1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 487 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Use of unparliamentary language.

Mr. Phillips — 487

Mr. Speaker — 487

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Fatality at Giant Mascot Mine. Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 487

Phasing out cafeteria services on B.C. Ferries. Mr. McClelland — 488

BCAA insurance coverage. Mr. Williams — 488

B.C. proposal for heavy water plant. Mr. Phillips — 489

BCR boxcar shortage. Mr. Fraser — 489

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act.

(Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Strachan.

Introduction and first reading — 491

Department of Northern British Columbia Act. (Bill 65). Mr.

Phillips.

Introduction and first reading — 491

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

reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 491

Mr. Smith — 493

Mr. Steves — 495

Mr. Lockstead — 497

Mr. McClelland — 497

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 499

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 501

Mr. McGeer — 502

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 507

Mr. Cummings — 509

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 509

Mr. Skelly — 511

Hon. Mr. King — 513

Division on second reading — 518

TU ESDAY, OCTOB ER 9, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

like to introduce to the House Mr. Pat Nowlan, MP, the son of a

great Conservative finance Minister of Canada — a man who was a

native British Columbian but is now a Conservative Member of

Parliament for Nova Scotia and a man whom I hope to thump in

squash, ere seven.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon there is

a delegation of students sitting in the gallery from Comox

Junior Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Ante,

and Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Speaker, among the students is my niece,

Marcia Petersen, and I'm hoping that the House will join me in

giving them a very warm welcome this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it an announcement, Hon. Member?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): No, I have a point of

order if all the announcements are finished, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there any other announcements?

On a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I was called to

order for making a statement in this Legislature regarding the

national leader of the New Democratic Party. Just for a point

of clarification, Mr. Speaker, on September 26 in this House

the Hon. Premier in closing the debate on the throne speech did

make what I consider inflammatory remarks against the

government of Quebec, did make some what I would call

inflammatory remarks against the House Leader of the Liberal

Party, and from time to time has made inflammatory remarks

against the Hon. Jack Davis.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member on the point

of order that a point of order must be taken up immediately. To

go back and dredge up your version or my version of what

happened in September is a bit slow.

I do say that if there were any remarks made that offend against that rule

I would hope that the Hon. Members would observe that rule in speaking of leaders

of national parties or of members of other houses than this House. It's a common

rule in May that we treat those who are in other houses with courtesy and respect

even though we may criticize their policies.

Now, if the Hon. Premier had attacked any other Member of

this House, he can defend himself. It is my duty to ask a

Member to withdraw a statement that's made that does offend.

But to say that you should be permitted to make a remark on

Friday which is clearly against the rule on the justification

that some other remark was made in September is really

something I can't deal with now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just wanted a point of clarification, Mr.

Speaker. If you allowed the Premier to do this without bringing

him to order, maybe at that time I should have called it to

your attention. And when he called Mr. Dupuis, the Leader of

the….

MR. SPEAKER: I think the point of order is clear — that it

must be taken up at the time. I will try to catch these things

as I go along and I would always appreciate your assistance in

keeping the House in order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take

this under advisement in the future. (Laughter.)

FATALITY AT

GIANT MASCOT MINE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, just before I ask

the question I would just like to follow your ruling and be

polite to a Member of another House, my former colleague Mr.

Nowlan who is a Member of considerable talent in his own right.

I would like to welcome him here myself.

My question is to the Minister of Mines: I wonder whether he

would indicate whether he has received a report from the mines

department Deputy Chief Inspector, Mr. Jack Merrett, on the

death two weeks ago Friday of Harold Engles killed in the

mining accident at the Giant Mascot Mine.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

the only report I have at this time is that Mr. Merrett went into the Giant

Mascot and the boys went back to work. They were satisfied to go back to work

and he seemed to have done a very good job of settling the strike.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Apart from the strike, Mr. Minister, I'm

thinking in particular about the safety question that lead to

the strike. May I ask him whether he's expecting a report on

the safety aspects of the situation that led to the death of

Mr. Engles? Is he expecting such a report from his

inspector?

[ Page 488 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I got a partial report in regard to this

question, and the conditions where the man was killed were not

of the best. I will be expecting a further report from Mr.

Merrett.

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

at the present time are men continuing to work under a

situation which the Minister himself admits is not the best?

Are they continuing to work in a dangerous situation?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They closed off that part of the mine.

They aren't working there until they have rectified the

situation.

PHASING OUT

CAFETERIA SERVICES

ON B.C. FERRIES

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. Would the Minister advise the House if there

are plans underway, or whether the government plans to phase

out the cafeteria or dining room operations on the B.C.

ferries?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): What

is happening right now is the normal reorganization of staff that usually takes

place when the ferries go on winter schedule. That's all that is taking place.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister tell us

whether the government is making plans, or has active plans to

do away with the cafeterias or the dining rooms on the ferries?

That was the question; not what kind of rearrangement of staff

is happening right now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If there is any change to be made, it

will be announced in good time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's happening now?

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Would

the Minister tell us, then, what's happening to some of the

dining rooms on some of the ferries now? There are some changes

being made — structural changes. I wonder if the Minister could

explain some of those changes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what I explained when I answered

you first of all. It's the normal reorganization of staff that

has always taken place when the ferries move on to winter

schedule. It makes a more efficient operation when you have the

normal winter

schedule and winter

schedule crewing.

Rather than having the crews walk full length of the dining

room, they now have a much shorter length to walk. Don't you

believe in efficiency of operations?

BCAA INSURANCE COVERAGE

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

to the Minister of Transportation and Communication: on the eve

of your departure for the east, Mr. Minister, it was announced

that you had concluded an agreement with the B.C. Automobile

Association to provide insurance coverage for those people who

could not obtain such coverage from other existing companies.

May I ask the Minister whether or not persons acquiring this

coverage must be members of the BCAA and pay the fee?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, the BCAA is the vehicle under which

we are moving into the exchange. There are other agents and

other companies who are still working through the exchange.

This became necessary because of the situation that was

developing because some companies were not only refusing to

renew any policies but they were refusing to write any new

policies.

So we had to come to some arrangement to support the

exchange, which we did, and the BCAA is the vehicle through

which we are going to support the exchange. But any other agent

who happens to represent a company that hasn't created any

problems for that agent is still in full operation, and can

refer to the exchange in the same way as they always did.

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I understand that

you do not have to become a member of the BCAA to get insurance

in that way.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, you don't have to be a member. To get

insurance today you don't have to be a member of the BCAA. No,

that was never inferred.

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Would

the Hon. Minister indicate what

schedule of premiums the BCAA

is being permitted to charge for this insurance coverage?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They are charging the regular insurance

rate. The regular rate.

MR. WILLIAMS: A further supplemental, Mr. Speaker. If that is the case,

would the Minister indicate to what extent he is prepared to guarantee the losses

of other insurance companies in the same manner as he is guaranteeing the loss

to BCAA?

[ Page

489 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. This was an arrangement whereby they

handle it.

B.C. PROPOSAL FOR

HEAVY WATER PLANT

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct a question to the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon.

Mr. Lauk). Regarding the heavy water plant to be established in

Canada: I understand the department has made a proposal to

Ottawa. I'd like to know from the Minister if he's had any

feedback from Ottawa as to whether British Columbia is in the

running at all or not.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, this would be a question of negotiation between Ottawa and ourselves.

I haven't been kept abreast of any such proposal, Mr. Member, through you Mr.

Speaker, but perhaps he could ask the question tomorrow and I can find out about

it. I'm not aware of the details of any such proposal at this stage. In any

event, it would seem to me a question of negotiation between government officials

of both capitals and not the subject of a question of this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the

Hon. Minister, that the news clipping I have says that British

Columbia has submitted a proposal to Ottawa. I would suggest

that the Minister find out what is going on in his own

department.

If he hasn't heard anything back, is there any follow-up

being done on this? The plant that is now established in Cape

Breton could have been established at Taylor, British Columbia,

because the water in the Peace River has the right substances

in it for a heavy water plant.

Would the Minister take this under advisement and let the

House know what negotiations are going on? This is very

important. It would certainly be an industry for the Province

of British Columbia — a very important industry. Would the

Minister make an announcement to the House, then, tomorrow…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: …as to where the situation is?

Interjection.

BCR BOXCAR SHORTAGE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I would like to ask the Premier,

as president of the BCR: what is the latest situation regarding

the railcar-boxcar shortage on the railroad?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have just received

a telegram at 1:42 this afternoon — it just came in now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Glad you asked that question.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is in response to a telephone call to

the president of the CN last week. There's no point in reading

the whole telegram. We did make the allegation to the CNR, with

some substance, that the CNR was advising clients on the BCR

line to ship their lumber down by truck to empty CN cars in

Prince George — the allegation being that the CN was

withholding cars off the BCR line.

Mr. Cameron advised that I raise the point with him, and

I'll read directly from the telegram. The telegram is from Mr.

MacMillan, the president of the CNR.

MR. CAMERON ADVISES THAT YOU RAISED THE MATTER OF SOME SHIPPERS ON BCR LINES TRUCKING TO CN POINTS

FOR LOADING AND RAIL FORWARDING. THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE CARS SO USED COULD

HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE BCR FOR LOADING. MY INVESTIGATION OF THE SITUATION INDICATES

NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO PLACE BCR AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE. THE CAR SITUATION

IN GENERAL IS RESULTING IN AD HOC ARRANGEMENTS BY ALL PARTIES. WE ARE NOT UNDER

ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ENCOURAGING SHIPPERS TO TRUCK LUMBER FROM BCR TO CN POINTS.

But it is obvious that that option has been left open. The wording that I find

not very satisfying…it is obvious from the wording that the implied, or

the tacit arrangement is that the CN will service better if you get that lumber

down to Prince George.

He goes on to say that he discussed the matter several times

with Mr. Spicer…and so have we, "and I am certain he is

doing his level best to get cars to the BCR shortage"…of

ignoring shippers on CN lines.

THE CAR SITUATION IS CRITICAL AT THIS TIME WITH OVER 4,000 LOADS ON THE GROUND AWAITING CN SHIPMENT.

Well, we agree that there are 4,000 loads awaiting CN

shipment, but there is no need, we feel, for the delay in

getting cars to BCR. At any rate, he ends with the last

statement:

I WOULD BE GLAD TO HAVE OUR PEOPLE SIT WITH THE BCR OFFICERS TO REVIEW THIS PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY.

Signed, Mr. MacMillan, President, CNR.

As I say, the telegram was received at 1:42 and just sent

up. I will, at the end of the question period,

[ Page 490 ]

instruct my staff to immediately contact Mr. MacMillan for

talks. But it seems that there may be some substance to the

argument that cars have been deliberately held at Prince George

with the tacit arrangement that if you get your lumber down to

Prince George, somehow we'll load it for you.

MR. FRASER: Or Ashcroft.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Or Ashcroft. And that's the report that I

have. There is not an absolute denial that this is going on,

although the word "deliberate" is used.

We have some evidence given to me by the Member for Fort

George (Mr. Nunweiler), who is not here today, and also some

phone calls which indicated that that indeed was a practice,

that customers were being advised over the phone to get their

lumber down by truck.

Now perhaps Mr. MacMillan didn't know that this was going

on. But obviously there is a willingness now to discuss this

particular aspect, and I will instruct the rail officials to

immediately meet with Mr. MacMillan.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the

president of the BCR to say that we have only an ad hoc

arrangement in terms of returning cars to the BCR; that there

is no formal arrangement whereby these national lines will give

us cars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is an arrangement with all railways.

The percentage of cars is 60-40 on a returned re-run; these are

always ad hoc arrangements with all railways — CP, CN, BCR,

Great Northern — which is Burlington Northern now. And they have

always been honoured. There is always an arrangement between

railroad people that, I understand, is a matter of people

committing themselves by word to this kind of arrangement.

That's what I understand exists traditionally between all

railroads and between this railroad and the BCR.

Now it works both ways. If one railroad wants to go back off

an ad hoc decision, it may be to an advantage of that railroad

for a short period of time; but over a long haul there'll be

vengeance. We don't want to go to that kind of situation. I'm

pleased that Mr. MacMillan wants to talk.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In view of the fact that some of the customers of

BC Rail, some of the forest companies, are having to rent cars themselves in

the United States — and I believe 1,000 units have been rented so far, because

BCR is not being quite as aggressive in this field as these companies would

have liked — may I ask the Premier whether or not he has instructed BCR to make

further leasing arrangements, other than the 500 he talked about the other day

and, of course, the new orders for new cars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, of course, the most aggressive

action we have taken is the announcement last year that we will

build our own rail cars.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's a two-month delay in that

plan.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, there's a delay now to March — a

three-month delay. Up until then we had no alternative.

Now along with that we have gone into leasing arrangements,

as I've announced. Our rail people have been extremely

aggressive in seeking cars, and I must say that the rail

management has done an excellent job. Now there is a great

demand for boxcars right across North America. It was

aggravated in Canada by the BC Rail strike. But I do not see

any evidence that people are more aggressive in leasing than BC

Rail.

There has been some evidence that the CN, and perhaps the

CP, have been deliberately or — no, I won't use the word

"deliberately" — have been less than fair in honouring the

arrangements they've had in the past with the BCR.

Now I will give you an example. Here is a letter from a

lumber company, received in my office on October 2. He wrote to

my assistant regarding a complaint. He said:

"In regard to our telephone conversation today, I would like

to inform you of the results I received in trying to get BC

Railway system flatcars to ship lumber by way of Vancouver

waterfront terminals so they could be reloaded onto CP and CN

flatcars. Mr. Dave McGowan assured me he would reload two cars

a day for us.

"I phoned Gordon Gookey to inquire what the freight rates

would be and, after checking, he called stating that he would

have them bill the cars to final destination with reloading at

Vancouver, and that the charge would be 10 cents per 100 extra.

BC Rail would get their full cut of the rate. The car numbers

would have to be changed when reloading."

Then he goes on to say:

"I would like to advise you that the CNR freight sales

representative said that they had 216 empty box and flatcars in

Prince George on September 12. We felt that we should receive

some of these cars but we were told that the BC Railway was not

getting any of these cars, and they didn't."

So there is evidence that the sharing of cars that has been

traditional in the past is not going on, and our railway has

been very aggressive in leasing cars.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, apart from making

[ Page 491 ]

charges, can I ask you what you are doing about it in terms

of investigating?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT

ACT

Hon. Mr. Strachan presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the

Department of Commercial Transport Act .

Bill 30 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.

Motion approved.

DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT, 1973

Mr. Phillips moves introduction and first reading of Bill 65

intituled The Department of Northern British Columbia Act,

1973 .

Motion approved.

Bill 65 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

Orders of the day.

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

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

11, Mr. Speaker.

LABOUR CODE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Bill 11, the labour

bill, is an important piece of legislation and since coming into the

House about seven years ago, I entered on every occasion into every

debate on labour matters, labour-management relations, pieces of

legislation, Bill 33, Bill 22, the resolution that sought to end the

transit disagreement, and other pieces of labour legislation. I had the

privilege, for some years in the last parliament, to speak on behalf of

my party on matters concerning the labour portfolio.

This debate will be no exception as I am now on my feet and

I think I wanted to take the opportunity to cast my mind back

to the thrust of the debates in this chamber — the kind of

information we, as MLA's, received over those years and the

kind of climate that we all want to see developed in the

Province of British Columbia.

Throughout those years, and the years before that when I was

a student of this assembly sitting in the gallery, and before

that when I was in management and perhaps even before that when

I was a member of a trade union, a long long time ago in

another country.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): When you were in labour.

HON. MR. HALL: When I was in labour, indeed. And throughout

those years a number of unmistakable criteria have become

self-evident regarding legislation such as we are discussing

today.

I list them in fairly simple form because I think that very

often in matters of this magnitude the problems, while very

complex, sometimes have fairly simple answers in the sense of

drafting and meeting the problems, even though perhaps in the

second stage, we get into complicated language.

The first thing that became apparent when I arrived here in

1967, having been elected in 1966, and all those labour debates

that came through since that time, the one cry that came out

all the time was that we have to get labour-management

relations out of the courts.

That has been echoed by labour, by management, by Members of

this House, by members of the department and certainly by many,

many lawyers who say loud and clear that until the happy day

arrives when we get disputes of this kind out of the courts we

will be forever embroiled, enmeshed in the interminable

wranglings that we have seen over these last few years.

The second criteria that I think becomes evident over the

last years and in this bill is that the department or some

structure, some organization, must be ready to move swiftly, to

move decisively when a dispute occurs so that the parties may

have pressure brought upon them to meet, to continue

discussions, to remain in contact and to talk.

I think that was the second lesson that I learned in the

years sitting on that side of the House and outside in the

community and talking to many people involved in this serious

constituency of labour-management relations.

The third thing that became self-evident was that somehow we

have to insist, and I realize that's a hard word, insist, but

we have to insist that the disputants

[ Page 492 ]

in an argument must remove from the argument all the

posturing, all the false argument, all the misleading

statements, the statistics, the facts — so called — the

charades, so that we remove from what is probably an irrational

process all the stumbling blocks that get people's backs up,

that lead to the business of loss of face, and of not losing

face.

To that argument I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the statements

of Justice Nemetz about five years ago when he was called in as

a one-man commissioner of inquiry into the IWA dispute. When he

reported that he took approximately six weeks of his time to

find out what the argument was about. That the absence of

information from the Department of Labour, the absence of hard

information, trustworthy facts on profit, productivity and so

on were not available to him. Probably, and I don't want to put

words into the Justice's mouth or even into his findings, but

it is quite likely that he took a lot longer finding out what

caused the disagreement than he did in writing the judgment in

effect or the settlement.

I remember him spending some time, not only following that

settlement, but also in the report that he made that was

presented in this House on the labour practices in other

countries.

So the third point I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is

that it requires us to get down to some serious erection of

facts that can be accepted by both sides in a dispute.

The fourth item that I think has become evident to me is the

government must remain at a distance so that it can indeed set

itself a task to erect those facts, set itself a task to erect

a team of skilled personnel, so that the government can remain

at a distance so that it can remain free from involvement. I

think that is the other criteria that comes to mind.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when we are judging legislation of

this kind, I think we use those criteria and then we look down

our list as represented in Bill 11 and see how it meets. I

think it is fair to say that first of all the legislation has

taken, in the final analysis, the whole matter out of the

courts.

Now, there will be some lawyers who disagree with me on

that, I am sure, because they know, as I know, there are

probably — I don't know what the collective noun for lawyers

is, is it bevy of lawyers, a gaggle of lawyers, I don't know — but there will be a group of lawyers right now looking at the

legislation wondering how fast they can get it in the courts.

That may be and we may have to go through that process.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): They've

already tried it.

HON. MR. HALL: I guess so. I guess that's going to happen. I can't stop

that any more than anybody else can stop that but I am sure that that's a time-honoured

practice. I think once that preliminary skirmish is over I think it is fair

to say we have removed the basic day-to-day operation of the labour-management

relations in this province out of the courts.

So, on that basis, one large tick to this Bill 11.

Secondly, I think it is fair to say that the legislation,

because of the powers of the board, is ready to move swiftly,

is ready to get itself staff and the muscle that is required to

deal with disputes in an expeditious way.

Now I want to, perhaps, stray a little from one of the

principles of the bill, Mr. Speaker, by saying that there is a

second level that is required to this bill. That is that we can

pass the finest legislation in the world, but unless we provide

this Minister and this department with staff, with trained

personnel, at first-class salaries, we aren't going to see some

of the things that we hope to be achieved by this bill, in

fact, achieved, I want to make this open and personal commitment to that

Minister — that I certainly will be supporting his efforts in

my capacity as Provincial Secretary and a member of the

Treasury Board, to make sure the sum, as requested, is dealt

with expeditiously so that we can get a first class Department

of Labour behind this legislation. If we don't do that, then

Bill 11 may indeed become as worthless as some of the

legislation that has been passed by a previous government

sitting on this side of the House, and I'm talking about young

offenders, and family courts, and things like that.

We all know that any student of legislation looking at some

of that first class legislation knows it's not been fulfilled

because of some of the problems of staffing. That's something

that we're addressing ourselves to frequently, and I think

questions on the order paper would indicate at a rate that

probably is going to occasion some criticism. But,

nevertheless, until we do make sure that the Minister is backed

by a first-class, well-paid, well-trained, understanding staff,

Bill 11 isn't going to work.

MR. WILLIAMS: Bill 33 didn't….

HON. MR. HALL: Bill 33 did prove that money in the wrong

place is not enough.

Mr. Speaker, the next point that occurs to me is that for

any legislation as new and as innovative as this to succeed,

there has to be a clear run at the problem. While we removed

from the courts a great deal — if not all — of the problem, it

is a fact that in order to do that correctly you have to give

it to somebody else. Otherwise, that same gaggle, bevy, group,

cartel of lawyers who are so anxious to get at Bill 11 will be

getting at the absence, getting at the vacuum. There's no

criticism of a personal nature intended. The lawyers are

retained by clients and have to do that kind of a job, and very

often, they do

[ Page 493 ]

it very, very well. But unless you actually make the proper

transition from one to the other, then the vacuum is as

dangerous as the presence of the courts in the first place, if

you have my bent of mind. I agree that's a biased, opinionated

view. It's one I hold sincerely and strongly.

It seems to me that the legislation and the Labour Relations

Board with its awesome powers — somebody once sent me a note

about the "awesome powers of the board," and he spelled

board b-o-r-e-d. I think maybe there's a key in here somewhere.

Unless the legislation has a clear opportunity by virtue of its

decisions to prove itself, then I think we are doing the code

an injustice.

I want to draw everybody's attention to what I think is one of the

most significant and paramount changes in the legislation, and that is

that the Labour Relations Board for all its powers, awesome or

otherwise, must give its reasons in writing. If that isn't a

disciplinary method of making sure that the board acts correctly — and

I'm confident it will — but if that's not the most beautiful piece of

built-in legislation I've ever seen, I don't know what is.

Because if you make a person stand up and say why he's doing

something, you're pretty well certain that he's going to be very

careful about what he's going to do. No longer will those strange and

mysterious decisions of the Labour Relations Board bedevil the

labour-management climate in this province.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, in terms of giving ticks to this

legislation is the question of the establishment of a

department, a research bureau, and all the other items that the

Minister spoke about in his contributions in the throne speech

debate. There again, the evidence was in before that is his

intention and I've made my commitment to that end.

The final thing I wish to say in supporting this

legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that legislation must also be

looked at as from whence it came; and that is, it comes from a

government which had placed employment, which has placed

apprenticeship training, retraining, the whole question of

manpower, the whole question of mobility of manpower, as its

goals as a New Democratic Party government elected just a year

ago. I think that if the legislation is looked at from the

criteria I've listed, from that which we observe in the

legislation, couched as it is by a government that has already

demonstrably shown that it has these concerns, then I think

that this legislation is worthy of anybody's support.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that over some years it's

been my pleasure to involve myself with members of the labour

movement, both organized in the family of labour as represented

by the Canadian Labour Congress, and others. It's my

understanding that they are concerned naturally about some of

the aspects of this legislation. So am I. So am I, because, Mr.

Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that I think this is one area that this government can get into

serious trouble. Make no mistake about that. That's why I think

that in this debate all the Members of the House should be

addressing themselves to this legislation in the most careful

way possible, because it is a fact that a new government

getting into the kinds of programmes we're getting into doesn't

enjoy the kind of labour harmony, the kind of management

support, the kind of togetherness that this labour legislation

calls for. Indeed, there are going to be stormy times for us

all.

I think it's fair to say that we have, by virtue of the fact

that we campaign on a programme, by virtue of the fact that we

are closely affiliated with the aims and aspirations of the

working people of this province, know that we will be looked

upon, tested, evaluated, and we shall be asked to make an

account of ourselves, as we in a left wing, grassroots party,

have to do from time to time. I'm speaking of the event, not

too far away, when this legislation will be examined by the

people who sent us here. We make no apologies for that.

Similarly, it will be evaluated over a course of time as to

whether or not the first major piece of labour legislation that

this new government brought in is indeed going to do the job.

It's my expectation and my confidence that it will do, but it's

going to need some working at. It's going to need a lot of

nights of consultation by the leaders of the labour movement

and the leaders of the management group. It's going to need a

good run, a good, supported, clean run at some of the problems.

It's going to need a great deal of notice of the decisions.

One particular

section of the bill points out that the

Labour Relations Board is charged with the responsibility of

announcing policy. I can well see the day when this chamber

will re-echo to the debate on the policy as laid down by the

Labour Relations Board. Then, with that kind of new stride,

that kind of new approach, I think the legislation will

succeed. Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in giving it my

support on second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In rising to speak on

second reading of this particular bill, I certainly don't set

myself up as any expert in the field of labour relations or

labour management. But I do think that I can reflect somewhat

accurately some of things that people have said to me over the

number of years that I have been a Member of this Legislature,

both people who are involved actively in the labour field as

union members, and those people who are employed but do not

have a union contract to guide them.

There's a great deal of concern expressed by many people

about the labour-management relations in the Province of

British Columbia. It would seem to me that the present

government has made a legitimate

[ Page 494 ]

attempt through the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) to

enact a new piece of legislation which must be viewed with

concern by both management and labour, with a certain amount of

misgiving and a certain amount of hesitation, because they

don't know at this point in time exactly how it will work or

how it will effect them.

It would be my personal observation that when you read the

bill, it is certainly

an Act which will at least encourage, if

not direct, a large segment of the present labour population

which is not union into a union contract. I think it's fair to

say that the legislation is pointed in that direction — to

bring under the umbrella of some sort of a labour contract, the

60 per cent of the labour force in British Columbia which is

presently non-union. These people have a right to be non-union,

if they so desire, and they have a right to be apprehensive

about this type of legislation, particularly if it is used as a

weapon or a means to coerce them into a position of becoming

members of any union regardless of what label that union may

have in front of it and be named by.

I think that the bill, on close observation, is weighted in

favour of labour, not management, and for that reason,

management have a great deal of apprehension as to how this Act

will work. But I think there is an attitude generally held by

the public, and by labour and management, that they want to see

an end to the acrimony and the interruptions in

labour-management relations in the Province of British

Columbia.

From what I have observed and in my opinion the public

generally at this point in time are increasingly impatient with

both labour and management. They're tired of lockouts and

wildcat strikes and wobbling the job. They're tired of illegal

picketing, of the work-to-rule sort of game that's sometimes

played. They're tired of the political chess game that is

played by both labour and management when it comes close to the

time for the renegotiation or the renewal of a contract.

They're tired of strikes in the public sector, particularly

in the essential services such as transportation and

communication. I'm sure that if I were to say anything to the

members of government today as a layman, really, speaking on

this particular area, it would be that the public wants to see

an end to these explosive confrontations that have been the

character too often of labour and management in disputes in

years past.

As I said, I believe that labour-management people really want to see this

new Act work, and I'm sure that the public generally are echoing amen to that

statement. But this is only a tool, Mr. Speaker. The real challenge of this

Act lies directly on the doorsteps of both labour and management. It's up to

them to make it work; to live with the legislation or ask for amendments, if

they feel that amendments will improve what we have presently in the form of

the statute that's before us.

If there was ever a time in British Columbia for less heat

and more light, it's now. The public expect it. The public

surmise, at least, that the attitude of labour towards an NDP

government will be slightly different than it was towards the

former government, strictly because of the fact that you bear

an NDP label which is supposed to be pro-labour.

So the type of demonstration that we have experienced in the

past, the type of lobbying against any type of labour

legislation before anyone really knew what it was all about,

will probably not be as prevalent as it has been in the past.

To that I say amen because I think it is time we were beyond

that stage in the process of effectively controlling for the

best interests, not only of those people in the labour

movement, but for those people who are outside it and for every

citizen in the Province of British Columbia. It is time that we

were more adult in our approach to these problems.

If I had one criticism of the legislation as a matter of

principle — and I'm sure that we'll get into the discussion of

the actual provisions of the bill,

section by section, when we

get to that stage of the debate — but if I have one criticism of

the principle of the bill as I interpret it, it is that it

reflects, in my opinion, the NDP preoccupation with legislation

which bequeaths absolute control to a small select group of

people.

It is the experience of those of us in the official

opposition since the NDP came to power that too much of this

legislation has come before the House; that in this bill we see

a repetition of what we have seen in the fair employment Act

and other pieces of legislation, whether intentional or not. At

least this is the way it is being written.

This legislation is, in my opinion, without a proper appeal,

although there is an appeal included in it. Above all, even

though the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) seems to

feel that a labour court, if you wish to call it that, or a

labour board, is in some respects better than the judicial

system, I'm not at all sure that we are making a move in the

right direction when we step outside of the judicial system of

the province to settle all these matters. In the final analysis

there will be no appeal to the courts on matters that have been

settled by the Labour Relations Board.

In my opinion the board surely is the vehicle and the tool

to use at the initial, and, hopefully, the final stages of

arbitrating any dispute. But there has been in the past — and

there will probably be in the future — a dispute or a number of

disputes which reach an impasse, at which the sole arbiter at

the present time will be the board set up under this Act. It's

my opinion, when we get to that type of impasse where we seem

to be at a point where no reconciliation is

[ Page

495 ]

possible, that there should be, for the protection of

everybody, an appeal to the judicial system of British Columbia

which, after all, should be the highest court of appeal, not

only in British Columbia but in Canada.

The Hon. Provincial Secretary, in referring to Bill 33, said

that it "proved that money in the wrong place, is not enough."

I don't think that the Provincial Secretary or anyone else in

this House can guarantee that money spent by the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King), or allocated towards a certain

direction, will produce any greater results or better benefits

for everyone in the province than we had with Bill 33.

In looking the bill over, it becomes apparent that in

certain circumstances a decision can be made by one man

appointed by the board. It's a one-man rule at that point and

it presumes, in my opinion, the wisdom of Solomon. I have to

ask the government: Who is such a person? Where do you find

him? Is there anyone with that type of insight available, in

the Province of British Columbia or anywhere else, to fulfill

that role?

The Act as it is written may well interfere with human

rights to the extent that it could be judged ultra vires and

beyond the legislative competence of the province. That's a

comment, not a firm fact on my part, because I am no lawyer and

I do not pretend to be one. But I do know, Mr. Speaker, that

another Act is before the courts which, from what I have read,

raises some very interesting points in law. While I don't

intend to reflect on that court action, I would say that if

this Act is found to offend the rights of individuals, then for

the benefit of the Minister and everyone concerned in the

labour-management relations field, it should be tested in court

at the first opportunity. Because that is the only way we will

be able to judge whether in fact we have the type of labour

legislation that people can live with.

I would like to conclude my brief remarks by saying that

everyone in British Columbia is looking forward to a less

explosive atmosphere and a more harmonious situation in the

labour-management field in the future. They have a right to

expect it. For too long in British Columbia we have had a

situation which seemed to prosper by promoting dissension and

discord. I would hope that this Act, and the goodwill of the

people in both management and labour, will bring about a better

day in British Columbia.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support

Bill 11 on second reading, but in doing so I would like to

outline some of my feelings on the bill, some of the good

points, and some of my disappointments.

In the first place, I am a bit disappointed that, under the exemptions for

employees, a lot of the people in my riding will not come under the general

umbrella of this bill. I am specifically referring to agricultural workers.

We have a lot of berry pickers, farm workers, horticultural and greenhouse workers

and so on, in my riding, and also the fishermen, who make up a very large portion

of my riding.

I am concerned about the fishermen in particular, because

they have a long history of trade unionism and collective

bargaining going back I think about 75, 85 years. At present

they are in a position where the federal government labour Act

is being challenged by the companies to see whether they really

come under the umbrella of the federal Act or not. If they're

not included in this Act, then there could be some difficulties

if the companies' legal fight against the federal Act proves

that the fishermen are not covered.

It may be that the fishermen will be considered as dependent

contractors under the Act. I'm hoping that the Minister, in

winding up this debate, might be able to give some assurances

that this would be so under

section 48. But if they are not

included in that section, I really would like to see them

included in this Act as employees.

I'm also concerned, Mr. Speaker, that people in my own

profession such as teachers and professional people, are not

regarded as employees under this Act as well as government

workers, farmers and so on, and of course, domestic workers.

I'm concerned that, by not including professional people and

teachers in particular into the Act, we are in effect setting

some groups of people aside as being different from others, and

that in effect, by omitting professional people and teachers,

we're differentiating people by class. We're saying that one

group is different from another group.

And I would like to ask if I'm any different, as a teacher

or as a farmer or as a fisherman, than if I were a fireman or a

worker in a hospital or a plumber? I think that people in all

of these jobs are employees and they should all come under the

general umbrella of a labour Act such as this.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, about the expanded sections on

unfair labour practices. I think this is good stuff. I was once

fired from a janitorial job for trying to organize a union

where there were about six or seven employees doing similar

work. I got notice that I was being fired on Christmas Day, and

my job was terminated on New Year's Day. It was quite a

Christmas present.

I am pleased to see that employers would have to justify

such actions in the future and would have to provide the burden

of proof that indeed a person was being fired other than for

labour activities. Myself and one other person were fired at

that time. We had got most people to agree that we would form a

union. We were fired and it never came about.

I'm a bit concerned about the religious conscience clause. I

think that the individual has the right to

[ Page 496 ]

determine whether he wants to be a member of a union or not,

whether he wants to take

part in collective bargaining

procedures and so on. It is actually a basic democratic

principle, in my opinion, that when a group as decided to form

a union, the same as when we make other democratic decisions,

people are generally and I think, democratically bound by the

decisions of the majority. I do not see this clause as one

which is outlining a specific civil liberty. In fact, I think

it could be construed as taking away a civil liberty which is

the right of the majority.

I'm not too concerned with the powers of the board. I've

heard some criticism that the board is a super-board, but we

should give the board a try. I think it can work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STEVES: The board does have very large powers but I

think the type of board that we're envisioning is one that will

bring a great deal of labour peace in this province.

I've had some misgivings about the board appointments, but

again, I would like to see this board given a real chance to

try to solve some of the very grave problems in labour we have

in this province.

We've also been criticized on the first collective agreement

section. I think it's basically a good idea but, when we come

up to discuss that section, I have a suggestion or two as to

how it may be amended to make it a little more palatable.

I do not like the compulsory aspect of that particular

clause myself. I do not think that compulsion should be

considered; it's too easily embodied elsewhere. It's contrary

to my own philosophy and also to the policy of the NDP.

I am pleased to see the sections dealing with essential

services — firemen, policemen, hospital unions and so on. I

think that this will be very beneficial to those employees and

to the public at large.

I'm somewhat concerned about the technical change aspects of

the bill. Again there's some degree of compulsion and I'm

concerned that, with that type of compulsion, they may not be

effective.

I've been involved in past years in negotiating committees

for the teachers in my riding where we've tried to negotiate

technological change into our procedures — trying to create

technological change, and not particularly, as this Act is

talking about, trying to adapt to technological change. We have

tried to negotiate teaching and learning conditions to improve

the school system.

We do not use strike activities in the teaching system too much; we've had

the odd one-day strike. But by not being able to wield some powers, such as

the withdrawal of services, it is very difficult to make changes. I think that

it will be difficult to deal with the technological change aspect if free collective

bargaining is not permitted in some way.

Contrary to the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for North

Peace (Mr. Smith), who is concerned that we've taken too much

away from the courts, I'm a little bit concerned that we have

left too much reference to the courts in the Act. So maybe I

can balance out his argument a little bit.

In particular reference to the general arbitration

procedure, I think that this may be a little bit cumbersome but

I'm willing to give it a try. The court is still sort of the

last resort in there and I'm concerned we've left a little too

much emphasis on that.

I very much like the idea, Mr. Speaker, of having a special

officer, a person who "walks on water," the one who

"cools off wildcat strikes and leaps tall buildings at a single

bound." I think that this will be beneficial to labour and

management and I hope that both labour and management will keep

the faith. I think it will work. If it does, it will save us a

lot of grief and labour strife in this province in cooling off

both the causes for wildcat strikes and the wildcat strikes

themselves.

I also like the sections dealing with the labour ombudsman.

We have been criticized on this particular aspect of the Act,

but I think that this is the first step towards having a

provincial ombudsman. We'll probably have them not just for

labour but for other areas as well. I think that this will have

a good effect on labour as well as everything else.

My one disappointment, however, is that the labour ombudsman

does not apply to the unorganized as well as the organized. I

would like to see that included in there some time in the

future. Because there are a lot of people who do not have trade

unions to defend them, They are left all by themselves and have

nobody to stand up for their rights.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think the best part of this Act is

that we get rid of 20 years of reactionary Social Credit labour

legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STEVES: I think the legislation we've put up with over

the years is some of the most reactionary legislation on this

continent. I am really pleased to see that it is finally going

down the tube.

This may not be the best labour legislation, Mr. Speaker,

but I think I can justifiably admit that you can't get rid of

20 years of bad legislation overnight. We have seen a lot of

misuse of the courts and the entire judicial system and I think

that the labour unrest in this province has largely been caused

by the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see that the previous

[ Page 497 ]

government Members who are left in this House recognize the

evil of their ways and are supporting this bill, It is

certainly an improvement over what we have heard from them in

the past.

In conclusion, I think we should give the bill a chance.

There are some things I'd like to see tidied up, perhaps in

amendments, perhaps in amendments in the spring. But if, we

give the bill a chance, we'll probably see the most progressive

legislation on the continent evolving in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I wish to make a few very

brief remarks and to make my position clear in regard to this

bill which is, of course, that I support the principle of this

bill.

I intended originally, Mr. Speaker, to speak on Friday, but

the opportunity did not arise. Consequently, I've had three

days back in my constituency to speak with members of rank and

file unions in Mackenzie.

I would like to point out to the House at this time that all

my activities in the labour movement have been as a member of

the rank and file. I served as a president and secretary of my

local, as a mediation officer; I served on bargaining and

grievance committees, and as a mutually-agreed-upon mediation

officer in disputes in my constituency. And as a result of

these talks, these conversations I had with rank and file

members of my constituency, in the main I found a great deal of

support for Bill 11.

All of us who have worked in union matters, labour matters,

over the years found that under the previous legislation we

were restricted; the legislation was punitive. The legislation

we had in the past contributed to labour-management unrest in

this province. I feel that this Bill 11, Mr. Speaker, will go a

long way to settling labour-management disputes in this

province.

The Hon. Minister said the other day in this House when he

presented the bill that if either labour or management find

fault with this bill after it has been tried for a reasonable

length of time, and we as a government agree with their point

of view, the bill can be amended. All new and refreshing

legislation is usually criticized during the initial

introduction. I am not unaware of the comments that are being

made by people in my constituency. I know there is a genuine

concern in some quarters as to what this bill is all about.

However, I feel that the rank and file will support the

government on this bill, and I believe that the thoughtful and

concerned people in labour and management will support the

principle of this bill as well. Thank you.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I must find myself, for the first time

in my life, I think, in agreement with the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves).

The calibre of the opposition has certainly improved considerably since 1971;

and certainly we have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of taking the kind of approach

that the NDP opposition would have taken in attempting to inspire disruption

among the labour force of this province because of this bill.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, everybody in British Columbia

wants to see labour peace in this province. Everybody would

like to see this bill work, and we hope that the bill will

work.

There isn't any strike, I don't think, in British Columbia

any more that doesn't affect the public interest, regardless of

whether it's a so-called "essential" service that is on strike

or not. Everybody is affected by strikes and labour unrest and

it is usually the person with the lowest income or fixed income

who gets it in the neck. The consumer is the person who pays in

the end.

There are many questions raised in this bill and we hope

that they will be answered by the Minister when he closes this

debate. We are happy, for instance, to see the position of

ombudsman in the bill, and we also hope that you will give the

ombudsman something to do. There is certainly no indication in

the bill that he will have any duties.

We are also happy that, to a small degree, the government

has attempted to deal with the problem of wildcat strikes and,

to an even smaller degree, jurisdictional disputes. We would

hope that we will be able to submit some amendments that will

perhaps help out in that area.

I'm a little worried about the so-called "special officer"

provision in the bill. This person will have unbelievable

powers. He'll be a policeman, a judge and a jury all rolled

into one.

There has been some concern expressed about the conscience

clause. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there should be some

amendments made there as well so that at least if we can't get

any changes in the actual wording of that clause, perhaps we

can suggest that if you are going to leave it the way it is, at

least have the unions direct those funds which are supported by

the conscientious objectors directed to some sort of a welfare

fund within the union — a welfare or health fund that the union

can set up.

I find it curious, Mr. Speaker, that fire-fighters and

policemen and hospital workers have been given the right to opt

for binding arbitration under this bill. I wonder why the

employer doesn't get the same opportunity to opt for binding

arbitration. Why is it one-sided in the bill? The employer

should have the

[ Page 498 ]

same opportunity as the employee has in this case.

There are some frightening powers being given to the

proposed new board, and I think the makeup of the board will

establish some principles that will make it a little difficult

to maintain labour-management peace in the province.

While I don't want to deal directly with sections of the

bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a couple of portions

of the bill. First of all, the bill says that it may dispense

with certification vote "if it is unlikely to disclose the true

wishes of the employer." Now who decides what the true wishes

of the employer or the employee are? Who makes that decision?

Is it one person or two people or a one-member panel; how is

that decided?

It also says "although a strike may be technically illegal,

the board would not have to order the strikers back to work if

it felt they were morally right in striking because of improper

conduct of the employer."

Once again, somebody is being asked to make that judgment

and, this time, a judgment of the morality of the employer,

before ordering — what appears to be an illegal strike — before

ordering those people back to work. I think of the ferry

strike, which was clearly an illegal strike; whether it was

morally right or not, the way we settled it it sure didn't sit

very well with the people of British Columbia.

I see us getting into that kind of a situation where people

are on strike clearly illegally, and this board or this special

officer decides that the employer hasn't acted in good faith or

in good conscience, so he allows the strikers to continue even

though they are in violation of their contract.

The board, in these instances, Mr. Speaker, is almost asked

to play God; so where is the right of the employer to be

protected? And where are the appeals? Many of the Members have

talked about appeals — and there are none — to this kind of

judgment. It's an arbitrary judgment that the board will have

to make, so there should be some form of appeal for the person

affected.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, makes a lot about the right of the

employee but it seems, in many instances, to have forgotten

about the rights of the employer.

I'm disturbed, Mr. Speaker, about the principle within the

bill of picketing allies — a very disturbing principle because

the definition of an ally is incredibly vague in the bill and

will, I think, without a doubt be open to very wide abuses.

It's one of the most blatant defects, I think, in the whole

bill, and it will cause many problems and should, I think, be

struck right out.

The term used in the bill, Mr. Speaker, "professional

strike-breaker" is deliberately inflammatory. It has no place

in this legislation either. I think this, too, will be open to

many abuses as time goes by in the Province of British

Columbia, and particularly in the case of supervisory personnel

carrying on normal business during a dispute — as we have today

in the telephone company, over which this government doesn't

yet have jurisdiction.

One wonders, Mr. Speaker and I notice they were all around

again today about the alligator tears which are being shed by

the British Columbia Federation of Labour in this matter over

this bill. Because there isn't a doubt in my mind that this is

a heavily pro-labour bill. It's weighted heavily towards the

labour movement. If big labour, as personified by the B.C.

Federation of Labour, acts as irresponsibly as it has in the

past in protesting labour legislation, then the approach to

labour-management problems in this province is doomed to

failure.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, I'd call on the British Columbia

Federation of Labour to take a leaf out of the book of some of

the other responsible labour unions in this province who have

said that they will sit back and look at this bill and study it

and work with it, if possible. I think that the B.C. Federation

of Labour should look to its motives and decide whether it is a

political gambit that they're playing or whether they are

really seriously concerned about labour-management peace in

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, even without any other problems the bill seems

to be, according to some of the recent releases that have come

from some of our learned legal friends, on pretty shaky legal

grounds. In fact, somebody commented the other day in the

corridors here that the bill should be renamed the "Full

Employment Act for Lawyers." Not only are there constitutional

questions with regard to this bill — that will make lawyers

happy, I'm sure — there are a lot of constitutional….

AN HON. MEMBER: It takes a lot to make a lawyer happy.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'm sure it does. There are a lot of

constitutional problems in connection with the bill, and there

are other legal questions that would seem to need some answers.

Hopefully, since the debate on this bill started, the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has had a chance to talk some more

with his legal advisers and perhaps he can clear up some of

those questions.

One of Mr. — is it Wheeler or Weiler? Mr. Weiler, one of his

colleagues at Osgoode Hall, in fact raised some serious doubts

about the legality of some of the sections of the bill. He

suggested that the Supreme Court of Canada will be asked to

rule; so perhaps the Minister, Mr. Speaker, could head that off

before it happens.

It seems, you know, as if every time a major piece of

legislation comes before this House, it has been conceived in

extreme haste for some reason or another, and this bill is no

different. It was drawn up

[ Page 499 ]

hastily. It obviously had a little rough water getting

through the caucus and the cabinet. Because of that I'm sure

that the Labour Minister isn't quite happy with the bill. It

would have been probably a better idea if he had firmed it up

and evened out the edges before it came to this House.

I would have liked to have seen some of the motions calling

for an adjournment, which were put forward in this House

before, get some recognition, because that's really what should

have happened to the bill. It should have been put aside for a

while so that the Minister of Labour could have had another

look at it with his legal people. We could have had it back to

the House then in much better shape, and it would have been

easier then to debate it.

In view of those legal questions, Mr. Speaker, I would just

like to ask — and I certainly won't move any adjournment — but

I would like to ask that the Minister of Labour do meet with

his advisers again and study those constitutional questions

which have been raised all over Canada, and see perhaps if he

can have answers to those questions before the bill comes up

for committee stage. We will have, Mr. Speaker, some amendments

for third reading committee stage, and we hope that they'll be

received favourably.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the

chance to rise and speak on this bill, an attempt by this

government to take an entirely new direction in

labour-management matters. I'm quite sure that it's going to

receive a tremendous amount of support in the future when

people see how it works, because it's very certain that other

pieces of legislation that have come down from this House have

not worked. Or if they have worked at all, they've only worked

partially.

I think in a year or two's time there is going to be a lot

of enthusiasm for this bill. I'd like to see the supporters of

it, when they see how it works, recognizing this perhaps by

coming out wearing these large buttons that people seem to wear

nowadays on almost every cause. It would say something like "I

like Bill's bill" or something along that line, because I think

it's a good bill and I think it's badly needed.

Many governments all over Canada, provincial governments and

federal government included, have grappled with this

labour-management situation and all with varying degrees of

success, most of it bad. It seems that there is an attempt here

at pioneer legislation, at new directions in this field; and

there is no field where a new effort is more needed than this

one of labour-management legislation.

The previous government tried in their way to bring in legislation that would

bring some kind of peace brought in under their philosophies. The failure of

this legislation, of course, we have all observed over the last 15 years in

this province. And I think one of the most important reasons for this is that

these bills were imposed from above. There was no consultation with the people

involved, with labour and management and the public, such as there has been

on this bill.

I think the swiftness of the debate-in-principle on this

bill would certainly point out something to the public in this

province. A bill with 153 sections that enters what has been so

far an extremely controversial

section of our society — and the

former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot), the Hon. Liberal leader

(Mr. D.A. Anderson), and the Hon. Conservative leader (Mr.

Wallace) took very, very few minutes over one hour in speaking

in principle on this bill. I was most impressed by the Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) who had so little to say

on labour legislation, when he had so much to say last spring

on Bill 42. The hours and hours of debate on that bill to

preserve our farmland apparently was much more important than

the labour-management relations in this province.

The Hon. Liberal leader spoke about the Premier's problem

with the B.C. Federation of Labour — his personal problem with

the B.C. Federation of Labour. This, to me, is a complete

departure from what we have been hearing in the past of the

Hon. Premier's relations with labour and the rest of the

party's relation with labour.

Up until now we have been accused of being the mouthpiece

for big labour — "big cigar-smoking labour bosses" was one of

the terms used, I think. It's also been said that the New

Democratic Party has the B.C. Federation of Labour in its

pocket, which are two opposing views. But if we have them in

Our pocket, and there are quite a few of them, we have also

been accused in this House — in the spring I believe it was — of having the Vancouver Sun , the Vancouver Province and other

members of the press corps in our pockets, so they are getting

to be pretty bulgy pockets if all of these statements were

true.

Now apparently, we are asked to withdraw the bill. We have

been asked several times in this debate to have consultation

with the B.C. Federation of Labour and others before we bring

it into the House again. For over a year now we have been

pressed on one of our campaign promises to introduce labour

legislation that would attempt to change the labour and

management climate in this province. Everyone was in a hurry.

Now that it's been introduced, we are asked to withdraw it and

have consultations. After more than a year of consultation with

labour and management and the public, from what I have found

out there's been plenty of input from all segments of society.

Representations were asked for and were enthusiastically

responded to for the past year. And this is the first time in

B.C. there has ever been consultation by a labour Minister to

receive input from all segments of society.

There has been concern voiced about the farm

[ Page 500 ]

labour being left out of the Act. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would

say in travelling around the province with the agriculture

committee this summer, that if we were to impose on the farmers

of this province the Minimum Wage Act to pay their employees,

half of the remaining farms we have in operation would have to

go out of operation. We said when we brought in Bill 42 that

this would preserve the land and the legislation introduced

later would be to preserve the farmer. When this legislation,

and some of it has been introduced now, has been debated and

passed by this House, and the farmer is in a position to pay

decent wages — and I'm sure he will — at that time perhaps the

farm workers can be covered under the Act.

But we saw a very good example of labour-management

cooperation in the packing house workers' union in the

Okanagan. For years and years they have been going along with

the growers who have practically a whole cooperative set-up

from grower to market. These workers have gone along year after

year with poor contracts and substandard wages to assist the

farmer to survive, hoping, like the farmer, that in the future

something would happen to improve their lot. And they served

notice this year that they can no longer afford to subsidize

the fruit growing industry and the vegetable industry in this

province. I certainly agree with them, and any Member who feels

that these workers are getting a good deal should just look

over the packing house workers' contract with the packing

houses in this province. They have reached a point where they

can no longer subsidize the farmer, and the farmer has reached

the point where he can no longer subsidize the public.

There has been a lot of talk about the conscience clause,

and I have to relate to the House, Mr. Speaker, that I don't

think it's going to be a serious problem; it hasn't been in the

past in other places. But it was put to me by some

representatives of labour that if there was a conscience clause

in regard to the Bar Association and the [B.C.] Medical

Association, then perhaps they'd be able to accept it. So I

asked a lawyer friend of mine how he thought this would apply

and he said, "Well first" — and these aren't my words — "you'd

have to find a lawyer with a conscience."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: One of the biggest complaints we have had for years

and years, untold years, is that labour matters are protracted and drawn out

in the courts. It was always my feeling, as a part of the labour movement, that

these were very human problems between employer and employee, and had no business

in the legalistic jargon of the courts. I think the courts should be there for

a final decision, a final settlement, but in over 90 per cent of the cases they

can be settled by people of goodwill stepping in to intervene in a problem between

the two parties.

The full-time labour board: We have certainly heard enough

in the past that a part-time labour board was not enough in

this province to settle the problem, so now we have a full-time

board. Added to the full-time board comes the criticism — and

it was to be expected — of the broad, sweeping powers of this

board. Well, someone has to have the authority to settle these

problems, and this is a case where we can just wait and see how

well the board operates. We must be patient, and not be

critical on every little thing that occurs, but wait for the

general pattern to emerge.

We have heard criticism, and I have heard criticism myself

from some of my friends in the labour movement, on the first

contract settlement section. Speaking on the principle of this,

Mr. Speaker, and not going into the details — for the board to

be able to impose a first contract on the two parties who

cannot come to agreement after the union has been certified, if

they are unhappy with this imposition to this contract, I would

say to them, "Talk to the people at Tilden, or Sandringham, or

Shoppers Drug Mart and find out what they think of it." Totally

unnecessary strikes. There was no need for them to occur at

all, and they could have been solved in this manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: After a year of living with each other

and the contract, I am quite sure the situation would have been

different when the contract was up for renegotiation.

One of the things I like best is the reference to a special

officer. This province has been plagued for years with the

wildcat strikes, with the problems that take place during the

life of an agreement, simply because, in many cases, of a

different

interpretation by management or labour on a

section

of a contract or because of

an act — usually in the case of a

wildcat strike —

an act taken by management, real or imagined,

which resulted in a walk-out of the employees of the plant.

The way I see this operating, a special officer will go in

quickly; he will have the power to bring about a settlement.

When the settlement is being brought about, there will not be

thousands of man-hours lost; there will not be pay cheques

lost; there will not be the case of getting behind in mortgage

payments. The grievance can be settled in a manner that still

leaves the wheels to turn and the pay cheques to be earned by

the employees.

There have been many references made, of course, to the B.C.

Federation of Labour. Without being critical whatsoever, I

think the officers of the B.C. Federation of Labour have a

special problem. I think

[ Page 501 ]

anyone who has read some of the Pavlov theories would

recognize that when you subject a certain amount of people to a

certain situation over a period of years, such as the

federation has been subjected to, you develop reactions.

To the federation, this was a labour code that came out of

Victoria and the first reaction had to be: it can't be any

good. I think they forget that there has been a change in

government when they took that reaction. I am looking forward

to their cooperation in helping to make it work; I am looking

forward to good suggestions being made from them for amendments

if they think it should be amended. I don't think there should

be one

section taken out of this code simply because someone

doesn't like it. I think the case should be well-documented, it

should be proven, and an alternative has to be suggested.

I have talked to quite a few union officers about this bill.

There are some sections they like; there are some sections they

don't like; there are some they like a little and there are

some they don't like a little and there are some they don't

like a lot.

On Saturday in Kamloops, I attended a meeting of the

Kamloops labour council, I wouldn't want to report to this

Legislature that it was a love feast because it certainly

wasn't. But we had a very good discussion for two and one-half

hours — in many ways it was a political discussion and in many

ways it was right down to earth. The thing that impressed me

was that of approximately 38 delegates at that meeting, there

were only about two who said the Act was no good. The rest of

the delegates to that conference wanted to pick out a

section

of the Act that they either didn't understand or that they

didn't agree with and say, "we don't like this because this is

what is going to happen under this." In this way you could have

a dialogue. But there were very few who simply talked about it

and said they didn't like it.

I think labour is ready to try something new and I think

management is eager to try something new. When they see

legislation such as this, Mr. Speaker, to use an agricultural

term, it is new ground being broken.

I wouldn't say to any of my friends in the trade-union

movement — as has often been said in debate in this House by

all parties of the opposition when they call across the floor — "trust us." I'm not even asking the labour movement to trust us

in this legislation. All I'm saying is, read it, study it,

understand it, propose amendments and, above all, use

patience.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Taking place in debate

on this labour bill, I recognize that I serve here in two capacities. In one,

as Minister of Agriculture, my constituency could be considered to be the farmers

in the province. In this session I have been particularly busy serving the needs

of the farmers throughout the province, a load of legislation that has demanded

almost all of my attention and has made me give very little attention to other

legislation, some of it very important.

If I were to consider my other constituency, that is the one

I represent as the MLA for Nanaimo, at least as far as the

short-term needs of my constituents are concerned, I would have

been much more attentive to the bill under discussion right now

and much less attentive to the needs of farmers all over the

province. Certainly in Nanaimo, essentially a labour

constituency, more attention.

There are people here today from Nanaimo concerned about the

wording of it, and very little representation — I think not

even a letter so far — from farmers in the riding about the

effects of all of the legislation that I have introduced.

So, from purely the point of view of representing the

constituents of Nanaimo, I should perhaps have been paying a

good deal more attention to the labour bill before us now.

I can recall in previous sessions, when I did give a lot of

attention to labour matters, the historic debate, if you like,

of 1968 when the infamous Bill 33 was before us. I can recall

at that time being one of a group of 16 Members, all of whom

took

part in the bill. Every one of the 16 Members of the NDP

in the House at that time took

part in that discussion, an

entirely different sort of debate from the debate we are having

today.

I think the Premier perhaps described it best when he spoke

in the House last Friday and said that this was the first

non-hysterical labour debate in memory of the House. Quite a

different debate, I suppose, in other ways as well.

It is the first time, I would submit, that the legislation

was not prepared with the interests of the one particular group

in the community in mind as opposed to the interests of the

whole community. I can recall on that particular Bill 33 debate

in 1968 when the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) at the time and then the Leader of the Opposition

quoted from a speech delivered by a captain of industry, the

chairman of MacMillan Bloedel at the time, speaking in Winnipeg

some two weeks prior to the day the bill was introduced in this

House. He used almost the same words, paragraph after

paragraph, in that speech as the Minister of Labour used in

discussing the labour bill some two weeks later in second

reading. Word by word and phrase by phrase. There was certainly

a suspicion in the minds of many people, certainly in the minds

of people in the House, certainly in the minds of people in the

community, that the bill, while it might not have been

completely drafted by captains of industry, certainly was very

much under the influence of those

[ Page 502 ]

people in the community.

Not only under their influence, Mr. Speaker, but when the

bill was introduced and when it was being discussed thoroughly

by all of the Members on the opposite side, as far as the media

were concerned, as far as the reaction from the community was

concerned, there was a very violent reaction from labour. But

as far as management was concerned, there was a unanimous

endorsation of the legislation that was before the House. It

suited completely the needs and wishes of one

section in the

community.

If anything else would have guaranteed that the bill would

not achieve peace between labour and management, the fact that

it was supported by one group and one group only, and violently

condemned by the other group, should have convinced everyone

that it had no hope of success.

The suspicion from the beginning that it was drafted by one

group would have guaranteed that it could achieve nothing short

of failure. And yes, they proved that it did fail. Predictions

were made by the 16 Members of the NDP in the House, giving the

reasons. They didn't repeat each other; they worked very hard

to give 16 different speeches, giving the reasons to show why

that legislation just couldn't possibly succeed at that

time.

Unfortunately, they proved to be only too prophetic because

certainly peace between labour and management in the province

looked far more distant in the years after 1968 since the

introduction and passing of Bill 33 than it did prior to

that.

The first non-hysterical debate in the House: Concern

expressed not only from the opposition but from some Members on

the government side; concern that maybe there should be some

amendments; a willingness from the beginning on the part of the

Minister of Labour to listen to the discussion, to consider

whether there should be specific amendments to the legislation.

I think this is not out of tune with this government's action

since it has taken office.

From the beginning we have said that we are willing to

listen, we are willing to discuss. We discuss legislation in

second reading and, if the need is shown for amendments in

committee stage, then the government is prepared to listen and

to consider constructive, reasonable amendments. We have shown

time after time that we will do that. There was the same

willingness expressed by the Minister of Labour with respect to

this legislation.

Most of the constructive suggestions, of course, so far have come from the

government side of the House. This is not to be unexpected. On the other side,

they are looking for some grounds to attack us, and are finding it very difficult.

The basis of their attack seems to be: Why don't you wait longer? Prior to that

it was: You've been in office for a year; why haven't you done something? Now

that the legislation is in: Why don't you wait longer? And really, that is the

basis of their attack so far, particularly the official opposition.

From the government's side of the House: suggestions as to

what specific amendments and what areas require attention.

Promises from the opposition side that they will bring in some

amendments later on, but careful to hold those ideas close to

their chest lest someone become aware of the excellent ideas

they are nursing close to their breasts with a view to dumping

them in a surprised Legislature sometime at a later date.

The first non-hysterical labour debate; an historic debate

because it is the first non-hysterical labour debate. It is

legislation that is being questioned very seriously by the

labour movement, some aspects of it more than others. It is

legislation that is being attacked by some employer groups. But

it is legislation, I think, that everyone recognizes is

extremely important at this particular point in time.

I can't do any better at this point, Mr. Speaker, other than

to recall the words of the Minister of Labour when he called on

labour and management to make a sincere effort to ensure

success for the new legislation: "These problems are so

sensitive and have been so profound over the last several years

that it is incumbent on all parties to take a temperate,

rational, constructive approach."

Mr. Speaker, someone has said it may not be the best

legislation in the world. Only time will tell that. Only time

will tell how good it is and only a government willing to

consider amendments, either now or in the future, can make it

the best legislation. These are the things that we have to look

forward to.

It is legislation that, as I say, is much more important in

my own constituency than all the legislation that I have had to

introduce since I've been here, and yet legislation that I've

not given any great personal attention to because I have faith

that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), in bringing in

this legislation, has had a lot of discussions with all of the

people who have wanted to offer advice in the formative period

for this legislation and that in taking that advice and in

presenting the legislation before us now, he is doing the best

that is humanly possible to come up with the kind of

legislation that will do something to achieve labour-management

peace in this province, something that we all dearly and

desperately need in this province. I for one am going to

support him in presenting this legislation in this House and in

voting for it when the opportunity arises.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we were

in danger of getting through this debate without there being

hysteria, and the Minister of Agriculture got himself pretty

well worked up

[ Page 503 ]

there before he sat down. Despite the speeches of the

Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea) before that, we're going to support the legislation in the

Liberal Party and I suspect the other opposition parties will

as well.

Mr. Speaker, we were pleasantly surprised by the

legislation. We're frequently surprised by legislation in your

party but seldom pleasantly. (Laughter.) On this particular

occasion we thought the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) did

very well. He took as the main basis of his new Act the Ontario

legislation, which presumably has worked reasonably well in

that province, and therefore we have hopes that things will get

better here in British Columbia. Because it's an advance — almost anything would be an advance — the legislation is

certainly supportable.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker….

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): "However…."

MR. McGEER: However, I want to focus in on some of the

shortcomings of the legislation and say a few words about what

I believe should be the future direction of our labour-management policies in the Province of British Columbia.

Just this past fall we had a strike with the ferries which

was settled by the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan),

who said a gun had been held at his head and that there was

nothing he could do. The general public expressed disgust,

first of all at the strike and secondly at the jellyfish

attitude of the Minister. Now, it may be that he did have a gun

at his head, but had the trigger been pulled the Minister would

have survived. The bullet would have passed straight through,

Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

He'd have still got his salary and wouldn't have lost a

day's pay, but other people were damaged and would have been

damaged more for every day that strike continued. These were

the parties that were injured — not the Minister, not the

government, not any of us, certainly not the people who went on

strike, because there are adequate reserves, even though the

ferries are losing money, to pay the people their demands. No

matter how exorbitant these demands might be, the government

can stand it. I suppose the ferry workers can stand a

reasonable strike; they might lose a week's, two week's or a

month's pay, and if they were successful with the strike, as

they were, they'd soon make that up with the additional

salaries that they get.

But, Mr. Speaker, there were blameless people on Vancouver Island who lost

a fair proportion of their yearly earnings as a result of that strike, who depend

on the tourist trade, who depend on the goodwill that is created for visitors

and tourists in British Columbia. They weren't at fault. It wasn't their job

to see that the ferries were run properly, It's not their job to pass the laws.

Yet these innocent people were damaged very, very severely by that strike.

It doesn't happen just here in British Columbia, because

there was a comparable situation going on in the Province of

Newfoundland where tourists had become stranded in the middle

of their high season and where it was necessary to airlift in

food supplies and other essential goods. But again, Mr.

Speaker, the people who were most deeply injured were not those

who had anything to do with that strike, who represented a

minority who were deeply vulnerable to an action taken by a

group of workers and perhaps in other circumstances by

management.

We have in this particular Act a

section referring to police

and to hospital workers. Not too long ago there was a strike in

the City of Montreal of policemen. This was followed by riots

in that city where there was personal injury of a physical

nature done to individuals and where property was destroyed by

looters. Mr. Speaker, again perfectly innocent individuals

relying on the protection of society and the effectiveness of

laws were grievously injured by a process that we sanctify here

in this legislature.

We've had doctor's strikes; we've had hospital strikes.

Again, it doesn't hurt the general public all that much, but it

may grievously damage, to the extent of life itself, people who

are completely innocent and blameless for those group

activities.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about the public interest and the

need for the public interest to be protected, I'm not thinking

of the general public who may be harmed in a minor economic way

by the general loss of production, a small increase in prices

or a temporary inconvenience in any of the services that

they've become accustomed to expect. I'm thinking, as was the

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) when he

first raised this subject in debate, about those blameless

individuals who may lose their lives or all their property, or

a significant part of their income.

What are we doing as legislators to protect the interests of

those individuals? After all, this is what governments are

supposed to do. They're supposed to respect the individual and

his rights — every single individual! If those acts are

undertaken by which an individual who is blameless is harmed by

someone else, then we move to give that man protection.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): If a big business

shut down a mill, would you expect everybody in that town…

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're hurt.

MR. McGEER: …the Attorney General can

[ Page 504 ]

think of all kinds of hypothetical cases. We all can. I've

mentioned a number of very serious ones. When you start talking

about police opting either for binding arbitration or to go on

strike, you make individuals in society vulnerable to

lawlessness, as happened in Montreal. Or when you say hospital

workers, or doctors for that matter, may be free to chose

binding arbitration or go on strike and yet leave some poor

individual who happens to be desperately ill that day

unattended, perhaps to die, then you've sanctified the wrong

things in law.

However we may honour this process of free collective

bargaining and stand up and say, "You cannot force people to

work," at the same time we have to remember the other

side of our responsibilities, which is to see that every

individual is protected by the laws of the land insofar as it's

humanly possible to protect him. And this is the part that is

totally ignored, as my hon. colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) has pointed out, in this particular

legislation.

I for one won't rest with the legislation regarding

labour-management which we have in this province, so long as

people are put in jeopardy by the group actions that may be

taken by labour and management — one thinks particularly of

police and fire and hospitals.

I think it very fair that a person who's been done grievous

economic harm because of a strike for which he's totally

blameless and in which he has no part, one way or another,

should be able to receive compensation for that harm.

I'm not sure to whom he should apply. We have a case going

to court here in British Columbia where people who are injured

as a result of the ferry strike are taking to the courts their

case against the union for financial injury. What must be

settled in that lawsuit, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, I would caution the Hon.

Member not to discuss the case….

MR. McGEER: I'm not talking about whether or not there are

financial damages to these people. There's no question about

that. What has to be decided by the courts is whether or not

the strike is legal, Mr. Speaker. If the strike is an illegal

one, then these people have redress. But the point is….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is that this matter is now before

the courts and I would caution the Member not to comment on

it.

MR. McGEER: No, no, Mr. Speaker, just a moment. Not the aspect I'm discussing

which is if this strike had been a legal one for certain, there'd be no case

at all by which these people who are financially injured could apply for compensation.

Do you see the fault, Mr. Speaker? There is a case now. Possibly these people

will achieve compensation, but only if they can prove that strike was illegal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let the judge decide the case. He

doesn't need your help.

MR. McGEER: I'm not trying to assist the judge, Mr. Speaker.

I'm trying to assist this thick-headed Attorney General. And I

say that with the greatest of respect. (Laughter.) I can't

always think of flattering phrases in a hurry, Mr. Speaker.

(Laughter.) But I hope the Attorney General will take the

suggestions that I'm making in the generous spirit in which I

offer them.

But I think you grasp the point, that a person who is

injured — his health, his financial status — if that man is

innocent, he's entitled to his compensation. If we can't

protect him in law, we should at least establish a fund. Maybe

it should be a government fund. And perhaps individuals can

apply for insurance under the Minister. But I can tell you

this: if he goes about settling strikes in the future as he did

in the past, those premiums are going to be high.

But still, there ought to be a mechanism. We haven't served

the public interest in this legislation if we pass laws that

leave any citizens in this province, innocent though they may

be, in serious financial or physical jeopardy as a result of an

arbitrary work stoppage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with another aspect of this

legislation, which follows up on the arguments placed by my

hon. colleague, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams), and this is the protection that each individual

union man has under this legislation.

We give union leaders tremendous power in this province.

It's not a right; it's a privilege granted in law. The hiring

hall, the closed shop, the union check-off are all things that

give union leaders tremendous power over individual union men.

So when my hon. colleague, the Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound, talks about the rights of the union man, it's with the

thought in mind that this individual will not suffer because of

the tremendous powers that we've given his union leaders.

If there's to be a closed shop, and I don't disagree with

that for one minute, Mr. Speaker, then every man who's

qualified should have a right to join the union that he must

join in order to work in that closed shop.

We've had cases brought before us in this House. The former

Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) told about a

union man who was denied the right to join a union when the

union represented the shop where he was a foreman. He'd been a

former member of this particular union and, because he thought

it would be better to have a Canadian union

[ Page

505 ]

rather than an American-dominated union, he began to work on

behalf of the Canadian union and got thrown out. He couldn't

join the union that was represented by that company. That's

taking away a man's right to work by denying him the right to

join a union.

By a similar token, a man who is in a union and is satisfied

with that union should have a right to have it protected

too.

The Hon. Members will recall when I brought the Victoria

Paving case before the House. This particular company was well

served by a Canadian union and the Teamsters' strongmen came

along. They had the sweetheart contract.

They went up to the owner of the Victoria Paving Company — we read the testimony in this Legislature — and said, "You

better tell your guys to join this union, our union, or you're

never going to get a job and they're never going to get a job

again." It was straight strong-arm tactics.

But the point was that these people were in a properly

certified union under the Labour Relations Board. That union

was not protected. The union man should have the right to have the funds he

contributes properly supervised and watched. We had a

circumstance — and this was raised in the House as well — where

the members of the barbers' union sent all their pension

deductions across the line and then they found out that the

American union boss had run off with the money. They lost it.

Well, that's not quite true because through lengthy court

action and a considerable influence brought about by the

Canadian government, they finally did get their money back, but

devalued and without interest.

But there are other ones that have not been adequately taken

care of, such as the contributions made by the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, where their pension funds

were taken across the line and never a proper accounting or

proper protection for those contributions afforded to the

individual union man. Even though the union should be

protected, still and all, if the union man decides that he

could be represented better by a different union, he should be

free to undertake that change without fear of harassment and

reprisal.

Again, Mr. Speaker — this is the riding that you represent,

Sir — two union men were taken down to Washington, D.C., and

tried before the Federation of Labour in the United States. Do

you know what their crime was, Mr. Speaker? It was advocating

that the people in Kitimat belong to a Canadian union. They

were taken down to Washington, D.C., and found guilty.

Can you imagine anything as disgraceful as that: two union men guilty of this

heinous crime of advocating that their fellow workers belong to a Canadian union?

They were tried and they were guilty; there was no question about it, because

it said right in the constitution, filed with the Labour Relations Board and

accepted by the Department of Labour in this province that that constitution

was valid. They were certified. But it said that anybody who advocated changing

from the union was to be dismissed. Now isn't that shocking?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Get the facts.

MR. McGEER: The Members nod — but it was their government

that tolerated it, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get your facts straight.

MR. McGEER: Oh, but I have the facts straight. I have a long

thick file. I've spent hours talking to the people who were

tried — longer than you did, Mr. Minister, if you talked to

them at all.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: But look, Mr. Speaker, there's a point and that

point is that if a man or if a group of people decide that they

want to change their union, they should be free to make that

change. We should tolerate no union constitutions before the

Labour Relations Board that make this grounds for dismissal,

particularly when we permit the closed shop to exist. I'm not

disagreeing with the closed shop; I'm merely disagreeing with

those articles in the constitution which I feel don't afford

the working man the kind of protection that he should have.

Of course, we do come to this question — and I see the

representatives of the American unions over there smiling

because they know that this has got to be part of my speech….

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Your orders from Munro.

MR. McGEER: It is that I see nothing wrong with Canadian workers belonging

to a Canadian union, I don't think that's wrong. I think that if a Canadian

worker wants to belong to a Canadian union we should not only allow him to do

so, but maybe we should encourage him.

MR. SMITH: Don't you agree with that, Jack?

MR. McGEER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that when we have

agreements, as we had for so many years in this province,

whereby a member of a Canadian union could not work on a heavy

construction site in the Province of British Columbia at a time

when we were building the Peace and the Columbia River and all

these great construction projects…but you couldn't get on

the site if you belonged to a Canadian union.

[ Page 506 ]

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is

bored with all of this. I am sure that some of the other old

union people here, of classical unions in British Columbia,

find this very tiresome too; but I am going to continue to

stand in this House and say that I think Canadian unions are

right. I think there should be Canadian representation — that

is, representation by members of Canadian unions on the Labour

Relations Board, and that we should have enshrined in this

labour legislation the kind of sections that will make it

possible for a working man in British Columbia who wants to get

from under an American union to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I am not dead certain, even if we were to do

those things, that it would bring lasting labour peace or

perhaps even a better climate than we have today in British

Columbia. Perhaps something much more forward looking should be

part of our industrial pattern in the future.

I told the Members of the House that I was privileged to

have a visit in Japan this past month, and one of the members

of the media asked me to bring….

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, you know, Mr. Speaker, I didn't go at public

expense. I'm very proud of that because I know that the public

has had to pay for a lot of trips abroad this year. Mine was

one they didn't have to pay for.

Mr. Speaker, one of the members of the media asked if I

would bring back a report on the labour problems in Japan. I

studied the newspapers over there very hard — there are some

of the labour problems in Japan when I came back.

There were only three reports regarding labour that appeared

in these newspapers. One concerned the problems that were

taking place in Chile; there were two or three stories on that.

The second was a report from Kyushu where several union leaders

had been dismissed and every single union member reprimanded

because when they'd had a general strike — these were members

of the teachers' union — the teachers had joined it for several

hours one day. They thought it was so disgraceful that people

would walk off and ignore the children when they should be

taught on that particular day that they dismissed some union

officials, and every single member of the union was reprimanded

for that.

The last thing that appeared was a report from Canada — dateline New Westminster — about how the Canadian workers had

defied the federal government order to go back to work. So

really I was reading about the labour problems in Canada when I

was in Japan.

They are a very industrious and productive people. They do have unions. They don't have the kind of labour

strike that is so characteristic of North America and certain

parts of Europe. But what they do do, Mr. Speaker, is to have

profit sharing with the employees to a very substantial degree.

They also have an attitude on the part of management, regarding

protection of the workers — in terms of housing and education

and welfare programmes and so on — which is almost totally

unknown on this side of the world.

What it does, this mutual respect, is to build a kind of

loyalty that seems to give, for those people at least, a degree

of satisfaction in their work that's hard to match in this

country.

I personally believe that we should try and evolve our

system so that the workers can share in the profits and

possibly in good years make themselves several hundreds or even

thousands of dollars more than they would under different

circumstances, so that we begin to get full participation of

all the workers in the province, and the benefits that come not

just from our natural resources but from the effort that goes

into their extraction and manufacture.

I believe in profit sharing, and I believe that a

far-sighted government would begin to look at the kind of

legislation that would encourage this development. I don't

think we'll get real industrial peace in this province until

the workers, like management, have a tremendous stake in the

success of the operation every single day, so that when they go

on strike they don't just lose the wages but the profits as

well, so that they're facing the kind of injury facing some of

the people whom I talked about in the beginning of my speech

who are perfectly innocent but may have half their year's wages

lost as a result of a shutdown that wasn't of their making at

all. I see no thrust at all in this legislation towards what I

believe will be the ultimate in bringing labour peace and

labour satisfaction to British Columbia.

For the moment, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the

government because I think the legislation is a substantial

step forward. Perhaps under the circumstances it was everything

that a Minister of Labour could have achieved. He certainly got

very little thanks from the B.C. Federation of Labour for his

efforts. I disagree with the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson), who just went out, saying that people will come

forward in a year or two and say how wonderful the legislation

is. But that never happens. This is one area where no news is

good news and where legislation is measured not in how good it

is but in how bad it is. We're going to have precious little in

the way of compliments tossed towards the government, towards

the legislation or towards the members of the Labour Relations

Board.

From here on in, they're going to have incessant criticism

and this may be our last chance to say it was

[ Page 507 ]

really a step forward. But I sincerely believe that, Mr.

Speaker. I only hope that it was one step and that in the

future we're going to see some of these major changes which I

talked about this afternoon incorporated into legislation.

Mr. Speaker, finally, if the government is struck by a

blinding flash of light, they'll have the opportunity to make

some of these changes this very session because we'll be

bringing amendments forward and offering these ideas in written

form to the government.

But let it not be said, as the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich) indicated a while ago, that we aren't prepared to

put our arguments down on paper or to state what they are in

the House. I've said what I believe the shortcomings are and

they'll be followed up with amendments as they will come from

the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) and my colleague from

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Health, I would refer to the remark made by the Hon. Member in

which he referred to the Attorney General as being

thick-headed. I would draw attention to standing order 42: "No

Member shall use offensive words against any Member of this

House."

MR. McGEER: I withdraw it. He's thin-headed, Mr. Speaker.

(Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the Hon. Member meant it in the

complimentary sense as being the opposite of narrow-minded.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this legislation. This legislation, Bill

11, has one thrust and one thrust only: to help the labour-management scene

in the Province of B.C.

Thank heaven, Mr. Speaker, that the previous speaker's

representations don't represent to a large extent the opinion

of this side of the House. The major problem we see from this

side of the House is that there is a tremendous lack of

understanding by labour and management of each other's

problems. We feel that it's imperative, absolutely imperative,

that an opportunity to communicate and deal directly on

labour-management problems is put forward. We feel that Bill 11

provides that opportunity.

The Minister of Labour has been criticized for a lack of input. We've had a

committee moving around the province. The Minister has been in constant touch

with any number of people who have as their motivation the solution to these

problems. I think one of the most important things that has been said in this

House is that Bill 11 is not etched in stone, that Bill 11 is a piece of legislation,

a thoughtful piece of legislation, that has been brought forward to bring about

industrial and labour-management peace if at all possible. But where there are

weaknesses the Minister has indicated that he's certainly prepared to mend those

weaknesses if, in fact, they exist.

Unfortunately, that Member has left the floor, but I'd like

to deal with one or two of the things that he discussed in the

process of his speech.

He talked about forcing people to work. One of the things

we've been fighting for in this House for years and years as

the NDP is the fact that one of the prices we pay for a free

society is freedom to choose whether or not to work. We always

raise the doctor situation, we raise other very critical

situations, but, Mr. Speaker, that is a smokescreen because his

remarks are directed at enforcing people to work against their

will.

In our opinion, public interest can best be served by labour

and management resolving their differences. If the public

interest is better served by cutting down the number of

disputes, that's the way we should be going. But given this

free society, labour and management should be going about

making their own decisions in direct communication.

I know it has been discussed before in this very House when

we were on the other side of the House — this tremendous power

that labour leaders have. Well, facts outweigh that kind of

evidence. The only evidence that we've ever seen of this great

power that labour union leaders have is the evidence that is

given by those Members across the floor. Some, like our

previous speaker, were born with a silver spoon in their mouths

and really don't know what it's all about out there, Mr.

Speaker. The democratic process is more closely related, in my

view, in the trade union movement than it is elsewhere in

society.

They talk about the strong-arm tactics of trade unions. They

never talk about the strong-arm tactics of business. Business

is a lot more subtle today, Mr. Speaker. Sure, there are lots

and lots of responsible business people, but the trade union

movement grew in this province through strife and real

strife.

We very seldom talk about the Pinkerton's any more, but

there are a lot of people around who still remember them. There

are a lot of people around who remember deaths on the picket

lines. A lot of people remember. That's one of the reasons that

they are concerned about any real enforcement that's going to

drive people back into those dark ages. Bill 11 is another step

forward, in our view, for the trade union movement, for the

people of the Province of British Columbia, and for labour

harmony in the Province of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I won't deal too much with what that

speaker said. He talked about pensions. "Funds across the line,

" he said. These are decisions that are made by those

members, whether or not

[ Page 508 ]

their funds should be across the line. I particularly don't

like funds going across the line and this government is doing

things right now in the area of keeping funds within this

province for the benefit of everyone. The Insurance Corporation

of B.C. Is a good example of keeping funds right here for

investment in our own economy. Trade unions probably will

follow along with that, but it's their decision, Mr.

Speaker.

Did that Member suggest for one second in this House

(certainly not to my memory) that there was something wrong

with industrial pensions, funded pensions, insurance pension

plans and those proceeds whipping across the line for

investment elsewhere? No, Mr. Speaker. No, no, no. But he gets

up and builds a straw man around this issue.

I think that those kind of ideas should not be legislated.

Those kind of ideas are the business of people within the

movement making their own decisions Mr. Speaker, there are some very significant aspects of this

bill that we're going to have to study in the committee stage — very significant aspects. This bill will be gone over with a

fine-tooth comb in committee stage, and it'll be gone over with

a fine-tooth comb as time evolves and as situations arise

proving whether or not different aspects of this bill work.

But good will, Mr. Speaker, is the thing that's needed more

now than anything else. And it was certainly no surprise to

this Member…. I represent New Westminster, as you probably

know, Mr. Speaker, having looked at the chart. Mr. Speaker, New

Westminster has traditionally been a very strong labour riding,

a riding where there's a major IWA local, a riding where

there's major industry and, because there's major industry, a

very strong trade union movement.

Certainly when I go home to my constituency we'll be

discussing this bill and how it's working. We'll be discussing

the labour legislation for some time to come. But this is

something new, something that we've cried for in this province.

And knowing that it's not etched in stone, we feel really good

about it — because of the fact that the Premier himself, when

he spoke to this bill, indicated very clearly that we will be

watching it. It will be monitored at all times, and when

situations reveal themselves — at least, when it is revealed

that certain aspects of this bill need some amending — then

both those Ministers indicated that that was quite within the

realm of not only possibility or probability, but would, in

fact, occur.

Mr. Speaker, there are some individual aspects of the bill

that naturally…I'd like to deal with one or two for a

moment. We'll deal in more specific ways when we get to those

clauses.

Let's just think in terms for a moment of the conscience clause. Now there's

been a great deal of criticism of this, and I can understand why and how that

criticism arises. There's no question that it looks, on the face of it, as though

there's a wide clause here.

What we're really talking about is the equivalent to the

conscientious objector aspect of the constitution of Canada. If

a person, by virtue of a very strong belief, does not believe

in going to war, he isn't forced to go to war. They are in the

minority, Mr. Speaker. They weren't permitted, for example,

during the war, to do that lightly. There were those who

objected and stayed in Canada but had to be in uniform.

The real hard-nosed conscientious objectors object by virtue

of something. You know, maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong,

but by virtue of a feeling that he has, a principle feeling,

then we say to him in this bill, "Okay, but you pay your own

freight; you pay your own freight." And it has to be, of

course, looked at very carefully by the Labour Relations

Board.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one other area that I think is

very important. We've got to really look at the whole matter of

the first contract. We have been, in my office, in receipt of

phone calls daily, weekly, monthly, over the years over

Sandringham. We've seen a number of other instances where a

first contract is very necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are those who say we can do

it ourselves. But I suggest that when we look at those less

fortunate workers in the province, there is some assistance for

them necessary. I'm speaking in terms of native Indians,

unskilled females, people who really, really need some help to

get off the ground.

We can go along making laws where minimum wages apply and so

on and so forth, but we feel that 40-odd per cent is not

enough. Of the workers in this province 40-odd per cent are

represented now by trade unions, and we feel that those people

require — if they want it — representation.

Now the Member across the way suggested — the Member for

Peace River — that people outside labour, that 60 per cent,

have a right to be out of the labour union if they want. Yes,

but we're saying, Mr. Speaker, that that 60 per cent also have

the right to be in if they want. This is the right that is not

being afforded many of those people today, So that's one of the reasons for this kind of approach. Mr.

Speaker, we are looking for evidence. This is a brand new

concept, a brand new way, a brand new pathway. You know, no

road that's driven through the forest takes into account every

problem that's going to confront those building the road. But

given time and given an opportunity this government is aiming

at one thing and one thing only: that is that there will be a

better climate in the Province of British Columbia. It will be

a climate based on

[ Page 509 ]

people's needs, a climate based on people being the

important aspect in the future — not the will of the large

corporations and not the will of those trying to dominate, but

the will of the people and their right to share in the riches

of this province. And they have that right.

Mr. Speaker, there will be lots of discussion, There will be

discussion back home. We'll have those discussions, hopefully,

with everyone, on all sides, in good faith. We'll have those

discussions with as open a mind as is at all possible.

The one thing I think I'd like to end up, on is another area

that I think one of the Members across the way missed. He

talked about — this was on Friday, Mr. Speaker — he talked

about not seeing this whole question of donation of funds to

political parties in this bill. He's right. It doesn't belong

here at all, It doesn't belong in labour legislation. This was

a queer province. It was the only place, I think, that it was

ever in law in the Labour Code. It belongs, if any place, in

the elections Act, so why should it be in this particular piece

of legislation?

The past piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, didn't work. It

couldn't work because it was always the kind of compulsive,

hard-nosed legislation aimed at controlling, keeping labour

down as much as possible. We feel, Mr. Speaker, that it's time

we took a whole new look at the labour-management scene from

both sides of the coin, and those two sides are where people

and future generations are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, let's hope that this province becomes a far

more important economic entity because of this bill, Let's hope

that we have a far better economic climate in the future

because of Bill 11.

Thank you.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

I rise to support this bill. I'm almost reduced to "Me, too"

after…

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia