1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 975 ]

CONTENTS

Ruling.

Contempt of parliament.

Mr. Speaker — 975

Mr. Smith — 976

Routine proceedings

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

stage.

Amendment to

section 43.

Mr. McGeer — 977

Hon. Mr. King — 977

section 43.

Mr. Wallace — 979

Hon. Mr. King — 979

section 44.

Mr. Wallace — 980

Hon. Mr. King — 980

section 47.

Mr. Chabot — 980

Hon. Mr. King — 981

Mr. McClelland — 982

Hon. Mr. King — 982

section 48.

Mr. McGeer — 982

Mr. Chabot — 983

Hon. Mr. King — 983

Amendment to

section 53.

Hon. Mr. King — 984

Mr. Gardom — 984

Amendment to

section 56.

Mr. Gardom — 985

Hon. Mr. King — 985

Amendment to

section 57.

Mr. Chabot — 985

Hon. Mr. King — 985

section 57.

Mr. Gabelmann — 986

Mr. Steves — 986

Mr. Chabot — 986

Amendment to

section 59.

Mr. Gardom — 987

Hon. Mr. King — 987

section 60.

Mr. Wallace — 987

Hon. Mr. King — 987

Amendment to

section 62.

Hon. Mr. King — 987

Amendment to

section 63.

Mr. Wallace — 988

Hon. Mr. King — 988

Amendment to

section 64.

Mr. Wallace — 988

Hon. Mr. King — 988

Amendment to

section 65.

Mr. McGeer — 988

Mr. Gabelmann — 989

Hon. Mr. King — 990

Mr. McGeer — 990

Hon. Mr. King — 991

Mr. McGeer — 992

section 69.

Mr. Gabelmann — 993

Hon. Mr. King — 993

Mr. Gabelmann — 993

section 70.

Mr. Chabot — 994

Hon. Mr. King — 995

Mr. Gabelmann — 995

Mr. Wallace — 995

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 996

Division on

section 70 — 996

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1973

The House met at 8:39 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I promised at the adjournment

that I would submit my decision on the question of whether a

prima facie breach of privilege had occurred with respect to

the rules of parliament in this House as raised by the Hon.

Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith).

The Hon. Member raised, as a matter of breach of

parliamentary privilege, a complaint that the Hon. Premier

discussed a message bill, apparently one of which this House

has no knowledge, within these walls on a television programme

to be heard by the public on October 28 next.

The Hon. Member supplied a script and, accepting it at this

time at its face value only for the purpose of discussing it

and presenting a decision based upon it, I quote from it as

follows. Here it uses the initial "B"; I presume that means Mr.

Barrett in the script.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The boss.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The words quoted which I think

are relevant to the question before the House were:

"Now, there is another situation that should be said

publicly too — and I have not discussed this before publicly — but we have to have emergency powers in British Columbia. We

have no emergency powers in B.C.; we have no emergency powers to

allow us in a situation like this to make alternative decisions

on behalf of the people of B.C. Now, that's a serious

shortcoming in our own legislative process and I seriously

believe we are going to have to do something about that"

Then somebody intervenes whose name is Butters.

(Laughter.)

"Question: Is that kind of problem covered by the Petroleum

Corporation Act ?

"Barrett: "No, I would think we would have to seriously

consider another Act, because the energy crisis, as it comes

and goes, is such that it is completely unpredictable and I

feel we as a government must have some legislation in abeyance

to protect the people of British Columbia."

Then some mysterious person with the initial "N."

"Mr. Premier, you already have such legislation drafted,

have you not?

"Barrett: Yes, it was drafted and signed by the Lieutenant-Governor.

We were holding it there because we didn't have the legislative authority to

make the necessary alternative moves we should make. There's no need now for

such legislation at this time, but it must seriously be considered, perhaps

even next session in a much more calmer atmosphere. It might be introduced,

so we might have a very rational, thoughtful discussion about the needs for

such powers."

N again:

"Mr. Macdonald will simply keep it in his pocket, will

he?

"Barrett: "Well, he's got awfully big pockets." (Laughter.)

"I'm sure it will be kept on the shelf. Yes, it will have to

be; will have to be considered."

That's the end of the quotation which, so far as I can

see, has relevance to the proposal.

I intervene on the script to say this: if the matter, is a

matter of privilege, it is really not for the Speaker to

determine whether there has been an offence: against the

House; that is for the Members. It is not for the Speaker to

determine the truth or otherwise of that script. I'm only

taking it at its face value for the purpose of determining

whether a prima facie case might be made out that could be

taken to a committee of privileges to determine.

Going on with my own remarks now, the Hon. Member submits

that this is a breach of privilege and I'm grateful for his

supplying me with certain references: Erskine May , 17th

edition, pages 613-617. The Hon. Member points out — and I

quote from his own remarks in this House:

The matter of privilege is the fact that the Premier of this

province did today indicate in an interview that a message bill had not only

been before His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, but has already been signed

by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor without ever coming before this House.

And this constitutes a breach of privilege of parliament: that a message which

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is required to bring in through a cabinet

Minister was signed by the Lieutenant-Governor before it was ever brought in,

discussed, debated, or in any way disposed of in this House.

Let it first be made clear that the Hon. Member is somehow unaware that the

procedure by which a message is sent down to the House involves His Honour first

signing the message before it ever reaches this chamber, so nothing really turns

on that aspect. It is no breach of privilege, as the Hon. Member avows,

That a message which His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is required

to bring in through a cabinet Minister was signed b y the Lieutenant-Governor

before it was ever brought in, discussed, debated, or in any way disposed of

in this House.

Quite to the contrary, every message must be signed by His

Honour before I would consider reading it to this assembly. No

such message has been presented to this House and, indeed,

judging from the

[ Page 976 ]

evidence submitted, may never be presented to this House.

That, however, is not for me to speculate.

The events which are reported did not occur in this chamber.

There has not been the presentation of a message or the

introduction of a specific bill relating to the subject in

question. What is said outside the chamber may not necessarily

affect the proceedings within this room, unless it is shown

that the House somehow has been subjected to contempt.

Privilege has been referred to in Sir Erskine May

exhaustively. I dealt with a comparable matter in our Journals

last February 1, 1973. In addition to the privileges

specifically claimed, such as freedom from arrest, free speech,

and the freedom of access to the Sovereign, there are others

that have been asserted and enforced by parliament, such as the

right to provide for their own constitution, to govern their

own meetings and to punish those guilty of contempt of the

House. Freedom of access to the Lieutenant-Governor,

representing Her Majesty, is preserved by the House as a whole

through the Speaker and is not accorded to individual Members.

He represents the House to the Sovereign, bears its messages

and addresses, and claims their undoubted rights.

On the other hand, the Crown may express its will to the

House by message which, when delivered to the House at

Westminster, is expressed by commissioners appointed under the

Great Seal. In this province, the communication is by a

document called a message signed by His Honour which, when

produced to the House, is acted upon immediately.

Generally the message recommends introduction of a bill. It

may not; but it usually does. It may relate to constitutional

powers or affect the revenues of the Crown, or other matters

referred to in the British North America Act, 1867 ,

specifically sections 54 and 90.

What happens if no message is received by the House? There

can be no prima facie contempt of the House by reason of the

fact that a message had been contemplated and was not sent

forward. Until it reaches the House, it is not a matter within

the concern of this assembly.

Then the question arises that even if a matter was given to

the press before it got to the House, as was referred to in

that Speaker's decision I mentioned in February, that does not

constitute thereby a contempt because contempt was settled back

in 1870. All the available methods by which you could create a

contempt against the House have been pretty well brought out by

that. Anyway, that's an aside. (Laughter.)

Now, dealing with this case….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're denying our creativity, Mr. Speaker.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The fact that somebody has alleged that a

message was prepared and signed is merely historical; it has no

significance to our proceedings within this assembly. It could

be something that happened in 1890 or happened yesterday or

happened today. Unless it comes to this House, we have only got

signification that a message bill was prepared. But it

obviously was not expended, so the Hon. Member perhaps struck

too soon. (Laughter.)

In the circumstances, I cannot find a prima facie case of

breach of privilege, and I so have to give my opinion on that

point.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I've listened with interest to your

remarks concerning the matter that I brought before you when we

first met this afternoon. I feel that the matter I brought

before you, while I may not have explained it in the detail

that I should have, is still, in my opinion, a problem with

respect to privilege in this House.

I agree that perhaps I was in error, and I thank you for

drawing to my attention that the points that I based

originally, and then referred to later — that the bill while it

was signed, did not come before the House — was something that

you brought to my attention this evening.

But the fact is this, as I see it, Mr. Speaker. It is true

that a message bill must be signed before it is brought into

the House. But it is wrong that a message bill which has been

signed by the Lieutenant-Governor should be discussed by the

Premier or any other Member of his cabinet prior to submitting

that bill to the Legislative Assembly. And in that respect I

suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that there was a breach of

privilege. The Premier should never have discussed that

particular matter even though someone in the news media had

knowledge of one way or another of the fact that a bill had

been prepared.

As a matter of fact there's an

article this evening written

by two members of the press gallery in The Vancouver Sun

referring to this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true?

MR. SMITH: Is it true? Are the remarks that are contained in

that transcript true? If they are I suggest to you, and I

submit that there has been a breach of privilege and that the

Premier exceeded his authority; he exceeded the rights of

parliament and abused the Members of this House by discussing

that bill before it came before the assembly.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in all courtesy to your

position and to the Premier, that if that bill was discussed….

[ Page 977 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no bill….

MR. SMITH: There's no bill. There was a message which was

signed by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor and I would

suggest Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of the Premier to put

that bill on the table forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: On your point of order, may I explain to the

Hon. Member, so that there's absolutely no mistake on this

point, it is not the business of this House the advice that the

Ministers of the Crown give to His Honour or what His Honour

does. That is not the business of this House and we must not

intervene in that.

It would be reprehensible of this House to even have the

temerity really, to demand of His Honour that he explain what

he does in the privacy of his councils, for the House to

question those councils when a bill is not submitted to this

House. It is merely an historical fact unless the bill is

presented to this House and then we have a different situation

that was covered in the February decision that was exhaustively

gone into at that time.

I point out that the Hon. Member is in error. As I said, I

think he acted too swiftly. If there was a bill to be produced

it certainly is not in this House. And it appears from the

statements that he himself produced to this House that there

was no intention of proceeding with such a bill.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not intend to

challenge your decision, as you have outlined it. But I suggest

to you that there is a serious affront and I have no

alternative but to file with this House a notice of motion

concerning this very matter this evening.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: If the Hon. Minister of Transportation and

Communications and ferries (Hon. Mr. Strachan) would like to

talk, let him get his seat and speak from there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! From here on you have the right

of course to file a notice of motion which in due course can be

considered by the House.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

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

LABOUR CODE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

House in committee on bill 11; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 43.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman just as

a point of order to commence here. Are we considering the

amendment as put forward that is duly moved by the Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) at the last sitting, Or

does this motion have to be put forward?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are considering the amendment.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I merely stand to support this

very simple amendment which gives directions to the Labour

Relations Board.

It's very clear that past decisions have bogged down in

wrangling as to what percentage of the members of a working

group have signed up with any particular union. It is quite

clear that the board has ignored — I'm talking about the

previous Labour Relations Board — situations where the

overwhelming majority of the workers have clearly indicated a

preference for an alternative union.

One only has to refer to the situation in Trail of a year

ago where the workers quite clearly wished out of an American

union and into a Canadian union. And despite the very evident

information laid before the Labour Relations Board, the board

chose to ignore it, not even demanding that a representative

vote be taken. It's this sort of denial of democracy instituted

by bureaucratic boards appointed by the provincial government

that does so much to contribute to labour unrest in British

Columbia.

The amendment put forward by the Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) is designed to circumvent this kind of

arbitrary action by government appointees. Therefore, in that

spirit, I recommend the acceptance by the Minister of Labour of

this particular amendment.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): That's a lost spirit,

Mr. Chairman. I think I pointed out last night that we don't

want to encourage internal disruption and internal discontent

within the trade union movement. We do want to provide an

opportunity for the workers to indicate the union of their

choice.

It is traditional in every jurisdiction that I am

[ Page 978 ]

familiar with that such a preference as against an existing

union for an aspiring union must be indicated by 50 per cent

plus one of the membership wishing a change.

To suggest that we should reduce that membership to a simple

35 per cent would, I submit, provide a situation where

dissident workers — and there are some; there are always some

who are unhappy with a contract settlement or something of that

nature — that such a small minority of the total workforce in

the unit would then be free to make application for

certification.

This could have a very serious effect on the bargaining

committee in making recommendations for contract settlement. It

would, I submit, create a situation where a bargaining

committee would not recommend a contract settlement unless they

were confident that a very, very large majority of the unit

would vote in favour of it, and that would serve to minimize

the possibility of achieving a contract settlement and serve no

one's best interests.

And so I oppose the proposition. I think that the 35 per

cent requirement is adequate as an indication to provide a vote

for a new unit. Certainly where there is an existing union, we

would be encouraging small groups to create disunity and

disharmony within the trade union movement. I certainly don't

welcome, and I don't think the trade union movement would

welcome that kind of a situation.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it is almost a plausible-sounding

argument from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), but it

neglects two things, Mr. Chairman, and I think it only fair two

things, Mr. Chairman, and I think it only fair that these be

presented publicly.

The first of these is that it is always dangerous to deny

democracy, even for a trade union. The safest course of action,

whether it's electing a government or choosing a union….

HON. MR. KING: You don't elect governments with 35 per

cent.

MR. McGEER: You elect them with 38 per cent, Mr. Member.

That's one of the unfortunate things: that this little

government here is dictating to the people of British Columbia

when it has a decided minority of the people supporting it, I

only hope that the opposition — and I speak for all the parties

here — comes to its senses, because it's quite clear that the

majority in British Columbia is being pushed around.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, unite tonight and let's go.

MR. McGEER: Well, and you should fear this, Mr. Premier: perhaps the

opposition parties will unite and you'll be dead when they do.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: But that's got nothing to do with the plight of

the working man in British Columbia. Because I don't think that

governments should, by their laws, manipulate against democracy

in a labour union. When in doubt — just as the Chairman of this

House should do — when in doubt, step out and let the majority

rule. That's the intent of this particular clause.

The Minister of Labour may say that a dissident minority — 35 per cent — proven to a Labour Relations Board is a pretty

large minority. And by the time you get to 35 per cent, you've

probably got a lot more than that behind you.

What I'm against, Mr. Chairman, and why I support this

particular amendment, is what has taken place so many times

before in the history of the labour movement in British

Columbia. The labour unions of this province are in the grip of

the American labour movement. Make no mistake about it. There

are all over British Columbia working men who wish to escape

from that yoke.

Everything we're doing in the way of legislation — seeking

technicalities, denying established groups of people the

opportunity to have a democratic vote — these are all working

against the establishment of what the working man in British

Columbia really wants to have, which is his own Canadian union

representing him.

I am under no delusions as to why the Minister of Labour

rejects this particular amendment. It helps to introduce

democracy into the selection of unions which shall represent a

bargaining unit. These Canadian unions will come, despite the

Minister of Labour and the NDP government. Probably they'll be

made stronger by the kind of repressive legislation which works

against their interests. Nevertheless, we should continue to

put forward reasonable and fair amendments to give these

working men a fair opportunity to have the union of their

choice.

I am disappointed in what the Minister of Labour has said

and I ask him once more to take a second look at this

particular amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm hurt and filled with

chagrin that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) questions my motives and my integrity in this matter. I

take the position that the workers of this province have the

full right to indicate the union of their choice. I think it

would be most regrettable if a government which is charged with

the impartial adjudication of matters that come before the

Labour Relations Board should state a preference for any

particular union. Surely, if you pre-state that, what chance,

what hope have the

[ Page 979 ]

workers got of an impartial adjudication of certification

applications?

I can only hope that the Liberal Party never comes to power,

because the interests of the working people of this province

will certainly be in question if that sad day should ever

arise.

In terms of my interest and my motivation for the workers of

this province, I can assure the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey that none of my ancestors ever read the

Riot Act to the workers who were seeking their legitimate

rights in this province. And certainly I never did either.

We want to provide a democratic vote for the workers when

they can indicate that there is justification for such a

vote.

Now with respect to the criticism the Member inferred

against the Labour Relations Board in their adjudication of the

Trail application, I would suggest that there are ground rules,

there are laws, which constitute the structuring of a trade

union. And when a trade union fails to comply with the laws

which govern the structuring and development of a trade union,

then certainly that is not a technicality; that is a very

serious matter. We don't want bogus trade unions in this

province — and I am not suggesting the Trail people were bogus.

But if you allow a breach of the laws which govern the

constitution of a trade union, we could open the door to

company-dominated unions and a variety of other involvements

that are certainly unhealthy.

The adjudication in Trail was made by the Labour Relations

Board, I presume, in very good faith. They named and reported

the infractions of the laws which prevented that group of

workers from making and filing their application for

certification. Now that union has a perfect right to overcome

those breaches of the law and make application again this year,

I understand. If they can produce cards to indicate that over

50 per cent of the members wish to have a vote, then a vote

will be held. The Labour Relations Board is governed — it's

bound — by a majority consensus of the workers in those

circumstances.

So I want to set those questions to rest. I don't think the

Hon. Member should cast reflections on the integrity or the

motives of the existing Labour Relations Board.

Now, I've been critical of the law structure under which

they functioned, but I think that the members of that board

operated in good faith and with integrity.

Amendment negatived.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to talk a little bit

about 43(3) which says that "notwithstanding…where the

board is satisfied that a representation vote is unlikely to

disclose the true wishes of the employees…. ." — and we've

already had some discussion on this in second reading. The

Minister has explained and others have commented on the fact

that there are times when intimidation can lead to the vote not

representing the wishes of the workers.

I think this is a very serious principle we're involved in

here and I think the Minister had already commented — and I'm

speaking from memory hen. and not from the reading of Hansard — but I seem to remember the Minister commenting that it's quite

a small incidence of cases where a situation is this serious.

Nevertheless, this principle that a vote really, doesn't say

what it appears to say is a principle that, frankly, Mr.

Chairman, I would really quite like to apply to the election

results of last August.

Maybe the vote doesn't always say what certain parties want

it to say, but this is giving the board tremendous powers to

that degree of

interpretation. It seems to me that this is a

very dangerous precedent and if it is likely to be used on very

rare occasions — using a concept that the Minister himself has

used — maybe we should try the bill without this kind of

dangerous concept. Then, if in a year from now the board or the

government feels that it does need this to give the board this

power, it can be introduced.

In the meantime it would seem to me it would be a safer and

more acceptable philosophy that we generally accept that votes

say what they appear to say. But if there are some occasions

when this kind of power is needed, as in 43(3), then it should

be brought into the bill by an amendment by the government, let

us say, in a year's time.

With that thought in mind, Mr. Chairman, I move that we

amend

section 43 by deleting subsection (3). so move.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the apprehension

which the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) enunciates.

I fully admit that this is an unusual power to vest in the

Labour Relations Board. At the same time I stress that it is an

unusual power to meet an unusual situation. However, there are

those situations that the board has been faced with, and

experience has proven that in not a few situations a

representation vote cannot reflect the true intent and the true

wishes of a small unit of workers to indicate their

preferences.

When an unfair labour practice has been proven by an

employer — and I use one illustration of the alien immigrant

workers who are threatened by an employer with deportation or

with a report against their illegal status if they indicate a

preference for the union — when that kind of situation develops

and that unfair labour practice is proven by the board, then I

submit that irreparable damage has been done. It's very, very

unlikely that those workers will have either the knowledge or

the courage to state their true wishes in a representation

vote. Irreparable

[ Page 980 ]

damage has been done to their ability to freely express

their preference.

There are other situations which have come to the attention

of the existing board. It's not a generally frequent situation,

but it has happened on more than a few occasions, and the

effects are so devastating and the losses so great that I think

some device has to be tailored to meet that particular

circumstance and to offer redress to workers who are so

discriminated against.

The provision contained in

section 43(3) provides also that

the board has the authority to grant certification on a limited

basis. Within a 12-month period the board can review the status

of that unit, and if a fair indication is not received that the

union does, in fact, represent the majority wishes of the

members of that unit, then a representation vote can be ordered

at that time. This seems like an adequate safeguard to ensure

that union is not forced upon that unit against their better

judgment and against their will.

It is a rather unique thing. It's an unusual provision, but

I suggest that the consequences of situations such as I have

outlined are devastating such that unusual provisions have to

be devised to come to grips with that problem. Again, I would

suggest that this be given a chance to work. If abuses do

emerge, the board has the wherewithal to meet them. Certainly,

if they don't execute good judgment, we have an opportunity

next year after this has functioned to have a hard look at

it.

Again, if any Member of this Legislature can suggest to me

and document an injustice that has been visited upon the

workers, then I would be quite happy, based on fact, to

consider amendment. But not at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Amendment negatived.

Section 43 approved with amendment.

section 44.

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

in my name on the order paper.

MR. WALLACE: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, in

many ways it does resemble the amendment that I have on the

order paper, but I would like the Minister to comment on the

fact that 44(1) states: "Upon an application for certification,

the trade-union may request that a representation vote be taken…" The

amendment, in which we are in. agreement, states: "…prior to a

determination, by the board, of the appropriate

bargaining unit."

I would certainly accept that part of the amendment, but I wonder if the Minister

would consider the point expressed in my amendment to the effect that when an

application for certification is made it need not only be the trade union that

would be interested in wanting to have a representation vote. Would he consider

the inclusion of the words: "A trade union, or any persons affected, may request

that a representation vote be taken"? In other words, it might be, for various

reasons, the wish of the employer that a representation vote be taken.

It seems to me this would just make the whole subsection 1

of 44 that much more accurate and fair for all concerned. Maybe

not only the trade unions would want to have a representation

vote taken, and the inclusion of the words "or any person

affected" just seems to me to give a fairer and more complete

application of the principle which is embodied in 44(1).

Perhaps the Minister would care to comment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I really don't think the Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) intends to imply that the employer

should have an interest in determining the wishes of a group of

employees to the union of their choice.

MR. WALLACE: An interest in whether there should be a

vote?

HON. MR. KING: No. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the

employer has no legitimate interest in that decision, except to

the extent that he should have a voice, perhaps, in who should

be included or who should be excluded from the unit. But in

terms of the preference of the employees for a union or for

their preference between one union and another, I submit that

the employer has no legitimate interests whatsoever. I quite

frankly know of no jurisdiction where such a proposition is

implied.

Amendment approved.

Section 44 approved with amendment.

Sections 45 and 46 approved.

section 47.

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

section 47, Mr.

Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order

paper which has the effect of deleting this section, because

the

section deals with units which are partly supervisory. I

personally believe that the mixing of supervisory personnel

with other employees will cause a great deal of friction and

difficulties within a plant. Also, the fact that supervisors in

many instances do deal with employee grievances in turn would

create a conflict of interest in many instances.

Basically, supervisory personnel have always been regarded

as a branch of management and in many

[ Page 981 ]

instances they get involved, probably not in directly

negotiating a collective agreement, but at least in making

recommendations as to what should be brought into the

collective agreement in certain areas. For that reason I think

there will be a great deal of difficulty by the inclusion of

partly supervisory units with other employees, as well as

making it difficult for the supervisory personnel to relate as

to where their allegiance might lie — whether it lies on the

side of management or on the side of the trade union movement.

I think that will be a troublesome one for the plant concerned,

a troublesome one for the trade union, and probably a

troublesome one for the Labour Relations Board to

administer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would make a point of order before we

proceed, and that is that this amendment calls for deletion of

a section. The proper procedure is to defeat the section.

Therefore I would declare the amendment out of order and take

the comments of the Member as speaking against the section.

MR. CHABOT: You're suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that my

amendment is out of order. Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've ruled your amendment out of order.

MR. CHABOT: You've ruled it out of order! Mr. Chairman,

that's shocking! I'm here speaking for what I think is in the

best interests of the working people of this province and here

we find a Chairman ruling the little Member for Columbia River

out of order. (Laughter.) Shocking! Shocking, Mr. Chairman!

HON. MR. KING: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it may be somewhat

shocking but not quite surprising.

To speak to this particular section, I would point out that

it has traditionally been the policy of the Labour Relations

Board to allow for the inclusion of supervisory personnel in a

bargaining unit if they did not have as their primary function

the right to hire and fire, or if they weren't primarily

exercising the management function in terms of access to

confidential industrial relations information. The Member for

Columbia River well knows that criterion.

At the same time I think we have to recognize that there is

a growing interest by middle management in trade union

representation.

The existing Labour Relations Board has allowed for the

inclusion of shift bosses in mines to be included in bargaining

units. There are many situations which the Member for Columbia

River should be familiar with where members of bargaining units

exercise a supervisory function without conflict to their

relationship with the company.

I refer the Hon. Member to my own personal profession. I am

suggesting that engineers on the railway….

AN HON. MEMBER: Hoghead.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, hogheads…and conductors on the

railway, each and every trip, exercise supervision over certain

employees on their crew. The very question of exercising

supervision does not imply a conflict with their relationship

and with their function for the company.

I think that the Wood task force has dealt very extensively

with this proposition and recommended essentially the type of

language that is contained in this legislation. Further, I

would point out that you have to read this particular

Section

in accord with the definition of an employee contained in the

first

section of the bill.

MR. CHABOT: I certainly don't agree with the definition that

the Minister of Labour places on the role of the engineman on

the railway as being in a supervisory capacity. He is an

employee and I am sure that he would not be expected or asked

to cross a picket line on the railroad. In view of that, I

refrain from suggesting that he is a supervisor.

My role on the railway was in a supervisory capacity.

HON. MR. KING: Is the picket line your criteria?

MR. CHABOT: No. What I am suggesting is that there is a

possibility of the situation where a supervisor, because of his

responsibilities, might be asked to cross a picket line to

perform a function on the part of management. I have seen those

situations develop. You would put that supervisor in a very

embarrassing situation. If his own members of his bargaining

unit were on the picket line, he would be very hesitant to

cross the picket line and he'd find himself in a serious

dilemma as to where his responsibilities lie.

I have no qualms or arguments about the supervisory

personnel being one bargaining unit, but it is where you mix

the two. I've experienced the situation where, in my capacity

as a supervisor on CP Rail, I've been asked to cross a picket

line in a pulp mill, and I didn't. I asked them please — because not only of my responsibility as a supervisor, but as

an MLA….

AN HON. MEMBER: And you like it.

MR. CHABOT: So they did send another supervisor down to

cross the picket line because I wouldn't cross the picket line

because of my position.

He can be asked to cross the picket line and it can

[ Page 982 ]

be a very embarrassing situation. Where his allegiance would

lie in that particular situation, I don't know. It would be

very troublesome. If an individual that belonged to the same

bargaining unit who was a supervisor of a certain group of

people crosses a picket line, you'd better believe that there

could be trouble.

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

or not they belong to the same unit as other workers in the

plant is a decision for that category of employees and the

board as to the appropriateness of the unit. It well may be

possible, and indeed it is possible under the legislation, for

such a classification of workers to form their own unit, or

indeed be included in an existing unit. That's their

preference, though, I suggest.

With respect to the picket line proposition, I think the

Member answered his own question. Surely the picket line is a

matter of conscience, whether it happens to be your own

particular bargaining unit or some other. Surely, as the Member

has indicated, he let his conscience be his guide. I would

suggest that the same holds true for any supervisor.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, just briefly to

follow this up again, I realize that it may be the preference

of the board or of the unit itself to decide whether or not

these people do belong to the same unit. I don't think anyone

really has any serious objection to supervisory personnel being

brought within a unit. There is a problem of conflict of

interest which arises if those two classes of employees are

mixed in one unit.

I think the Minister probably got a letter from the

Municipality of Surrey, which has expressed some serious doubts

of this. They have put it better, I think, than I could, and I

would just like to suggest that he read that letter if you

haven't already read it.

I'll read one paragraph of it to you so that you understand

their position. They pointed out that a stipulation of

membership in the local union, in CUPE, in the municipality of

Surrey is a requirement that:

"New members take an oath that they will do nothing to injure the interests of any member of the

union. On the other hand, we require a superior to function in

a managerial capacity and to direct and discipline the

employees reporting to him. Both requirements are in themselves

perfectly legitimate but when brought together, a

situation-provoking conflict arises."

I would suggest, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that that conflict

does arise and it could cause some serious problems — for instance, in areas

which employ members of CUPE and many other areas as well. I would just like

the Minister to seriously consider that problem and perhaps make some changes

in that area.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just observe that

I pointed out already that shift bosses in mines do belong to

bargaining units of the steelworkers, of the miners' federation

and so on. I have never heard of any great conflict or any

great problem in terms of foremen exercising the supervisory

function over fellow employees.

MR. McCLELLAND: We're not talking about foremen now. This is

not foremen.

HON. MR. KING: I have heard of no great problem in terms of

them even recommending discipline for the workers in their

charge if they fail to perform their duties adequately.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's the level above foreman.

HON. MR. KING: The suggestion by the Municipality of Surrey

that the contractual provision that requires no member shall do

injury to a fellow member hardly implies, I would suggest, any

dilution of the responsibility to management. I think that

means in moral terms. That's contained in many collective

agreements. I think that's an academic thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I proceed on to

section 481 would just

like to quote an authority in regard to the decision I made in

ruling out of order an amendment standing in the name of the

Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to

section 47. I

quote from May , page 549 and 550,

section 6.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I accept your

ruling. There's no need to quote me the authority.

Section 47 approved.

section 48.

MR. McGEER: I don't intend to move the amendment standing in

the name of the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

regarding

section 48, in deference to the ruling that you were

finally able to make, despite the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot).

We accept your approach to this, Mr. Chairman. We don't want

to let this

section pass without voicing our objections. I

think there has been a considerable debate before about this

whole matter of dependent contractors. I am afraid that the

government and the Minister of Labour have got this blind

eye…

[ Page

983 ]

HON. MR. KING: What do you mean?

MR. McGEER: …to weaknesses in this particular Act. I

think that our party and other Members of the opposition should

do everything possible to wake up the Minister, even at this

late date, and point out to him that this business of the

dependent contractors is going to come back and cause him, the

government and the Labour Relations Board no end of difficulty.

So we plead with the Minister to accept the spirit of this

amendment and to vote with us against

section 48.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I take it that your smile is not a

cynical one — that we are still able, despite our differing

political philosophy, to debate a bill,

section by section,

upon its merits. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there is no merit at all

section 48, and we oppose it.

MR. CHABOT: On

section 48…I said it before a little

earlier in the definition and

interpretation

section 1: there

is concern out there on the part of the independent contractors

with the inclusion of the clause relative to dependent

contractors. They are concerned with the possibility that, come

next negotiating year, next year, there could be an attempt for

the inclusion of the dependent contractors or the independent

contractors within the framework of the master agreement of the

IWA, and with a concerted effort there could be pressure on the

part of Forest Industrial Relations in order to reach a

collective agreement with the IWA.

They might be inclined to pressure those independent

contractors who work for them to participate in the master

agreement in order to resolve a work stoppage. And that is one

of the real problems. That is one of the areas in which the

independent contractor could really be destroyed.

I'd hoped in a previous questioning of the Minister that he

would give us a definition of his

interpretation of an

independent contractor and a dependent contractor, because I'm

sure that when the Labour Relations Board is finally

constituted they will examine the Hansard very closely to see

the areas of concern expressed by the representatives of the

people in this assembly. They will also examine the statements

made by the Minister as to the various

definitions he has

established in the discussion of this labour code of British

Columbia.

I had hoped that the Minister would stand in his place

tonight and tell us what he considers to be a dependent

contractor and an independent contractor, which in turn will

probably dispel the fears that the independent contractors have

out there, as well as give some guidance to the board once it

is fully constituted so that they will have a clear-cut

definition that will make their job that much easier when they

are faced with trouble in this particular 983 section.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the Hon. Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and I had this discussion earlier

on today, as a matter of fact.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, were you on that?

HON. MR. KING: Oh yes, I followed right behind you,

Jimmy.

It occurs to me that it is somewhat curious that the Member

for Columbia River would suggest that I give instructions to

the Labour Relations Board which is, in effect, a quasi

judicial independent tribunal, allegedly free from political

interference — it should have been in the past and certainly is

now. I have no intention, Mr. Chairman, of giving any

instructions to that board.

The term "dependent contractor" is indeed defined in the

definition

section of the bill.

MR. CHABOT: It includes everybody.

HON. MR. KING: It points out that the test of dependency

relates to whether or not the contractor more closely resembles

an employee in his relationship with the parent, whether he is

economically dependent and hence should be classified as an

employee rather than in independent contractor.

Now I can see no reason for great apprehension in placing

the destiny of a contractor before the Labour Relations Board,

because under the existing system and under the new system

every trade union, every group of employees who wish

certification, its destiny adjudicated by the Labour Relations

Board; every employer and corporation has its destiny placed

before the Labour Relations Board when it comes to exclusions

of employees from a union and when it comes to unfair labour

practices charges. So I can see no reason why this group of

allegedly independent contractors should fear this kind of test

of their particular relationship. Have they something to

hide?

MR. CHABOT: No.

HON. MR. KING: If they are genuine and bona fide independent

contractors, then they have nothing whatsoever to fear. But

certainly they will have to bring evidence before the board to

justify their independence. It's as simple as that.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there is a possibility that the workers in

the employ of the independent contractors might not want to belong to a trade

union. They should have their rights respected as

[ Page

984 ]

well. And the fear here is really that the Minister says "within the framework

of the economic circumstances between the employer and the independent." You'd

better believe that every independent contractor is economically tied to his

employer. They are all economically tied. Certainly they are. Because they have

a contract with an individual, with a particular…. Pardon?

HON. MR. KING: The degree of economic dependence.

AN HON. MEMBER: 38 per cent? 42?

MR. CHABOT: Now the degree, the degree is substantial, I

must say, because it has to be substantial if you have a

contract with some individual. You're dependent on him to

fulfill that contract and give you money, so the degree is

great. The degree is great.

No, I think one of the great fears is the fact that the

determination of their destiny, or the destiny of their

employees who might not want to be part of a union, might be

predicated on the fact that a small group within the framework

of a particular operation — it might be small operations, and

your big operation — is subject too, to the whims of a group of

small operators. I'm talking about one-to-two-employee

situations which might affect the destiny of an operation of

100 employees, where the employees, the vast majority of the

employees might not want to be part of a bargaining unit or

part of a union structure.

I think that should have some bearing, because here in

section 48 it says a majority of the dependent contractors

consent to representation by the trade union. Now the majority

of the small contractors might predicate the destiny of the

larger contractor. That's the only thing to fear here in that

situation.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member's

concern there and I think if he reads

section (A)(

b) in

section 2 he will find that the board has the flexibility there

to ensure that the peculiar relationship of the contractor is

protected and recognized. The majority consent of independents

is recognized. There must be a majority consensus. Reasonable

procedures must be developed to integrate dependent contractors

into the bargaining unit, which recognizes their ownership of

equipment and machinery and so on.

The point is if a contractor is found to be dependent and is

an employee within the meaning of the Act, then he is subject

to all the other considerations that any employee is subject to

with the exception that the peculiar circumstances of his

ownership and operation of equipment are recognized. I think

that is an adequate safeguard.

Section 48 approved.

Sections 49 to 52 inclusive approved.

section 53.

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

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

section 53 as amended.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I had an amendment

there too, Mr. Chairman, a copy of which has….

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 53?

MR. GARDOM: That's right, a copy of which has earlier been

filed with you. The Hon. Minister didn't mention to the House

what his amendment is, but I see that he strikes out the words

"trade union" and says that "any person." So that it will now

read "where a question arises under this

section the board, on

application by any person, shall determine what rights" and so

forth and so on.

I would like to know what the Minister's logic behind his

amendment is. My amendment was not to leave it exclusive to

trade unions but was also to bring in employers' organizations.

So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have read that "when a

question arises under

section 53(2) the board, on application

by a trade union or an employers' organization, shall determine

what rights, privileges and duties have been acquired or

obtained," and so forth and so on.

The Minister has decided to grant this right to any

individual whatsoever who doesn't necessarily have to be a

party to the collective agreement. I would like to know the

logic for his amendment, which he has not explained to us.

It seems to me starting off with "trade union", by

amplifying that to "employers' organization" would have better

handled it than the Minister's amendment. He must have a reason

for this and I would like to know what it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe, Hon. Member, that the definition of

"person" would cover that. A person in the definition section,

"'person' includes a corporation, an employer, an employers'

organization, a trade-union, and council of trade-unions."

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would make the same point

that "person" is defined within this Act. So the intent here, I

might like to point out, is to allow an employer to make

application because in

[ Page 985 ]

a situation where a business is merging, or a portion of it

is closing down, then surely the employer has a right to know

and to plan for the effect that might accrue to the union

people.

MR. GARDOM: Which your

section did not initially state, and

that's the purpose for my amendment. So we are thinking along

the same lines.

Section 53 approved with amendment.

Sections 54 and 55 approved.

section 56.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to move, on behalf of the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), Mr. Chairman, his

amendment to

section 56. It is to the effect that wherever the

word "representative" appears in this

section that it be

deleted and the word "agents or agent" be substituted as the

context may require.

The logic behind my colleague's amendment is that within the

definition

section we refer to bargaining agents but nowhere

within the definition

section do we find the word

"representative." It seems to be that my colleague has

established a good point in this, unless the Minister has some

specific reason for having the word "representative" which has

escaped us.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, there is a specific reason, Mr.

Chairman, for using the term "representative" rather than

"agent."

section 15 in the old Act provided for

"representative" rather than "agent." This is a continuation…

MR. GARDOM: But where does that apply in this Act….

HON. MR. KING: …and it's used rather than "bargaining

agent" because historically this word was used and is a

continuation provision. The legislative draftsman and the legal

advice I have secured have made that point very specifically,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. GARDOM: Well, whatever that meant I'm not too sure.

HON. MR. KING: It seems that I'd prefer their advice.

MR. GARDOM: Well, it's not a question of preferring their advice; they're

referring you to a definition on a former statute which you don't have in this

one. You say this is hunky-dory, yet your bill is a law unto itself. I think

you had better re-consult your advisers and suggest to them that if they're

going to utilize terminology in a former statute, they'd better use the

definitions

under the former statute which you have not included here. I so move.

Amendment negatived.

Section 56 approved.

section 57.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in

my name on the order paper; I hope you'll rule it in order. It

deals with the deletion of "the word 'one' and substituting

therefore the word 'two' and by deleting the words 'or on its

own motion'."

I hope I can delete that one word "one" and make it "two"

because what we're talking about is the certification of

councils of trade unions. I really can't understand how one

trade union could be certified as a council of trade unions,

and that's the reason for this.

Also, I don't really believe that the board should have the

power on its own motion to establish a council of trade unions.

Maybe the Minister has some justifiable reasons for the board

on its own motion to dictate that trade unions must form a

trade council. It will be very interesting to hear just what

the justification for this might be.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I certainly do have some

motivation for including this kind of a

section in the bill. I

would think that the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) would be very, very acutely aware of the need for this

particular kind of section.

MR. CHABOT: I am, but not for one union though.

HON. MR. KING: I think you're misinterpreting the language.

This bill does indeed provide for the combination of a number

of trade unions into a council. I want to stress in the House

with respect to this

section that it's one of those very

sensitive provisions that will have to be exercised only in

extreme circumstances.

I think that a number of trade unions, in particular

instances, have done a very admirable job of forming councils

and eliminating fragmentation which is objectionable from every

point of view, The days of units composed of 10 or 30 or 40

people tying up an overall industry composed of thousands of

workers is most unrealistic and is unjustifiable, in my view,

from any point of view.

This is a salutary section, one might say. This gives a

message to the trade-union movement: it is preferable that you

get out and solve that problem,

[ Page 986 ]

such as has been accomplished in the construction industry

and building trades where an admirable job has been done. I

think this holds out some inducement, it's salutary, and infers

to other problem areas that unless they are capable of doing

the job in a voluntary way, there is a legislative provision

here to come to grips with major problems when they occur.

It's one of those sections, like a number of others, that I

certainly hope doesn't have to be used at all. But such a

provision is necessary to protect the public interest that the

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is so

concerned about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Join the club.

Amendment to

section 57 negatived.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, there's a man on his feet.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Chairman,

section 57, before you rush along. I do appreciate very much

the tone of what the Minister says about the need for this

section. Despite that, it's a

section 1 find unacceptable.

One of the main purposes in this legislation is to try and

achieve some…

AN HON. MEMBER: Must be good.

MR. GABELMANN: …form of labour and industrial peace in

British Columbia. I'm afraid this

section will lead to the

opposite result. It's a

section that allows for the Labour

Relations Board, whether they use it or not, in a compulsory

way to force unions to sit down at the same table.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, you're arguing against your Attorney

General.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the fact that the Labour

Relations Board, if it's operating properly, is unlikely to

force unions together that can't possibly sit down together.

But the problem with the

section isn't that this isn't a

desirable goal; the problem is that a great many people in the

community, particularly in the trade-union movement, are going

to be very mistrustful of the board and of the government and

of the Minister as long as this

section remains in the

legislation. It seems to me that it's going to invite the

attitude of suspicion, the attitude of lack of trust that will,

I think, lead not to more industrial peace but in fact to less.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I can't at all be happy with

this section.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I am a bit concerned about this

section as

well. I recognize the problems and what the

section is designed to do. I think

the intent of this particular

section is very progressive. The idea is to have

joint bargaining to create the one-big-union idea within a particular bargaining

unit, and I think this is an admirable aim. I can see where it will help to

stop some destruction within various bargaining units when one group may have

a strike and settle, and then another group the next week will go out and cause

some destruction in a particular industry.

I can also see where the joint bargaining will be of benefit

to some of the unions within a bargaining unit. Some unions,

because they are very strong and well-organized, are able to

get greater benefits than others. These stronger unions, if

they were involved in a larger bargaining unit, would, in

effect, be able to help some of the other workers along in the

other unions. I can see this is another admirable thing about

this clause.

However, I am somewhat concerned about the compulsory

aspects of it. My own feeling is that something like this could

go in if the majority of unions in any bargaining unit were

able to call for a trades council; this might be an acceptable

alternative. For example, in the building trades we have three

or four unions such as the plumbers, the electricians and the

ironworkers who are opposed to joint bargaining, but the

majority of unions are in favour of it. My feeling is, in this

area at least — and I would hope in others — that the

compulsory aspects of this Act would not be needed. I am. a bit

concerned that we have to go the compulsory route.

There is one other aspect I'm a little bit concerned about

as well. I'm just not sure how this will work out; we'll be

watching what happens in the future. I'm a bit concerned that

the idea of joint bargaining will have some effect on the

Canadian unions and may, in effect, become more of a

discouragement to them.

This may be good or bad depending on what happens. If the

unions working in a particular unit do form into a separate

type of union, it may end up with something entirely different

from either the Canadian or the international. But under the

present set-up it may be somewhat detrimental to Canadian

unions organizing within a bargaining unit when they are all

combined together.

MR. CHABOT: Just very briefly I do want to say that I

support the concept of joint bargaining and the desirability of

this kind of situation. I'm sure that in many instances labour

disputes would have been resolved a lot quicker had there been

joint bargaining.

I never thought I would have some friends — the Member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) and the Member for

Richmond (Mr. Steves) — supporting my intent to remove, or on

its

[ Page 987 ]

motion relative to the board on its own motion setting up a

council of trade unions. I never thought I'd have that kind of

support.

Had I known that support from those two Members was

forthcoming I might not have presented the amendment.

(Laughter.) But nevertheless I think the Minister should really

tell us under what circumstances that on its own motion the

board might decide arbitrarily that parties should be put

together.

Section 58 approved.

section 59.

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

my name on the order paper.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to speak to the amendment, because I

want to make sure, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is

carried, Make no mistake of that. Mine was proposed many days

before the Hon. Minister put his in and I find a striking

similarity between the two. As a matter of fact they're almost

identical. So, in view of that fact, and in view also of the

fact that the Hon. Minister, with his usual humility, neglected

to refer to authorship, I indeed intend to support his

amendment and withdraw mine, which is just the same and which

first came in.

HON. MR. KING: I'm happy to see, Mr. Chairman, that the

Member is learning all about humiliation.

Section 59 approved with amendment.

section 60.

MR. WALLACE:

section 60 is a very good section, but we just

wonder if by including a

section with this very reasonable

protection that the employee should have against the employer,

would it not be reasonable to have the same applied….

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking to 60?

MR. WALLACE: I'm trying, Mr. Chairman. It's not always easy,

but I'm trying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Stay with it.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you Mr. Chairman, you're more encouraging

to me today than you were yesterday. Thank you very much.

To be serious, this kind of clause leaves the implication — and I'm sure that

this is not intended — that by making sure that employers need not be penalized

unfairly by employers' organizations while it says nothing about the possibility

of employees being equally penalized or unfairly treated by unions, and the

inclusion of 60, without a similar clause in relation to the protection which

employees might have against unions — suggests that the government is anti-employer

and pro-union.

The amendment that I have suggested, Mr. Chairman, would

simply, in very similar language, make sure that no union could

unreasonably refuse membership to an employee. In very similar

terms, namely, "that no unions shall refuse membership in the

union to an employee or terminate an employee's membership

except for a cause which in the opinion of the board is fair

and reasonable," and I won't repeat the whole amendment.

I have it written and signed, Mr. Chairman.

We've already discovered that a motion to delete a whole

section is not in order, so I would wonder if the Minister

would consider that this would really add completeness to the

intent of

section 60 by affording the same kind of protection

and fair play to the employee that he is extending in 60 to the

employer?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, indeed the same requirements

are made upon a trade union in

section 5 of the bill which was

dealt with some time ago. It prohibits the use of coercion to

induce or indeed to prevent anyone from becoming a trade union

member. And that includes the trade union. Similarly

section 7

requires and imposes a duty of fair representation upon a trade

union.

I would particularly point out those two sections to the

Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). And I would point out

also Mr. Chairman that, in addition to this new type of

protection that individual workers have under this Act, once

again we have the ombudsman who can hear complaints of

individual injustice against any trade union member, as indeed

he can against any member of an employers' group. So, I would

suggest that the requirements for fair play, the requirements

preventing discrimination and coercion, are even-handed in this

legislation and apply equally to management groups and trade

unions.

So, I suggest Mr. Chairman that the amendment is not

necessary; it's redundant and repetitive.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 60 and 61 approved.

section 62.

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

in my name on the order paper.

[ Page 988 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 62 approved with amendment.

section 63.

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

order paper. This is moved because of the fact that

section

39(2)(b)(

i) contemplates an uncertified trade union having a

collective agreement, and this amendment would take note of

that

section and correct our reading of

section 63.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the provisions contained in

section 63 have been modified. The intent is basically to

change the time to commence bargaining from five days after

notice to 10 days so parties can be reasonably prepared. It

imposes an obligation on the parties to bargain in good faith

in trying to come to an agreement.

Now in terms of determining the acceptability of a

collective agreement which has been consummated between an

uncertified unit and an employer, the board is obliged to

consider the structure of the group purporting to represent the

employees in that unit. And they have the full jurisdiction to

determine whether or not there are implications, or inferences

that the unit is dominated from a management point of view. And

I submit that they have the full authority to determine whether

there's any consideration which would mitigate against the

acceptability of the collective agreement.

I really suggest that the Member's amendment is not

necessary and I oppose it for that reason.

Amendment negatived.

Section 63 approved.

section 64.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman on 64 the amendment we have

is quite a simple one. The Minister has refused some of my

amendments tonight because he says they're not needed. I just

suggest to him that in this particular

section he's got several

words that indeed are repetitious and unnecessary.

The last words, "who is included in or affected by the

argument," you've already said that in the section. And

if we're going to follow the precise nature of the bill and not

put in words that aren't necessary, I'm just moving the

amendment that we delete the words at the end, "who is included

in or affected by the agreement…."

It's a very minor amendment, but since we've discussed the fact, as the Minister

has just said, that some of the amendments I've introduced tonight are not necessary,

I think we've got a little bit of the Minister's verbiage which isn't necessary

in this section.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is a matter

of legal language and I am not prepared to accept the Member's

amendment on that basis. The intent is clear: no change in the

parties bound by collective agreement except to add a council

of trade unions. What the Member for Oak Bay views as redundant

language simply recognizes the unusual structure of councils of

trade unions, should they be formed, as separate and distinct

from the normal bargaining unit over employees.

Amendment negatived.

Section 64 approved.

section 65.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in

my name on the order paper. The amendment states, Mr.

Chairman:

"No clause in any collective agreement shall restrict or preclude any of the parties of the agreement

from doing business with any person who is an employer having a

collective agreement with any other trade-union certified under

any Federal or Provincial statute or any employee of such an

employer."

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea) can open his mind a little to this particular problem and

show a breadth of vision that he hasn't previously

demonstrated.

This amendment strikes at the very heart of the worst abuse

that has ever been tolerated in the labour movement of British

Columbia. It's an abuse which should hang as a cloud over every

single Member of this assembly who's been elected in the past

15 years. We have tolerated and accepted clauses in union and

management contracts in this province that have prevented

members of Canadian unions — duly certified — under provincial

and federal statutes, from appearing on any construction site

in British Columbia.

We have absolutely excluded members of Canadian unions from

appearing on construction sites in the Province of British

Columbia. Laws of this province have permitted and condoned

this kind of thing. It's another evidence of the absolute grip

that American unions have upon the labour movement in Canada,

and specifically in British Columbia. If there's ever been a

disgrace with how we have operated labour and management in

this country, this is that disgrace.

Can you imagine! — the Teamster's Union, an

American-controlled union and the Building Trades Council — to

a member, American-controlled —

[ Page 989 ]

passing sweetheart clauses in their contracts…really

holding a gun to the head of the Amalgamated Construction

Association of British Columbia and preventing members from any

Canadian unions showing up on that construction site. If they

do…downing tools and walking off the job. That's what we've

had for the last 10 years in British Columbia, tolerated and

condoned by the laws of this province.

MR. GABELMANN: The IWA is not American.

MR. McGEER: The IWA isn't American! Mr. Chairman, what kind

of nonsense is that?

Right here in Canada we discriminate against our own workers

joining and being members of Canadian unions. They are taken

down and tried in the United States and found guilty of the

crime of advocating membership in a Canadian union. And on the

side these same unions put clauses in their contract, and

enforce them, disallowing an employer of this province from

permitting his employees to be represented by a Canadian union,

even though they're certified under the Labour Relations Board

of British Columbia.

I've read testimony in this House produced in the courts of

British Columbia showing how members of American unions have

appeared before employers in this province and said, in effect,

"Force your employees to belong to our union or we'll see that

you and anyone you employ will be denied work in this

province." It's gangster tactics. If the Members of the New

Democratic Party haven't the courage to step out in this House

and say so, I will.

It isn't good enough, Mr. Chairman, for a country that's

proud of its heritage and anxious to chart its own political

destiny in the future to continue to tolerate in its labour

movement this kind of an unacceptable practice. I know the

former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) agrees with me; he says,

"yes." I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that he backed down because he

brought forward a bill to outlaw this very thing two years ago.

Then, when the American unions descended on his government….

I don't really know whether they broke his will or they

broke the will of the Premier and the other Members of the

cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I suspect that's true, Mr. Chairman. I

suspect that he was forced to back down not by the unions, but

the other Members of his caucus and cabinet who didn't have

enough courage to stand up to this kind of thing. But it

doesn't make it any more acceptable.

I found another thing too, Mr. Chairman, and that is that it's been very difficult

even to have this point of view put forward by the press in British Columbia,

because they too are controlled by American unions. Yes, the reporters' union

is an American union. And the members who work in the composing rooms, they're

members of American unions. They've got no more appetite for this kind of thing

than the B.C. Federation of Labour.

I don't think the general public is aware, Mr. Chairman, of

what the true situation in British Columbia is, but it's time

they found out. It's time we threw out this shameful blot on

our labour relations record; it's time we began to give

Canadian unions a fair break in this country.

I daresay, 10 or 15 years from now when this abuse is

corrected by some government with a little backbone, that

people will stand in this House and refer back to this period

in our history as one when we tolerated the most intolerable

abuse of all: namely, the forcing of Canadian working men, in

order to get a job on a Canadian site, to belong to a union

controlled by a foreign country.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order

paper.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't think we would have the spectre of

Bill 88 raised again in this chamber at any time in our history

in this province. That speech was a disgusting performance. I

have heard it before when I sat in the gallery in years prior

to the last election. It is absolute garbage, and I think those

American reporters up there should know about it, Mr.

Chairman.

If that doesn't illustrate the absurdity of that idiocy that

has just been spouted across the way, I don't know what

would.

The intent of this motion by that so-called friend of the

labour movement is to bust the closed shop. That is what it is

about. He talks about the fact that American unions are

preventing Canadian unions from going on building sites. In

fact, those agreements that are made between the Building

Trades Council and the construction industry also prevent the

IWA from sending trucks onto those sites. In that Member's

terms the IWA is an American union. It is a lot of nonsense,

Mr. Chairman.

Before the reporters are sucked in to reporting that kind of

nonsense, they should be made aware of the fact that that

Member doesn't know the first thing about the labour movement

in this province.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The amendment is designed to bust the closed

shop and nothing more. It is a ploy for management to gain

control, absolute control, over that industry, Mr. Chairman,

this amendment should be tossed out in the most vigorous way

possible.

[ Page 990 ]

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I know a certain Liberal

senator who is going to be cut to the quick by that performance

tonight. I'm not sure who the Member was attacking but I would

suggest that when he uses such terms as "gangster tactics" and

when he uses such terms as "sweetheart agreements," that

it is somewhat disgraceful. Then the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has the colossal gall to

question the courage of this government.

I would suggest, if he's genuinely so concerned about these

aspects of the trade union movement, that he has an obligation

to attend the trade union conventions in this province and to

stand on the platform and enunciate his position before the

trade union movement.

He talks about a lack of courage, but I have yet to hear of

that Member attending one of the workers' conventions and

speaking out against the injustices and inequities which he

sees in the organization of that group. Surely you have that

kind of obligation.

I applaud everyone's interest in Canadian sovereignty but I

think we have an obligation to be consistent. I can't really

recall that Member speaking about the branch plant companies in

Canada who were instructed by American parents not to continue

to do business with China a few years ago.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's different.

HON. MR. KING: That was under federal jurisdiction under a

Liberal government. I didn't hear one protest from that Hon.

Member across the way. If his concern is genuine, how come he

wasn't more vocal on the question, on the threat and spectre of

British Columbia consumers being deprived of natural gas while

the flow still continued across the U.S. border?

I accept the Member's concern. I wouldn't question his integrity and

sincerity. But surely he has a responsibility to be consistent. If he's

going to make that kind of inflammatory speech in the House, using

terms like "gangster tactics"…"sweetheart agreements," surely he has

a responsibility to go

out there and beard the lion in its den. Tell them what you think of

them. That's a freedom fighter. Don't tell me. Don't tell this House.

Get out there where the action is and demonstrate what a big man you

really are.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to demonstrate

my consistency to the Minister of Labour — to repeat the

charges that I have made. Gangster tactics have been used in an

attempt to bust Canadian unions, specifically the Victoria

Paving Company. The testimony is part of the Hansard record of

this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Go to the courts.

MR. McGEER: The sweetheart agreements have been taken to the

courts; it was the very testimony that appeared in those

sweetheart agreements that I read before this House. I would be

most happy, Mr. Chairman, to appear on a platform before any

labour group in British Columbia and make these same

statements.

I regret that the B.C. Federation of Labour hasn't extended

the kind of invitations to Members of the Liberal Party that

they do to Members of the New Democratic Party, but my offer

stands.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, it was a left-handed invitation but it was

there. There was a time when the Liberal Party, in order to get

its view across — I think this was still when the Member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) was working for the

B.C. Federation of Labour — was even prepared to buy

advertising in the B.C. Federation of Labour newspaper. Do you

know what, Mr. Chairman? They wouldn't let us even buy

advertising in their paper.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, it isn't why I'm mad. I merely state that I

am happy to stand up and make the statements I make here

anywhere in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Minister of Labour about

American branch plants in Canada. If we were debating

legislation regarding American branch plants, I would be up

saying exactly the same kinds of things.

We're debating labour legislation. I'm sure that if I were

to get up and make the kind of speech suggested by the Minister

of Labour, you, Sir, would have been the first one to find me

out of order.

One can have a Canadian union and one can have a Canadian

business without it being owned and controlled by government. I

know that is a novel suggestion to some of my friends opposite,

but it is possible — at least, now. Heaven help us if they stay

in power too long.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, with respect to natural gas in

British Columbia, I thought I had made the point to the Premier

and the Minister of Labour that we were being very foolish

indeed to export a depleting resource at any price. The policy

of the New Democratic Party isn't to cease those exports; it's

to sell more at a higher price. What good is that going to do

British Columbia? After all, the policy right along has been to

sell as much natural gas to the Americans as we can at as high

a price as we can get.

I don't see any change in that policy with the New

Democratic Party government. I don't care what the

[ Page

991 ]

market price for natural gas is today. In retrospect it will

appear as though we have sold out our most valuable resource

for a pile of beaver skins and a tot of rum.

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

Your National Energy Board. Your National Energy Board.

MR. McGEER: Well, "Your National Energy Board," says

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please; I would ask the Hon. Member…. Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to stray

away from the amendment.

MR. McGEER: No, but the invitation, really, Mr. Chairman,

was put forward by the Minister of Labour. He challenged me to

say something on the subject and I am saying it. I'm saying

that we aren't protecting a Canadian resource. We haven't in

the past, we aren't at the present time and we're not going to

in the future as long as that government is in power.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I'm not afraid to advocate Canadian policies,

whether it applies to natural gas or not, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Labour is

not in his chair and I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his

remarks relevant to the amendment.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you will be

the first one to point out that the Minister of Labour is

bringing red herrings across this argument because he is

embarrassed by it.

Mr. Chairman, what we have done here in British Columbia

with our labour relations legislation is a disgrace. It is not

what the Canadian working man wants. He doesn't like being held

in the grip of American unions — shelling out all this money

that goes across the border. He wants control of his own

union.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How about car insurance?

MR. McGEER: He wants control of the money which he gives to

the union movement. I think that the attitude of the working

man is no different from the attitude of the average citizen.

Here we have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to strike a blow for

Canadianism. Let's knock them out, one haymaker at a time. Start with American unions tonight, move on to

American businesses as soon as the Premier and the Attorney

General can bring forth legislation. Come up with a common

sense policy — we'll support it; but come up with the kind of

legislation that protects these kinds of blatant practices and

someone with a little concern for the future of Canada has to

stand up and hold a light to that government. You're selling

out. That's what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) in this

government is doing, Mr. Chairman, and he ought to be man

enough to admit it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You got a way with words. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: You got a way with facts!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Members on both sides of the

House to keep their remarks strictly relevant to the amendment

before us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, what's the amendment before us?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member who just

sat down suggested I should be embarrassed and after that

performance I am somewhat embarrassed. (Laughter.)

Let me just make this observation: you know, it just seems

to me that that speech is misplaced. If you feel so strongly go

out and preach the gospel to the trade union movement. They are

the people who decide their own destiny. They are the people.

If you feel so strongly about it don't stand in these hallowed,

protected halls and take such a strong emotional stand. Get out

there where the action is and tell them like it is, Pat.

There's one other point that was made. The Member suggested

that there's been a great deal of gangsterism in the trade

union movement. I resent that. I've been a trade unionist for

25 years.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): That's what he means.

lnterjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well I won't ask the Member to withdraw. I

don't think she really meant that.

However, I'm proud of the working people of this province

and I'm proud of the working people of Canada. I have complete

confidence in the implicit honesty and sincerity of the average

working people. When it comes to the record of the trade union

movement compared to the number of people that they represent,

I think they have a record in terms of

[ Page 992 ]

abiding by the law that is second to none. When we look at

the number of corporations that have been convicted under the

combines Act legislation — rather pale legislation that was

developed by that Member's government — we find some pretty

shocking results in terms of hooliganism in terms of breach of

the law affecting millions of taxpayers in this province.

What really comes to mind when the Member talks about

gangsterism is the very old friend of mine who passed away just

the other day, the former Member of Parliament for Kootenay

West, he who was known as the "squire of the Kootenays." I can

recall when the Liberal government in Ottawa expedited and

allowed the entry into this country of a trade unionist from

the USA who has a record of crime and violence as long as your

arm, one Hal Banks, and the Member for Kootenay West fought and

protested allowing that man into Canada in the first instance.

And who let him in? Who let him in? That great Liberal party

that all of a sudden has a new-found concern for order and

Canadian autonomy in the trade union movement. Shame on

them!

If the Member wants to read about gangsterism in the trade

union movement I suggest that he read Hansard , but Hansard from

the federal House of Commons, when Bert Herridge fought a

valiant fight to prevent the entry of Hal Banks into this

country.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who brought him in?

HON. MR. KING: And what was the record? I suggest that the

blackest mark against the trade union movement in this country

was the record of Hal Banks while he was involved in the

Seafarers' international union in the country of Canada.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who brought him in?

HON. MR. KING: And who let him out? (Laughter.) Who let him

out when he was facing literally dozens of criminal charges for

beating up on innocent trade unionists? He slipped away under

the auspices of a friendly Liberal government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER: Who found him?

HON. MR. KING: Was there an attempt made to extradite Mr.

Banks from the USA? Some newspaper reporters went down and

found him when the Liberals said they couldn't. They found him

living on a ship. But no extradition proceedings were taken

against the honourable thug.

That Member has the audacity and the colossal gall to stand up in this House

and talk about gangsterism in the trade union movement. I say shame on him!

It's a shocking sham! If you have the courage of your convictions, through you,

Mr. Chairman, you'll get out and you'll be consistent, and you'll preach your

story to the working men and women of this province.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I stand up…

AN HON. MEMBER: …for Hal Banks.

MR. McGEER: …to agree with what the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King) had to say, because if there was an awful,

despicable, unconscionable thing that was done, it was for

those dirty Liberals to have Hal Banks in Canada. I absolutely

condemn them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, well!

MR. McGEER: It was a disgraceful, unforgivable act. And Mr.

Chairman, I want to pay tribute to the squire of the Kootenays,

who formerly was in this House, for the battle that he carried

on against that kind of thing. I want to tell you that were the

squire of the Kootenays in this House he never would tolerate

the kind of legislation that that Minister of Labour has

brought in. He'd be standing up and saying the very things that

I'm saying now. Rest his soul in peace.

No, Mr. Chairman, I can agree with the Minister of Labour

about what those dreadful Liberals did in Ottawa. I think he's

right, and if I were an NDP in Ottawa today do you know what

I'd do? I'm dump those awful Liberals. That's what I'd do if I

were an NDP in Ottawa. (Laughter.) If I were an NDP in Ottawa I

wouldn't keep them in power to get a $390-a-month pension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: I'd consider it beneath my dignity. Mr.

Chairman, if I were an NDP in Ottawa today I'd stand on my

principles and I'd throw those dirty Liberals out of

office.

AN HON. MEMBER: So would we!

MR. McGEER: I'd stand up and tell them about all this into

the past, including what they did with Hal Banks. Yes sir, if I

were an NDP, Mr. Chairman, I'd be consistent. I'd have no

hesitation in condemning the Liberals for their sins of the

past or the present but I tell you this, Mr. Chairman: if the

squire of the Kootenays were in this House today he wouldn't be

voting for this legislation. He'd be as ashamed of it as I am.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why don't you quit the Liberal party?

[ Page 993 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What party?

MR. McGEER: I don't have anything to be ashamed of. I didn't

bring this legislation in. I didn't try and defend the Liberals

in Ottawa. And I don't try and defend the anti-Canadianism that

has been the policy of the New Democratic Party that's in the

pocket of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

I don't think any government, whether it's the federal

Liberals or the provincial NDP, should be in the grip of the

American labour movement. So, Mr. Chairman, let the Minister of

Labour show that he's got a little bit of courage, even if

those federal Liberals don't have any courage. Let him stand up

and strike a blow for Canadian unionism even if those federal

Liberals won't do it.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): What happened to

Walter Gordon? Where's Walter Gordon?

MR. McGEER: Let him show, Mr. Chairman, as a representative

of the Kootenays, that he's got this same kind of courage and

statesmanship as that former squire that he so much

admires.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 65 to 68 inclusive approved.

section 69.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to make a couple of comments relating

to this

section which deals with mediation services. During the

election campaign we, as a party, campaigned very vigorously

and very energetically on behalf of a policy that called for

improved mediation services in the province. There's been no

doubt in my mind at all that the Department of Labour,

encouraged by the Minister, has made a number of steps in that

direction.

What I'm worried about in

section 69, Mr. Chairman, is that

the principle that was established by the Socreds, the

principle that during the term of a mediation officer no strike

or lockout can be allowed, is a provision that both labour and

management, Mr. Chairman, are unhappy with.

I'm not so concerned whether they're unhappy with it or not

as I am with the fact that it's a

section that's going to lead

to mistrust on the part of both parties. As long as there is

mistrust of the legislation, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion

that it is going to make the legislation much more difficult to

be effective.

I'm not sure that it isn't a good idea to have the provision relating to the

first 10 days. Perhaps it's a good idea that during the first 10 days of the

mediation officer's appointment no strike or lock-out can take place. But when

it's allowed that the Minister on his own if he wants to can extend the appointment

for a future unspecified period of time, you then have a situation where the

guys on the job particularly won't know whether they are going to be able to

go on strike at some specific date or not because that mediation officer's appointment

could be extended.

Despite the good intention of the section, I believe it is

going to have the opposite effect. The intention of the

Minister is to have legislation that produces industrial peace,

and I can't quarrel with that. But the problem with this

section, as I said, is it has already led to fear and mistrust

and, most of all, suspicion. As long as we have suspicion on

the part of either party or both parties, the legislation is

going to be very, very difficult to make workable.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I wish that the legislation

did not have any provision for the extension of mediation

officers' appointments.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour's (Mr.

Gabelmann) point is well-taken. I think it should be

regrettable and I think it would be

an act of folly to use a

mediation officer as a device to prevent workers from

exercising the right to strike.

I certainly give an undertaking to this House that in a

situation where a mediation officer has served and given his

best efforts to resolve a dispute and has failed, in those

circumstances I would not consider extending his term simply to

thwart a strike.

But the opposite consideration is of importance. In reality

and in practice I have experienced, within the year that I have

occupied this office, a confidential request by one or other of

the parties, and frequently both parties, that the officer be

left in because they really didn't want to exercise those

ultimate options. They wanted an excuse, without indicating so

publicly, that would save face for them; they wanted an excuse

to continue to conduct the discussions and prevent a possible

strike from taking place.

Under those circumstances, the flexibility of leaving him in

can be very beneficial and can, in fact, contribute to a

settlement without a work-stoppage.

If there is an indication by the trade union that they feel

nothing more can be contributed or gained by the officer, then

I think it would be most unwise and most imprudent to leave the

officer in or extend his appointment. That is the intent of

this section, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't disagree with what the Minister is

saying. It seems to me that that has happened: one party or the

other, and sometimes both parties, have made a request to have

the mediation officer's appointment extended.

There are two points to be made. One is that if the

[ Page 994 ]

parties in fact do want to continue discussions, do want to

have the mediation officer continue in that role, then that can

happen. But under the legislation, going with that at the

present time, under

section 81(2)(b), is the fact that they

can't strike in that period.

It seems to me that if a union wants to strike at 2 o'clock

in the afternoon because they have reached an impasse, but the

mediation officer's appointment is still in existence and has a

period of time to go, or the company wants to lock-out in the

same situation, they won't be able to. I think that's the

problem with the section.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is, as I said before, the

whole question of suspicion. From the beginning, my whole

approach in dealing with this legislation has been to try and

make sure we have legislation that is not viewed with suspicion

by either party. That's the problem with this section, and I

don't think the explanations the Minister has made deals with

that. He wants to have the mediation officer's appointment

extended, fine. But don't prohibit the right to strike or

lock-out in that period. That's my point.

HON. MR. KING: (Mike not on.)

Section 69 approved.

section 70.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the same reasons that I said before, I

rule the amendment out of order.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, the amendment's out of order. Where do you

put the emphasis: on the delete or on the renumbering? I'm

putting my emphasis on the renumbering of the

section and

you're putting it on the deleting, Mr. Chairman. I think, Mr.

Chairman, you are mis-directing the emphasis that should be

placed on my amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the effect of deleting the

section entirely is the same thing as defeating it. The proper

procedure is to defeat it; therefore you should speak against

the

section and urge the Members to defeat it.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I just thought I could renumber it a little

bit.

Mr. Chairman, the…. He has ruled it out of order; I guess

we'll throw it away. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, what we are discussing here in

section 70

basically is compulsory unionism. Whether you like it or not,

you're going to get a union; you're going to get….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly. Compulsory collective agreements,

compulsory unionism; what's the difference? I'm going to say

this: the aspects of this

section are going to be extremely

disruptive; they are going to cause a lot of problems.

How many first contracts do we deal with in British

Columbia? Unfortunately, I don't have the figure, but it's

numerous. A great number of first contracts are dealt with in

British Columbia, and how many really go unresolved? How many

really result in not getting a collective agreement? Very few,

very few indeed. Certainly they make the headlines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give me a hint.

MR. CHABOT: Sandringham for one makes the headlines. There

are others, and eventually they are resolved, such as the

Shoppers Drug Mart was eventually resolved. But very few really

result in non-signing of a first collective agreement such as

Sandringham Hospital.

But what's going to happen is that you are not going to get

true collective bargaining, and it is going to be most

disruptive. There isn't going to be bargaining in good faith,

as the Minister has spelled out in the Act in numerous areas,

because the employer in many instances, knowing full well at

the end of the road he is going to be forced into a collective

agreement, is not going to put his final offer forward. He

knows that the collective agreement will be resolved by the

Labour Relations Board.

I think that in many instances the union, as well, will be

unrealistic in their demands. They won't always put what they

really believe should be their objective, relative to a

collective agreement, as far as wages are concerned; they will

lean heavily on the Labour Relations Board to resolve their

dispute. This will create a lot of problems.

I don't think it is always necessary that a union win. They

take their chances once they're certified as to whether they

get a collective agreement. One union official put it very well

indeed — the former international rep, I believe, of the

operating engineers — on the Sandringham dispute. He suggested

that the union had lost and that they can't be expected to win

every dispute; they can't be expected to get a first contract

in every instance.

I think you are going to find a proliferation of trouble in

the signing of a first contract because of this

section that

has been introduced in the new labour code of British Columbia.

I think it is a most one-sided type of section. It's one which

brings compulsion in signing a first agreement. It is not the

type of

section I could support.

[ Page 995 ]

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat surprised at

the position taken by the former Minister of Labour (Mr.

Chabot). I view it as an obligation once certification is

granted to bargain collectively in good faith with the

objective of achieving a collective agreement.

In a situation such as Sandringham, under the former

Minister of Labour's tenure in office, the company was found by

the Labour Relations Board to have failed to bargain

collectively.

MR. CHABOT: Don't get me started on that one.

HON. MR. KING: No adequate device was available under

legislation which would have offered any meaningful penalty,

any effective penalty upon that employer. He had to stand idly

by, as I had to stand idly by subsequently, and watch the true

intent of a certified bargaining unit — which implies

collective bargaining and a contract — be completely thwarted

and frustrated by an employer's determination to refuse to

recognize a trade union.

Now certification is provided under our law and it implies

recognition. And there are penalties for a failure to bargain

in good faith.

This

section seeks to ensure that those provisions are

meaningful and effective.

Now the proposition that this will act as a disincentive to

collective bargaining, I think is somewhat absurd because

surely no employer or union would face the possibility of a

protracted strike simply as an excuse to have the Labour

Relations Board impose a settlement that they may or may not

agree with.

The prerogative and the discretion lies with the Minister of

Labour as to when the board should intervene and impose a

collective agreement under those terms. Now the board similarly

has the discretion to look at the bargaining record of the

parties in determining what kind of a collective agreement

should be opposed or, indeed, if one should be opposed at all

at that stage. So I think that there is no disincentive to

meaningful collective bargaining. There is the knowledge that

somewhere down the line, though, the parties are going to have

to come to grips and sign an agreement, learn to live together

and settle their own problems, Also I should mention that if, in rare occasions — and I

certainly hope it will be very rare occasions indeed I hope it

never has to be used — but if on those rare occasions it does

have to be used, the provision is that the contract shall not

exceed one year. It's a device to get the parties to learn to

live together and become used to the proposition of bargaining

collectively. And hopefully that will get them off on the right

foot.

But I can't accept that we just disavow any responsibility for a unit of workers,

such as the girls at Sandringham, simply because they lack the economic muscle

to gain a collective agreement — and simply because they're women. To me that's

discrimination by a failure to recognize the inadequacy of their economic muscle.

Surely if we pay lip service to collective bargaining that should be achieved

without the strike weapon, we shouldn't take the position, "Look, if they can't

bring the company to their knees, they lose the strike." That's hardly compatible

with the proposition the people on the other side of the House have been putting

forward. The big strong unions are not going to lose strikes, it's only the

little groups and usually the female workers. I think they need a hand-up along

the way, and that's all the

section does.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, during the debate in second

reading I made very clear my feeling on this section.

The Minister's arguments are well put and on the surface, I

think, sound quite reasonable. My concern with it is, first of

all, it's a basic principle for me that in labour relations

there is no room for a compulsory settlement of wages and

working conditions.

The Minister suggests that people can be forced to live

together for a year and in that time will learn to love each

other. Unlike the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), I'm not

very fond of using marital analogies, but I think that analogy

is appropriate in this case. I suspect if you put two people

who didn't love each other together for a year, if they

survived the year they sure wouldn't decide to continue it

beyond that point.

Mr. Chairman, the problem of first agreements is a difficult

one. The point has been asked of those of us who oppose

compulsory settlement of these first agreements — how else do

you give them the economic muscle? Because they're weak,

because they're women in the service industry and they don't

have that kind of power, as the Minister has explained.

The Minister's solution to giving them power is to have the

government intercede, supposedly, on their behalf, I'm not

particularly confident that that's the kind of power we should

be giving these people. It seems to me that if we simply give

them the power that the employer can't hire anyone to take

their place on the job, then we've given them all the power

that they need. Mr. Chairman, I won't pursue this at this

time; I could make an hour's speech very easily on the

subject. It's one that I feel very, very strongly about, but I

will leave it at this point.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we also feel that this is not a

good clause, and most of the reasons have already been stated.

In particular the Minister has pointed out in previous debates

how rare an occasion is that this power is required and

questionably it is a

[ Page 996 ]

measure of compulsion.

We feel even from a non-partisan point of view that the

union movement itself has expressed very substantial concern

about the compulsory nature of this clause. While the Minister

in very good faith believes that in a few occasions this is

necessary, the thought has been expressed that this opens the

door, however slightly, to an extension of the use of

compulsory powers in the hands of the Minister in

labour-management problems which should be settled somehow or

another by the principle of collective bargaining which he so

correctly upholds.

Therefore, for that reason we feel this is a very

potentially serious and disruptive

section of the bill which

even the union movement itself, as I say, has clearly stated

its apprehension about because of this precedent of giving the

Minister compulsory powers to impose agreements. This is

something which the government has always said that it would

strongly resist.

I would suggest that even at this late hour the government

consider very seriously whether the rare occasions where it

might be needed justify the weakening of the whole bill in this

regard in that it contradicts a fundamental principle expressed

by this government on many occasions — in fact as part, I

think, of the election platform in the labour part of their

programme — that they are completely opposed to compulsion.

Here the government, however slightly, has set a very serious

precedent for itself by opening the doors in a realm of

compulsion. We oppose the section.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Chairman, just one word. I don't want to see this whole matter confused

and distorted as being something that's aimed at the whole labour relations

process. What this

section of the bill is talking about is first contract, and

first contract only.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the first

contracts are the great problem as far as women are concerned — we particularly know that in our department. There has been no

success in this particular area. And Mr. Chairman, there can be

no way out of this. I've heard all sorts of criticism, but I've

heard no positive suggestions at this point. Really and truly I

think this is an excellent experiment that the Minister of

Labour is carrying on; I don't really think we should inhibit

this process. I think this is a really good try to bring about

some sort of parity in this whole question.

Section 70 approved on the following division:

NAYS — 12

Chabot

Phillips

Gardom

Richter

McClelland

Wallace

Jordan

Bennett

Steves

Smith

McGeer

Gabelmann

YEAS — 30

Hall

Sanford

Nicolson

Macdonald

D'Arcy

Skelly

Barrett

Cummings

Lockstead

Dailly

Lorimer

Rolston

Strachan

Williams, R.A.

Anderson, G.H.

Stupich

Cocke

Barnes

Hartley

King

Kelly

Calder

Lea

Webster

Nunweiler

Young

Lewis

Brown

Lauk

Liden

PAIRED

Radford

Fraser

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the

Speaker, would you ask leave that the vote be recorded?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that on

section 70 in committee a division took place and asks leave

that this be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada