit

again that that is a situation that is not so extreme that it

cannot be delayed for 30 days.

MR. GIBSON: Once again trying to clarify this, let us

suppose that a genuine suspension offence were committed during

this 30-day period. Does any remedy lie with the employer at

the expiry of the 30-day period, or is that suspension offence

simply a part of history and no further redress lies?

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

HON. MR. KING: No, once the 30-day period expires, then the

employer would be free to organize his business in the usual

way, but the hope is that within that same period the Labour

Relations Board could have conducted its appraisal and

investigation — and, if necessary, vote — to determine what the

true wishes of the employees were, and the reason for a freeze

MR. GIBSON: But the employer could then at the end of that

period, reach back into history, as it were, if that seemed

necessary once that period had expired.

HON. MR. KING: Well, that would depend, wouldn't it, on

whether or not the union was successful? There is a bargaining

agent available to the employees now and hence a grievance

procedure and due process afforded to the employees. If there

is no representation, as the law now stands, the employer might

well be able to reach back without respect to any monitoring of

the equity of the action he is taking. That's the way it is for

the moment, anyway.

MR. GIBSON: I didn't mean to reach back without equity, Mr.

Chairman. That wasn't my concern.

Let us assume that in a reasonably dangerous working area an employee showed

up drunk one day during this 30-day period. It wasn't sufficiently dangerous

that it was an instant-dismissal offence, but nevertheless it is the sort of

thing that one does want to guard against in the interests of all the employees

in the area. At the end of the 30-day period would the employer be able to say

anything about that, or is this just a 30-day vacant period for the purpose

of that kind of action?

HON. MR. KING: No, I'm sure if anything of that nature

occurred while the freeze was on, the employer would file that

information with the Labour Relations Board and perhaps state

an intent to take a certain course of action when he was free

to do so.

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

Minister indicate when the 30-day period begins? What is the

effective date?

HON. MR. KING: Well, the board would state the beginning of

the freeze, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SMITH: Just one final word on

section 3. I feel and many

other people, I believe, feel

section 3(

b) is nothing more than

an invasion of the privacy of individual people. I haven't

heard the Minister say anything that would indicate valid

reason for acceptance of this

section inasmuch as what I have

heard indicates that all he has done is give a very lukewarm

reason for the inclusion of it. Perhaps, through this, it

becomes a little less inconvenient for representatives of the

trade union to exercise some degree of persuasion over people

whom they wish to organize.

I still believe that the individual has a right to privacy

and that without their explicit and written consent the

employer really has no right to release the type of information

this requests. For that reason, we'll oppose this section.

Section 3 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicholson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

[ Page 4045 ]

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Gardom

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

section 4.

MR. GIBSON: This is, perhaps, a technical question on

section 4, Mr. Chairman. The exact language of the

section

requires that employees within the province ratify the

agreement. Is it the intention of the Minister, or the

intention of the amendment, that this be subject to actual

bargaining within the province, or is it simply a yes/no

ratification?

HON. MR. KING: The first part of the

section requires that

the company maintain a representative in the province

authorized to bargain and consummate a collective agreement,

and the additional requirement is that the employees in the

province ratify.

MR. SMITH: Just a quick point to the Minister. It would seem

to me that the acceptance of this particular amendment would be

more of an obstacle to working out labour peace in the Province

of British Columbia than providing a vehicle for labour

peace.

I'm thinking specifically of large jobs in the province. We

might even think of a proposed oil refinery in the Province of

British Columbia, but I can think of others that are right now

in place — one would be the hydro projects on the Peace and the

Columbia. We might even think of a copper smelter or a steel

mill which will involve a large labour force, the content of

which is not known before the job starts.

It's not unusual today for prime contractors to enter into

job conferences with the contracting firm prior to the time

they hire any employees. Yet the provisions of this would seem

to me to mean that prior to the actual start up of a project

the employer is required to get an agreement from all the

employees, or at least a majority of the employees, and have

then ratify it. How can he do that at that particular time?

This seems to me, Mr. Minister, to impede rather than assist

industrial and labour peace in the province. I'd like the

Minister to comment on it because it is a point that I feel has

validity when I consider the provision of

section 4.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if the Member is concerned, as

I am sure he is, about the democratic rights of working people

in this province then he will respect the need for union people

to have a voice and a vote in terms of their preparedness to

accept as a collective agreement one that may in fact have been

negotiated outside of the province but agreed to in terms of

its application within the province. Certainly, I don't think

they should be subject to that kind of possibility without the

right to a ratification process. I think that seems pretty

fundamental.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if I might state one further point.

It would seem to me, then, that once this

section is

implemented we'll find in the process of bidding in the

Province of British Columbia that contractors will be required

- and would in fact be foolish not to — to include in that

contract some sort of an escalation clause that would provide

for a ratification of a union agreement at a time beyond the

actual issuing of the contract.

While they know, basically, what might be involved in a

small project, and they know the wage rates that are in effect,

in many of the large projects of the province, which take in a

multiplicity of people with diversified skills in many

different unions, they would be very reluctant, I would think,

to bid on that sort of a contract without knowing the impact it

could have. We'll take as an example the B.C. Hydro contract

which was negotiated prior to the time that the big project

started in British Columbia on a no-strike basis. The thing

that was accepted was that they would pay going labour rates,

as they appeared, to the unions involved.

But don't you think that, really, you're involving the

government in an obstacle rather than something that will

provide a positive solution not only for labour peace, but also

for the bidding of contracts on a reasonable basis rather than

on an inflated and hedged basis, to protect the unknown

problems that will become involved a few months after the

contract has been negotiated?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what possible

relevance this could have to the kind of situation the Member

outlined. Whether or not there is a collective agreement

depends on a whole variety of things. But I think that it's

pretty safe to assume that anyone who's going into major

construction in this province should indeed budget and

anticipate that he will be paying the going union wage.

I would just draw to the Member's attention the impossible

situation that did obtain under the previous administration

where contracts, perhaps bargained in Toronto, were tacitly

agreed to in the Province of British Columbia, and yet with no

legal obligation on either party to consummate that agreement

in the Province of British Columbia, and

[ Page 4046 ]

hence with the propensity and ability to repudiate it or any

part of it at any time. That's the issue.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, this

section has been commonly

called the dual unionism section. I have some serious

reservations about the direction that we're going with the

amendment. We already have the situation with the Christian

conscience clause that was included in the labour statute, Bill

11, in the original introduction. We're now adding a category

that allows a person to in fact work at a job where there's a

closed shop, and join another union, but the union he has

deserted no longer has the authority to discipline him in the

way that they have had.

What worries me more than the actual wording and the actual

philosophy of that particular amendment, what worries me most,

is that the people who argue for this amendment — and a great

civil libertarian argument can be made in favour of this

amendment — the people who argue in favour of it use exactly

and precisely the same arguments as those people who advocate

right-to-work laws.

Now I appreciate, before the Minister gets upset, that this

is not a right-to-work law. I'm very conscious of that. But the

problem with it, in order to sell it, is that you have to use

precisely the same arguments that the right-to-workers argue.

I'm worried that the climate in this province will become more

and more amenable to the philosophy that the right-to-workers

are espousing, particularly if each year we add another

section

that gets us closer and closer in that direction.

I think the record of the trade union movement in matters

such as this is very, very good, and I believe that the matter

of policing should be left to the trade union movement. The

most recent example, and I suspect the example that provoked

this particular amendment, was the situation in Vancouver which

related to the ATU and the B.C. Hydro, the transit authority,

where some members, including members who had taken oaths of

office in the union, decided to join another union and, as a

result, the union in effect made a decision to take them off

the job because of the closed-shop provision. However, in that

case the trade union movement, because it recognizes it has

responsibilities, prevailed upon that union to allow those

suspended members to continue to work at the jobs at which they

had been working.

So, in fact, an amendment like this was not necessary in that case, and I would

argue that it is not necessary in any case because the trade union movement

is as aware as anyone — and probably aware more than anyone — that if they don't

police their own affairs satisfactorily, the state will be forced then to interfere,

and whenever the state interferes in labour-management problems or matters,

it's always to the detriment of the trade union movement. For that reason, the

trade union movement is going to be very, very careful to exercise its own discipline,

and I believe that that's where that discipline should be left.

The third thing in relation to the question is this: this is

really a matter of civil liberties. It is a matter of human

rights. That's where it belongs — in the Human Rights Code, not

in a labour statute. The Minister has some authority over the

Human Rights Code, and if he wants to deal with this kind of

problem as it relates to the civil libertarian issue, I suggest

he should do it in the Human Rights Code. The apparatus of that

organization should be responsible for dealing with the

problem. Once you introduce these kind of factors into labour

legislation, I think you're on a slippery road that leads to

chaos in the end.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I certainly would like to

associate myself with all the statements made by the Member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). He said most of what I

was going to say, so I'll be very brief and just add a little

bit about one particular group in the labour movement that

would be severely affected by this particular section. I'm

talking about the building trades and their affiliates.

Now the building trades are a strange group of people, quite

frankly, in that in terms of their working conditions it's not

like working in a plant or working in a factory where they're

all together, day in and day out, on the job. In fact, it's a

collection of people with similar skills who come together to

do a job. When that particular job is over, they go their

separate ways and they may come together in a different kind of

group to do another kind of job. So you can understand why this

particular

section of the Act could constitute a threat to them

in terms of allowing people who are not members of their

particular union to work on jobs.

I think we've had a couple of examples of that being used

very effectively with some buildings going up in the Vancouver

area, and I'm sure that it goes on in other areas too, where

non-union workers were allowed to work on jobs because the

right was there. I would like to suggest that, despite the

discussions, it is a person's individual right or it is a

person's civil right.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Also, I want to suggest that I'm not saying that any piece

of legislation should address itself specifically and only to

one particular group, but

[ Page 4047 ]

what I am suggesting is that maybe this is a

section that

needs to be looked at again, that maybe this is a

section that

the Minister should discuss further with the trade union

movement to see if there isn't a more equitable way of achieving

the goals that he wants to achieve without using this

particular

section to do it.

HON. MR. KING: I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that

there's another dimension to this thing. It's true that it is a

human rights issue to a large extent, but I reject the

suggestion that it doesn't belong in the Labour Code.

The Labour Code does provide the right for individuals to

join trade unions free from penalty, free from intimidation

from employers, and free, in fact, from intimidation in the

exercise of their choice by unions. To allow a provision or an

omission in the code to impair that inherent right which is

enshrined in the code in any way, would, in my view, be a

cop-out — a cop-out that I'm not prepared to accept.

I have said to the trade union movements — I agree with the

Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) — I think

the trade union movement has done, relatively speaking, a very,

very good job in terms of policing themselves in terms of this

kind of conduct.

But there's no assurance and there's no mechanism for

insuring that we don't have cases before us again where, for

the purpose or for the crime of philosophical disagreement

between a member and his existing bargaining agent, that he

ends up expelled from that union at the discretion of the

union, and with the ultimate consequence that he loses his job

also.

Now I submit that expulsion from a union is a sanction in

itself and a very serious one because it deprives that member

of certainly a good deal of the respect of his peer group. It

deprives him of the right to participate in the lawful

functions of that organization such as the determination of

policy — such as the policy related to wage negotiations, wage

and contract ratification and so on.

To suggest that the union is left stripped bare is not quite

correct and this relates simply to the case where he is being

expelled solely for the purpose of belonging to another union.

Now if the member's conduct is so disruptive and so destructive

to the trade union in other ways, then certainly they may well

have the right to take additional action against him but the

board would again regulate that kind of evidence.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a comment that

under

section 7 that where the board "seeks and receives reports of various

kinds," presumably from industrial relations officers and special officers

and so on, I think in keeping with the philosophy that this government has quite

rightly espoused in the field of consumer services that where various reports

affecting individuals relate to credit that legislation is moving in the direction

of making these reports and the contents available to the party concerned.

I suppose there may be times when it might be a bit of a

problem if the contents of the report were revealed, but on the

other hand I have to assume that human nature being what it is,

sometimes the content of that report is not always accurate and

a decision is then going to be made by the board affecting two

parties, where the report may not be accurate. Somebody's going

to suffer because of an inaccurate source of information

provided to the board.

So, it seems to me that that last part of

section 7 where it

states "the contents of a report without disclosing these

contents to any party" is a little extreme. While my amendment

may go too far in the other direction, once again I wonder if

we could reach a compromise. But I would move at any rate, Mr.

Chairman, the amendment standing in my name on the order paper

to line 7 of the proposed new

section 7, as follows — to delete

all of the words after "contents of a report" and substitute

the words "and such report or the

summary thereof shall be

disclosed to the parties."

In other words, the phrase "or the

summary thereof" tries to

get round the specific suggestion that the whole report down to

every word and comma will be provided. But the amendment, I

think, gives flexibility that the parties should know the

content of a report on which a board decision will be based,

and if that report quite unwittingly or without any malice or

bad intention could be wrong in certain respects, it seems to

me that the parties concerned before the board in the dispute

should at least have access to these reports, or a

summary of

the report, and I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it has indeed been the

long-standing policy of the department not to subject our

industrial relations officers to that kind of conflict.

They operate in an investigative way themselves. In many,

many cases, they are able to resolve differences before they

ever develop to the stage of hearings before the board. They

are able to do this to a large degree through their

impartiality, through the trust that the parties hold for them.

I submit that if they are required to be called to testify or

to bear the judgments that they make — and they are judgments,

in terms of a variety of situations — as one indicator to the

board upon which the board will make their total decision…. The board also would

[ Page 4048 ]

undoubtedly be hearing evidence after a hearing and so

on.

The IRO's report is often a background, a history on the

development of affairs which could prejudice his subsequent

relationship and his subsequent value to a trade union or to a

particular industry in terms of them feeling that he had

damaged their position in his report. I think it is advisable

in those terms to maintain the confidentiality of the IRO.

I oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to speak

against the amendment, although I couldn't support it, because

I don't believe that you can compromise fairness and justice. I

saw in the amendment a compromise which was unacceptable. I do

not accept the response of the Minister of Labour to my

principal objection to

section 7.

I don't care whether an investigative officer for the board

or the department is prejudiced or not in his subsequent

dealings in the course of his responsibilities. What is

important is that if this board is going to exercise the

increasing judicial functions that are being given to it by

this amending bill, then it is essential that the parties who

appear before this board not be prejudiced. That is the

important part. If you begin to prejudice the parties in their

appearance before the board by allowing the board to receive

evidence, suggestions, innuendoes and opinions, which are not

capable of being tested when the parties are before the board,

then not only do you interfere with the rights of the parties,

but you tend to downgrade the value of the board to those

parties and to parties who come before them in subsequent

proceedings.

It is all very well to say that the board are responsible

people and so on, but this is an inquisitive technique.

Heavens, we don't want the board to become an inquisition where

people come before the board in order to present their position

without knowing the full information upon which the board

itself is going to reach its conclusion.

As the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says, in the investigative officer's

report there may be a manifest error. Worse than manifest error, there may,be

some prejudice on the part of that investigative officer. I am sure that if

all of the investigative officers had the wisdom of Solomon, perhaps we wouldn't

be concerned. Certainly, if the investigative officer in the course of his work

can resolve the dispute, all very well. It doesn't come before the board. But

once it reaches the board, if the board is going to consider evidence, information,

fact, fiction, rumour, or some assessment made by an investigative officer in

reaching its decision, then the parties are entitled to know the basis upon

which that conclusion is being reached. This is an offence against natural justice.

This could be easily categorized as star chamber–type tactics. I am surprised

that the Minister would allow this amendment to come forward in the light of

what he said in opening the debate on second reading.

It is this kind of

section which tends to destroy the

confidence which is so slowly being built up in the Labour

Relations board.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I am wondering whether the

Minister would explain again and more slowly and clearly to us

the reasons why these additional discretionary powers are being

given to the board. What kind of recourse does either side have

in terms of forcing the board to tell them what is enclosed in

these reports? Is there something under some other piece of

legislation that they could appeal to? How does the board

decide when it is going to release information and when it

isn't going to release information? How is it going to develop

its guidelines, and what kind of input would either side have

in terms of the development of these guidelines? I think we

really would like to get a lot more information from the

Minister as to exactly why he has given these very broad

discretionary powers to the board.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I did indicate to the House

that there is a matter of confidentiality involved that is

essential to the department officers. I'm suggesting that to

force them into revealing a report or a partial judgment they

have made in the course of their investigations is certainly

going to ultimately place them in a partisan position in the

eyes of the parties they are forced to deal with. That's their

continual job and their continual role. I think it's

interesting that this issue is highlighted and debated in this

way. This is a practice and procedure in every province across

this nation that I am familiar with, and has in fact been the

practice in British Columbia since I can recall. It is not a

new and unusual power granted to the board. It simply spells

out and clarifies without equivocation that the officer will

not be compelled, without agreement of the board, to testify in

that way.

There is a difference between the kind of investigative work

he does in the hearing process and that which the board would

be engaged in making their decision.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think the adequacy of the

proposition that I have been putting to the committee, and that

of the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), is

clearly indicated by the response of the Minister. Every time

the government brings forward something wrong, it says that

it's wrong but it's right because it is done in other places

before. If you have an injustice and you

[ Page 4049 ]

repeat it 1,000 times, it doesn't become just; it still is

an injustice. If you have something which is unfair, you can

repeat it a million times and it is still unfair.

I have no objection to the investigative officers making

their reports; I have no objection to the board considering

those reports. I only object to them considering those reports

themselves, and not making those same reports available for

corrections if there happens to be an error. That is what is

fundamentally wrong. It is a fundamental injustice. If every

one of the 10 provinces, and the national government as well,

have this in their labour legislation, they should take it out.

They should take it out. No wonder the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), who has a very deep, abiding

feeling for the trade union movement, objected to this bill on

second reading. This is precisely the thing that gives him

concern, and should give us all concern.

There is one other matter, Mr. Chairman, that should give us

all concern. Without transgressing on the rules, if the Members

will look to the last

section of this bill, for some reason or

other this amendment is being made retroactive back to January

14, 1974. For what reason is the government now coming before

us saying: "We want to rectify what has been an unfair, unjust,

inequitable activity on the part of the board, which we are

told we should respect"?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I've listened carefully to the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, the Member for Burrard

and the Minister because I was prepared, if I had an adequate

explanation from the Minister, to accept the section. Quite

frankly and honestly, I have not yet had an adequate

explanation from the Minister. I feel that he at least owes to

the House the courtesy of telling us, as the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound suggested, what the January 14 date is all

about and how he can justify, as the Member for

Vancouver-Burrard asked, this kind of potentially misleading or

inaccurate information to be in the hands of a semi-judicial

body that the parties affected by it have no knowledge of.

That's a serious concern.

It's funny, we get going on different sides on the question

of civil liberties. On an earlier one, the Minister was on one

side of the civil liberation question, and I on the other, and

I suspect we've reversed roles in this particular question.

Frankly, I would like to hear a better explanation from the

Minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, really, I would just like the Minister to tell

me how it would be possible for either party to check the facts in the report.

How can either party check to find out whether what's contained in the report

is accurate or not? The second thing is that I am really kind of curious about

what guidelines the board would be using in terms of deciding when it would

reveal what's in the report, and when it wouldn't reveal what's in the report.

Just those two little questions.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I try never to be discourteous

to the House, and I am surprised that a person on my side of

the House would suggest such a thing. We may disagree on a

variety of things, but I certainly do not try to be

discourteous or withhold information from the House.

The question of the retroactivity is in the face of three

court cases which would require an industrial relations officer

to give evidence.

We've got two ways to go. If the House wishes to adopt the

position that investigative officers for the advice of the

board are going to be required to give evidence to reveal

judgments they make for the advice of the board, and be subject

to subpoena and cross-examination in hearings, then undoubtedly

that service, that investigative service of the industrial

relations officers, will not be available in the future as it

is now. There is certainly no reason why an employee under

those circumstances should subject himself to the kind of legal

hassles that naturally flow from making any judgments for the

benefit of the board.

This has been the situation for many years. So all we are

doing here is, not striking a new policy but seeking to

preserve what has been the policy in this province and, in my

view, protecting industrial relations officers so that they can

continue to function as a worthwhile benefit in most cases to

workers in this province.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want clarification of the

Minister's last statement. Does he mean that if the reports were

to be revealed to the two parties, the Minister feels that the

industrial relations officers might not take the risk of

committing themselves to certain judgments in the report if

they knew that these judgments were to become known to the

parties?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I notice that in response to the

question from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) the Minister

nodded his head in what I deem to be the affirmative. I just

can't quite honestly believe that. I can't believe that any

investigative officer, responsible to the board and to the

Minister, would indeed be deterred from making a fair and

accurate report of the facts concerning any dispute, or making

in his best judgment the fairest assessment of the

circumstances, and that he would withhold making such a report

because somebody might read it beside the board.

I just don't believe that people function that way. Indeed

it downgrades the whole value of the investigative officer and

the work that he is going to

[ Page 4050 ]

do if there is any suggestion that the reports that come

before the board are going to contain matters that that

investigative officer would not want known by either one or

both of the parties to the dispute.

The extension of this argument takes us into areas which

horrify a person. Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, if we were to

defeat this legislation so that an officer was obliged to

testify, so that his report was available to somebody else.

Then the Minister leaves us with the conclusion that his people

won't do their jobs. Now if that is what the unions or the

employers can be led to believe, then how do you ever resolve

any of these disputes, outside of going the full route to the

board? I just don't believe that the officers who are involved

in these activities should be put into this position.

Now as far as the retroactivity is concerned, the Minister

says there are three lawsuits going on. Is the Minister saying

that he doesn't want the facts in these reports or the

assessments of these investigative officers to come before the

courts of this province back to January 14, 1974? The Minister

talked about the officers being called to testify. Now if the

Minister wants to provide legislation whereby such an officer

is not a compellable witness, then that's another matter.

My objection is to the board receiving reports and taking

them into consideration without having the opportunity of the

other party seeing what the information is.

Take a simple case, Mr. Chairman, where an investigative

officer, by reason of misinformation that he is given, reaches

a faulty conclusion. If that conclusion is made available to

the parties, and there was faulty information, then it can be

corrected before the board, and the matter is then resolved.

But if it is not made available to the parties, the board makes

its decision on misinformation and the faulty conclusion drawn

from that misinformation. As a result, one of the parties, the

union or the employer or an employee, may be seriously

prejudiced, and he doesn't know why.

I just don't believe that this is the way that Ford or its

officers or the government want this matter to develop.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, let me try to outline for the

House some of the problems that would be encountered by

accepting the Member's proposition that industrial relations

officers' reports must become a part of the due process, as the

Member would indicate.

In the first place this is not a judicial exercise. It's an exercise in terms

of trying to regulate industrial relations and certainly the speed with which

applications to the board are handled is very, very relevant in terms of industrial

peace in this province. It's relevant not only in terms of industrial peace

but it's relevant in justice to the interests of the parties. So take a matter

of an unfair labour practice charge laid against an employer by a trade union.

The board has no basis at the outset for understanding what the facts of the

matter are, whether there's additional substance to the charge to justify a

full hearing, so they dispatch an investigatory officer to examine what the

facts of the case are in a fairly basic way — in a fairly fundamental way.

Now, his investigative advice to the board assists them in

determining just how to proceed with that kind of appeal to

them, and a whole host and a whole variety of other appeals

that come to the board. Some of them certainly don't justify

action by the board. Certainly not a hearing. So it's an aid to

speed up the process to determine whether or not a case is made

as valid circumstances to justify a hearing and notification to

the parties of the hearing and the taking of evidence and so

on. So it's a mechanism for speeding up the process and

ensuring that the board has some advice upon which to know

whether to set the administrative mechanisms and process or

not.

I think that it's wrong for the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) to attempt to liken

this to the judicial process. I think that's completely

improper because this is industrial relations.

We are certainly not dealing with the kind of legal

sanctions, a threat to individual liberty, which is inherent in

the judicial system. We are dealing with rights, disputes

between two parties in conflict and it's quite dissimilar in

that way, I submit.

I also submit that the main weight in the decision of the

board rests on and is related to the matters that arise and the

evidence that is given in a hearing, as to the facts of the

matter, and not very heavily on reports of an investigative

officer. It's an aid in terms of determining whether and how to

proceed with the complaints.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't want to delay the debate longer

but the Minister deals in semantics. This deals with matters of

dispute. Disputes involve two or more parties and that's what

comes before the courts of our land. I'm not talking about the

criminal proceedings where the liberty of the subject is at

stake, but I'm talking about the rights as between two

individuals or classes of individuals in our society. This

deals with a dispute under

an Act, a dispute under a collective

agreement, or a dispute under the regulations.

Now I can imagine that there are many proceedings which

never come to a hearing.

HON. MR. KING: That's right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If the Minister wants to limit the

provisions of this

section to that type of

[ Page 4051 ]

proceeding then that's all very well, but when you have a

dispute and when there are two parties, or more than two

parties involved, they are entitled to know the evidence upon

which the board is making its decision.

I understand fully that the Minister's goal with regard to

the Labour Code Act and the operation of the board is to

provide some speedy resolution of difficulties before they

worsen and I congratulate him on that. But, Mr. Chairman, you

have heard it said many times that justice denied is justice

delayed — but the converse is not necessarily true. As a matter

of fact speedy justice is sometimes the worse kind of injustice

and when speedy justice is based upon a circumstance where the

evidence which may result in the resolution of dispute against

one party is kept from that party, then certainly it is

injustice.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

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

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment to

section 8 approved.

section 8 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: I know we're all trying to get the session

ended, but

section 8 has the enormous ramifications. It amends

sections 27 to 34 of the existing code. I think we should be

fair to the House and not just say that the Minister move the

amendments without going into some detail on these

amendments.

In particular, the one that the Minister is deleting I

happen to favour, inasmuch as it seemed a radical move. I am

talking about

section 28 of the existing code, subsection (b),

which had intended to give the board the power to rectify a

collective agreement. I don't propose to go into all the

reasons why this amendment is a good one, but nevertheless it

does show the far-reaching effect of the amendment we are

debating.

I wonder, when the Minister moved his motion a moment ago,

was he referring to all the amendments between sections 27 to

34 of the existing code, or are we going to take them one by

one? I would suggest it is very important we take them one by

one.

Section 8 includes, as you know, Mr. Chairman, several

amendments to differing sections of the existing code.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the procedure is that we

are dealing with the entire

section 8 as amended.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On that point of order, Mr. Chairman, how

can we do that? The Minister has moved an amendment under

section 8, but in fact he has got three amendments under

section 8. One amends

section 28(1), one deletes 28(1)(f), and

the other deals with

section 31(b). We've got three amendments.

Which one are we talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The position of the Chair is that all three

amendments constitute an amendment in group to the section.

That has already been approved by the committee. So we are

dealing with the

section as amended by these three specific

points. They were passed as a group.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could I not

just ask you to reconsider. We are amending three different

things. Okay, the three amendments are within

section 8, but

section 8 covers half the ballpark. Three differing amendments

relate to three different points altogether. Unless you just

want us to delete all three in a hodgepodge manner, or rather

in an inclusive manner, it would seem to me that it would be

much better to take them singly. I will abide by your ruling,

but I think on reconsideration it would make a lot of sense to

take the amendments one at a time within

section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is agreeable with the Minister. As far

as the Chair is concerned, the amendments are passed. We are

considering the

section as amended. If the Minister wishes to

reopen or to return with the agreement of the House….

MR. WALLACE: No, no. Oh, no, Mr. Chairman. I submit to you

the amendments were moved. The amendments have not been

passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes they have.

MR. WALLACE: No, they haven't. I stood up the minute the

section was called. The amendments were not passed. I am

certain of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister moved the amendments. The

Chair put the amendments…

MR. WALLACE: And I stood up to speak.

MR. C