1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2947 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Statement Rail car assembly at Squamish. Hon. Mr. Barrett

— 2947

Mr. Fraser — 2947

Mr. McGeer — 2947

Mr. Wallace — 2948

Routine proceedings

The Agricultural Land and Green Belt Reserve Act (Bill No.

185).

Mr. Curtis. Introduction and first reading — 2948

Oral questions BCR Boxcar shortage in Peace River area. Mr. Phillips —

Facilities for girls from Willingdon School. Mr. McClelland — 2950

Filing of appraisal reports of Glenshiel Hotel. Mr. Gardom — 2951

Commencement of education commission. Mr. Wallace — 2951

Regulations Act (Bill No. 1). Report and third reading — 2951

Companies Act (Bill No. 16). Report and third reading — 2952

An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965. (Bill No. 31). Report

stage — 2952

Division on third reading — 2952

Cattle Industry Development Act (Bill No. 32).

Report and third reading — 2952

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act (Bill No. 33).

Report and third reading — 2952

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42).

Report stage — 2952

Division on third reading — 2952

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill No. 44).

Report stage — 2952

Division on third reading — 2952

Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill No. 64).

Report stage — 2953

Division on third reading — 2953

An Act to Amend the Revenue Act (Bill No. 74).

Report stage — 2953

Division on third reading — 2953

An Act to Amend the Evidence Act (Bill No. 100).

Report and third reading — 2953

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill No.

101).

Report and third reading — 2953

An Act to Amend the Health Act (Bill No. 122).

Report and third reading — 2953

An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, 1961 (Bill No.

129).

Report and third reading — 2953

Water Utilities Act (Bill No. 146).

Report and third reading — 2953

Telecommunications Utilities Act (Bill No. 147).

Report and third reading — 2954

Alcohol and Drug Commission Act (Bill No. 173).

Report and third reading — 2954

Public Works Fair Employment Act (Bill No. 153). Committee

stage.

Mr. Brousson — 2954

Hon. Mr. King — 2955

Mr. McGeer — 2957

Division on amendment — 2958

Mr. Phillips — 2958

Hon. Mr. King — 2959

Mr. Brousson — 2960

Hon. Mr. King — 2960

Mr. Chabot — 2960

Hon. Mr. King — 2961

Division on

section 2 — 2961

Mr. Brousson — 2962

Hon. Mr. King — 2962

Mr. Morrison — 2962

Mr. Wallace — 2963

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2963

Hon. Mr. King — 2964

Mr. Williams — 2965

Hon. Mr. King — 2965

Mr. Brousson — 2965

Mr. Morrison — 2965

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2966

Division on amendment — 2966

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2966

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2966

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2967

Mr. McGeer — 2967

Division on amendment — 2967

Report stage — 2968

An Act to Amend the Infants Act (Bill No. 37). Committee

stage.

Mr. Williams — 2968

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2968

Mrs. Jordan — 2968

Report and third reading — 2969

Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act (Bill No.

103). Committee stage.

Mr. McClelland — 2969

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2969

Report stage — 2970

Ocean Falls Corporation Act (Bill No. 164). Committee

stage.

Mr. Smith — 2970

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2970

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2970

Report stage — 2971

Ocean Falls Corporation Appropriation Act (Bill No.

165).

Report stage — 2971

Division on third reading — 2971

An Act to Amend the Park Act (Bill No. 174).

Committee, report and third reading — 2971

British Columbia Cellulose Company Act (Bill No. 179).

Committee and report stage — 2972

Division on third reading — 2972

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act (Bill No. 180).

Committee stage — 2972

Mr. McGeer — 2972

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2973

Mr. Williams — 2973

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2973

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2973

Mr. McGeer — 2974

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2974

Mrs. Jordan — 2974

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2974

Mrs. Jordan — 2975

Ms. Young — 2975

Mr. Richter — 2975

Mr. Chabot — 2975

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2976

Mr. McGeer — 2976

Mr. Wallace — 2976

Mr. Chabot — 2977

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2977

Mrs. Jordan — 2977

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2978

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2978

Report and third reading — 2979

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the

House I would like to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this morning at a regular

meeting of the British Columbia Railway Board the following

decisions were made, and as a direct result of that meeting I

would like to announce what the decisions were.

1. A rail car assembly shop will be constructed at Squamish

to enable the B.C. Railway to go into car production. The

target date for this operation to commence is January 1974. At

peak capacity this production shop will be able to produce four

boxcars per day. A sum of $5 million has been allocated for

this project and just under 200 permanent jobs will be created

by this plan. Of the 500 boxcars ordered last year by B.C.

Railway, 100 are already on way to the railway. I may add that

in the last week we have had excellent cooperation with the

CNR and have been able to ease the situation, but it is a

temporary easing.

2. Tenders have also been called now for 1,000 bulkhead

flatcars and 100 chip cars on a lease-to-purchase basis. These

tenders should be in the hands of B.C. Rail in mid-May. A

decision will be made on their lease-to-purchase at the next

board meeting to be held on May 18, 1973.

All of these matters, Mr. Speaker, directly affect the

economy of the north, and they are all designed to ease the

boxcar shortage and to facilitate the growth that has taken

place in the industry in that area.

Earlier in the session, Mr. Speaker, I announced that an

internal study would be instituted by the government of the

accounting procedures of the B.C. Railway. This study has now

been completed by the Comptroller General and it leaves some

unanswered questions. As a result of these unanswered questions

the following steps have been taken: 1. An outside engineering

firm will be engaged to review the contract-letting practices

of the B.C. Rail. 2. An outside accounting firm will be engaged

to review problems raised in Mr. Minty's report. I want to say

that no inferences should be drawn from this report.

Upon completion of the above two reports, all material will be forwarded to

the public accounts committee in the fall session for detailed review and study

by that committee. This action is to ensure that modern business practices can

be instituted in the B.C. Rail operation.

A division of responsibilities in the railway has taken

place. Mr. Joe Broadbent will continue as vice-president and

his duties will now be to supervise all the development aspects

of the railroad. Mr. Mac Norris has been promoted to

vice-president in charge of operations and both gentlemen are

seated in the House today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, we would like to

welcome the various announcements the Premier has made in

reference to the British Columbia Railroad — the assembly

plant to be established at Squamish in January 1974.

I would say to the House, Mr. Speaker there is an urgent

need for cars now and if the assembly plant at Squamish needs

transportation, I don't know how they are going to get the

materials there because there aren't the cars now to get it in

operation by January 1974.

I am happy to hear of the lease-purchase arrangements going

on and hope that process can be speeded up because things

continue to deteriorate in the interior and even on the north

part of the line.

I am happy to hear that Mr. Broadbent is carrying on and

that Mr. Mac Norris has been promoted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

may I say that the Members of the Liberal Party and myself, as

a member of the public accounts committee, certainly welcome

the announcements of the Premier today in reorganizing the B.C.

Railway and starting if off on a more aggressive plan for the

future. I think that speaks well for the Province of British

Columbia. Indeed, we wish that many of these steps had been

taken earlier, particularly with respect to the boxcar shortage

because in boom times, as we are having now in the forestry

industry, the availability of rolling stock would have been of

great benefit to the economy.

I would just like to ask one question of the Premier if he

would care to respond, and that is: in the economic analysis of

the assembly plant that is to be constructed, will we be able

to produce boxcars in British Columbia, as the estimate, at

competitive rates? If so, might the day be reached when boxcars

produced in British Columbia could be sold on the national

markets in Canada and the United States?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I offer welcome and good luck to

the two top operating officials of the B.C., Railway in their

respective roles.

[ Page 2948 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased

to hear this announcement by the Premier. I think it is the

kind of initiative which we on this side of the House look

forward to. In fact we like the initiative of having a

statement in the House instead of us having to read about it in

the newspapers tomorrow. That is something which I really like

about this first regular session of the new government —

that we have this kind of information given to the Members

first.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Debate later.

MR. WALLACE: That comment I just made probably wasn't in order, but

it is how I feel about it anyway.

The idea that this will not only fill a need for boxcars,

but will create jobs, of course, is very welcome. My question

that comes to mind is that it isn't only a lack boxcars, as I

understand it — it's the fact that other parts of the

country and the United States at this time of the year very

often retain the boxcars of other rail lines within their

boundaries apparently for purposes of tax benefits. If we just

produce more boxcars, is there still going to be a problem of

these cars being retained in other jurisdictions when we need

them badly ourselves?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you care to leave that for the

question period?

I ask leave to file Mr. Minty's report, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

THE AGRICULTURAL LAND

AND GREEN BELT RESERVE ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

185 intituled The Agricultural Land and Green Belt Reserve

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 185 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.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask

this on behalf of all of the new Members of the House. I wish to be a student

of the procedures of the House. In order to make my question clear, may I review

the incident in the House which prompts my question?

On Friday last, after adjournment, Mr. Speaker addressed the

House from the floor of the House, after which he returned to

the Chair and addressed the House again. All of this occurred

after the adjournment of the House. On that particular day it

was inconsequential but I wonder if Mr. Speaker would like to

cite the authorities by which this is possible. Perhaps at some

future time it could be consequential.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I tell you what I could say — but I won't. (Laughter). Actually, I was speaking ex

cathedra, (Laughter). We'll take that up next Monday as to what

that means.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

BCR BOXCAR SHORTAGE

RE PEACE RIVER AREA

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

to direct a question to the Hon. Premier and President of the

British Columbia Railway. I'd like to say my welcome to your

news too and ask the Premier if there is anything he can do

immediately to relieve the situation in my area, because I'm

afraid it's going to throw 115 people out of work.

Due to the crop situation last year and several other

things, Mr. Speaker, our area is in a very depressed situation.

We just can't afford to go through this exercise. I would like

the Premier to comment, if he would.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Perhaps it would be just as well to answer

the other questions now concerning the railway.

In terms of the immediate shortage, we have the prospect of

temporary relief with co-operation from the CNR this week.

Because of the aggressive actions of our management staff, the

CNR is releasing some cars to us this week to ease the

pressure. The first 100 of the 500 cars that were ordered last

year are on their way. We hope they will begin to arrive next

week. So there is some immediate easing, but the long-term

problem will not be resolved until we take these other

steps.

The question raised by the Member for Point Grey: Yes, we

are in a position to build at competitive prices. As a matter

of fact B.C. Rail has

[ Page 2949 ]

built cabooses in their repair shop over the last year-and-a-half or two years. They've done it…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, one per train. (Laughter).

In any event, the initiative that the staff and the

maintenance people showed in building those cars themselves was

the spur to ask for this further study. The delay in responding

has been that I ordered the inquiry to start last fall. We're

not rushing into this project. All the feasibility studies have

been completed. All the economic studies have been

completed.

The conclusions are that yes, we can build in a competitive

price range and that yes, we can go into the eventual sales or

lease sale of the cars that we build here in British Columbia.

I'd like to add further that we would welcome now private

initiative that wished to cooperate with this government into

a steel mill in this province. We've got enough capacity now in

terms of production to consider a steel mill in this

province.

On the control of the cars: for those cars that are used

exclusively on B.C. Rail in lumber loading, as long as they're

held on B.C. Rail tracks between loading point and unloading

point, we're safe. But once they're lost to another rail head,

then we're in trouble. It's a matter of …

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Most of them are.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. That's the ruthless world

that exists in railroading. We'll just have to try the best we

can.

MR. CHABOT: The jungle of free enterprise.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not the jungle of free enterprise.

It's a publicly-owned railroad. (Laughter). But it's a jungle,

nonetheless.

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I'd like

to ask the president of our great railway if there is any way

you can speed up this lease on these extra 1,000 flatcars and

the chip cars from your date in May. Is there any way to

backtrack that a couple of weeks even?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I want to make it very clear.

I've said that tenders have been called for 1,000 cars. Now if

those tenders are not satisfactory, we will not go ahead with

them, If they are satisfactory, we'll go ahead and we'll

expedite it as quickly as we can. That's where it stands at

this point.

I must say that we have very aggressive management at the

railway. They've done very, very well considering the

hardships.

MR. PHILLIPS: One further supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker: I'd like to ask the Premier and the president of the

railway if he's had permission from Howard Paish and Associates

to build this plant in Squamish. Has this been considered with

the ecologists in the area? Maybe the Premier would advise us,

please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The site is alongside the existing repair

shop, in an area that's already developed. So there is no

problem in terms of the ecology. As a matter of fact, there's

an additional benefit. The federal Department of the

Environment wants the railway to move some particular fill that

is blocking some area close to the new site. We're going to try

to charge the federal government for removing that fill for

them. But even if we can't get the federal government to pay

for the removal of fill, we'll still go ahead. But there's no

ecological problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon….

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a last supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon, First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey. I don't want to see any monopoly of

the period by any individual Member, please.

MR. McGEER: This is a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker:

what is the quoted price of a standard boxcar that we would get

on tender today, and what can we produce the standard boxcar

for in the new plant of B.C. Railway?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't give you the price that we'd get

it for on tender. There is a detailed pricing list that I can

certainly make available by tabling of the various kinds of

cars with different equipment. But our manufacturing is within

the price range.

In a caboose, the price is $35,000. We're able to produce

them for $27,500. An end price — with the light on.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental question

on the same matter, Mr. Speaker: even though we welcome the

entry of the government into an assembly shop at Squamish, one

of the great problems will be this matter of reciprocal

agreements

[ Page 2950 ]

between railway lines and the interchange of cars.

Many of our cars in the forest industry go with product to

an export market in the United States. Has the government

investigated any way that we can renegotiate these reciprocal

agreements so that we don't find a great percentage of our cars

being lost to the American rail lines and other lines in Canada

without any return? Has any thought been given in that

direction? We could very well be building cars only to service

the majority of their rail traffic and none of our own.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the complaint of the other railways

except, as pointed out by the Member for Victoria, in that

instance we'll make money on cars that we build ourselves. We

will charge on the cars that we've made. We can make the money

on that and the same way on the lease arrangement. But that's

not an area where we're interested in making money. As the

Member for Victoria says, it's a fact that we can make money in

that area. At least there's that comfort.

But the loss of control of the cars — you could start

negotiating now and you'd be in negotiation for 10 years before

any kind of change would come about.

MR. CHABOT: If you send one to Mexico, you might never get

it back.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know. That's a problem. It's a railroad

problem, really.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, if I could refer

to a different problem, namely the recently released DBS

figures which show that British Columbia still has more than

half again as much unemployment on a per capita basis as

Ontario, and again more than half as much as the prairies, can

I ask whether the government has any further programmes

regarding tax changes or other measures to stimulate the

private sector of the economy?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I appreciate what the Member is saying,

but there were 30,000 new jobs in the month of February

comparable to a year ago. We've had a great increase in the

number of jobs in the Province of British Columbia, but we've

had a greater increase in the number of people coming to

British Columbia.

I'm thankful that the unemployment figures have dropped in the province. The

initiatives of the government in many of its programmes have given security

to employment in this province, especially in the north and especially the Colcel

deal voted against yesterday by a certain party, but that gives employment security.

Now in terms of this specific announcement of just under 200

permanent jobs, I want to inform the House that all of the

subcontracting that can possibly be done by the local foundries

and fabricating shops in the lower mainland area will receive

the orders from this railcar assembly plant.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We should hope so. Could I ask as a

supplementary though, back to my original question, whether you

have any further plans to stimulate the economy in the private

sector or whether your whole effort is to be devoted to the

public sector. That's the original question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, just check with Hansard .

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley, followed by the

Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

FACILITIES FOR GIRLS

FROM WILLINGDON SCHOOL

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question for

the Minister of Human Resources. Could I ask the Minister if it

is true that there are girls who have recently been released

from the Willingdon School who are on their own, particularly

in the Nanaimo area, who are having problems and who have no

supervision. I understand that many of the authorities in that

area are rather upset about the situation. Would the Minister

comment, please?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): I

have read this thing by Judge Wardill. Nobody is on their own; we are arranging

for facilities for them and they are being cared for. I might add that I was

happy that the more experienced director of the Children's Aid put it right

where it was: they're the responsibility of the community and it's up to the

community to assist in providing facilities. And that's the way we are going.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Nevertheless, if the facilities aren't there, there could be

problems coming up. In another area in the Fraser Valley and in

the interior, is it true that there are girls who have been

released from Willingdon who are staying unsupervised in

motels? Motels or hotels.

HON. MR. LEVI: Staying in motels — I don't know about

that. We had to find accommodation for approximately 15 girls

before we closed down the facility. Arrangements were made for

some of them to go back home, some into group homes. As I

[ Page 2951 ]

understand it there's one that's being supervised in that

kind of a hotel situation.

Let's face it, there were only 50 girls in that school when

it was operating at full bore, and so there were many other

problems that were being taken care of in the community. This

is actually what is happening now. We are giving assistance to

the community in finding facilities for these girls. We've had

no complaints about it.

We will deal with serious problems as they come up. I've

instructed the field staff that if there is a need to provide

facilities, we'll provide the money to make sure that the

proper kind of supervision and accommodation is made

available.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any supplementary?

MR. McGEER: I have one, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

concurrence of the Victoria area probation officer, Brian

Mallard, is there a similar lack of facilities in the Victoria

area? Are we likely to be faced with a crisis in that city as

in Nanaimo?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, there isn't a crisis, as such,

certainly in the Victoria area. We have adequate arrangements

here in the Victoria area. It's really a question of

flexibility in terms of the field staff. We've asked our field

staff to devise alternate facilities. Some of the staff have

responded to this; some haven't. We are quite aware of the

situation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It's fair to assume,

then, through you Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human

Resources, that in fact he did close Willingdon School without

having made proper provision for the care of these girls.

MR. SPEAKER: You are not supposed to assume, Hon. Member.

You can't assume.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

FILING OF APPRAISAL REPORTS

OF GLENSHIEL HOTEL

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Last week, Mr.

Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Public Works informed the House

that he'd be filing the appraisal reports re the Glenshiel

Hotel. I understand from the Clerks that these have not yet

been filed. Will the Minister indicate when he will be filing

them?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Shortly.

MR. GARDOM: Before the end of the session, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

COMMENCEMENT OF

EDUCATION COMMISSION

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of

Education, in the light of inquiries I'm having and deep

interest by the educators in the province, when she is likely

to be able to give us information on the two commissions which

are to be set up and the membership of these two

commissions.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): The week after the

23rd. The commissioner arrives on the 23rd to take up full-time

work and they will be announced a few days after his

arrival.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Alberni.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): With the permission of the House

I'd like to introduce some guests in the gallery today. We have

three members from the Ahousat band council, They are hopeful

that some of the heat generated in the House will produce some

light in Ahousat. I'd like the House to welcome them here

today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

welcome today some guests from Richmond. Alderman Blair,

Alderman McMath and Mr. Brooks, our municipal engineer, who are

here visiting us today.

Orders of the day.

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

report on bills. Page 15, orders of the day.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

REGULATIONS ACT

Bill No. I read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 16, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2952 ]

COMPANIES ACT

Bill No. 16 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 31, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PETROLEUM

AND NATURAL GAS ACT, 1965

Bill No. 31 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 34

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

Steves

Barnes

Anderson, G.H.

Rolston

Sanford

Dent

Cummings

D'Arcy

Radford

Brown

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Strachan

Dailly

Barrett

Macdonald

Hall

Gorst

Young

Lea

Lauk

Gabelmann

Skelly

Hartley

Calder

King

Cocke

Williams, R.A.

Lorimer

Levi

NAYS — 17

Bennett

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Brousson

Wallace

Curtis

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 32, Mr. Speaker.

CATTLE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT ACT

Bill No. 32 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 33, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

Bill No. 33 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 42, Mr. Speaker.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

Bill No. 42 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 34

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

Steves

Barnes

Anderson, G.H.

Rolston

Dent

Cummings

D'Arcy

Sanford

Radford

Brown

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Strachan

Dailly

Barrett

Macdonald

Hall

Gorst

Young

Lea

Lauk

Gabelmann

Skelly

Hartley

Calder

King

Cocke

Williams, R.A.

Lorimer

Levi

NAYS — 17

Curtis

Brousson

Gardom

Schroeder

Morrison

McClelland

Phillips

Fraser

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Smith

Jordan

Chabot

Bennett

Richter

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MINERAL ACT

Bill No. 44 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 34

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

Steves

Barnes

Anderson, G.H.

Rolston

Dent

Cummings

D'Arcy

Sanford

Radford

Brown

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Strachan

Dailly

Barrett

Macdonald

Hall

Gorst

Young

Lea

Lauk

Gabelmann

Skelly

Hartley

Calder

King

Cocke

Williams, R.A.

Lorimer

Levi

NAYS — 17

Curtis

Brousson

Gardom

Schroeder

Morrison

McClelland

Phillips

Fraser

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Smith

Jordan

Chabot

Bennett

Richter

[ Page 2953 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 64, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL LAND TAX ACT

Bill No. 64 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 34

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

Steves

Barnes

Anderson, G.H.

Rolston

Dent

Cummings

D'Arcy

Sanford

Radford

Brown

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Strachan

Dailly

Barrett

Macdonald

Hall

Gorst

Young

Lea

Lauk

Gabelmann

Skelly

Hartley

Calder

King

Cocke

Williams, R.A.

Lorimer

Levi

NAYS — 17

Curtis

Brousson

Gardom

Schroeder

Morrison

McClelland

Phillips

Fraser

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Smith

Jordan

Chabot

Bennett

Richter

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 74, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE REVENUE ACT

Bill No. 74 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 17

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Brousson

Wallace

Curtis

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 100, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE EVIDENCE ACT

Bill No. 100 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 101, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

Bill No. 101 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 102, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Not printed, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With leave of the House may we proceed

with the bills that are not printed?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 122, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE HEALTH ACT

Bill No. 122 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 129, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1961

Bill No. 129 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 146, Mr. Speaker.

WATER UTILITIES ACT

Bill No. 146 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 147, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2954 ]

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

UTILITIES ACT

Bill No. 147 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 173, Mr. Speaker.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG

COMMISSION ACT

Bill No. 173 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to

committee on bills.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 153, Mr.

Speaker.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR

EMPLOYMENT ACT

(continued)

House in committee on Bill No. 153; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Hon. Second Member for Victoria pass?

I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr.

Chairman, I regret very much the kind of shouting match that

erupted last night while we were discussing this amendment. I

think, unfortunately, that kind of shouting match is typical of

some of the labour relations of this province. I want to say

frankly, Mr. Chairman, that it was started by the Premier last

night and I am very glad to see that today he is in a happier

and more smiling and co-operative mood. I hope we can be a

little more serious about the purposes of this bill today than

we were last night.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You weren't serious last

night.

MR. BROUSSON: The government has said they were out to stop

certain abuses in the construction industry by this bill

— in particular this clause of this bill. The

construction industry, Mr. Chairman, is already about 95 per

cent organized and the abuses are very, very rare exceptions.

So the legislation is really to take care of just the

exceptions.

There are many rural parts of British Columbia — small

towns such as Williams Lake, Burns Lake and Creston — all

around the province. There are many, many small towns where the

smaller firms are not unionized. Under the conditions imposed

in this bill, Mr. Chairman, these firms will not be able to bid

a government project in their area; nor will they be able to

work for a B.C. Hydro project in that area.

As a result, Mr. Chairman, we are going to have local

tradesmen in all of these small towns. I suggest that the

Members from northern British Columbia, the Members from the

Kootenays, should be giving a good deal of thought to the

effect of this bill on the tradesmen, the workers in their own

communities at home. Many of these local tradesmen are going to

be out of work while the big firms which come in from Alberta,

from Edmonton, from Calgary, from Vancouver with imported union

crews are going to bid the jobs in those small towns around the

province.

That is very clearly demonstrated already today in this

morning's Vancouver Province , where the spokesmen for

the construction industry in northern British Columbia and in

the Kootenays and the southern interior are spelling this out

piece by piece. I am sure many of the Members have read this

story in this morning's Vancouver Province .

"Peter Sorensen, executive vice-president of the Northern

B.C. Construction Association, said the lower mainland and

cities such as Prince George are mostly unionized, but the

government will have to use out-of-town labour in smaller

communities with resulting higher costs."

You haven't got, in Burns Lake, Creston, Williams Lake and

Salmo and all of those small towns sufficient unionized

people.

Of course, when you bring in out-of-town labour your bill

for board and room, for travelling, for all of these things is

obviously going to be higher. As a result, the government will

pay higher costs, B.C. Hydro will pay higher costs, the other

Crown corporations will pay higher costs and the taxpayers of

British Columbia will pay higher costs.

"Referring to Bill No. 153…extending the union-only

policy to B.C. Hydro contracts" — as well as government

contracts — "Sorensen said it will cause hardship in

remote areas such as Fort St. John and Burns Lake.

"In Fort St. John, where a new provincial building will be

constructed, only one small electrical sub-contractor is

unionized, he said. Because most other construction companies

cater to private dwellings and renovation work, it would not be

competitive to unionize for the sake of occasional public

projects, he said.

"Once they unionize they price themselves off the

market."

[ Page 2955 ]

for the small repairs and local jobs of that

sort.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, if the small town firm is

unionized and priced out of the market, only the big firms can

come in from outside.

The Minister mentioned last night and I think the Attorney

General mentioned problems of firms coming in from Alberta to

do these sorts of jobs. We are going to see a good deal more

firms coming in from Alberta to do these jobs, because in the

eastern and northern parts of the province there will not be

sufficient firms able to handle the jobs.

It is very clear, Mr. Chairman — let's not be under

any misapprehension. If you are a small electrical

contractor, a sheet metal contractor or a small building

contractor in Burns Lake or any of these other small towns

around the province, you cannot justify unionizing your

operation for the sake of an occasional government job or one

B.C. Hydro job this year. Because you can't live as a union

operation the rest of the year in competition — doing the

little local jobs, the little repair jobs on the farms, in the

small offices, in the homes and all that sort of thing. I'm

sure the Members will recognize that from a very, very

practical point of view.

Mr. Chairman, there have been abuses on the management side,

as the Attorney General and the Minister of Labour mentioned

last night. There have been such abuses. But I want to say

also, Mr. Chairman, that there have been abuses on the side of

labour in this regard in the past.

Under these circumstances, let's suppose that the union

refuses to grant a collective agreement. What does the company

do? He can't bid a government job or a B.C. Hydro job or a B.C.

Railway job if the union refuses to grant a collective

agreement. There have been many such cases. Some unions and

some contractors in the construction industry, Mr. Chairman,

have practised together a sort of collective bargaining birth

control to restrict the number of workers and the number of

companies that are in the industry. Every union organizer on

the floor of this chamber knows that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the amendment before the House.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm pointing out the problem of

insisting on a collective bargaining unit as compared to the

amendment moved by my colleague, which proposes that instead of

collective bargaining we have the standard of a different kind

of wages and conditions. I'm trying to show that there are

problems with collective bargaining which are done away with by

this amendment.

I'll give you an example of my last point, Mr. Chairman,

About two or three years ago there was the very famous case of

Stratford Electric The IBEW refused to grant a collective agreement to Stratford

Electric. Instead, they gave them a letter of understanding.

Eventually, under a clause in that letter, the IBEW pulled

their men off the job. Finally, as a result of this, that

company went broke.

Let me give you an example right now, Mr. Chairman, in the

City of Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. There's an electrical

contractor who wants to bid a B.C. government project right

now. He's unable to do so because the IBEW has refused to grant

him a collective agreement. Back in his previous experience,

there had been some row with the IBEW. They don't like him and

they're not about to let him be an electrical contractor under

the terms of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, suppose that the union does give such an

agreement. What if it does not accept the employees the man has

working for him? The union may not accept those five or six men

who are working for him — perhaps they're long-time

employees — and they may say, "Go to the hiring hall and

get your crew." What does the employer do in that situation?

He's forced to sign a collective agreement. The union with

which he's signed the agreement says, "I won't accept the men

you've had working for you all of these years. Tell them to go

to the hiring hall." What does the employer do with his

long-standing employees in that situation?

So, clearly, Mr. Chairman, this

section is very

discriminatory. The amendment proposed makes sure that the

people concerned are going to receive fair wages, fair working

conditions. We would want to see the full fringe benefits and

the full rights of working conditions applied. But just

providing collective bargaining is no guarantee that the

employer's rights are going to be respected.

I think that one of our great problems is to have a balance

between the employer and the employee. By the actions of this

bill, we're loading things entirely on the side of the union

organization.

Mr. Chairman, there are other questions that I'd like to

raise. I think we can raise them under further sections a

little bit later. But I think that the Minister also has to

clarify — as has not been done as yet — to whom he

is going to apply this Act. There are many other…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not under this

particular section.

MR. BROUSSON: O.K. Perhaps I can raise this a little later,

Mr. Chairman.

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

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

Chairman. A number of points have been raised regarding this

bill, both last night and this

[ Page 2956 ]

afternoon, which lead me to believe that perhaps there's

some misunderstanding of the way this particular Act coincides

with the Labour Relations Act .

For instance, the First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

raised the question last night as to whether or not a family

operation would be included in this Act and therefore required

to organize before they could obtain any contract with the

government. Under the Labour Relations Act an employee

is defined. Employers such as would be the case in family

operations are expressly exempted from those types of units

which can properly become an appropriate unit for bargaining.

So they're certainly exempt from this legislation.

Small family operations and small partnership operations

would be exempt from this legislation and would be quite free

to contract with any department of government, as in the past.

So there is provision for that small enterprise which is

inappropriate for certification to continue to obtain

employment with government departments.

I think that should be clearly understood. What you simply

have to look to are the

definitions that exist under the

Labour Relations Act .

With respect to some of the questions that the last speaker

raised, he suggests that certain contractors are opposed to

this legislation and concerned about it. It's interesting to

note that the B.C. Roadbuilders' Association, one of those

groups of employers who most heavily enjoy work contracts with

the government mainly with the highways department of course

are completely in support of this legislation.

MR. BROUSSON: There are lots of contractors who support it.

We know that. Answer the specific question.

HON. MR. KING: They take the position that this is a fair

step which puts the employers, the contractors, on an equal

basis to compete for government contracts. In other words, it

would seem unfair to have one firm paying a union wage scale,

the fringe benefits and so on, in competition against another

contractor who paid substandard wages.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I don't think this government wants

to lend itself to substandard working conditions in this

province by patronizing those employers who…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KING: Here we go again, Mr. Chairman. The group

over there become pretty intemperate. They were very exercised

and upset last night when the government Members interjected

during the course of their speeches. I would suggest that you

just remain silent for a moment and I'll try to explain to

you.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that that's the employers'

position. Not only the B.C. Roadbuilders' Association, but the

Construction Labour Relations Association has indicated to me

— and I read a portion of the submission that they made

to me indicating that they are not opposed to the intent of

this legislation. They wanted certain clarifications, which I

gave to them.

One of them was with respect to the small entrepreneur who

had a family operation or a small partnership. They felt it

would be unfair to exclude him, and I agree. But as I said

before, if you look at the

interpretations under the Labour

Relations Act , you will see that they are not precluded

from bidding on government contracts under this

legislation.

Similarly, the government quite often hires small

contractors on a day-labour basis. They actually become

employees of the government. So I suggest that there's adequate

flexibility to do business with the small contractor in the

isolated towns in British Columbia, whom I'm quite concerned

about too. I come from one of those areas and certainly I don't

want to see local people excluded completely and have to bring

in large contractors from other parts of the province.

With respect to the point raised about Alberta contractors,

I would suggest that this is a matter of government policy

rather than legislation. Certainly I'm willing to assert now

that this government will give preference to British Columbia

contractors. I think this is as it should be. I might point

out, though, that British Columbia has a far higher degree of

trade union organization than does the Province of Alberta.

Many of those companies coming in from the Province of Alberta

in the past have, in fact, been non-union contractors.

Certainly they would be precluded from bidding on government

contracts.

So I would think that rather than posing a threat to the

ability of our contractors to compete with Alberta's, certainly

it enhances the British Columbia contractors' ability to

compete because this guarantees that they will only be

competing against those Alberta companies which are in fact

organized This will bring direct benefits to the construction

industry in British Columbia.

I made one erroneous statement yesterday which I'd like to

correct. I certainly didn't want to mislead the House when I

suggested that school boards, municipal councils and hospital

boards are exempt from this Act. Now this certainly is the

intent. Indeed, school boards and municipal councils are

exempt. There is an amendment required to exempt hospitals, but

at this point they are not. I didn't want to leave a false

impression in that respect.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KING: This is the intent of the

[ Page

2957 ]

legislation. We're committed to do this.

MR. BROUSSON: How about universities?

HON. MR. KING: Well universities are…

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Why have you made the Act

if there are so many exemptions?

HON. MR. KING: Where the major contracts are let are

certainly through public works, highways department and so on.

A project like Mica Creek, where there's an extremely large

work force for quite a number of years, this type of thing is

very important there.

It's interesting to note, when we're talking about projects

like Mica Creek, that the concern of the Social Credit Party

seems to be new-found. Had they been genuinely concerned about

the right of local people to gain a degree or a percentage of

employment on local projects, when they negotiated that 10-year

no-strike pact with all the allied council of unions in Mica

Creek, surely they could have negotiated a percentage of local

labour, on work permits with the union if necessary, to

guarantee the right of local people to a piece of the action.

They failed to do so.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Tell the whole story.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, in this respect I am pleased to

say that I have already met with union representatives from the

construction industry and indicated the government's intention

of negotiating this type of arrangement in large government

contracts where we guarantee the right of a certain percentage

of local people to get into those unions and benefit from the

work in the local areas. I think this is reasonable. Certainly,

the trade union people were very receptive to this proposition.

It's a matter of some government initiative and recognition of

the problem which was never demonstrated before. So I just make

that point. I don't see too much problem in that regard. That

is a matter of government policy rather than a matter of

legislation.

Now the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Brousson) made the point about unions withholding collective

agreements. Again, he doesn't seem to understand the

legislation as it stands, The Labour Relations Act not

only requires that negotiations take place, it requires that

the collective agreement be executed. So a union cannot, under

the law as it presently stands, withhold a collective

agreement. So that proposition is without basis.

All in all, I think that we may disagree on the intent of this legislation;

I grant you that. But every effort has been made — and I suggest that the provisions

are clear — to protect the interests of those small companies and business enterprises

which it just does not make sense to organize. Certainly it is my understanding

that their interests are well protected in this legislation, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Members who may speak to

this amendment that the main point of the discussion should

centre around how the amendment improves

section 2(2)(b).

I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Point

Grey.

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

Chairman. I want to speak precisely to this point.

I think the Minister has skirted around a number of issues

that are central to the amendment put forward by the Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). I want to deal with

two of these.

One of them concerns the matter of a firm which may be

unionized, as far as the tradesmen and so on are concerned, but

not as far as the office staff is concerned. It's a specific,

definite point that is not dealt with in this legislation and

could see legitimate union firms excluded because of some

aspect of their operation — the office staff is the

obvious one, but there might be others.

HON. MR. KING: It's in the definition of the public works

Act. It's clearly there.

MR. McGEER: It's the employer and the division of his

employees. The Minister laughs, but his intent and his wording

is not quite the same thing.

Now the other aspect is really more important and

fundamental, and it touches on remarks made by the Member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) and remarks made

some years ago by the Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr.

Calder) with regard to the problems that Indians face in

British Columbia in belonging to unions and getting a fair

shake at works of all kinds.

To make my point, I'd like to describe to the Minister what

I consider to be the most asinine thing I have ever seen

involving union regulations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member speaking

about something relevant to this amendment?

MR. McGEER: Very, very relevant, Mr. Chairman. I want to

tell you this story because I know you're going to be

fascinated by it. I am happy to say that it did not involve the

Province of British Columbia, but it's a situation which I'm

sure you will see could

[ Page 2958 ]

easily happen, perhaps in a riding such as your own. This

concerned the port of Resolute Bay in the Arctic, where I spent

a couple of summers, Mr. Chairman, chasing whales. I was in at

Resolute Bay on the occasion when one of their supply boats

arrived, Resolute Bay has a few hundred Eskimos who find it obviously

difficult to get work and make a living. Now, Mr. Chairman,

because of rules that were rigid and established to suit other

circumstances, the Eskimos were not allowed to unload this

particular boat.

In order to unload this boat it became necessary to charter

a plane with longshoremen from Montreal — 3,200 miles

away — because the regulations did not permit the Eskimos

who were standing right next to the boat, needing the work and

the money, to undertake it.

There's a very limited time in which these boats can move

through the open channels in the Arctic Ocean. Time was running

out for this particular craft so it could get back before the

channel closed in. And yet that boat had to sit there day after

day after day because the chartered airliner containing the

longshoremen, who by established union agreement had to unload

this boat, were held up in the fog.

The expense of that asininity for that particular operation

was astronomical. There was the chartering of the plane, the

payment of the longshoremen by the hour while they sat held up

by the fog — at I believe Cambridge Bay; they'd been on

the payroll for several days before they ever got to the site

to start work — all to unload one boat when there were

Eskimos standing by desperately wanting the work.

Now, the point of my telling this story: the Member for

Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder), when he was the Minister without

Portfolio, got into a great deal of difficulty with the friends

of the Provincial Secretary in the B.C. Federation of Labour

because he stood up and criticized hiring practices of certain

unions required by these rigid agreements that made it

impossible for people who lived near the site of the works to

be conducted onto that site because the hiring was done from

the Labour Temple in Vancouver and people were sent up to the

site.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson)

pointed out how efficient and desirable it is, either with the

provincial government itself or with any of its Crown

corporations, to undertake what public works need to be

undertaken for the government, to have that undertaken by local

contractors, and to meet whatever are the appropriate local

conditions. At times it might be very desirable to have Indians

living on a reserve undertaking the work. Or it might be very

desirable to have some small contractor who has to survive

however he can with the special circumstances of his community

undertaking the work.

Unless the amendment of the Second Member for Victoria, the

Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), is accepted, this kind of

flexibility will be completely removed by this legislation.

It's bad economics, it's bad social practice, and it's bad

government policy.

And once more, Mr. Chairman, we ask the Minister to

reconsider his position and accept the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Second Member for Victoria pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Brousson

Wallace

NAYS — 45

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lauk

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, on the

second

section of this Act; if the Act were named from the

second

section it would be called the "Unfair Unemployment Act"

because that's exactly what it is. It's unfair to the small

contractor and it will create unemployment for many people who

now — or could before — bid on these government

contracts. And it's certainly unfair to the workers.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour stands on the floor of

this Legislature with his glib tongue in cheek, trying to

support this legislation. But he knows that all it is is a big

bludgeon that he's got out to force people in this province to

join a union.

There is one thing, Mr. Chairman, that I must say about this

section, and I want to say it unequivocally, Mr. Chairman. It

is special-interest legislation for the NDP government and

nothing more and nothing less.

[ Page 2959 ]

Special-interest legislation. They have a very, very special

interest in seeing the workers of this province become

unionized so that part of their wages can go to support the

political campaigns of the NDP.

We talk about the unions. As far as I am concerned, this

party is for the little man and not for the labour bosses. And

I know that the Minister of Labour is working in coercion with

the labour bosses of this province. That's what this bill is

all about, Mr. Chairman, exactly what it is all about.

Coercion, collusion, whatever you want to call it, Coercion

and collusion, both. That's what it is, Mr. Chairman.

Many small companies in this province are presently not

unionized and many of them are too small to be unionized. I

said during the second reading of this bill that they had this

legislation in the States and they threw it out because it was

not workable.

You get the union chiefs, the union bosses telling small

companies who can bid on what. That's what happens when you get

this type of legislation in this province, Mr. Speaker. They

will be telling the contractors who can and who can't bid on

what jobs.

The Minister has made his stand, Mr. Chairman, perfectly

clear to everyone in this province because he says he intends

to encourage greater organization of the workers in the

province to join unions.

Mr. King is a union organizer. This legislation, Mr.

Chairman, is going to ruin the small contractors in the

northern part of this province, in the eastern part of the

province, in the southern part of the province, and in the

western part of the province.

Mr. Chairman, there is no way that all of the small

electrical contractors, plumbing contractors, heating

contractors, sheet metal contractors, drywall contractors and

cement contractors can become unionized. But they will be

forced to become unionized, forced with the big bludgeon that

the Minister's got out; forced to become unionized to deal with

this government.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that there are many, many

workers in this province who don't wish to come under the

umbrella and the protection of the union. They don't wish to

sell their souls to some of the union leaders in this province,

Mr. Chairman. That's why they don't want to become

unionized.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Your amendment was no good. Why repair a pair

of socks you're going to throw out anyway?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this bill and this particular

section of this bill is just another case of this government

using their far-too-large majority in this House to crush all

opposition to their far-out ideas and to force big socialism in

this province. They use that big majority they have. It's far

too big. It's not only going to be reduced in the next

election, the majority is going to be taken away

completely.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) says he

doesn't want to perpetuate the free enterprise jungle. That's

what he said last night, Mr. Chairman. I would like the

Minister of Highways to go into the labour jungle of some of

the hiring halls in this province and see what a free

enterprise system that is, see how much protection the men who

want the opportunity to work have got.

Talk about your rip-offs. What about the Hoffas? What about

Hal Banks? Everything is not that clean Mr. Chairman, in the

labour union movement. This government is doing nothing to

clean it up. They're getting into bed with the union bosses and

they're not really concerned about the working man, the common

ordinary union man in this province. No, Mr. Chairman, this is

just one more piece of socialist subjection to take away the

rights of individuals in this province.

I'm going to vote against it and I'm going to fight against

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a few

observations.

I became a little provoked with our friends in the Liberal

Party over there last evening. But I must say that I'm not

similarly provoked by the comments which the Member for South

Peace River has just made. He made some nasty inferences

— collusion, coercion. I think that I could well have

risen in my place and suggested that he withdraw for imputing

motives that were not very savoury.

But I understand. I have some sympathy for that Member, I

think it would be a futile exercise to ask him to be

responsible in this situation.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it's a little bit unfortunate.

Certainly we can discuss this bill and you're quite entitled to

disagree. But that kind of inflammatory speech just shouldn't

be made.

Everyone knows and everyone can see that we have had in

British Columbia a very, very unfortunate industrial relations

climate. I suggest that when Members on any side of the House

start making emotional political hay and charges out of a bill

like this, it contributes nothing to stability and peace in the

industrial relations…

[ Page 2960 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the Minister of Labour charging me with

making political hay by supporting the contractors in my area?

Is he charging the Member for South Peace with making political

hay, Mr. Chairman? I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the point of order is

partly well taken. In this respect, I would ask both sides of

the House to please refrain from personal remarks or the

suggestion of collusion or any of that kind of thing. Could we

just have a debate on this

section 2 of the bill?

HON. MR. KING: I accept that, Mr. Chairman. I certainly

wouldn't want to infer that anyone acted politically in this

chamber. (Laughter). However, I'm just suggesting that we might

well confine our remarks to an analysis of the bill, rather

than the sweeping generalizations and the rather odious charges

which that Member inferred towards my motives.

I tried to indicate earlier how this bill provides for the

protection of the small contractor. I indicated that I was

prepared to ensure that local workers have a role in contracts

that are awarded through negotiating with the union and with

the employer; that a percentage of the work force have an

opportunity, on the basis of either a work permit or full

membership in the union, to obtain some employment opportunity.

I just reject the remarks that were made previously, Mr.

Chairman.

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

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions I

wanted to ask the Minister in relation to this section. He's

mentioned previously in the debate on the amendment the matter

of the application of the Act to various organizations —

the school boards, hospitals, regional districts,

municipalities, universities, Crown corporations.

It's all very well to say, as the Minister is saying, that

"My

interpretation is that it does or does not apply to these

various bodies," It would seem to me that it would be so

much more effective and so much better understood by the people

of the province and by the companies if he would spell out in

the legislation specifically to whom it does apply or does not

apply. I think there's a great deal of confusion about this

today and there is conflicting legal advice being given to the

various members of industry, very definitely. I've talked to

people in the industry…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: It's all very well to laugh about it. You

think you're so smart and know all about it. But I think you

should spell it out so the people of British Columbia

understand it.

Further, Mr. Chairman, what about — and to my

knowledge, this matter has not been questioned at all so far in

the debate — what about the clerical staff who work on

the job site? Of course there are clerical staff back at the

office. It's my understanding clearly that we're talking about

job-site personnel in this bill. What about the clerical staff

who work on a job site? What about estimators who go to a job

site and work for periods of time, and many other problems of

this sort? Will the Minister spell this out?

Would it not be advisable either to put this into the bill or to specifically

state these

definitions by regulation so that there is no misunderstanding?

In many cases there will be small firms and small contractors in many remote

parts of the province trying to understand how this applies to them. I want

to be sure that they understand this properly,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have consulted with the major

contractors of the province on all these questions. Again,

under the previous Act, the Public Works Fair Wages and

Conditions of Employment Act , the provisions remained the

same. This is not a new procedure. The Labour Relations

Act applies to the Public Works Fair Employment Act

as it applied to the predecessor bill.

Professional engineers, timekeepers, consultants are

specifically excluded from the Act because they are not engaged

in the public work as defined in the introductory part of the

bill. So they are excluded and I can confirm that without

equivocation. In the same way I want to confirm that there is

no misunderstanding or lack of conviction with respect to the

exemptions provided for the public school areas and so on, none

whatsoever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Just a few brief comments, Mr. Chairman. This

section says that if workers are unwilling to join a union and

that if their employer wants to seek a contract with the

government, they'll have to be fired. If an employer wants a

contract, he'll have to have a collective agreement. If the

present workers don't want to be a party to a union, well,

they'll be fired and they'll be looking for a job somewhere

else.

I would rather take the approach that was taken by the most

outstanding labour negotiator in the

[ Page

2961 ]

province, Mr. Justice Nemetz, when he sat on the dispute

between B.C. Hydro and the IBEW in July of 1971. When there

was criticism on the fact that some of the line extension

contracts were being lost by members of the IBEW, he stated

that in order to overcome this possible discrimination which

might exist in the contract bidding, the contractors who were

non-union should pay the equivalent — which includes the

fringe benefits and so forth — of union scale. I thought

that was an excellent suggestion that he brought down to ensure

that competition would take place on a fair and equal

basis.

This is the kind of approach I would rather see to ensure

that there is no discrimination in work place relative to wages

for the working people.

One other question comes to mind. What about the contractor

whose employees do gain certification through the Labour

Relations Board — and they might be a small body of men

that's a new union but is not recognized as a company union

because company unions are not certified by the Labour

Relations Board? They have to be employee sponsored to gain

certification. What do you do in the case of a small union that

does gain certification and does bid on a multi-contract

government project of any description, be it a Crown

corporation or the Department of Public Works?

What do you do if the building trades council or its

affiliates decide they don't want this little union on the

project? What do you do to ensure that this fellow who has bid

on a government contract, who is duly-certified and whose men

do belong to a trade union which is under the conditions

spelled out in the Labour Relations Act — they've

gone through the procedure and they're recognized as a

bargaining body in the province — can get onto the job

site and be able to fulfil the role as subcontractors or

contractors on government projects?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: With respect to employees who might be

allegedly fired because their employer lacked certification, it

should be pointed out that the majority of contractors who bid

for government contracts of any appreciable size do not have a

constant work force.

In the City of Revelstoke, which is a rather small place,

many of the local contractors don't have a constant

relationship with the carpenters in the area. The carpenters

are all organized and they may go to work for a variety of

employers, but certainly not on a constant basis. This is the

situation in the heavy construction industry to a much higher

degree. So I don't think there's a great problem in that

respect.

The other question raised by the Hon, Member for Columbia River, Mr. Chairman,

with respect to jurisdictional disputes — how that could well arise. But that

type of jurisdictional dispute is not peculiar to this situation. They do occur

and have occurred over the years.

MR. CHABOT: You couldn't want it to happen on a government

project, would you?

HON. MR. KING: One of the benefits of this bill will be to

prevent secondary picketing through attempts to gain

certification with a non-union subcontractor on the job. We

know now that all those employers on the job are certainly

going to have a collective agreement in effect. There is not

going to be a picket line set up by some small unit that's

trying to organize, which could well halt the entire project

and interfere with those major contractors where there is a

current collective agreement.

So I think it offers a real benefit in that sense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 16

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Brousson

Wallace

PAIRED

Curtis

Nimsick

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

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

Vancouver–Capilano.

[ Page 2962 ]

MR. BROUSSON:

Section 4 spells out a number of powers to the

Minister allowing him to investigate and get reports —

and I think rightly so — with regard to the names, rates

of wages, daily hours of work, amounts of wages paid, due and

unpaid and so on, conditions of employment. All of these things

are matters under the principle of this bill. That's

section

4(1)(a). Paragraph (

b) also refers to matters made under clause

(a). Rightly so, Mr. Chairman.

Then we come to paragraph (

c) of

section 4(1). If I may,

I'll shorten it up slightly to spell out precisely what this

paragraph means. It says: The Minister may require any book,

record or writing respecting the profit and loss and the

production and operating costs of the business carried on by

that person. That's all it says, Mr. Chairman.

In effect, this

section would enable the Minister, with the

later powers that he has to enter into any land, premises,

place of business or otherwise, to ask a firm or person to give

any material he has with reference to the profit and loss and

production and operating costs of his business — with no

reference whatsoever to the wages or conditions of work or

anything of that sort.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a fantastic amount of power to

give this Minister. He certainly should, under this section, be

able to inquire as to the working conditions, rates of wages,

et cetera, and rightfully so. But I find no reason why he

should require to know the profit and loss and production and

operating costs of the business carried on by the person with

whom we're concerned. I think this is an unparalleled,

unnecessary, dictatorial, arrogant invasion of privacy.

Reference has been made to the previous Act, which is still

on the statute books and which has some similar clauses in it

— Payment of Wages Act , Ch. 45. But the one line

that that

section 12 of this previous Act has, Mr. Chairman, is

the words "and are considered necessary for the purposes of

this Act." In other words, if it were necessary for the

purposes of this Act, this previous Act would then allow these

things to be looked at by the Minister.

Unfortunately in this new bill that we're bringing in now

the Minister has left out that phrase, "that are necessary for

the purposes of this Act," and it gives him complete

power to go to any business, corporation or person doing

business with the Province of British Columbia or any Crown

corporation and require them to produce records showing their

profit and loss and their production and operating costs. I

think this is absolutely unprincipled invasion of privacy by a

government that has lost all sense of the principles of good

government.

Mr. Chairman, I would move that paragraph (

c) of

section 4(1) be deleted in

its entirety.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now speaking to the amendment. I

recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

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

forward by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Brousson).

This

section of the bill is simply one which empowers the

Minister or his authorities to make such investigations and

examinations of documents as should be made necessary to

investigate claims of nonpayment of wages and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't say that.

HON. MR. KING: Certainly they relate to complaints that are

received in this regard. They're not there to provide for some

exercise in arbitrary powers. They relate again to other

legislation requirements that the Minister of Labour has under

other statutes to ensure that fair labour standards are

carried out.

The reference to the Public Inquiries Act contained

in the following

section is an indication that these powers

refer to many, many other statutes on the books at this time. I

oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

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

Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Speaking to the amendment, Mr.

Chairman, I also notice that there is no requirement anywhere,

as far as I can see, in this Act which requires secrecy after

that information is arrived at. Here we are talking about a

company which must be unionized in order to do business with

the government; on the other hand the government or its agent

has the right to look at the profit and loss statement —

you can guess that if there's no requirement for secrecy what

that information will be.

Frankly, I'm not opposed to unions. I've had a union in my

particular business for over 20 years. But I think normally

when people have access to your balance sheets, and

particularly your profit and loss, there is some requirement

for secrecy. I don't find that in this Act either.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's under the Labour Relations

Act .

MR. MORRISON: It doesn't say so.

[ Page 2963 ]

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Madam Chairman, this is just a

repetition of a point we have made on several bills. My feeling

is that this is an undue exercise of power to be given to the

Minister.

Again we are assured that it will be used with discretion

and that it's necessary for the proper functioning of the

legislation. But I say again, as I said in one of the former

debates: Why not try it without this much power and then come

back to the House if you find that you can't function without

this much power?

This party stands in this House for the idea that the

function of debate is at all times to be extremely vigilant

about the amount of power which government takes unto itself in

any sphere of public matters, whether it's the unions or

private industry or health education or transportation —

any aspect of human endeavour where the individual or groups of

individuals are liable to be clubbed or to have their property

invaded by power granted to the state in legislation which

really isn't necessary.

It certainly comes up time and time again this session that

when we complain about the lack of justification for this kind

of power, the only answer we get is: "Well, it exists in other

Acts," or "It's hardly ever used," or "It will be

very rare that we need this power."

I simply have to repeat, Madam Chairman, that if that is the

case, why can't the government show its good faith and say that

they can delete this kind of power and study the situation in

light of experience? If by the fall or next year or the next

year they come back to this House and they say: "We listened to

the opposition and we felt that it was a valid concern that

they were expressing on behalf of individuals in society, but

the opposition was wrong — we do need this power" —

then I think this would be a reasonable argument.

The Minister is quite right. He said that we are entitled to

our different points of view and we obviously do differ on this

kind of issue.

HON. MR. KING: But you have one complaint of abuse.

MR. WALLACE: If there is one complaint it must be related to

the time interval in which you have one complaint.

HON. MR. KING: But I haven't heard of a complaint.

MR. WALLACE: Or regarding the legislation. But I am not arguing the

specifics. I am saying that in general principles time and time again we present

this point of view from the opposition — I think all three parties, not just

the party of which I am a member, feel that this is an unreasonable amount of

power and an invasion of privacy.

I would certainly support the First Member

for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) who has just made the point that the very least

the Member should consider, if he will not accept the amendment, is to add an

amendment to the effect that we have the guarantee and promise of government,

guaranteed by the legislation, that the information disclosed by virtue of this

section will not be disclosed to curious parties or people who for their own

business benefit could make substantial benefit themselves by getting this kind

of information from a competitor.

I hate to sound like a retread every day, but too often in

bills we've been discussing we seem to keep coming back to this

question of power at the discretion of a department or a

Minister which intimately affects individuals and groups of

individuals. I most strongly suggest that we should at least

experiment once by deleting the power and seeing how the

legislation functions. If you come back to this House and say:

"Well, you opposition Members made a big fuss about this. We

listened and we withdrew this power and we're having nothing

but problems because we can't carry out the function as

intended in this bill" — then we'll listen to you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

This same point was raised last fall when we were discussing

amendments of this party and others as well under the mediation

commission Act.

The problem is granting excess of power. This, I think, was

very well stated by the speaker who spoke immediately before

me, as well as by the First Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison).

We have here a

section which just allows the Minister or

someone authorized by him to enter in and not restrict himself

just to the contracting question. He can go in and get

information on profit and loss, productivity of the whole

industry, the whole of the business, the whole of the trade or

occupation carried on by that person — not just the one

contract.

In other words, by passing this particular

section what

happens is that you are granted the power, if a contractor

enters into a contract with the provincial government, to go

in, ask questions and gain information on every other aspect of

that man's business. Now, he may have things to hide; he may

have nothing to hide. The point of fact is that it's an

invasion by this

section of his privacy and it's an

[ Page 2964 ]

invasion of his rights.

Now, there is shaking of heads over there.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The choice is

his.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The choice is his? There's no choice in

the section, Mr. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what they say — they don't

want it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, come off it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You know, being a grandfather, Mr.

Minister, has definitely affected your judgment. That's the

most charitable thing I can say. That's absurd. That really is

an absurd proposal.

As far as the Minister of Labour goes — who at least

had a little more relevance to reality than the Minister of

Highways — he has stated that this is not for some

exercise of arbitrary power. Well, thank heaven he has stated

that! In actual fact it may not be designed for that but that

is what it permits. This is why we are arguing so often, in

particular in legislation of this Minister, this question of

granting too much power.

We fully appreciate that you wish to act responsibly and

that your motivation is good, Mr. Minister. Nobody here is

questioning your motivation, your honesty or your integrity.

But what we are saying is that we're granting powers here that

could be used by a subordinate of yours in a way which would be

quite contrary to the principles of fair play and justice in

this province.

You've gone on to say that it's only for insisting upon fair

labour practices being carried out. That's the note I have of

your speech, Mr. Minister. That may be your objective, but the

legislation as written goes a great deal further than that.

I think perhaps the major problem we have had in this

debate, as well as other debates on the same point…and

heaven knows the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has pointed

out that time after time we in this party and he in his, and

the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) in the other

opposition party have all talked about the question of excess

power and granting excess power.

What I am asking you to do at this point, Mr. Minister, in

considering this amendment, is to divorce your own good faith.

O.K.? Don't consider how you would use this power. Consider what

the power is in this

section which is being granted to some

successor of yours. Now if you bear that in mind I think you

can realize the importance of this amendment.

If we delete this section, we are deleting something which

is really reprehensible in terms of privacy and the rights of

individuals to control their own operations and their own lives, without undue "snoopocracy" from

any civil servant whom you might appoint who might misuse his

power.

We are not suggesting that you should not have the right,

which comes up in the earlier sections, to consider whether or

not a contract is fair, or whether or not the person is paying

his employees. All throughout this debate we have never

suggested anything but that people who contract with the

government should be paid well and treated properly, and that

indeed was the purpose of our earlier amendment.

But the fact of the matter is, do you need to have powers

which will undoubtedly restrict the number of people capable of

dealing with the government? Because, as the Minister of

Highways says, they won't even bother to contract. Do you need

powers that extend far beyond the actual situation that you

have envisaged in your speech a few moments ago, which was an

area where perhaps they are not treating their employees

well?

Sure, we want you to have the power to insist that employees

be treated well. Nothing we have said in this debate on this

bill has ever contradicted that, I don't think, from any of the

opposition parties. But when it comes to exceeding that

restricted and necessary power, we think that you should accept

this amendment and strike it down, because if it is not needed,

if it goes too far, well, for heaven's sake let's err on the

side of fair play for the citizens of British Columbia and not

on the other side.

As the Hon. Member for Oak Bay said, it's a point that we

argued during the fall session frequently. I remember doing it

myself on two occasions. Try it; you may like it. Try cutting

it out; you may find it works. And if you do accept this

amendment, I think you will certainly have our goodwill and

support. In this instance you can, I think, try it with no

risk. If you come back in another session, and say, "Look, we

tried it and it didn't work," — well, you have my

words on record as indicating that we will very, very

sympathetically consider any future request.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the Second

Member for Victoria's sincerity, and I accept that that group

is genuinely concerned about an excess of powers and abuse of

powers. But as I indicated earlier, the same degree of power

has existed under the previous Act for many, many years, and I

have yet to hear of any complaint of such an abuse of power as

the Members on that side have indicated their apprehension

about.

So I would suggest to the Members over there, Madam

Chairman, that we might put this proposition conversely. If you

can come back in a year's time and say to me, "Here's an

indication where there was an

[ Page 2965 ]

unwarranted abuse of any of the powers contained in this

bill," then certainly I'd be quite receptive to amending

it, and restricting it in some way.

I have consulted very closely with the people in my

department who are responsible for going out in the field and

investigating complaints that are made under the various labour

standards legislation. Unless they are empowered upon

complaint, and unless they have the power of entry and search

of records and documents pertaining to the whole relationship,

then they are restricted in their ability to do the job.

Now as far as profit and loss is concerned, it certainly

relates to this Act when the government is seeking to set fair

standards of wages and working conditions. Then certainly that

reflects on the profit and the economic health of that

particular industry doing business with the government. That's

the whole intent of the bill. But as I say, if there's any

untoward abuse of the powers contained in this or any other

legislation, certainly I'd be very willing to look at them. But

I haven't heard in history, as far as I'm concerned, of any

Department of Labour person abusing any of those powers which

were vested in them to process a complaint of unfair labour

practices, non-payment of wages, or whatever.

I think, that being the case, we can appreciate and accept

that the intent of the legislation is being prosecuted very

well and in a responsible manner.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon, Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

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

you, Madam Chairman. The Minister is speaking in circles. Last

night he told us that the reason for bringing in this

legislation was that he wanted the workers to be unionized, and

to have collective bargaining take place with their employers

in order to establish their wages and working conditions

— that he did not want to be in the position of imposing

standards. That's right. Well, if that's the case, you don't

need to care whether the company makes or loses money. The only

question you have to ask is, "Is there a collective

agreement?"

HON. MR. KING: What about the schools? Do you want to exempt

them?

MR. WILLIAMS: That's number one: is there a collective

agreement in force insofar as the person is concerned? If you

get a complaint that the wages aren't paid, you've got the

right to withhold the moneys and to utilize those moneys in the

payment of wages. You don't have to be concerned whether the

company is making or losing money, because you aren't going to

set the standards. A collective agreement is all you want to

see before entering into the contract.

HON. MR. KING: Madam Chairman, the Member across the way I

think legitimately asked whether or not this legislation would

be applicable to public schools, municipal councils, hospitals

and so on. The answer was no. So under the provisions of those

Acts the Minister of Labour is still empowered as he was

previously to set their working standards, and their conditions

of work and their wages when a complaint is received. So in

that area, the legislation as previously written still applies.

So there is that relationship which perhaps you didn't

appreciate.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon, Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: To follow up that same point here, the

Minister stated that he had these powers previously and there

had been no complaints, he says. However, what I want to point

out again, as I said when I first moved this amendment, Madam

Chairman, is that the previous bill, and that which still

remains on the statute books under payment of wages in

section

12, has exactly the same wording as this clause, with the other

proviso, "considered necessary for the purposes of this Act."

And those are the words that have not been left out. Those are

limiting words that say that if it is necessary for the

purposes of this Act, then we can call for books that show the

operating costs, productions costs and so on.

But unfortunately we've left these words out now and the

Minister has this new power, under this new bill, to call for

those records that show any profit and loss, any production and

operating costs for any purpose whatsoever. There are no

limitations at all that I can find in this bill. It doesn't say

so anywhere. If the Minister would explain to me where those

limitations are, I would be pleased.

HON. MR. KING: Read the Municipal Act and the school Act, the Public Schools Act .

MR. BROUSSON: But we are dealing with this Act, nothing

else.

HON. MR. KING: The amendments are in the Public Schools

Act and the Municipal Act .

AN HON, MEMBER: What have they got to do with B.C. Hydro or

Crown corporation contracts or whatever?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. First Member for

Victoria, who was on his feet first.

MR. MORRISON: Madam Chairman, the Minister

[ Page 2966 ]

also has not yet made any comment on our requirement for

secrecy with that information.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's another question.

MR. MORRISON: That's covered under the Labour Relations

Act too. This legislation, as pretty well all the

departmental legislation, dovetails with central authority

granted under the Labour Relations Act .

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, the point raised by my

friend from North Vancouver is important. We have here the

different section, not, Mr. Minister, as you have stated, the

same

section with the same powers. We have a change.

HON. MR. KING: A change in the wording, that's all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The change is in the wording, which is

critical. That's all we do around here, is change wording in

bills. We don't do anything else. Perhaps you are unaware of

that. But the additional words are "…are considered

necessary for the purposes of this Act." It has been left out;

it must have been left out for a specific purpose.

I am not very impressed by a statement that there is no

change when these words are left out, because all the arguments

that I put forward about using this Act for other purposes

naturally fall to the ground if this

section is limited, as was

the previous section.

There must be some reason for leaving these words out,

otherwise he'd have copied the previous

section exactly. Now

what is it, if it is not, as we suggested, to broaden your

powers?

This is important, Madam Chairman, this is an important

question and I think the Minister should comment upon it. If he

has made alterations, he cannot quote the previous

section as

his defence, if we can use the legalistic term here.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If we put an amendment forward, will he put the words

back in? What it would do would be to limit this

section to this specific Act.

That is basically what we have been talking about. He has suggested that the

powers won't be used outside this Act. So if the Minister would be kind enough,

we could perhaps hold this

section for a moment while we write out an amendment

and add those words.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The proposed amendment to Bill No. 153, submitted by the

Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson), is at

section

4, line 12, to delete

section 4(1)(c).

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Brousson

Curtis

Wallace

NAYS — 33

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 4 pass?

Section 4 approved.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, in the light of the

Sections in this Act, we would like the title amended by

deleting the word "Fair" and I have an amendment to that

effect. It would now read, instead of Public Works Fair

Employment Act , simply, Public Works Employment

Act .

MS. CHAIRMAN: The proposed amendment standing in the name of

the Hon. Second Member for Victoria is that the word "Fair" be

deleted from the title.

The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): On speaking to the

amendment, the Hon. Member is just playing games in this

matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it is just a little

[ Page 2967 ]

bit of politics around this bill that seeks to protect

working conditions of people, and it shows up the kind of

opposition we have had to this bill. This is again political

gimmickry that Member is engaging in.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Certainly it is. So let's have a vote on

this amendment because, really, is there substance to this? Is

there wisdom to it? Of course not. It is just a little bit of

political gamesmanship. A bill like this deserves better treatment in

this House than that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, I didn't expect to have

to discuss this amendment because we have had lengthy

discussion on the sections of the bill. But presumably the

Attorney General has not been in the room and has not read the

bill, as apparently is his custom in quite a number of them.

The fact is, here we have a bill which restricts work with the

Province of British Columbia to a special category of taxpayers

only — not to the citizens at large.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: "Order" is why I am speaking on this;

because of the points made by a Minister of your government.

The

section that deals with the need to go in and take

information, acquire it on all other aspects of the man's

business, is not fair. The

section dealing…

HON. MR. BARRETT: The title is the title, Now the rules are

obvious; you debate that during the sections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why, Mr. Premier, didn't you make that

statement to the Attorney General when he was discussing…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm only talking about your

amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He was talking about your amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Madam Chairman, I am referring to whether the

bill is properly described by the word "Fair," and it is not properly described

by the word "Fair." It apparently is the intention of the Premier and the Attorney

General to ignore this point. This is why we want the word "Fair" struck out.

It is a simple amendment. There is nothing wrong with the bill being called

the Public Works Employment Act . But for it to be so misdescribed as a result

of the debate we have had today, which has pointed out the weaknesses of it,

and the debate last night, is just absurd. This world should be struck and I

move that it be struck.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Madam Chairman, I think the Attorney General was

guilty of grossly misrepresenting the motives of the Second

Member for Victoria.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a very serious amendment,

MR. McGEER: Well, of course. In the first place…

HON. MR. BARRETT: He can grossly represent himself.

MR. McGEER: …it is an accurate amendment and in the

second place, it is a fair amendment. The Attorney General,

Madam Chairman, might have been in order if the amendment had

read the "unfair" Act. Then perhaps he could have accused the

Second Member for Victoria of being mischievous. But in this

case, Madam Chairman, I would submit the government itself has

been mischievous because the title of the Act is

misleading.

It happens to be government policy and it is the

government's privilege to impose its policy. But as the Members

on this side of the House have pointed out, it does

discriminate against 58 per cent of the working people of

British Columbia. It's discriminatory against Indians, who are

not union Members in most cases, and to attribute it as a fair

Act is most wrong. And for the Attorney General to make the

kind of remarks that he did to the Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) is just puerile and banal, Madam

Chairman.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is to delete the word "fair"

from the title. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Brousson

Wallace

Curtis

[ Page 2968 ]

NAYS — 33

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in chair.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports divisions

section 2 and the title, and asks leave that it be recorded

in the Journals .

Leave granted.

Bill No. 153, Public Works Fair Employment Act ,

referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting

after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 37, which was

recommitted to committee because of an amendment.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE INFANTS ACT.

House in committee on Bill No. 37; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

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

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the amendment

section 1 standing in my name on the order paper. In so moving, Mr.

Chairman, may I explain to the committee that when moving the previous

amendment the last time this bill was in committee, the words, which

were subsection 3, "Nothing in the

section shall be construed as making

ineffective any consent which would have been effective if this

section

had not been enacted" were removed.

Now, subsequent to April 12, it has appeared that the

removal of those words takes away the pre-existing legal

protection that was afforded the medical profession in the case

when services were performed on an emergency basis to

infants.

The purpose of the amendment, which is before the committee

now, is to restore the protection so that we have the situation

where if an infant over the age of 16 finds himself in an

emergency situation, the medical attendant can proceed with

treatment under the common law protection. In the case of a

non-emergency medical service, then the medical practitioner

must either make reasonable effort to obtain the consent of the

parent of the infant or alternatively, obtain the written

confirmation from another medical practitioner. I move the

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the amendment's been

considered by myself and my department and I think it's a

matter of general agreement that this should be carried. It's a

technical point, but an important point and I hope that we can

pass this quickly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we recognized the intent of

the original amendment and supported it and we now recognize

the need for this amendment and certainly concur.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as

reported?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that the bill

be considered as reported now.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2969 ]

Bill No. 37,

An Act to Amend the Infants Act , read a

third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 103, Mr.

Speaker.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

INCORPORATION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 103; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved with amendments.

section 7.

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

I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley on the

amendments.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like

to make a few comments about this section. We don't feel that

this kind of make-up gives the Pacific National Exhibition the

kind of representation from the other parts of British Columbia

that it should have.

We recognize that there will be seven persons appointed from

a number of different areas within the community ranging from

business to agriculture. However, we do not think that the

Minister is giving nearly enough emphasis to the agricultural

community. The Pacific National Exhibition has been an

agricultural fair since its inception in 1908, and it always

has been and always will be if it's to be a success.

I'd just like to say that while we're putting five persons

from the City of Vancouver — actually nine persons from

the City of Vancouver — on this 16-man board under the

terms of this section, if the City of Vancouver had taken any

interest in the Pacific National Exhibition in the past, it

might have been more of a community-oriented fair. However,

they took no interest in the past and without the agricultural

community, the Pacific National Exhibition would have been

down the drain. I think even the Minister would admit that.

Nevertheless, I would think that the Minister should consider changing the

make-up of this bill to give it less representation from Vancouver, more representation

from the various regions around the province — from those regional districts

outside of the actual lower mainland area — and to include not just one or two

members of the agricultural community, not just an advisory committee which

would advise the board on agricultural matters, but to actively include at least

three or four or maybe even five people from the various segments of the agricultural

community, along with those people that I have suggested from other parts of

the province.

Without the input from those people, the Pacific National

Exhibition will not be the vibrant and exciting fair that it's

come to be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendments to

section 7 pass?

Amendments approved.

Section 7 approved with amendments.

Sections 8 to 13 approved.

section 14.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd just like to ask the Minister if he

would comment on this

section which concerns the dissolution or

winding up of the exhibition. It pays off all of the assets

that will be paid off to the City of Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, does the Minister recognize that there has

been other financial input into that exhibition —

physical buildings, input from the provincial government, input

from the federal government, input by those private commercial

organizations which the Minister has downgraded quite severely.

Nevertheless, the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame, the Jockey Club and

several others have put actual physical contributions into that

fair. Will they be given any consideration in the case that

this wind-up should occur? I doubt that it ever will but

nevertheless you've made arrangements for this in the bill.

Shouldn't they at least be recognized for their

contribution?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we certainly don't anticipate the

exhibition winding up, certainly in the foreseeable future at

all, The point made by the Hon. Member is reasonable. I'm sure

that the board would consider that and make some

recommendations in that regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 14 pass?

Section 14 approved.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[ Page 2970 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 103, Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation

Act , reported complete with amendments to be considered at

the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 164, Mr.

Speaker.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 164; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River):

Section 2 creates the

corporation to be known as the Ocean Falls Corporation. It's

the first of the Crown corporations and new business

enterprises to be created by the new government of this

province. From all the legislation that's come before us and

from all indications, it's certainly not the last. We've had

another one which we'll be dealing with shortly.

It's a step into the private sector of enterprise providing

for a Crown corporation to finance a proposition which even

private enterprise itself has found very uneconomic over a long

period of time. We question the wisdom on the part of the

government for forming such a corporation. We feel that the

taxpayers of the province will be continuously pouring capital

into this white elephant in order to keep it afloat and

viable.

In that respect, it's an albatross around the neck of every

person in the Province of British Columbia and we do not

support it.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

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

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the question I'd like to

put to the Minister deals with

section 4. It's the question of

right to sue and be sued. This sets it up as a company under

the Companies Act . But there is doubt on this. No doubt

the Minister has received representations from the Canadian Bar

Association's legislative committee on this.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder whether the Hon. Member is aware

of the amendment on p. 15 on the order paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I'm sorry, I haven't checked that

amendment. Does that take care of it, Mr. Minister? Thanks very

much.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved with amendments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The effect of the amendment would be to add a

new section, No. 10. Then 10 and 11 would be renumbered 11 and

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

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Once again, I'm looking at the criticisms

of the legislation from the Canadian Bar Association. They talk

of a potential conflict between

section 9 — I'm sorry,

Mr. Chairman, I got a little behind — and

section 1 of

Bill 165 in terms of financing. Again, if the Minister has

received that submission, no doubt he's taken care of it. I

wonder whether he would like to comment on the potential

conflict as it affects the right to obtain more than $1 million

in total, notwithstanding Bill 165.

I think that the two sections in the two bills should be

consistent with one another. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have to

discuss both bills at this stage. I'm quite sure that the

Minister is aware of this potential problem and can put my mind

at rest on it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding. I haven't had

direct communication with the Bar Association, although I was

aware of their concern with respect to the right to sue and be

sued.

I understand that the Bar Association actually is confused

with respect to this other question; that they considered the

material that was in the other statute in relation to this. I

gather there is some confusion on their part but I am afraid I

can't be of much help beyond that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 11 — old No. 10 —

pass?

Section 11 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 12 — old No. 11 —

pass?

Section 12 approved.

Title approved.

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

[ Page 2971 ]

committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 164 Ocean Falls Corporation Act reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 165, Mr.

Speaker.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION

APPROPRIATION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 165; Mr. Dent in the

Chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 165, Ocean Falls Corporation Appropriation

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 40

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

Brousson

Gardom

Williams, L.A.

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

NAYS — 10

Smith

Jordan

Chabot

Bennett

Richter

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it

not possible for us to stack up the bills which come forward

from committee? Must they be reported individually at each time

when we finish them in committee?

MR. SPEAKER: Under our procedure it's usual, although I

notice in Ottawa and in England they do, as you say, stack them

up. But under this procedure it has always been each in turn.

Why, I don't know. Nobody has ever offered the other

alternative.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if it struck

you as being a desirable objective you would probably get

unanimous consent for an alteration in this respect.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we're faced with a variation of bills,

some of which can only be taken up now with leave and some

which as of right are entitled to third reading now. In view of

that circumstance it's impossible to speed up the process.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 174, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PARK ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 174; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Schedules A and B approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 174

An Act to Amend the Park Act reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 179, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

CELLULOSE COMPANY ACT

House in Committee on Bill No. 179: Mr. Dent in the

chair.

[ Page 2972 ]

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 179, British Columbia Cellulose Company Act

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed on the following division:

YEAS — 35

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Dent

Cummings

D'Arcy

Sanford

Radford

Brown

Nicolson

Strachan

Dailly

Barrett

Macdonald

Hall

Wallace

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

Curtis

NAYS — 15

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Gardom

Brousson

Williams, L.A.

Anderson, D.A.'

McGeer

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 180; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CONSTITUTION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 180; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper, p. 15. The amendment is to reduce the number of people who

can be appointed to the cabinet from 23, as it now stands in

section 3, to 19.

Mr. Chairman, the reason for making this amendment is that

it would be absurd for a province the size of British Columbia

to create a cabinet comparable in size to the whole country.

We've got 29 cabinet Ministers in Canada: to have 23 in British

Columbia would be just a fantastic absurdity. It may soon be,

Mr. Chairman, that the smallest group in the House will be not

the Liberal Party, or even the Conservative Party…

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be mean.

MR. McGEER: …but the number of backbenchers in the New

Democratic Party who haven't been elevated.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, when I noticed the broad smiles

and thumping of the desk on the part of the Second Member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I didn't know whether the wild

applause was in hopes that there would be 37 cabinet posts

created so that he would be certain of getting in there, or

whether he wanted to be among the two or three who aren't

elevated to some post.

Mr. Chairman, the Second Member for Vancouver Centre reminds

me a little of the acrobat who was on the fortieth storey of a

building. He fell off the top of the building and, as he was

hurtling to the ground, one of his friends leaned out at the

twentieth storey and said, "You're still doing fine, Gary,

" as he went by. (Laughter.)

This particular amendment has nothing to do, Mr. Chairman,

with the Second Member for Vancouver Centre, in truth. What it

intends to do is to limit the size of the cabinet to some

reasonable number so that we can arrest this galloping case of

Parkinson's disease that the NDP has.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here anymore!

MR. McGEER: I'm not referring to the shaking palsy: I'm

referring to the kind where you have infinite expansion of the

bureaucracy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There you are, one doctor attacking

another.

MR. McGEER: It seems to me that an increase to 19 is a

generous one; it allows more than enough for the available

talent in the backbench Therefore, I consider it a most

reasonable and constrained amendment and I hope the cabinet

will accept it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

[ Page 2973 ]

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I agree,

and I understand why Members in the House are confused as to

this

section and its import and what it attempts to do.

However, I want to assure the House that there is no intention

of 23 persons, that is individual persons, being considered in

this amendment.

However, during the transitional stage in which we are

working on departmental Acts, I'm assured by the legal advisers

that we need this kind of flexibility because of the dual

portfolios. There are more than 19 Ministries, and if you check

on the Constitution Act that we seek to amend by this

amendment, you'll see that the figures were hitherto, as they

say, 17 and 14. That takes care of this duality of

portfolio.

I can assure the Hon. Members that as soon as the government

gets an opportunity to revise the various departmental Acts,

the singular number that the learned Member for Point Grey

seeks to have in this

section will be done. Therefore we don't

accept the amendment at this stage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are we to understand,

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Provincial Secretary, that

there may be appointments to the Executive Council and once

those appointments have been made and the departments are

reorganized, that Members of the Executive Council will lose

those appointments? Obviously, that's clearly the

indication.

HON. MR. HALL: That's covered, Mr. Member, in the

transitional section,

section 21, so you have to read the

transitional

section in connection with this amendment to get

the whole picture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to

section 3 pass?

Amendment negatived.

Sections 3 to 13 inclusive approved with amendment.

section 14.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria on

section

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There are two points here that I'd like to raise,

Mr. Chairman. I feel that it's wrong in principle for Members of the assembly

not to have the amount of money spelled out. In this

section we're going to

have a number of people of this chamber who will be paid by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

in addition to their fixed amounts. I think this is really wrong. I think that

in this type of legislation where we're amending the Constitution Act , we should

spell out precisely what the amount of money is that anybody receives. I think

that's only fair from the point of view of the public because I think it's wrong

that we ourselves — at least a group of us — will boost the pay of others of

us at will, which is what the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can do in this

section.

I think that we should be in a situation in this Act where

the public has full knowledge of all amounts of money that we

receive from the public purse simply by checking the Act and

not having to find out how much extra we receive by way of

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, That's point one.

Point two. I have yet to see evidence of any need on the

part of the committee chairmen. They are like other Members of

the backbench of the government party, working hard, no

question about that. But for them to receive a salary in

addition to their regular one strikes me as curious because

there is no demonstrated need in this instance. The government

has certainly made no case to pay these people more. True, they

have to chair meetings, but this is not an onerous task.

I might add that I've served as a committee chairman of the

federal House myself for two years. We were not paid extra and

it never occurred to us to ask for more. It just doesn't seem

necessary. So I wonder whether the government could on the one

hand indicate what the need might be, and, secondly, why they

have departed from the principle of laying out in black and

white in

an Act passed by this House the amounts that will be

paid to Members of this assembly.

The public, after all, has a right to know whether we voted

on our own salaries. They have a right to know who voted which

way and why, or they can ask why. But where we're in a

situatio