1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1633 ]

CONTENTS

British Columbia Noise Control Act (Bill 66). Mr. Gabelmann

Introduction

and first reading. — 1633

Oral Questions

Deduction of widows' pensions from ICBC compensation payments.

Mrs. Jordan — 1633

Crude oil supply from Alberta. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1634

Site of new oil refinery. Mr. McClelland — 1634

Parkland acquired at Cosens Bay. Hon. Mr. Radford answers — 1636

Student summer employment programme. Hon. Mr. King — 1636

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates.

On vote 120. Hon. Mr.

King — 1637

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like

this assembly to welcome a group of people who have come here

from the Vancouver Parks Association. Included in this group

are: Marshall Smith, director of recreation for the Vancouver

Parks Board; two park commissioners, Mrs. Atkinson and Mr.

Livingstone. Also here are community centre directors: Mr.

Shelton from Grandview; Mrs. Anders from Hastings; Mr. Warren

from Douglas Park; Mr. Booth from Thunderbird; Mr. Thrussell

from Kitsilano; Mrs. Pearson from Dunbar; Mr. Vick from Marpole

Community Association and Mrs. Eaton from Kerrisdale Community

Association.

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

would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of

students from Alpha Secondary School in North Burnaby who also

have with them a group of visiting students from Newfoundland

who are being hosted by the Alpha students.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would

very much like all of the Hon. Members to extend a very cordial

welcome to Mrs. Inez da Rosa, MBE, from Hong Kong and her

husband, Mr. Fernando da Rosa. They are in the Legislature this

afternoon with my secretary, Mrs. Teresa Campos, and her

husband, Mr. Alvaro Campos.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I would like the House to

welcome Mr. Norman Gabana, the senior alderman of the City of

Trail and elected representative of that city on the board of

the Regional District of Kootenay-Boundary. Mr. Gabana is also

chairman of the planning committee of the regional

district.

Reading and receiving petitions.

CLERK: A report, office of the Clerk, April 23, 1975, in the matter

of the petitions presented to the House on the 22nd day of April, 1975, by the

Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) and the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan):

"Standing order 73(5) provides that the signatures of at

least three petitioners shall be subscribed on the sheet

containing the prayer of the petition. If the said petitions do

not contain the signatures of at least three petitioners

thereon, they accordingly do not comply with the standing

order. All of which is respectfully submitted, I.M. Horne,

Clerk of the House."

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA NOISE CONTROL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gabelmann, Bill 66, British Columbia

Noise Control Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

DEDUCTION OF WIDOWS' PENSIONS

FROM ICBC COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to direct my question to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. Would the Minister advise the House if widows

receiving widows' benefits under the Canada Pension Plan have

the amount of the Canada Pension Plan widows' benefits deducted

from ICBC accident compensation benefits?

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

the same rules apply to ICBC as apply to other areas of compensation. I will

check it out specifically, but that's my understanding.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, just a further supplementary:

while the Minister is checking it out, would he please check

out also if they are receiving benefits, for the children

they're supporting, from Canada Pension — if that amount is

deducted? Would he also check out whether or not there is a

premium paid for this by the insurers, and also would he bring

back to the House information as to whether or not, when there

was a choice of insurance companies in the province,

individuals would receive the benefits they paid for when they

took out their auto insurance regardless of whether they had

income from old-age pensions or widows' pensions or children's

pensions?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will certainly take that into

consideration, but I would draw your attention to the fact that

the regulations are public and are published.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, in response to the Minister I would

suggest that this information, which appears to be true and is

awaiting confirmation from the Hon. Minister, is coming as

quite a shock to a number of older people and widows in British

Columbia who are having accidents, making claims with ICBC

and

[ Page 1634 ]

finding they're being ripped off.

CRUDE OIL SUPPLY FROM ALBERTA

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Premier and Minister of

Finance, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the statements of Mr. Jim

Rhodes of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. as reported in this

morning's Province , may I ask the Premier whether the

government has completed negotiations with Alberta with a view

to securing supplies of crude oil for this new British Columbia

refinery?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

inform the House that negotiations are going on. There are a

number of things we are looking at in terms of those

negotiations. The Premier of Alberta has also publicly verified

that the inquiries are being made, and negotiations are going

on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Premier when he expects to

receive assurances from Alberta of the supply of crude for this

proposed refinery?

HON. MR. BARRETT: When the negotiations are completed.

(Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, could I rephrase my

question? When is the expectation of these negotiations being

completed? If the cabinet is now trying to decide where to

build, it seems sensible to get some assurance before that of

getting crude from Alberta.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Member.

SITE OF NEW OIL REFINERY

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

supplementary to the Premier: yesterday the chairman of the

British Columbia Petroleum Corp. said that the cabinet

committee was meeting today to decide from three sites:

Merritt, Roberts Bank and Surrey. Today the Premier announced

that Merritt was no longer being considered but Clinton was. I

wonder, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Rather, Roberts Bank was no longer being

considered but Clinton was. Would the Premier be prepared to

table the documents or the studies that have made Roberts Bank

no longer a feasible site and have now included Clinton as one

of the sites? Would it be possible to have the documents tabled

as they're done?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not quite sure of the question, but let me inform

the House of where we're at. The cabinet committee did meet this morning and,

as a matter of fact, four sites, after the completion of all preliminary studies,

were brought to us at this morning's cabinet committee. Those four sites were:

Roberts Bank, Surrey, Merritt and Clinton. Merritt and Clinton are both in the

same general area. Roberts Bank was eliminated. Unless somebody in this House

wants to espouse Roberts Bank as a location, there's not much point in tabling

the report.

MR. McCLELLAND: Why was it eliminated?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it was eliminated for environmental

and seismographic reasons.

Thank you very much for your assistance. I knew you'd be

some help some day. (Laughter.)

After that advice that was received, we decided on the best

advice that Roberts Bank was out. That doesn't mean we're not

thinking of going into our banking business — we're talking

about a different bank.

Now there are three sites left.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where does Merritt fit in?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Merritt? It's in the interior.

MR. McCLELLAND: How come Clinton all of a sudden became...?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What you're dealing with is your own

hysterical speculation rather than facts. I'm trying to tell

you the facts and you don't want them now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm trying to give you.... I'm answering

the question; please don't interrupt the answers. The answer is

that there are three sites left that we're looking at. All the

preliminary studies have been done. We're not committed to any

specific site. We've now announced that we're going to meet

with the mayors and councils of Surrey, Merritt and Clinton to

share with them the information of the preliminary studies.

MR. McCLELLAND: Behind closed doors?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If they're interested, as the elected

municipal officials, to go further, then to go further we say

that we must include detailed studies of their area and that

they must commit themselves to public hearings when those

detailed studies are completed. Only after that will we go

ahead and choose a location in conjunction with them. We

are

[ Page 1635 ]

proceeding in an orderly, rational manner. I know that's

difficult for the opposition to handle, Mr. Speaker, but that's

the route we're going.

MR. McCLELLAND: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I asked the

Premier whether he would be prepared to table with this House

those studies so that all of the people involved could have a

look at them and find out what the rationale was. Secondly,

will the Premier guarantee that those meetings with the

councils will be held in public rather than behind closed doors

as has happened so far?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I will not guarantee that the

Social Credit caucus holds their meetings in secret or in

open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your business and it's the

councils' business. We will go to the councils and tell them

exactly what the preliminary information is. We have an

obligation to do that. Anything less would not be responsible.

I don't want anyone else to go around playing politics with

this issue, as some irresponsible people have been doing.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it was also stated,

on the same subject, that the government would acquire 51 per

cent of the equity in the refinery. Regarding the other 49 per

cent, particularly because of an interested observer in the

gallery, I wonder if the government has made any decision about

using Arab money for the other 49 per cent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I appreciate the question. It

is true that the government is seriously considering having 51

per cent of the ownership of the refinery. There are a number

of internationally known oil companies which are dealing with

the Petroleum Corp. and wish to be equity holders in the

enterprise as well. They are presently relying on their

supplies in British Columbia from other outlets, and they are

looking for more secure outlets, so we're talking to them on

the basis of a first-come, first-served approach. There is a

great deal of interest in this refinery; we can't serve all the

private capital that wants to come in and be partners to this.

They're flocking to B.C. to get a part of the action, but we'll

have to be discriminating as to who we allow to share with us

on an equal and fair basis. We'll give all the private

entrepreneurs and oil companies a fair hearing, but no favours

to anyone.

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

Speaker. In view of the suggestion made by the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk) that the location of the refinery had to be in close proximity

to the market, could the Premier indicate whether or not there's any maximum

distance from the greater Vancouver area within which this refinery might be

built?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I appreciate that question.

The Minister of Economic Development has done an excellent job

in his analysis in terms of the conditions that he was told to

look at for his department — purely on economics. Economics

dictate that the lower mainland location certainly would be

cheap. On the other hand, it's within the range of consumer

prices and wholesale prices to go beyond the lower mainland.

That will be part of the consideration — up to Merritt and to

Clinton.

The Merritt location and the Clinton location are close....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Or Calgary, Lethbridge....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Please, Mr. Member. Don't make fun of this

very serious subject.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You haven't got any crude.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Please.

The distance, of course, is related to the location of the

pipeline itself from Alberta. Merritt and Clinton make

themselves attractive; they're within a range acceptable for

limited additional costs and close enough to the market. That's

why they came down in the narrowing in of the sites.

We're going to make the decision based on economics,

environment and the socio-economic impact of the project

itself. But we want the local communities — as I announced this

morning — to be part of the process. Now that the government

has completed the preliminary work, they're going to be part of

the process as we lay the facts in front of them. I welcome

support from all Members of this House, regardless of party,

for this great project in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan on a further

supplementary. Then could we get on to other business,

please?

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister, in speaking to this oil refinery,

talked about economics and responsibility. I'd like to ask him,

in view of the fact that Mr. Rhodes, who is the pilot of this

project for British Columbia, has announced that the capital

costs will be written off within seven years:

[ Page 1636 ]

Does the Premier himself, the Minister of Finance, not think this is rather

an unseemly, rapid write-off?

Upon what preliminary studies did Mr. Rhodes base this statement, and is

the Minister of Finance prepared to make those preliminary studies available

to this House so that we may understand the price he's paying for his land

which he has not yet selected?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One question at a time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd be pleased to answer that

question.

Out of the experience of the Columbia River we decided to go

into a profitable venture. As a result we see a payoff between

seven and nine years out of this project. This is not a

giveaway project. We are interested in profit and return to the

people of British Columbia, and Mr. Rhodes' figures are

accurate. I appreciate the opportunity of answering that

question.

The Member wonders if it's too fast a payout. It's a payout

that the present oil companies are getting out of their

profits, and I like to think that, just like Can-Cel, we can do

just as well as the oil companies. We're in the same field.

PARKLAND ACQUIRED AT COSENS BAY

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

The other day the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) asked

the question: does the acreage acquired at Cosens Bay, more

commonly known as the Goldstream Ranch, cover the entire area

recommended a few years ago by the parks branch? If the Member

is referring to private land, the answer is yes. If the Member

is referring to Crown land, the answer is no. But we are

discussing some additions of Crown lands with the other

departments.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister then say that the area that

contains Deep Lake and the other swamp area, known as the

gulch, was included in the purchase?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Yesterday the leader of the Liberal

Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) asked the question as to why the special employment

branch of the Department of Labour had applied for waiver of

section 8 of the

Human Rights Code as it applied to the special student summer employment programme.

I would point out to him that that

section is permissive for the purpose, as

I explained yesterday, of allowing special programmes for special groups. The

student summer employment programme is geared to those under 24 years of age

and in that sense is discriminatory against other age groups. It's a programme

designed specially for students in the summer recess, and they customarily let

the human rights branch know what the purpose and philosophy of the programme

is so there is no conflict.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask the Minister then if the

entire student summer employment programme will then be put to

these special groups — these specially disadvantaged groups such

as potential high school dropouts and other groups? It appeared

from reading the information that was coming from the

government that the priority should be given to those who are

potential university students and the second priority should be

given to those who are potential high school dropouts — which

creates certain dilemmas.

The other problem is that there seems to be no programme for

anyone who is not a member of a disadvantaged group. I wonder

if the Minister has some other programme which might deal with

the ordinary citizen or student in that age group.

HON. MR. KING: I indicated that the area of possible

conflict is with respect to age, not with respect to the

programme content. The age of the students is customarily below

24 years; therefore those above that age are excluded. That's

the area of possible conflict, rather than the criterion for

hiring of students, be they dropouts, high school students or

university students. In this case the programme is geared to

university students, although it's not mandatory that they be

students. People who are dropouts are in fact considered for

employment. It is possible under the legislation to mount

programmes geared toward other disadvantaged groups, if that's

indicated at any particular time of the year. So I think he

should not confuse the hiring criteria with the age

requirement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's nothing except disadvantaged

groups.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

On vote 120: Minister's office, $94,135.

[ Page 1637 ]

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I just want to make a

few very brief comments about the department before I welcome

questions from the opposition.

I would basically like to recognize the good work that has

been done by the departmental staff throughout the past year. I

think there have been some very encouraging and significant

trends in labour relations in the province, from a variety of

viewpoints.

Certainly in industrial relations we have seen a significant

reduction in the number of man-days lost in strike activity.

I'm sure that that is most welcomed by all Members of the

House. Basically that is attributable to hard-working people

within the department.

I want to pay a special tribute to the mediation services

branch of the Department of Labour who, as many of you may not

know, are called upon for an unusual kind of employ with the

government. On many occasions in the heat of negotiations our

mediation officers spend the entire night in discussions with

the trade unions and management, seeking solutions to strikes

which could possibly inconvenience the public and disrupt very

crucial services in the province. I think it is well that the

Members of this House and the public understand and appreciate

the very dedicated type of effort put forward by our mediation

officers on a year-round basis.

Again, I would like to pay tribute to the manpower

section

of the department under the administration of my Associate

Deputy Minister, Mr. Azad, who is on the floor of the House

today. I think we have brought that branch of the department

under Mr. Azad's stewardship to a well-functioning branch in

terms of meeting the demands of industry for qualified and

skilled workers in the province. We have seen a very, very

significant increase in the number of people under vocational

and technical training in the province. Mr. Azad has been doing

an effective job in that area.

It is very difficult to go through all the branches of the

department and single people out, but my Deputy Minister, Jim

Matkin, has certainly brought many fresh and vigorous ideas to

the department. He has worked long hours, as have most of the

senior staff of the Department of Labour.

I am pleased to say that on pretty well all fronts, be it the manpower side

or the industrial relations side, the human rights branch or the various other

areas, we have developed what I think is a very healthy relationship with industry

and with labour in the province. I suspect that there is more consultation on

a variety of fronts now than there ever has been in past years. I think that

is acknowledged by both industry and labour. We have many joint committees where

we are working together to overcome problems in terms of manpower training,

in terms of safety requirements, in terms of trying to project new trends in

industrial relations and so on. All of these things are very positive.

I just wanted to pay tribute to the many people in the

department who have really put in a tremendous effort, an

effort that goes beyond the normal type of role that public

servants play in a variety of other departments. Mr. Chairman,

I think that with that I will simply turn over the floor to the

opposition Members with the hope that they are able to zero in

on some of the particular areas that interest them. I want to

assure them that I will do my best to respond in a way that

will provide them with some additional information and so help

them understand the kind of structure we are trying to develop

and the kind of problems that we encounter on a day-to-day

basis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I would like to begin my

remarks by...

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Did you shuffle your

cabinet?

MR. SMITH: ...addressing a few remarks to the Minister of Labour and

making a few observations as I see them...

AN HON. MEMBER: You came up with all jokers.

MR. SMITH: ...on the scene of labour-management relations within

the Province of British Columbia.

I think it is fair to say that when you analyse the scene in

British Columbia, it is never a static position. It is

continuously changing. There is constant change taking place

within the framework both of labour and management. The present

Labour Code with which we deal in the Province of British

Columbia is the outgrowth of a lot of labour legislation that

has been with us collectively over a long period of years. It

probably reflects to a greater degree the most frequently

voiced opinions of the labour force as expressed through their

labour union representatives over a period of time. So over a

period of years, the legislation we have before us now as a

Labour Code has been really there as a result of modifying and

changing our labour regulations to fit the particular situation

in which we find ourselves in the Province of British

Columbia.

I think it is fair to say that the Labour Code as we see it

today in the Province of British Columbia is very favourable to

organized labour and to union representation. I think it is

also fair to say that the Minister, who has made his point of

view known quite often in the Province of British Columbia, has

an objective in mind; and that is to provide the

[ Page 1638 ]

legislative machinery within this province so that all

labour groups, regardless of what their vocation may be in the

province, will have the vehicle through which they may decide

if they wish to be involved in a collective bargaining

agreement.

I think perhaps the Minister anticipates the day that all

labour, regardless of what location they are in, will be

subject to a labour union contract which was bargained

collectively. Now that's his position, and as Minister of

Labour I presume he is entitled to that opinion.

Certainly the Labour Code, as we see it today, coupled with

the decisions that have come down from time to time,

particularly during the last two years by the Labour Relations

Board, reflect a bias in favour of the positions taken by

labour unions. That's not to discredit either the labour unions

or management or the Minister of Labour. I think it is a matter

of fact and a matter of record that our labour legislation

today in the Province of British Columbia certainly reflects a

bias in favour of organized labour.

Perhaps as a result we have conflicts, either present now or

anticipated from labour negotiations that will take place in

this province during 1975, that place all the citizens in the

Province of British Columbia in a position of wondering just

what type of an atmosphere will exist during the labour

negotiations which must take place in very major contracts in

the Province of British Columbia this year.

I'm sure that both labour and management are giving lots of

thought and spending a lot of hours considering this problem

right at the moment.

On the other side of the coin, if I can use that phrase, on

the management side you see a position of increasing concern.

They are concerned about labour unrest in the Province of

British Columbia. They are concerned that automation, either

fully or partially, has brought about a great disinterest in

work by the majority of the people involved in delivering their

labour to industry or whatever today. They are concerned about

strikes, and they are concerned about work-to-rule regulations

or a pattern that has developed along those lines. They are

concerned about the fact that labour quite often decides to

take study sessions rather than defy labour-management

regulations. They are concerned about picketing and the

renegotiation of a large number of existing contracts which

come up for renewal in 1975. Certainly management is concerned

about the demands that will be made upon them for increases in

salary and other fringe benefits this year.

In that respect they must look at the settlements the

province has given to the civil servants in British Columbia

and, in fact, other areas, including the federal politicians in

Ottawa, when they consider what may be asked of them in the way

of salary increases during 1975.

In some circles there is so much concern that they feel that substantial increases

could result in their early demise from the industrial sector of the province,

and that in order to remain competitive, particularly in the sense of the export

market, there are only so many dollars that can be paid out in any given time

without everyone in the province feeling the impact of unemployment. Certainly

we have as high a rate of unemployment today as we have had for a long time,

even though it is reduced by one-tenth of one percentage point. It is certainly

nothing to be proud of. We anticipate that the unemployment rate could go much

higher.

The other thing that I think both labour and management and

government, particularly government, must be concerned about

today is that it is now possible for a relatively small but

highly skilled percentage of people employed in any given

industry to bring about a tremendous amount of inconvenience

and hardship through the withholding of their services to a

large segment of the public. Quite often the public, the third

party in this case, are the innocent victims that are affected

by disputes between labour and management. They are not

directly involved, but they are certainly affected.

I think a good example is the problem we have had with the

controllers on airlines like Air Canada, where a relatively

small segment of the employed people in that particular

industry were able to tie up an entire continent and the entire

Dominion of Canada. Yet the result was, naturally, to give them

a substantial increase in wages, salaries and benefits which,

in turn, were almost immediately passed directly on to the

consumer at the other end by increases in air fares. So the

third parties involved, in my opinion, today have more right to

be concerned than ever before.

Mr. Minister, I think that it's high time we held both

labour and management fully accountable for their actions in

the Province of British Columbia. I think they should be held

fully accountable in the same manner as any other individual is

in this province. They should be fully accountable to the

courts of this province for the action that they participate

in. Too often today, and in increasing numbers of cases, we

find that both sides to a dispute have acted irresponsibly.

Illegal action takes place, irresponsible action takes place

and it must be open to challenge by the large segment of the

public who are not directly involved. I think the public today

more than ever before is asking for a basis of common justice

for all people, including labour unions and managements

involved in labour disputes for whatever the cause might

be.

There's a demand today that more decisions be made by the

courts and not by appointed bureaucratic boards who are above

the courts and beyond their control, and for rights of appeal

to be opened so that the courts can be the final

arbitrators

[ Page 1639 ]

in many of these things. As I view the situation, there is

increasing public displeasure today with the games played by

both labour and management when it comes to the crucial time of

renegotiating a new contract and a collective bargaining

agreement.

It's becoming a threadworn phrase, this matter of collective

bargaining and negotiating in good faith. If you were to take a

poll in the Province of British Columbia today, I think you

would find that the majority of people believe, because of what

they have seen happen in labour disputes, that there is no such

thing as bargaining in good faith by either side, or very

little of it, involved now. It's generally the big stick

approach by both sides. Really, it comes to a head-on

confrontation between labour and management before anything of

significance takes place.

People have a right to feel that they're being used as the

pawns in this game, and quite often they're the ham in the

sandwich. I believe that it's up to government to at least

reflect in their policy their displeasure with this practice

and say that there has to be an end. Industrial peace is

something that we all strive for in the Province of British

Columbia. In the long run, this continual confrontation between

labour and management must stop. It's one of those things that

we can only afford in the most prosperous of times, but when we

get into times of difficulty and inflation and depression of

the economy, it just is not one of those positions that we can

support indefinitely.

I'd like to know what the Minister's opinions are on a

complex problem, I agree, but one that is involving ever more

increasing numbers of people in the Province of British

Columbia, who are not directly concerned but indirectly feel

the brunt of everything that happens on the labour-management

relations field.

I'd like to know the Minister's point of view with respect

to members of the cabinet, including himself, acting as

directors or taking positions in Crown corporations in the

Province of British Columbia. I believe that because of the

situation with respect to the B.C. Railway, the Minister

divested himself of responsibility of a directorship there. I

say rightly so, because a conflict of interest was involved.

You're not able to serve two masters at one time and do justice

to either of them. That was the exact position that you placed

yourself in when you allowed yourself to become a director of

the B.C. Railway.

A number of the Members of the official opposition made a tour throughout the

province, and I was one of those Members, talking to the people who work for

the railway at the time when they were out on strike. There was dissatisfaction

with this problem, and it was mentioned to us in almost every place we visited.

They felt that it was time that the Ministers of the Crown divested themselves

of any responsibility for directorships in Crown corporations.

If it's the policy of the NDP to continually and

increasingly become active in the business and industrial

sector of the Province of British Columbia, in the forest

industry, in the housing industry, in the petroleum industry —

you name it now — then it's equally important that the public

be protected and that Ministers of the Crown are not directly

involved in a department where they may become subject to

conflict of interest. I'd like to know what the Minister's

feelings are on that particular matter.

I know we had a large number of people who are members of

the farmer's union of British Columbia lobbying all Members in

the Legislative Assembly the last few days respecting their

desire for permissive legislation which would allow them to

become subject to a collective bargaining agreement. I think

the Minister of Labour should tell the committee what his stand

is on the matter and how he feels he would implement such

legislation, or if in fact he has any intention of bringing

before this House that type of legislation.

There's one other area, too, that I would like the Minister

to comment on, and that is the matter of industries not

directly involved in a labour-management dispute being picketed

and their employees, because they may be members of an

affiliated union, respecting that picket, thereby being

deprived of the right to earn an income. I think it's a very

unjust and unfair thing for one segment of industry, who may

have a dispute with their employer, to picket another segment

of industry that has an ongoing contract which is in force and

in place and being respected on both sides at that point. Those

people respect the rights and privileges of the union to the

extent that if a picket is thrown up they don't cross the

picket line. As a result, you have a number of people unjustly

and unfairly deprived of making a living.

It's one thing to be

part and parcel of an industrial dispute in which you are

actively involved between your particular union and the

management of your particular industry, but it's something else

to use that type of weapon as a means of creating pressure on

industry collectively other than that particular industry the

employees are involved in.

I made a few points to which I believe the Minister of

Labour would be anxious to reply. Perhaps if he would do so, we

could get on to some of the other Members in the committee who

would also like to pose questions to the Minister of

Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to respond to the Hon.

Member for North Peace River in order of the points he brought

up and the concern that he expressed.

He indicated that he read my objective as being to

[ Page 1640 ]

provide a vehicle which would give working people in the

Province of British Columbia the right to make their own

decision as to whether or not they should be represented by a

trade union. That's very true; that's correct. I would think

that that would be the objective of most governments,

regardless of their philosophy, which believe in the right of

the working people to make their own decision as to

representation. I certainly subscribe to that approach.

We have no legislation before the House with respect to the

agricultural and domestic workers who, I think, the Member was

probably hinting at. There was a committee which sat — a

committee of which the Member for North Peace was a member —

and held wide discussions throughout British Columbia on the

wisdom of extending the right to organize to workers in the

agricultural sector. I would just point out that even in the

industrial sector of the province the final decision as to who

will or will not be allowed to be a member of a trade union is

vested usually in an independent agency — in our case, the

Labour Relations Board. That agency has historically throughout

Canada — indeed, throughout North America — made that

determination, in the first place, on the basis of whether or

not the worker is an employee in the true sense, whether

there's an employee-employer relationship. Beyond that was the

question of whether that employee exercised a management

function or was in a position of confidence or confidentiality

with respect to information on industrial relations; that's the

historic test.

Naturally the legislation that gives people the right to be

covered leaves a final adjudicative responsibility to some

agency to view the individual circumstances and the individual

applications. So I think it should be understood that because

you pass permissive legislation, that does not indicate

automatic coverage to everyone in the agricultural sector and,

indeed, everyone in the industrial sector. They have that test

to go through. That's traditional and historic.

He indicated that I show a bias. Well, I suppose that

depends on where you're sitting. From the Social Credit point

of view, undoubtedly I do show a bias. I have a certain

political philosophy and I recognize the Social Credit bias.

We're somewhat poles apart, I would think.

But I think what is really important is that the law

governing the framework of labour relations is seen to be

equitable and even-handed. I believe that to be the case. Quite

frankly, my own feeling is that that is the way it must be.

Without that acceptance, without that credibility, from either

labour or management's perspective there is no hope that the

government can play a positive role in moderating the conflict

of industrial relations.

While you may say that some of our legislation is biased, you know that depends

on your political philosophy, but in terms of administration of the legislation

on the statute books now, the indication I receive from management and labour

is that they feel a fair balance has been struck, a fair balance for the proper

functioning of labour's rights and for the proper functioning of management's

rights.

We are making changes as we go along. Certainly we find weak

spots. Certainly we find changing circumstances. That is the

nature of industrial relations; indeed, it is the nature of

life. But I don't think it really serves anyone's best

interests, neither the province's nor the party's, to have the

politicians indicating a bias or a prejudice.

I accept that the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

means well in his recommendations and advice on how the process

should be approached. I disagree with him, but I wouldn't call

him prejudiced; I would call him, perhaps, ill-informed in

terms of practical industrial relations because there is no

basis for a government to come down in an autocratic way and

say to management and labour: "Look, you must conform to this

concept of moderating your postures, and you must conform." I don't think we have a right to impose that kind of

judgment on the responsibility of people in a free society. I

want to suggest to the Hon. Member that where that approach has

been tried, it has been notably and significantly ineffective.

It has produced more conflict rather than more harmony.

I think what we have to try to do is to, first of all,

convince the parties that they have an equitable, reasonable

system, that they have a fair shake, as it were, and to

convince them within that structure that they have an

obligation not only to their own interests but also to the

community at large, and try to persuade them to be reasonable,

to be sensitive to that obligation in a social way.

I could go on about that, but I don't want to waste the time

of the opposition Members whom I know have more questions.

The Member made a reference that "bureaucratic boards should

not be above the courts." He seemed to be suggesting that the

courts are a more appropriate agency to regulate

labour-management relations than would be an administrative

tribunal such as the Labour Relations Board. That is your point

of view — you are welcome to it. But I would think it is a

pretty lonely point of view.

I can't find anyone, on either the labour or management

side, who would advocate going back to the courts in terms of

regulating even strikes and picketing laws because the Labour

Relations Board is the agency that is in touch with

organization of workers from day one when they start an

organization campaign, through the certification process,

through the collective bargaining apparatus, mediation, and the

whole range of requirements that they must fulfil, right

through to the regulation of

[ Page

1641 ]

the laws of strikes and picketing. Surely that continuity,

that relationship, that understanding of the relationship which

exists between the employee and the employer is helpful. It is

helpful in trying to find persuasive remedies rather than

coercive remedies.

All I can say is that the Member's point of view is pretty

lonely because the industrial relations community in British

Columbia is indeed, I think, in pretty wide agreement on this

proposition.

Interestingly enough we have had extremely wide interest

shown in the approach that British Columbia has taken, not only

from within the Dominion of Canada but from states south of the

border, from as far away as Australia. We have had overtures

and requests for more information on the approach we have taken

under the Labour Code. So I think more and more people are

becoming persuaded that this is a better approach. In fact, as

I indicated, when we see a reduction of over half a million in

man-days lost by strike activity in a major bargaining year, it

doesn't indicate that we are out of the woods, but it is a

positive indicator and one to which we should pay

attention.

He says that there is no bargaining in good faith in B.C.,

and I think that's a rather regrettable statement. I'm not sure

the Member meant it, Mr. Chairman. I think perhaps it was a bit

of an exaggeration.

It is true that there are those who abuse good faith at the

bargaining table, but we are dealing with hundreds of thousands

of people — citizens of British Columbia, incidentally — and I

think we have no more right to expect 100 per cent maturity and

good conduct from this large group than we do from any other

area. To suggest, because there is not good faith in every

case, that government should become more involved and more

arbitrary is overlooking a variety of other social ills that we

have in this community.

I would draw the Member's attention to the marketplace in a

variety of other ways. You know, there was an interesting

programme on "Marketplace" on national television the other

night, dealing with generic and non-generic drugs and the abuse

that flows, the inconvenience and the hardship that flows to

the consumers and to the citizens of Canada.

Now in perspective we have to realize that there is a whole

variety of areas that perhaps need a great deal of attention,

but we should not lose our perspective and ask one segment to

carry the total responsibility for the nation's ills. That is a

common inclination of the media and of some politicians who

perhaps have failed to take a penetrating look at the

problem.

Now the Member said that Ministers should not be represented on the boards

of Crown agencies. I don't know when the Member changed his mind, or when the

Social Credit Party changed its mind, but it seems to me that I recall Mr. Gunderson,

who was a one-time cabinet Minister, active for many, many years on the board

of PGE. It seems to me that I remember Mr. Williston and Mr. Kiernan, who were

board members of the B.C. Hydro and a variety of other Crown agencies. I just

wonder when the Social Credit Party came to the conclusion that it is so harmful

to have cabinet Ministers represented on some Crown agencies.

The reason I left the board of the British Columbia Railway

was not through any conflict which I felt hampered me, but

rather because of the pressures of other work within the

Department of Labour. I regret, in a way, that I am no longer

able to function on the railway board because it is an area in

which I have more than a passing interest, having been a

railway employee for some 28 years. I felt that I did have a

contribution to make in a very practical way.

The NFU question, the National Farmers Union seeking

bargaining rights: the Member is asking me for an answer and

I'm not sure that that lies within the jurisdiction of the

Department of Labour — whether or not to grant bargaining rights

to the farmers' union. However, I listened to the group, as I

am sure most of the other Members of the House did, and noted

their submission, and I am quite prepared to consider that

position. But I arrived at no conclusions, quite frankly, as I

notified them.

The Member brought up the air-traffic controllers' strike,

which I found somewhat perplexing. Surely the Member knows that

that dispute and that jurisdiction lies within the federal

arena. It has nothing to do with provincial control, and I want

to assure the Member that I have quite enough problems trying

to sort out and referee the industrial relations of the

Province of British Columbia without extending myself into the

federal arena, although I am sure that at times the provincial

department could make a contribution.

MR. SMITH: Nobody asked you to extend your authority into

the federal....

HON. MR. KING: Well, I don't know why it was brought up. I

see nothing in my estimates governing the increased price of

air passage as the result of the air-traffic controllers'

strike, which was what the Member raised.

Finally, the Member questions the ally provision of the

Labour Code,

section 85 of the code, which provides the right

that where a third party involves himself in a labour dispute

by giving positive aid to an employer, he can be viewed as an

ally who is aiding and abetting the employer in resisting a

strike. Under those circumstances, if the Labour Relations

Board in their wisdom find that to be the case, he is then

subject to picketing.

[ Page 1642 ]

I'm surprised again that the Member for North Peace River

objects to that proposition, because that is a modification of

the law that existed under your administration. Under the

Social Credit administration the employer was wide-open game

for picketing, whether or not it was a branch plant residing in

some other part of the province and whether or not a collective

agreement was in effect at that plant. That is no longer

possible. So I think perhaps the Member is somewhat confused

over that

section of the code. I think that's the gist of the

Member's questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to make a

few remarks in the estimates of the Member for North Peace

River, who we gather was on trial this afternoon. The Minister

painted rather a rosy glow and he made a considerable number of

observations to the suggestions that were made by the Member

for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). But it seemed to me the

Minister failed to really accept and take on the full

responsibility of his office as the Minister of Labour. He was

digging up old chestnuts and going back to the days of Einar

Gunderson and Ray Williston and so forth. Well, we're in 1975,

Mr. Minister, and the buck is supposed to stop at your

desk.

I take a degree of exception to the attitude that you did

display this afternoon in indicating that everything in B.C. is

in a sort of rosy situation. It seems to me that industrial

turmoil in the Province of British Columbia is not on the wane

at all, and the man-days-lost figures are indeed staggering. I

think they very clearly indicate that we could well be on to a

path of economic destruction if they're going to continue on in

the same vein.

One only has to go back — oh, say a few years to 1961 — and

take a look at some figures from then until the present time

just to see how this has compounded and has grown over this

time frame of 13 or 14-odd years. In 1961 we found 34,000

man-days lost; in 1962, 32,000; 1963, 24,000. In 1964 it sprung

way up to 181,000; 1965, 104,000; 1966, 272,000; 1967, 327,000;

1968, 406,000; 1969, 406,645 — about the same as the year

before. In 1970, a terrible breakthrough to 1,684,463 man-days

lost. In 1971, a drop, according to my figures, down to

276,999; 1972, the largest figure of all — 2,120,848 man-days

lost in the Province of British Columbia as the result of

industrial labour-management disputes. In 1973, 705,000; 1974,

1,609,431 man-days.

Well, in 1975, in this province, we're capital-short, we're

technology-short, we're research-short, we're know how-short,

we're dollars-short and we're certainly markets-short. For

solution everyone is fearing, and truly fearing, a very long

hot summer in labour-management negotiations.

According to the Minister's statistics, there are 453

collective agreements expiring in 1975, covering over a quarter

of a million employees — 233,920 employees. In the first

quarter of this year alone, there were 50 disputes involving

12,500 employees and a loss of 255,000 man-days, so we find

only 12,500 employees part of the creation of the loss of

255,000 man-days. Yet it appears there are 400 other

settlements and agreements to be considered involving another

quarter of a million employees. On the basis of experience for

the first quarter, the experience for the next three-quarters

is going to be very dismal indeed.

I'd say the prospects are bleak and I'd like to know what

specifically the Minister has in mind to head these things off.

It seems from his remarks this afternoon that his policy is

more one of wait and see. I want to hear from him what the new

and positive programmes of his government are to prevent

labour-management confrontation becoming the possible death

knell of the economic progress of this province.

No way we can plead ignorance; the signs are there and the

indicators are evident. He talked about reducing the

adversarial aspects as well. That doesn't really seem to be

true. I definitely concede and agree and congratulate the

Minister of Labour and his staff on making an exceptionally

determined effort to cut down on the adversarial aspects, but

they do not seem to have, in actual fact, been cut down. It's

true you've made the Labour Code a law — untested, but it is a

law unto itself, and it's reduced the role of the courts.

Certain of those aspects I thoroughly agree with. But the

Minister has sort of taken the tack that the structure is able

to solve. In my view, it cannot because it will take the

willingness of management and the willingness of labour to

accept the structure, and that, so far, is not evident.

The climate may improve periodically, but the iceberg is

still down there. It's shifting and it's creaking and it seems

ever able to dash to the bottom of the economic sea so many of

the hopes and aspirations of our people in this province.

I'd say that the Minister has got to look at the process

from another point of view. This has never been done

effectively by him, save and except in the ad hoc situation we

experienced in the fall dealing with the firemen situation.

He's got to look at it from the point of view not of the

protagonists themselves but from the point of view of the third

party, the person who has got to take the lumps and gets

absolutely none of the gravy, and that's John Q. Public. It's

always been his understanding and his hope and his expectation

that government would accept and would enunciate policy, and

would initiate frameworks wherein society will function. That's

all he wants. All the general public wishes to do is have

society function, wherein the public would not have to

suffer

[ Page 1643 ]

damages and loss from labour-management confrontations that

are quite beyond public confines, quite beyond public control

and quite beyond public responsibility. But his very valid and,

I'd say, correctly expected understanding and his hopes and his

expectations — I'm speaking now of John Q. Public — are not

being fulfilled because this government has not only not

provided the mechanisms and the directions for those concepts,

but it has acted contrary to them.

I think government has got to impress upon management and

labour that what was considered a right to strike and a right

to lock out, in many instances, is no longer such a right but

is a privilege. And it is a privilege that should not be

lightly abused. I'd say that is definitely so in the essential

services: safety, health, education, transportation and

communication. I think that is becoming more so in the

remainder of the public sector and certainly also in the larger

operations in the private sector.

Now there's no question that technological change and the

interdependency of society have made the third party, the

public, reliant upon continuance of services to be able to

exist. In my view, government cannot be and is not supposed to

be the economic saviors for the public. That is the public's

job. But the public cannot do the job without the tools. And

one of those tools is the absolute fight to the continuance of

essential public services which, by law, the public has to pay

for and which, by law, the public should receive. I'd say that

it is high time in the Province of British Columbia that it

becomes a condition of service in essential public services

that the privilege to strike and the privilege to lock out

comes to an almighty end, and I'd say a long overdue end. It

should be a term of employment that those people who wish to

work in the public service and who seek public services as a

career, specifically in the essential services, are prepared to

abandon the right or the privilege of work stoppage — most

definitely, as I've stated, in the essential services. That

should be a condition of service, as would also be binding

arbitration, vis-a-vis the policy that has been carried on with

the teachers.

The concept for the teachers, which has worked well in this

province, was that education must be ongoing and it must be

operative in the public interest. The teachers have complied,

and the taxpayers have complied. The concept has proven out; it

has worked. But to permit a handful of people who are not

providing educational input to close down that particular

system and frustrate this concept, which has been publicly

tested and publicly accepted, was preposterous — as witness the

outside workers shutting down the school system within the last

few months.

It's true no one can be forced to hire and no one can be forced to work. Nor

should the bystanders, the third party, the general public be expected to take

every kick in the shins. If he does, if he is forced to take those kicks in

the shins, then surely to goodness should he not be able to be compensated?

If the services that he's justly entitled to are not provided, should he be

permitted not to continue to be forced by law to pay for them? Is that an unreasonable

request? Or if he suffers damages by illegal work stoppages, should he, the

third party, not be entitled to maintain action for those damages?

You know, there's the maxim at law, Mr. Chairman, that where

there's a right there's a remedy. But here there is a right but

there is not an available remedy. I'd say that the public has

had a bellyful. I think they are tired of this constant

unfairness and this constant derogation of their rights without

an opportunity for recourse.

Management and labour haven't seemed to care; there's no

question that governments have not seemed to respond. But the

feeling of public resentment and public concern over their own

lot now is much on the increase. Some have suggested that

management and labour be compelled, say, to make assessments to

public damage funds to provide sources of compensation for

public loss suffered as the result of illegal — and I underline

the word "illegal" — stoppages with returns back to management

and labour, by way of, say, dividend benefits or pension fund

contributions if the illegal work stoppages did not

occasion.

Mr. Chairman, should not those people who are responsible

for illegal strikes or illegal lockouts also, perhaps, have to

face some kind of a public fine or some kind of a public levy

or tax so they would face more than personal shortfall for

their own illegalities, and the public revenues would at least

be able to keep up to date and keep pace? Don't you also think,

Mr. Chairman, that we could make, in the private sector, far

better strides towards industrial harmony by encouraging the

concept of partnership, or profit sharing? There's no question

of a doubt that with people having a piece of the action they

always have a better understanding of all of the problems

connected with it and they're prepared much more harmoniously

to seek and reach agreements and cures,

Year after year in this House, Mr. Chairman, I've advocated that we should have a management-labour-government

research and information council — sort of a perpetual and

travelling ombudsman, free of management, free of labour and

free of government, but supported equally financially by the

three. The objectivity and guideline of that information

council would sift the wheat from the chaff and see that

objective information and data is furnished to the public in

these large work stoppages.

They're faced with an absolutely contradictory

[ Page 1644 ]

round of propaganda from management and from labour. It's

impossible for the public to get at the true facts by virtue of

these widely conflicting and, I'd say, subjectively oriented

statements and figures. It would be possible to expand the

concept of that council to enlarge it to provide impartial

advice and, if and when requested by either management or

labour, let it provide a climate and certainly a forum for

meetings between management and labour, conduct workshops,

train arbitrators, and formulate collective agreements and

profit-sharing arrangements, but most of all assure that its

operation be public in every sense. So then the general public

at least would be able to look to this one area for an

impartial assessment of the dispute in question.

I'd like to deal with another topic, because I know other

Members have some remarks and questions they wish to ask the

Hon. Minister. This deals with Canadian unions.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that nationalism is a

direction that is being practised with a great deal of fervour

by the Canadian socialists, from the nationalization theories

of Mel Watkins, which are daily becoming realities in

socialistic B.C., to the almost express hatred of multinational

corporations that has been time-engendered through generations

of Canadian NDPers in the days of Woodsworth and Coldwell, to

Tommy Douglas, to the more shrill attack of David Lewis. I

think now it's even more artfully articulated by the current

NDP federal leadership hopefuls. Social reform is the lesser

goal if not achieved by the route of complete state economic

control. We witness the remarks of the lady Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), who I wish was in her seat, who

has apparently hooked, lined and sinkered Watkins. There

doesn't seem to be any half-way measures with her. It's all the

way, and that's the ticket — state control — as it is with so

many of her B.C. colleagues.

The Watkins manifestoes. The Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Speaker (Hon. Mr.

Dowding), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer),

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) are all signers

and they're all subscribers. There are quite a few in this

Legislature who unfortunately are left of the NDP, such as the

Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), and the one for Richmond (Mr.

Steves).

But in your fervour to eliminate the corporate structure and to eliminate global-wide

producing, manufacturing and marketing agencies, which one perhaps would think

would be a natural adjunct of the technological and communication revolutions

that we've all experienced and perhaps in themselves would be pacesetters toward

international free trade. But the Canadian socialists and the B.C. socialists

in their fervour to eliminate these kind of structures are exercising what they

consider to be their own territorial imperatives. They have committed themselves

to the ultimate paradox of having their brand of selective nationalism only

applied to the managerial ownership and administration side of men and women

who are working in concert, but not to the labour side.

Now I know the NDP welcomed today, I'm sure, the

announcement of the Prime Minister of Canada of an inquiry into

the power that is being wielded by business corporations to see

whether further legal restraints are necessary. I would say:

would that he had included government in those terms of

reference and would also that he had included that it's the job

of the inquiry to determine whether concentrated labour power

produces economic and social benefits for the public. I think

that those should have been part of the terms of reference of

that inquiry. But if that had been so, the hue and cry that

would have come from the socialist side would have been pretty

well unbelievable because there's so many there who are still

of the view that there should be one law for labour and another

for the rest of society.

It's fine for them to Canadianize and nationalize the

sources and means of production and distribution, but leave the

union conglomerates as they are. Surely to goodness, Mr.

Chairman, that is the ultimate paradox in their thinking. I'd

say that their only consistency on this is their

inconsistency.

But just as they've practised in this House selective

closure and selective accountability of government programmes

and policies, so they're practising selectivity of imperatives

territorial when considering operations of individuals grouped

together in companies and operations of individuals grouped

together in unions. If they wish to constantly yip-yap about

Canadianization of companies, let's hear something from them

about the Canadianization of unions. The international unions

dominate the Canadian trade-union movement. Three out of every

five Canadian unions belong to an international union, and

international unions are primarily American where in most cases

the final and the ultimate authority is from the United States.

The interest of the Canadian trade-union worker is governed

from there, as is his job security, his advancement process,

his redress for grievance and his level of income.

Is it proper that these kinds of decisions should be made in

New York, Washington, Chicago or Detroit? Yet while the NDP

Members stand up on their horses and constantly howl about the

need to lessen economic integration with the United States, we

find that their silence is deafening when seeking Canadian

autonomy for Canadian trade unionists.

If national goals are superior to international aims, which

appears to be part of contemporary NDP philosophy, then I

suggest that they should clean shop and be consistent in their

attitude and approach

[ Page

1645 ]

and try to rectify this imbalance. They should be advocating

that Canadian unions sponsor and urge programmes that are in

the Canadian interest alone, as opposed to the weight of the

contradictory and adversarial measures that exist in the United

States, where the programmes advocated there are surely and

expectedly in the interest of the American labour movement. But

those could well be inimical and contrary to the interests of

the Canadian workers and the Canadian trade union movement.

What might hurt or assist the welfare of a worker in one

country can work on the other side of the coin to a worker in

another country.

I think there should be resident, as opposed to

non-resident, leadership. I think that the money involved

should remain at home for research and bargaining support

services, or to provide the expertise and give Canadian experts

themselves the opportunity to exercise that expertise. We

constantly hear the NDP talking about the export of dollars

from Canada. Here we have a great export of dollars in the

trade union movement and not a word of complaint from the New

Democratic Party about that. Pension funds, as my friend

mentions — where is the base of those? Primarily in the United

States.

Representative services to locals should be granted without

them having to hotline their way through to Washington for an

okay. There should be freedom of staffing and budgeting. That

should be Canadian-exercised; it shouldn't be Detroit- or New

York-exercised. The constitutions themselves should be required

to have a Canadian flavour and not be based upon the whims and

directions of the U.S. labour bosses or the U.S. trade union

movement.

What's wrong with having Canadian unions home-governed? Let

them control their own assets in this country, and their dues

and their pension funds, as my friend mentioned, and keep the

dollars where they are supposed to do the most good. Keep the

dollars where they are supposed to do the most good. Let's be

able to have full, complete and proper accountability here,

which is not possible when you've got to go across the line in

your trade union movement, my friends, to do just that.

I'd ask you to make a positive move towards the Canadianization of trade unions

and see that paid staff members having authority over Canadian members must

be Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. See that money that is raised in

Canada remains under the control of Canadian trade unionists. Ensure that all

trade union officers having authority over their members will be elected exclusively

by their Canadian members. Ensure that the constitution which will govern the

operation and the affairs of a union in Canada would be approved and be subject

to amendment only by the Canadian members. I think that if you started to make

this type of thing a condition of certification in British Columbia, or indeed

in Canada, you'd be overcoming some major problems and you'd certainly be overcoming

the paradox which at the present time surrounds you.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that was one of the more

right-wing speeches I have heard the Second Member for Point

Grey make. He covered such a wide variety of areas that it's

difficult to respond to all of it. In fact, it's difficult to

acknowledge that some of the remarks should be dignified with a

response.

But I do want to respond particularly to the last point the

Member made with respect to the Canadianization of trade

unions. I would suggest to him that the only point of

disagreement we have is whether or not the workers in this

province have the right to determine what their representation

vehicle shall be, whether it shall be international, Canadian

or whatever other stripe one may want to place upon it. I think

that the workers have the native intelligence and the will to

guide their own destiny and their own internal affairs without

too much assistance from the Liberal Party and without too much

autocratic assistance from any governmental agency.

There's one thing I will say about the Second Member for

Point Grey: he's quite consistent. He makes that speech every

year. But what's very inconsistent about it is the position the

Liberal Party takes. We find the Liberal Party shattered from

stem to stern again on questions of major importance. I think

it's interesting to note what the former federal Minister of

Labour had to say on the question of international unions —

Bryce Mackasey, a very prominent Liberal in this province and,

quite frankly, an excellent Minister of Labour when he occupied

that portfolio. He had this to say when he was addressing the

IBEW convention last year:

"Mackasey States Case for International Union.

"Postmaster-General Bryce Mackasey, a former shop steward in

the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, outlined

the advantages of international unions for Canadian workers in

an address to the IBEW convention in Kansas City last

month."

He was even down in Kansas City!

"'We suffer from multinational corporations. We know what

it is to have a plant closed down in London, Ontario, and its production transferred

to Australia or to London, England, or to have Firestone and Goodyear close

the plants in Canada and bring up the tires from the United States,' Mackasey

told the convention. 'It is not easy to tell the young generation, who forget

the contribution that the IBEW made in our formative years, that it is in the

best interest of the labour unions to remain, if possible, international,

[ Page 1646 ]

because our enemies would like nothing better than to divide

and conquer.'"

That is a pretty strong statement.

"'First you convert the internationals to nationals, and

then the nationals to regionals, and then the regional unions

to smaller segments, and finally you have no unions left

worthwhile to take on these mighty cartels.'"

That is what the

former Liberal Minister of Labour had to say. Here we find the

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey advocating a different

course altogether.

Is he, as his federal colleague charges, motivated to divide

and conquer the labour unions of this province and to deliver

them in a helpless state to the mighty cartels? That is what

his federal colleague says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Bill, come on!

HON. MR. KING: That's what he says. It's not my statement.

It's not my statement.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Liberal Party, but particularly the

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey — and I wish he wouldn't

leave the chamber because I am going to provoke him. That

Member loves to dish it out, but he can't take it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. KING: That Member loves to dish it out, but he

can't take it, Mr. Chairman. He never misses the opportunity in

a speech in this House to dredge up the Regina Manifesto. That

was 1933. I was three years of age. He never misses the

opportunity to dredge up the....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Waffle Manifesto.

HON. MR. KING: Oh! The Regina Manifesto, too. The Member has

read it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): You don't even know what you

are talking about.

HON. MR. KING: The Member has read it. He drags up the

Regina Manifesto, the Waffle Manifesto....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Waffle Manifesto — ahhh!

HON. MR. KING: He went back to the days of Coldwell and

Douglas, and he says that this government is opposed to any

free enterprise.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. KING: I say that is not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. KING: I say that is not true. I say that the Regina

Manifesto was born in the Great Depression when times were

extremely tough.

MR. GARDOM: Waffle Manifesto!

HON. MR. KING: The Member has dredged up the Regina

Manifesto and used that as proof positive that this party does

not welcome capital investments...

MR. GARDOM: Waffle! Waffle!

HON. MR. KING: ...and free enterprise in the province...

MR. GARDOM: Waffle!

HON. MR. KING: ...and I repudiate that. But surely, Mr.

Chairman, if it is fair for him to drag up the Regina

Manifesto, it is fair for me to re-emphasize and remind that

Member of the Liberal Party platform in the election of 1935

right here in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, ho, ho, ho.

HON. MR. KING: "50,000 Orientals in B.C.," it says.

This is a Liberal ad in The Vancouver Sun of that

date.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Province .

HON. MR. KING: The Province , I beg your pardon.

"CCF party stands pledged to give them the vote. The Liberal

Party is opposed to giving these Orientals the vote. Where will

you stand on election day? A vote for any CCF candidate is a

vote to give the Chinamen and the Japanese the same voting

rights that you have. A vote for the Liberal candidate is a

vote against Oriental enfranchisement."

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Let's go back to the Old

Testament.

HON. MR. KING: If we want to deal in the past history and

associations and prejudices of political parties in this

nation, then you better clean up your own dirty laundry. You

better get your house in order over there. I can tell you, Mr.

Chairman, I would far rather be associated with a party that

was prepared to take on the international cartels on behalf of

the workers than I would be to associate

[ Page 1647 ]

myself with a party who had a history...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: ...a legacy of discrimination...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. KING: ...against Oriental people in this

province!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Minister to return to the

vote, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell that to Art Lee.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, "return to the vote"! The

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey had something to say on

the vote and I am responding to him. I am responding to him and

his mud-slinging.

MR. GARDOM: Tell us about Woodsworth. It's a political fact

in your own history.

HON. MR. KING: They love to dish it out, Mr. Chairman, but

they can't take it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He would let Wallace in but never let Lauk

in.

HON. MR. KING: They're like that...well, I won't bother

drawing their attention to that.

The only points the Member did make that were related to my

department in any way relate to the dissatisfaction and the

concern that the public shows and demonstrates for labour

conflict in this nation. I would like to say that that is a

valid concern. Where we seem to disagree with the Liberal Party

is with respect to what the cure should be.

The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey puts forward the

proposition that the courts should be the agency to regulate

strikes and picketing and if the public interest is offended

whatsoever, then there should be sanctions against the workers

involved — usually the workers — which presumes, I suspect, that

the workers are responsible for every conflict. Presumably,

pursuing that to its natural conclusion would result in those

workers who objected to these arbitrary remedies being jailed

or punished in some other way. I want to say that that approach

has been tried in other jurisdictions. It's been tried in

Australia, and it has produced more conflict and more illegal

strikes in that nation than we in Canada have in a legal way.

So I suggest that's no cure-all or no positive assurance that

conflicts still will not occur and the public will not be

inconvenienced.

I think one other point that the Member should recognize is

that the computation of man-days lost in the Province of

British Columbia includes those disputes that happened in the

federal jurisdiction. Perhaps it is about time we started to

separate those in a statistical way so we can see where the

major conflict lies. We have had very serious strikes in the

long shoring industry, which is under federal jurisdiction, and

in the air transport industry, from a variety of components,

and these have added greatly to the man-days lost and to the

public inconvenience in this province. So perhaps it is about

time we started to separate those statistics and place the

blame and the responsibility where it truly belongs.

I would point out that the reduction of over half a million

man-days lost in this province holds greater significance when

we look at the growth in the work force over 1972. We've had a

spectacular increase in the organized sector and I think, as I

indicated earlier, that is no blueprint for ensuring there will

be no conflict in the future, but there is a very positive and

a very encouraging indicator. So we do have some things going

for us, and I think we will continue to strive towards those

goals.

MR. GARDOM: Just on a point of privilege and to have the

record correct, Mr. Chairman, the Minister was alluding to my

reference to a Regina Manifesto. At no time was I referring to

that. I used the words, "Waffle Manifesto." I referred to the

Waffle Manifesto. I have a copy here; it is the one that five

Members of this government signed and they have never

repudiated it, and that happened within the last three years.

The Minister, I think, has been out of school since then.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I

feel, like the previous speaker, that we would like to set the

record straight. This party here in no way has adopted the

policy as put forward by the advertisement of the Member, which

came out before my birth. The Hon. Art Lee, a Chinese-Canadian

Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party, I think, would also

repudiate it. We in no way accept those views as the views of

our party any more than I think the NDP today accepts the views

of Woodsworth on Anglo-Saxon immigration only because of their

superiority as the views of their party.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Oh, come off it!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think this type of name-calling should

cease. I think the Minister should start dealing with 1975 and

the problems within his own department at the present time.

[ Page 1648 ]

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: the

Member did dredge up Coldwell, Woodsworth and various

manifestos, and if he did not....

MR. GARDOM: Waffle Manifesto. Be serious, Bill.

HON. MR. KING: If he did not mention the Regina Manifesto

today, Mr. Chairman, he certainly has on other occasions, and

I'm a bit tired of that being dredged up also.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't care how tired you are. You're the

Minister of character assassination.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You've dragged out something that doesn't

happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Will you respect the floor?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Ha! It's hard to respect or deal with

your statements.

HON. MR. KING: I accept that the Liberal Members divorce

themselves from the deplorable platform on which their party

ran in 1935, and I would ask that they accept that the Waffle

Manifesto, which in no way was an adopted party platform of the

New Democratic Party, be recognized in the same way.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Five sign it and you say it's

nothing!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: That's the measure of their sense of fair

play, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay, back on vote

MR. WALLACE: Whew! I never thought I would make it. This is

1975, and I'll try to make my comments relate to 1975. If we

are all talking about when we were born, I think it should be

recorded, Mr. Chairman, that I am the senior party leader in

this whole House, age-wise, anyway. Maybe I'm too old for the

job.

Seriously, the whole question of the Labour portfolio really has to be one

of the most vital ones in all the departments we debate in this House. Yesterday

I remarked about the tremendous economic value of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

in this province, but on the other hand, you can have all the resources that

you want if, for whatever reason, it proves impossible to keep the labour force

employed. I think the real challenge is to recognize that we must try to settle

disputes without work stoppages.

This seems a very self-obvious statement but I think it

sometimes gets lost in rhetoric and tirades about the

respective rights of employers and employees when the rights of

the individual citizen in this society are so frequently

overlooked.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. WALLACE: I agree that the Minister has touched on some

statistics which show that 1974 was not such a bad year. But

then it's the old story: it depends what you're comparing it

to. We've had some disastrous years, and anything is better,

for example, than 1972. I just feel that while the Minister has

conducted himself very energetically in the field and, I think,

done a very responsible job as Minister, there certainly is no

room for complacency. I'm not suggesting that the Minister is

complacent, but again I was somewhat disappointed to hear his

answer to an earlier opposition speaker this afternoon, simply

going back to this old worn-out approach that you're doing a

better job than the Socreds.

I just wish we could start taking a more positive approach

in this House and not always be comparing ourselves with some

less-than-satisfactory situation on account of which this

government came to power. The fact is that the former

government was not meeting the needs of the people of British

Columbia. Whenever we raise any criticisms from this side of

the House we get this tired, worn-out old answer: "Well, at

least we're doing better than the Socreds." That's like saying

your car is doing so many miles per gallon; it's not very good

but it's better than going on a horse and buggy. I just think

that the Minister can rise above that kind of response when

we're trying to debate this very important segment of British

Columbia public affairs.

Whether the Minister's figures are good or not — and I think

that they show a decrease in man-days lost in 1974 — I looked

up some of the figures also. I agree with the Minister that we

shouldn't hang our hat on statistics completely, but trends

certainly can be shown over a longer period of time. I've got

some figures for the years 1960 to 1964 and 1970 to 1974, and I

took averages. In that time, the labour force didn't quite

double on average, and yet the number of disputes on the

average between 1960 and 1964 was 23 annually. Between 1970 and

1974, the annual

[ Page 1649 ]

average for labour disputes was 115. I don't think we can

deny that while the labour force has increased over these

years, the number of disputes in the same period of time has

proportionately far exceeded the increase in the labour

force.

The Minister has mentioned that there are federal statistics

mixed in with the provincial statistics and this can be

misleading. All I know is that the people in British Columbia

who talk to me wherever I travel tell me they're not really

that concerned whether it's federal or provincial; they're just

sick and tired of strikes, period. It's a concern of a vast

number of residents of British Columbia who, while they may see

some temporary improvement one year over another, ask this

question time and time again: what can we do to either prevent

work stoppages or settle them without some of the bitterness

and the long number of man-days lost?

There was a very interesting

article in the press the other

day entitled: "Future Grim as Canada Lurches Toward a World

Strike Record." It pointed out that from a national point of

view.... I know, and I'm accepting that this Minister can't be

responsible for the rest of Canada. But I think the kind of

debate that we should have in this House today should range a

little further than our strict provincial borders since many of

the problems we have in British Columbia are sort of emulated

at other provincial and at the federal levels.

The British publication entitled The Economist rates

Canada second only to Italy in the terrible statistics we have

in relation to strikes. Just to quote a quick comparable

figure: in Canada for every 1,000 workers, we have lost 1,724

days compared to Italy, which lost 1,912. The Economist

makes the statement that Canada runs the same risk as Britain,

which has been heading down the road to industrial stagnation

and social disorder. The Economist goes on to make the

statement that the real risk now is that governments and the

public will make the unions a scapegoat. That's the risk that

this economic publication says exists. It goes on to make a

point. It says: "Not only would that be wrong because

management's stupidity is as much to blame as union selfishness...."

I don't know if these words are a little exaggerated but it

points out that there are two sides to every argument. I think

there is a real danger that the frustration and feeling of

helplessness which the public have in the face of strikes will

lead to hitting out in various directions that might not be

well-considered or carry much hope of some positive, productive

solution to many of the disputes.

One of the persons who has recently been quoted publicly is a Mr. John Crispo

who is, I believe, the dean of management studies at York University. He makes

the point that the assumption that a rough relationship existed between education

and salaries is no longer accepted. Unfortunately, he makes the point that with

nothing to put in its place there's a relatively proportionate return of salary

in relationship to the individual's education. At any rate, he does suggest

the alternative of an independent tribunal with some authority to rule on income

and wage claims.

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

referred earlier on this afternoon to the commission the

federal government has set up to investigate corporations in

Canada. I think it's just a further reflection of the point

I've made that there are two sides to any of these disputes and

that it would be disastrous either for British Columbia or

Canada as a whole if all the investigation were done in one

direction and all the legislative action directed against one

side of the two parties participating in disputes.

Certainly it doesn't please me very much as a Conservative

to see the federal Liberals in the form of Turner and Trudeau

now talking in as veiled a way as they can with any sense of

decency about the element of wage, price and income control,

which might have to be imposed in order to bring about some

stabilization of our inflationary problems and our labour

disputes. I agree. I am not suggesting that they are on the

point of imposing such solutions but certainly, when you read

the kind of statements or listen to the interview which the

federal Prime Minister had in relation to legislative curbs

which he said might have to be needed, it seemed to me to come

very close to the federal policy of the Conservative Party,

which in large measure led to its defeat in the last

election.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Maybe I shouldn't speak about it, Mr. Member.

I'm just sticking to the facts.

The Liberal Prime Minister said that legislation to curb the

power of organized labour might become inevitable unless labour

is prepared to behave very responsibly. That same statement

included the statement: "The monopoly of large industry is the

more dangerous in the sense that I think the monopoly of labour

has been created as a reaction to be able to fight large

industry and make monopolistic labour groups." He went on to

say that he thinks there is legislation adequate to control the

large corporations. That's rather strange because two or three

weeks later he sets up a commission to find out if the

legislation is adequate to control the monopoly of big

business. But he did state — again I'm quoting Mr. Trudeau:

"There is not much legislation to curtail the monopolistic

power of labour. I think unless labour itself is prepared to

behave very responsibly such legislation may become

inevitable."

I think these points are worth making on the

[ Page 1650 ]

national scene because we are a confederation of 10

provinces. There are overlapping factors which would make it

artificial just to divorce ourselves completely from the

problem of disputes and strikes and confine it only to British

Columbia.

Certainly the Conservative Party these days is asked, or I'm

asked: "what is your position on this or the other...? The

public doesn't hear our position. Well, let me tell them

right now our position in respect to the concept of strikes and

essential services. Our position there is very plain. I hope

the whole of the province listens so that I don't have to be

accused of pussyfooting around with some of the difficult

problems which exist in society today.

The resolution that we passed at our annual convention in

December of last year reads as follows:

"Let it be resolved that employees in essential

services shall not have the right to strike, but those designated as

essential shall receive automatic pay increases in line with other

employees in similar occupations."

We've heard a great deal, for example, of the accusation against this government

that they have recently negotiated unduly high wage increases, which are reflected

in demands by the private sector of the economy. I'm not getting into that

debate; we'll hang on to that until we debate the Provincial Secretary's (Hon.

Mr. Hall'

s) estimates. The point I would like to make is that we believe that

if essential service employees could be demonstrated to be treated fairly and

equally on the basis that they would receive automatic wage increases comparable

to those negotiated by other groups who do have the right to strike, we can

show that the strike weapon not only is archaic — that's been said by veterans

in the labour field in different parts of the world — but that we can make another

system work by showing that it works within the ambit of essential services.

I would agree with the Minister, who has often said that we

have to take pilot projects and experiment a little bit. I'm

the first one to admit that if such a project in the essential

services field was a failure or was less than successful, there

was always the alternative of going back or trying another

path.

All I'm saying is that it is frequently said by members of

the public that there should not be the disruption and the

public danger which can arise when essential services are given

the right to strike.

As the Minister knows, the very first time that one vital sector of our society,

namely the firefighters, did go on strike, the very next thing that happened

was that this House was called into session to put them back to work. So one

can quite legitimately ask the question: what really is the validity of the

phrase "right to strike" if, when the strike occurs, the weight of the Legislature

is used? On the occasion I quote, I think it was used wisely, perhaps unavoidably,

but the public safety was greatly at risk. I think that some of the disruptions

we've had in the health and hospital field show a very distressing and, to me,

deteriorating sense of dedication by people who basically, down through many

years, have been looked upon as having a dedication, first to the people they

serve and then to the concept of bargaining rights or their material rewards

from the work they do.

I also would like to make the point that while the federal

and provincial statistics being mixed up might not give the

true picture I wonder if the Minister could tell us.... I have

a few questions, one in particular.

I was unable to find out from the Minister's department,

when I was preparing these comments, any statistics on the

whole cross-section of illegal stoppages of work. In other

words, there are no statistics about illegal strikes or illegal

lockouts, walkouts, booking off sick, study sessions and all

the completely dishonest euphemisms which many people use to

hide the fact that they're on strike, whether they like to use

the word or not.

As I referred to in an earlier debate, we even have members

of medical profession with the audacity to tell this community

in British Columbia that they're booking off sick when this, in

fact, is an absolute and an utter lie. They are not sick. They

are using a device to withdraw service. I just emphasize how

strongly I reject this pretence of withdrawing service from

your employer, particularly, of all places, in hospitals and

then having the gall to turn around and tell the public at

large that they're booking off sick. I think that was a most

regrettable example. It's the first one and I certainly hope

it's the last. As long as I've anything to do with public life.... That I am a doctor, personally, has nothing to do with it.

I just think that this is a kind of example which doesn't help

the whole labour-management relations field at all.

The statistics on illegal withdrawal of labour or lockout

seems to be completely lacking. I may be corrected, but I'm

told there are no federal statistics and there are no

provincial statistics. It would interest me greatly to put the

illegal man-days lost alongside the legal ones and see what

percentage they are of the total.

The Minister talked, I think last spring, about his research

department — that he felt it held out some hope of pinpointing

some of the causative factors and the possibility of finding

out preventive measures. I wonder if the Minister could quickly

tell us to what degree in the last year the research department

has come up with some previously unknown conditions which

greatly influence whether a strike happens, and if it does

happen, how it should be handled.

In the greater Victoria area we're all very disgusted with

the long — I think it's 15 weeks — strike of municipal workers

represented by CUPE. We've been through a school strike caused

by the withdrawal of

[ Page 1651 ]

service by janitors. I would wonder, again, if the Minister

has any new policy to put forward to try and at least mitigate

the effects on innocent third parties in such disputes as the

school strike, which we've just emerged from in the greater

Victoria area.

I'd like to quote from the Supreme Court of British Columbia

hearing that was held in Victoria, March 25, in relation to

that strike, held before Judge Wooton. This was an injunction

by the school board to try and change the picketing habits, or

restrict the picketing habits, so that teachers and students —

the students in particular being the innocent third party —

could receive the education for which the Public Schools Act is

written.

I would like to quote the judge, who states:

"There is a dispute between the board and the labour

union, and involved in this dispute there are matters of law of grave

importance as to whether certain provisions of the Schools Act should

override or overrule sections of the Labour Code. It is most desirable

that the trial of this matter be ultimately heard."

I won't read any more of it but this was the issue which the

judge defined as being all-important. He does mention the

students receiving their education. But, at any rate, the

decision of the judge in that case was that at least picketing

should not occur in the morning hours when students are

arriving at school or the afternoon hours when they leave

school.

I think this might represent some all-too-small step forward

in measures which would mitigate against innocent third parties

who really have no direct involvement in the dispute being

denied a service or some important commodity simply because two

other parties are in dispute. I wonder if the Minister would

care to comment on the future policies that this government

might develop, particularly in the educational field. These are

annual negotiations, Mr. Chairman.

The people in Victoria say to me: "My goodness, we have had

this long, drawn-out problem in the schools. Some of our

children will not make their grade and will have to repeat a

year, or there will be problems of one kind or another. We know

that this time next year we might be going through the same

difficult situation because of the failure to renegotiate the

contract at this time next year."

I am very interested in today's newspaper because this

Minister has talked many times about this government's policy,

which is clearly one of non-intervention in legitimate disputes

unless asked, without going through all the ramifications of

industrial inquiry commissions and so on, which we have

discussed before. I notice today that in relation to the CUPE

situation in Vancouver it is reported that:

"The B.C. Federation of Labour has urged the provincial

government to provide leadership in settling current disputes between municipalities

and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

"The federation has asked that Deputy Labour Minister James

Matkin become actively involved in bringing the parties

together."

I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether he is

responding to the request of the B.C. Federation of Labour and

what action he plans to take. I remember the Minister once

remarked in the House, back on March 8, 1974...and the

quotations from Hansard are very interesting because the

Minister says:

I don't think there would be any criticism whatsoever if I

used my office to prevail, to cajole or even to lean on the

parties to take a more responsible position so that a

settlement might be consummated and a strike averted.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I plead guilty to doing that. I

certainly have laid the wood to many groups and to trade unions

to have them take a more responsible position, a more

conciliatory position, to resolve their differences.

That is a statement which the Minister made in this House.

While it is better, in my view, if governments can stay out of

arguments, I think at the same time they have a responsibility

to judge when they should intervene. One of the biggest

concerns of many people in the province is that while the

government's good intentions not to intervene are admirable,

there are times when this government has sat on the sidelines

when perhaps intervention could have led to a solution and

perhaps a more rapid solution.

I wonder if the Minister has any new proposals to make as to

the whole question of intervention by various means and the

timing of such intervention. He has frequently answered me at

question period at different times in the House in the sense

that, unless he is asked, he does not intervene. I've had the

same — what I consider ineffectual reply from the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). When I keep asking her what her

primary responsibility is — namely, to see that the children

are educated — I am referred back to the point that it is a

labour dispute and that this is not the Minister of Education's

problem. Then, when you inquire about the labour dispute, the

Minister won't intervene because he hasn't been asked.

All I am saying is that the parents and a lot of people in

B.C. are getting fed up with that kind of runaround. They know

the problems there; they are not suggesting that they have some

brilliant answer that will come down from on high if you do

meet with both sides. But what people in B.C. are saying is

that this government is so unavoidably dedicated to staying out

of disputes that things really have to get to some pretty,

terrible pitch before they take any initiative. That's the

public comment I frequently hear.

[ Page 1652 ]

The Minister may choose to disagree; I can only pass on what

people say to me. This isn't just any handful of people; this

is people not only in the greater Victoria area but in other

places where you travel.

I would just like to finish with one or two specific

questions. The Minister made a statement back in March to the

United Steelworkers' conference, saying the only qualification

that a union representative has for bargaining is sometimes

that he won an election and that there is need.... Mind you,

Mr. Chairman, I'd be the first one to admit that maybe that's

the only qualification we have standing here in this House

running the affairs of B.C. — the only qualification being that

we won an election. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)

looks dismayed at that remark, but I include myself, Mr.

Minister, in the statement.

Anyway, to be serious, the Minister did say that there was

some need to set up some process whereby people could be

educated to develop expertise in the whole bargaining process.

He did state that there will be lecturers available and

audiovisual material so that participants could receive some

education in this matter. I just quickly say that when the

committee on education travelled the province last summer, one

of the most frequent comments we heard from school trustees was

that they felt completely inadequate to get into the bargaining

process and, for that reason, looked at other means whereby

they could really stay out of the bargaining process by

delegating it to a regional or central body.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The green light is on, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: So I wonder if the Minister could tell us a

little more about the positive educational proposals. I did

want to speak a little bit about the handicapped and the blind,

but I'll probably get to that later in the debate. The last

point I want to just ask is the question we asked about female

employees being dismissed because of pregnancy.

The main area where the issue arose was a very unfortunate one. I personally

sincerely believe that pregnancy shouldn't change employment at all. But in

the area of employment as a stewardess in an airplane, I just simply have to

ask the question as much from a medical point of view where safety is involved:

how can anyone visualize that a lady who might be several months pregnant and

who chooses to continue to work in that capacity could really meet the duties

of her job in the kind of stress and emergency of an airplane crash or whatever?

The clinical, medical facts are indisputable; in that kind of job the degree

to which she could carry out her responsibilities could be seriously impaired.

I don't blame the airlines one little bit for asking this kind of question if

only for the reason of some possible disaster, for which they might later undergo

litigation in the courts. We all know that after air disasters the litigation

gets into many millions of dollars. I think the airlines are quite legitimate

in at least raising the question. Federal and provincial legislators believe

that the air stewardess....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time's up, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, could I just ask leave for one minute, Mr.

Chairman, to finish this point? It is rather important.

Leave granted

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very quick. If a stewardess, for example, chose

to work to the 34th week of pregnancy — which is what generally happens, certainly

in Britain and other countries in terms of social benefits and payments being

available starting at the 34th week — I just believe honestly that from the

clinical point of view it would not be safe for the passengers of an airplane

to depend on the services of a stewardess 34 weeks pregnant in the kind of situation

that could well arise in the operation of a commercial aircraft.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I just have

a couple of statements I'd like to make to the Minister. Before

that, I wonder if, through you, I could make a comment on the

statement made by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

As someone who has been pregnant a number of times, I was

always under the impression that the dangerous time was the

beginning, in the first three months, and that was when the

foetus was in danger, certainly not when you got to the 34th

weeks or whatever it is that you just mentioned.

You practise delivering babies, I have them; so maybe you

are more knowledgeable about these things than I am. I don't

want to get into a debate with you over it, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I wasn't talking about the foetus.

MR. GARDOM: It's tough to carry the trays.

MS. BROWN: Right. I think I've had the experience, but I

think really what the women were saying was that they should

have the right to decide just how long they could carry

on their duties and not have someone — even a male as

knowledgeable as a doctor — decide for them whether they could

do this job or not.

What I really want to do is to congratulate the Minister of

Labour for the job that the human rights branch did in Surrey

recently. As you know, Mr.

[ Page 1653 ]

Chairman, there have been some problems there in terms of

racial conflict with the East Indian community. The human

rights branch conducted a pilot project in which they went from

door to door and spoke to people one Sunday. This turned out to

be a very important experiment and certainly seemed to have

been very successful. Now one doesn't know how successful it is

in terms of its long-term kinds of goals, but certainly on a

short-term basis it seemed to have defused a lot of the

hostility in the community that was directed towards the East

Indians living in that particular area at that time.

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

What I want to ask the Minister is whether this is something that the human

rights branch is looking at as an ongoing thing now that it has intervened in

this positive kind of way?

I certainly support the concept of positive intervention on

the part of the provincial government in areas like this where

there is conflict. I want to know whether the human rights

branch is planning on doing this. As you know, the whole racial

tension in the Vancouver area has not yet completely subsided

and there is some in some other parts of the province too. I

think that as long as we have the federal government condoning

this kind of hostility towards immigrants who come from Third

World countries we will have racial tension.

I thought it was interesting, for example, that the Minister

of Immigration should remark that there was more racial tension

in Vancouver than anywhere else, seeing as how he has done such

a very good job, quite frankly, in stimulating it. I would like

to know what kinds of plans the human rights department has in

terms of positive intervention, because I think that is the

role of government.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, if the truth must be known, the trouble is

being caused by a Green Paper which says, in fact, that it is

amazing that the Canadian people have taken the level of

immigration from countries like the Third World countries

without some conflict before now. I don't know how many of you

have read the Green Paper, but I have read all four volumes of

it. This is not a debate on the Green Paper.

I want to congratulate the human rights branch and ask the Minister whether

there is plan for any future action in this area and, at the same time, suggest

to him that this might be a good a time as ever to beef up the staffing of the

human rights branch. I think that if they are going to not wait until people

bring discrimination to them, if the branch is going to involve itself in a

positive way in disputes, certainly they need more staff than they have now.

The second area I want to bring to the Minister's attention

is the area which I really am quite tired of talking about, and

that's the apprenticeship programme and how really difficult it

is for women to get into these apprenticeship programmes. I

notice, for example, that a woman made the front page of the

Sun yesterday because she'd completed the painting

apprenticeship, the very first in the history of British

Columbia. That's progress, but it is disgusting that it has

taken us 2,000 years almost to get that done.

I want to know whether there are any plans in the department

to speed up. Do we wait another 2,000 years before some of

these other apprenticeship programmes which are closed to women

are going to be open to them? What kind of really concrete

planning in terms of counselling, not just to the trades

themselves that are keeping their trades closed but in terms of

women does the department have in mind for these two groups,

and what does it have in mind for helping them to break into

this area that is closed?

Finally, I just wonder whether, in terms of amending Bill

11, which I feel is a very excellent piece of legislation, he

is considering, in view of the kind of requests made to him by

the trade-union movement about secondary picketing and the

problems involved, for example, in supporting the grape boycott

and yet being unable to picket stores like Super-Valu which

still insist on bringing in California grapes, any kind of plan

on his part to amend that

section of the Labour Code.

What we would like to do, through you, Mr. Chairman, is to

have the law amended so that it is possible to use

informational picketing or picketing to say to people: do not

shop in this store because it is carrying grapes from

California, a place where the grape growers are being

continually oppressed and exploited by the producers.

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GARDOM: Would you do the same thing with the B.C. Hydro

turbines?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, to respond to the Second Member

for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), first of all she brought up

the question of the activities of the human rights branch in

attempting to break down manifestations of racial prejudice in

various areas of the lower mainland. I would like to assure her

that it is a function of the Human Rights Commission, which is

an independent agency in legislative terms, to try to take

positive action to prevent discriminatory actions from taking

place in the first instance. That involves and implies

educational programmes, the circulation of educational material

on some of the subtleties and

[ Page 1654 ]

types of discrimination that some people are even

unconscious of until it is drawn to their attention, a variety

of initiatives in terms of the media advertising and so on

which will not only reveal some of the types of discriminatory

practices that have taken place but will also indicate to those

who are discriminated against the remedies and the options that

they have available to them under the Human Rights Code.

I think the activity that they undertook in Surrey, I

believe it was, is completely consistent with my hope of what

the commission will continue to provide to the community.

The human rights branch of the department, through our

director, Kathleen Ruff, collaborates very closely with the

Human Rights Commission and they support each other in this

type of educational activity. So we can look forward to more

and more of that.

The Member asked a question regarding the availability of

apprenticeship training in the trades to women. I wish to

acknowledge that this has been an area where it was for many

years virtually impossible for women to break in. I want to

assure her that the recent acceptance of a female in the

painting trade will not be the last by any means. We are

undertaking action to accelerate opportunities for women in

vocational training.

I forget, quite frankly, what the last point was that the

Member brought up. Oh, it was the picketing

section of the

Labour Code. She asked whether or not there might be amendments

to the Labour Code with respect to informational picketing.

Quite frankly, I am considering amendments to the Labour Code,

but I am not very receptive to opening up in a general way

informational picketing. In reality, I can never distinguish

between informational picketing as opposed to real picketing in

a labour conflict. The consequence is the same; as a rule it

results in the closure of the plant. If it's to disseminate,

they have the ability to do that through handing out pamphlets

rather than picketing per se. I think the real difference

between informational picketing and intentional picketing at

the time of a strike or lockout is something that's not very

real. There's really no difference and the consequence is the

same.

Moving to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and trying

to respond to some of the questions he asked, I would first of

all like to say to the Member that, yes, I regret that the

exchange has become rather acrimonious at times. However, we

have to respond in the best way that we possibly can to the

kind of climate and the kind of inferences that are placed on

questions and presentations made by the opposition. I want to

welcome the approach taken by the Member for Oak Bay. He

usually is fair, although I disagree on many occasions with

some of his conclusions.

I'll deal with some of the points he made in reverse order.

He brought up the pregnant stewardesses question, on which I

made a public statement when it became apparent that a federal

agency of government was applying to waive protection extended

to pregnant stewardesses in terms of their employment. As far

as I know, that action was taken not out of a questioning, as

the Member indicated might be the case; it was taken as a

direct initiative without any communication or consultation

with the trade union involved and against the body of medical

evidence, which I have read, which certainly conflicts with the

medical conclusions drawn by the Member for Oak Bay. Far be it

for me to try to make a judgment on that. But I think it's

really ill-advised to proceed in an arbitrary way to eliminate

any job-security protection to females who happen to be

pregnant without a very detailed examination of the whole issue

and without a thorough study of the medical implications to

ensure that the proper rights and the human rights of the girls

involved are not being abridged.

That was very simply the essence of my statement: if that

kind of discrimination took place without any satisfactory

justification, which was not offered by the airline involved,

then I would expect that the Human Rights Commission in the

Province of British Columbia would undertake an investigation

of any such discrimination that accrued to a resident of this

province. I would not presume to judge or to comment on what

the conclusions of that inquiry might be, but certainly it's a

valid question to ask in the realm of human rights.

MR. WALLACE: Is there any inquiry being done on this

situation now?

HON. MR. KING: No. There's no specific case that has been

brought to my attention. I'm not aware of any that has been

referenced to the human rights branch as yet.

Labour education. Yes, Mr. Member, I have talked about this

for the past year and a half. I don't want to give a distorted

view or a distorted perception to the comments I have made. I

have not only pointed out that in many cases trade union

bargainers lack background experience but it's true on

management's side also. In many cases, someone who wins

election as a city alderman to a police commission or a fire

commission ends up chairman of the bargaining committee. The

lack of any background experience or expertise can certainly,

and has very often, been a contributing factor to a dispute and

a conflict and a work stoppage which should never have occurred

were the people at the bargaining table more experienced.

This is what I'm talking about and, yes, we do intend to

bring forward legislation at this session of the Legislature

which will enable us to go into that

[ Page 1655 ]

kind of comprehensive education system for bargainers, for

industrial relations people in the province.

This is the kind of positive thing we are trying to do. You

know, if the opposition questioning would be of a more positive

nature in trying to elicit this kind of information, then the

dialogue would be a bit more mature and perhaps a little less

heated. But as I said, if you like to dish it out then you have

to be prepared to take it, too.

I'm not going to repeat to the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) my story about Big Red again — I told him that the other day.

The question of the case before Mr. Justice Wootton on the

injunction is, I understand, subject to an appeal at the

moment, and I think it would be improper for me to comment on

it. Yes, the strike is over but the decision which Mr. Wootton

handed down is apparently subject to an appeal to the supreme

court and, as such, I think it would be improper to comment on

it.

He asked what effective contribution the research branch of

the Department of Labour is making to provide positive aids to

the bargaining process. I can only say that I have received

quite a wide number of letters acknowledging and applauding the

changes in the kind of statistical data which the research

branch is putting out, both in terms of the analysis of

collective agreements so that trends and developments can be

noted and can be appreciated in the broad spectrum of the B.C.

economy, and also with respect to a variety of other special

functions that the branch is undertaking studies on. I think

that this is an area that — it is certainly my hope — will

continue to expand as we find more and more ways, and as labour

and management, on occasion, identify effective roles that can

be played by the research branch.

In the more or less philosophical areas that the Member

raised regarding rights to strike in essential services, the

Conservative Party platform with respect to essential services...well, that's interesting. The Member did not identify what

might be designated as essential services. It's a fairly catchy

phrase, you know, but I don't know whether one would stop at

fire departments, police forces, hospitals, or whether one

might go to something like the forest industry that certainly

has a major and profound impact on the economy of this

province. It's difficult to say; it's a matter of degree.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you think?

HON. MR. KING: Well, what I think is embodied in the Labour

Code of British Columbia, and that is clearly understood by

some Members of the House.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Quite frankly, I would simply ask the Member

a question or two in response.

I wonder what we would do where this right that you wish to

withdraw is challenged; where workers say: "Look, we are

receiving such unjust treatment that we are going to defy the

law," and that has happened on many occasions.

In the City of Montreal, the firefighters struck and there

was a major problem in that city. You know, in the Province of

British Columbia the ferry workers have taken strike action

when they had no legal right to do so. This is true right

across the nation; it's true pretty well all over the world

today. It seems to me that where we really differ is that the

opposition feels we should be very arbitrary and we should hold

out, presumably, very harsh sanctions against that kind of

eventuality. Now you have an obligation, if you're going to

advocate that, to spell out precisely what these sanctions

would be for violation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Binding arbitration.

HON. MR. KING: Binding arbitration might be defied too, and

you have an obligation to say what you're going to do if there

is defiance. Are you going to put them in jail? Are you going

to issue large fines against the people involved? You see, the

difference is a sociological view of how we treat groups of

people in society. It's a little bit like parliamentary

democracy. It's a pretty clumsy system, but I think it'