1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2401 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

County Courts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 74). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2401

Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

73). Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 2401

Interpretation Act (Bill 110). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2401

Statement

Signing of contract to take over Veterans', Shaughnessy, and George

Darby Hospitals. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2401

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Contingency plans to ensure Vancouver Island power

supply. Mr. Bennett — 2401

BCTF resolution governing possible ejection of members. Mr. Gibson — 2401

Unit to combat organized crime. Mr. Wallace — 2401

Ocean Falls newsprint for Victoria area newspapers. Mr. McClelland — 2402

Meetings of policy committee to combat B.C. flood

threat. Mr. Curtis — 2402

Availability of lease agreements for

government-purchased lands. Mr. Phillips — 2403

Government aircraft on strikebound airports. Mr. Morrison — 2403

Compulsory medical examination for old-age pensioner

drivers. Mr. Fraser — 2403

Special arrangements for Mincome cheques distribution. Mr. Wallace — 2403

Request for funds by ROSS committee. Mr. Gibson — 2405

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates

On vote 129.

Hon. Mr. King — 2405

Mr. Fraser — 2408

Hon. Mr. King — 2413

Mr. McGeer — 2416

Hon. Mr. King — 2419

Mrs. Jordan — 2420

Hon. Mr. King — 2424

Mr. Dent — 2425

Mr. Wallace — 2429

Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1974

(Bill 109). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 2434

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

the House to join with me in welcoming a group of 80 students

and their teachers from Marian High School in New Westminster,

that gem of all B.C.

Introduction of bills.

COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled County Courts

Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 74 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.

CRIMINAL INJURIES

COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Criminal

Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 73 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.

INTERPRETATION ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Interpretation

Act .

Bill 110 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.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I'd

like to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, at 11:30 a.m. today the

province took responsibility — I signed a contract on

behalf of the government — to take over the Veterans'

Hospital in Victoria, Shaughnessy Hospital in Vancouver and

George Darby Hospital in New Westminster.

This will become part of our health care programme and I just want to say especially

that we've made provisions for those veterans that will need care in those facilities

on an ongoing basis. And the federal government, as part of the contract, are

providing us with $11 million, roughly, to upgrade the premises.

Oral questions.

CONTINGENCY PLANS TO ENSURE

VANCOUVER ISLAND POWER SUPPLY

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Would

the Minister advise the House if the power supply to Vancouver

Island continues to be critical? And if so, has B.C. Hydro

developed any contingency plans to prevent brownouts?

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

I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

BCTF RESOLUTION GOVERNING

POSSIBLE EJECTION OF MEMBERS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A question

to the Minister of Education. Some time ago the Minister

undertook to meet with the BCTF and discuss with them the

question of the resolution whereby persons who fail to

co-operate with his or her professional organization

could be ejected from that organization and thereby, in effect,

denied the right to teach in British Columbia. The Minister

undertook to discuss this with the BCTF and comment to the

House on it. Has she had a chance to do so?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No. Because of the

intervening recess we have the meeting slated to take place

following the House opening again. So the meeting has not taken

place, but we have a date set up.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could the

Minister say exactly when? It's been well over two weeks

now.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, the date has been set. I don't have

my calendar with me, but I believe that it's sometime next

week.

UNIT TO COMBAT ORGANIZED CRIME

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Attorney-General, particularly in the light of recent

murders, when the unit to combat

[ Page 2402 ]

organized crime will actually begin to function?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, as

much as I'd like to give a firm date, I'm not prepared to do

that at the present time. We are moving with our planning just

as quickly as we possibly can. We are now putting together an

advisory committee, and I'm not quite ready to announce those

names.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary. Could I find out from the

Attorney-General whether the new building at Main and

Cordova will be used for the new crime unit? Or will it in fact

be used for the provincial courts as originally planned?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, again there's been a survey

of court facilities in all of the municipalities and regions of

the Province of British Columbia — in view of the

provincial assumption of responsibility — including

present court facilities, their future expansion, the possible

dividing off of family and small claims courts from the

criminal courts. That has happened also in the City of

Vancouver.

But the recommendations have not come to me and I've made no

decision at this time with respect to the Vancouver situation.

The suitability or the unsuitability of that new building at

312, I think it is, or 322 Main Street: no decision has been

made.

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

supplemental to the question dealing with the court building in

Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. The press reports today, Mr.

Attorney-General, that people associated with the courts

have been instructed to keep their mouths shut about this

matter. Have such instructions been made from the

Attorney-General's department?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, if they have been given

— and they've not been given — they've been quite

ineffectual. (Laughter.)

OCEAN FALLS NEWSPRINT FOR

VICTORIA AREA NEWSPAPERS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A question for the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Could the Minister tell

us whether or not any newsprint has been made available from

the Ocean Falls operation for any Victoria area newspaper?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Minister then if the government

still has a deal with the Gotzman Central National Organization

to market newsprint for Ocean Falls on the world market?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Crown corporation has, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the

Minister first of all tell us whether there's a sliding scale

of prices for that Crown corporation in that agreement, and

whether or not the Minister would table that agreement in the

House so all Members could look at it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid I don't have the details at

hand, and I indicated on a previous occasion that the document

was not available, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Could the Minister indicate whether it is a fact

that the Ocean Falls output is designated virtually 100 per

cent for the international market rather than reserving some of

its production, as is usual, for the Canadian market?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is an agreement with respect to

most of the production, which is for the world market. It was

made at a time when the market was considerably different than

it is today. But, as Members are no doubt aware, because of the

precipitation and freezing and cold spring, production at Ocean

Falls until this week has been on a one-machine or

half-production basis. That has now changed so that, in

fact, because of the hydro-electric problem and power

problems — and energy problems generally — Ocean

Falls has not been able to operate on a full production level

for much of the early spring of this year.

MEETINGS OF POLICY COMMITTEE

TO COMBAT B.C. FLOOD THREAT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, on

another subject, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. In a news release dated April 8 of this year on the

subject of a potential flood threat in several parts of central

and southern British Columbia, the Minister indicated that a

cabinet emergency policy committee has been formed. Would the

Minister indicate to the House if the committee has had a

meeting or any meetings thus far this month?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, the committee has met — the

staff committee involving members of Water Resources,

Department of Highways and the Provincial Secretary's emergency

measures group. I've

[ Page 2403 ]

forgotten their name; they have been meeting constantly on a

very frequent basis as well. I expect to take

part in a meeting

this Friday with municipal officials in the lower mainland in

the Abbotsford area.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on the same.

Recognizing the complex nature of the problem and the

unpredictability of the weather, is the Minister assured that

the province and local governments could handle more than one

serious flooding problem in a given area within the next eight

weeks?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I must say that all the preliminary

things, particularly with respect to water-level controls

— that is with dams and the like in the Nechako, Bridge

River, the Columbia and elsewhere — steps have been taken

several weeks ago to do the most we can. Similarly, there has

been a gearing up and preparatory work with respect to funding

for emergency activities.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the lack of long-range

activity by the previous administration is causing some of the

problems today.

AVAILABILITY OF LEASE AGREEMENTS

FOR GOVERNMENT-PURCHASED LANDS

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

to direct my question to the Minister of Housing. Would the

Minister advise when he plans having lease agreements ready for

leased land which he has purchased in municipalities and is

assisting them in getting ready for housing, so that those who

are interested in this will know the terms of the lease, what

the taxes are, what the lease payments are going to be, et

cetera?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Very soon, Mr.

Speaker. By that, without making commitment, I would hope

within two weeks.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will you be

forwarding these documents to the municipalities? Will you be

advertising the terms in the paper so that people who are

interested in this leased land will be able to make

application, or how do you plan on handling it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, we'll make particular effort to

notify the Village of Chetwynd and also to notify people in

Williams Lake, where these will be the first to get off the

ground.

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

ON STRIKEBOUND AIRPORTS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed

to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Could he advise the House whether

the government aircraft are using the Victoria and the Vancouver airports at

the moment while the air firefighters are out on strike?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's

my understanding that they're doing so within the fuel regulations of the Department

of Transport federally.

MR. MORRISON: Could he advise the House what safety

precautions are being taken at the airports and at the hangars

in case of fire?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got the detailed information,

but I presume that it is the same sort of precautions that are

taken at places like McKenzie and other airfields where we land

that don't normally have an on-site fire brigade.

COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION

FOR OLD-AGE PENSIONER DRIVERS

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

of Transport and Communications. The Superintendent of Motor

Vehicles requires that a person 70 years of age and older has a

medical every two years; 80 years and older, a medical every

year. I understand that the B.C. Medical Plan will not pay for

this. What are you doing to relieve this hardship with the

old-age pensioners?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad you brought it to my attention.

I'll check and see, first of all, if what you've laid out is in

fact the way it's done, and then I'll check into it.

SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR

MINCOME CHEQUES DISTRIBUTION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Human

Resources what special arrangements are being made for the

distribution of Mincome cheques during the postal strike?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I think the

Provincial Secretary has a statement to make, so I think it

might be in order for him to answer that.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I was

anticipating a question. Had not one arisen I was going to ask

leave to make a statement at the close of question period.

Naturally the Legislature will be aware that the cabinet has

been very concerned over the imminent strikes over the last

while in the delivery service of

[ Page 2404 ]

important cheques. I want to announce that we have

coordinated a contingency plan for the distribution of

government cheques as a result of the problems caused by the

postal strike.

The three Ministers concerned most directly are the Minister

of Human Resources, the Minister of Transport and

Communications and myself. Beginning today, Mr. Speaker, the

handicapped, Mincome and social assistance cheques will be

sorted by districts and municipal offices, and will be

delivered by the provincial postal service by government

transportation to the distribution points.

Local offices will be asked to arrange for places and times

for the cheques to be picked up by the recipients and, where

necessary, they will be delivered to the recipients.

Advertising through radio and newspapers will also advise the

public of these plans.

The very serious situation in Vancouver, because of the size

of the problem, is being handled by the Vancouver office, who

will have to distribute more than 40,000 cheques. Again, the

priorities will be handicapped, Mincome and welfare recipients.

The government is making every attempt to see that all the

recipients of cheques issued by the provincial government have

them delivered with the least amount of disruption to their

daily living.

We have yet to hear from the federal government as to what

their plans are for the distribution of old-age security

and guaranteed income supplement cheques which would normally

be due for delivery starting this Friday, April 26.

Similarly, the government is very concerned over the fact

that the present arrangement federally for the issue of

unemployment insurance cheques, which is distinctly a federal

responsibility, has been limited to two days a week, Thursday

and Friday, and we certainly would urge the federal government

that this distribution programme be improved and put on a

five-day basis.

The Workmen's Compensation Board: the Minister advised the

cabinet this morning that the cheques are being distributed

through the 12 British Columbia offices of the WCB. The

recipients should phone the local offices and first have their

claim number handy. In areas that are served by a WCB office,

as reported in the paper this morning, government agents will

be able to handle it.

We expect it to be a costly programme, even though it's a

federal responsibility in terms of the dispute. We're unhappy

that this has been the occasion. We know that there will have

to be some real effort made by the government employees. The

union is fully aware of this programme and is supporting it, as

indeed are the postal workers, who don't wish to cause the kind

of hardship for the people on fixed incomes and so on, and so

forth.

We know that it's going to be a costly programme and the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is making extra special arrangements for those people

who will no doubt be applying for emergency assistance on the basis of need.

That covers the situation to date, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in these deliberations in cabinet

has any consideration been given to a permanent system whereby

more responsibility can be placed on the recipient to pick up

the cheque at a pre-arranged spot, rather than have

everyone have their cheque mailed? There's nothing unusual

about this since it's done in the United Kingdom; they have had

a great deal of experience in distributing various kinds of

cheques. It would be perhaps appropriate for the cabinet to

tell us whether this kind of long-term planning is being

considered.

HON. MR. HALL: I don't want to use the time-honoured

phrase "I'll take that as notice" because that is an ongoing

debate in the department. In terms of my own responsibility as

Provincial Secretary, if you care to look at the estimates

which we may get to later on this year, you will notice the

incredible amount of money it now takes to mail stuff out from

this department.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary: in the deliberations in

planning the moves that you have made to have this mail moved

have you had these actions sanctioned by the union

involved?

HON. MR. HALL: We have been in discussion with our own

people who have made sure that the normal arrangements between

unions are observed. We are stating now in the House that this

scheme has the approval of the people involved in the

dispute.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have the people involved in the mail carriers

union given this their sanction? Actually it's a

strike-breaking tactic, if you want to get right down to

basics.

HON. MR. HALL: Well, we could have a debate about that, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplemental: in view of the

government's recognition of the serious inconvenience and

hardship that this strike is bringing to certain citizens has

the government considered asking the postal workers to go back

to work while their union resolves their problems with the

federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you talking about a responsibility outside

of the realm of this government's jurisdiction?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This government has

[ Page

2405 ]

assumed a responsibility with respect to the delivery of

mail, which is a federal responsibility. I think they would

urge the postal workers to get back to work.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question exceeds the bounds of the

rules. Does the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) have a

question?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I have extended the time by three minutes in

view of the long statement.

REQUEST FOR FUNDS

BY ROSS COMMITTEE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Could the Minister

advise whether the ROSS committee (Run Out Skagit Spoilers

committee) requested the government for a grant for costs to

assist them in making a presentation before the U.S. Federal

Power Commission, and whether the government turned them down

and on what grounds?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I must admit that I have read the

newspaper accounts and I'm not aware of any recent requests by

ROSS for funding. So it may have simply gone astray. But I'm

not aware of any with respect to my office.

MR. GIBSON: Could the Minister perhaps take it as notice

then, Mr. Speaker?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Sure.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

On vote 129: Minister's office, $78,724.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I really

don't wish to delay the passage of the budget for the

Department of Labour because it's a very vital department.

However, there are a few things I would like to say about it

before we push on if my colleagues can spend the time on

it.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, last year we saw a considerable change in legislation

affecting the Department of Labour. There were major changes in the industrial

relations field in terms of the abolition of three former Acts and the development

of the British Columbia Labour Code. Of course, under the Labour Code quite

a new broad area of services is offered by the Department of Labour to the parties

to collective bargaining. We have such provisions as you have become familiar

with, I presume, as special officers who can be dispatched by the department

to intervene in disputes that are tying up important industries in the province.

For the record, I would like to note that there is quite an increased use of

industrial inquiry commissions, which we have found have been very, very acceptable

to trade unions in the province and to management groups.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that under the previous

administration only two or three industrial inquiry commissions

were used and something like a dozen or 14 have been used in

the short time that this government has been in office. I just

use that to show that apparently this device is becoming more

acceptable and more popular as a method of solving strike

situations in the province. We've had a pretty good degree of

success from the use of industrial inquiry commissions.

I'd just like to comment that in addition to that we have

provided under the new Labour Code that under the arbitration

system the Department of Labour can provide financial

assistance to an industry which agrees to designate a

full-time arbitrator. It is my feeling, Mr. Chairman,

that this is a very useful expenditure of funds by the

Department of Labour because if an industry has a mutually

acceptable arbitrator to which they can refer their grievances,

then I think there is a much greater chance that grievances and

problems on the job will be resolved within a framework that

the grievance procedure was initially designed to take care of.

With a full-time arbitrator I think it's money well spent

by the department to ensure that the full financial cost of

that type of thing does not fall solely on industry and on the

trade union. I think this will, over the course of time, prove

to be a very worthwhile investment from the Department of

Labour's point of view in terms of stabilizing the economy of

the province.

The much broadened mandate that the Department of Labour

has, not only in terms of services to the field of industrial

relations but also in terms of the designation of a new branch

of the Department of Labour, namely the Manpower Development

Branch, has of course called for quite a significant increase

in the budget for the Department of Labour. We for the first

time have a branch of the department which is responsible not

only for training needs in the province, for

pre-apprenticeship and tradesmen's qualification,

apprenticeship training and so on, but an agency that is

responsible for trying to develop a comprehensive and cohesive

manpower strategy for this province. So we in

co-operation, for instance, with the Department of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, can project and

monitor what the specialized skill requirements will be in the

province in areas where we anticipate a good

[ Page 2406 ]

deal of development and also to coordinate and

co-operate with industry and the trade-union

movement in terms of identifying those areas in the province

now where there is a gap or a shortage of skilled

tradesmen.

I would just observe in this respect, Mr. Chairman, that in

my view too often in the past the Province of British Columbia

has relied on the influx or the infusion of workers from out of

the province and, indeed, outside the country altogether to

meet the specialized skills that are required by industry in

this province. I think that that's a very serious mistake to go

that route. Surely we should be addressing ourselves to

developing the skills and the proficiencies of our own people

in this province and ensuring that they are mobilized for the

jobs that will become available before we consider the

immigration of outside workers to this province and to this

country. So I think that the work of the Manpower Development

Branch is certainly going to be central and crucial to an

organized economy, an active industrial province, which will

ensure that we not only have industrial development but we have

the trained staff to facilitate the development as it takes

place.

In the area of industrial relations there's been an increase

in the budget, as I've indicated. The Mediation Services Branch

is one of the crucial branches of the Department of Labour. We

have had to beef up that branch of the department to not only

ensure that we have enough mediation officers to accommodate

the disputes that crop up from time to time. I would observe,

Mr. Chairman, that although the only really significant labour

problems that seem to be apparent in the province today are

federal ones, we don't want to become lethargic. We may have

labour problems in the provincial jurisdiction at any time too,

so we want to make sure that we have the mediation officers who

can attend to the various steps of negotiations that are going

on at any given point of time in the province.

In addition to that, we have found there has been a real

need for up-to-date training of mediation officers.

We're paying more attention to ensuring that these people can

get the kind of training necessary to be conversant with the

latest skills and techniques in mediating disputes. There are

always changing trends and patterns, not only in the province

but throughout Canada, throughout the Dominion and certainly in

other nations which can be of benefit to us in terms of

techniques we might utilize to bring parties together and

prevent work stoppages. So, the Mediation Services Branch has

been increased in number. We're looking forward to more

effective training methods, certainly more liaison between

mediation officers from this province and those in the federal

service and other provincial jurisdictions too.

We cannot accomplish this type of thing, and I think it's an essential service,

without the provision of more funds in terms of salaries and also in terms of

travel expenses to meet the need of the conferences that will be held, usually

by the federal government, from time to time.

I think the record of our mediation officers in disputes

over the past year speaks well for the usefulness of that

particular branch. I think most Members of this House have had

occasion to view the effectiveness of some of our mediation

officers at work.

I know that in the troublesome Victoria Press strike a number of the

opposition Members and I believe one Member from this side of the House

were concerned enough and co-operative enough to offer their

assistance and meet with the parties, and, I believe, to discuss with

the mediation officer, Mr. Clark Gilmore, the history of that dispute.

I appreciate their efforts.

As they know, an industrial inquiry commission has now been

appointed to investigate into that dispute when mediation

failed. I hope as a result of the commission recommendations

that a settlement will be forthcoming. We do have the assurance

of the parties that recommendations flowing from the industrial

inquiry commission will be seriously considered and that the

union will put to a vote of its membership the recommendations

that are made. So, really that's the only major dispute facing

the province at the moment in the federal jurisdiction. I'm

hopeful that a solution to that one will be found very

shortly.

The industrial relations officers are another area that

perhaps is not generally too well understood. Perhaps many

Members of the House are not totally familiar with the work of

industrial relations officers — the whole labour

standards side of the Department of Labour. This involves our

officers and investigators who are charged with the

responsibility of doing the routine inspections in the plants

and factories of this province to make sure that the statutory

requirements to pay the minimum wage, to comply with the Hours

of Work Act , overtime and so on are understood by the parties,

also enforced. Of course, with the ever increasing industrial

development of this province, it's necessary to secure more

people just to keep pace.

In addition to that I think it's fair to say in that area

also we are trying to do a little more than simply police the

regulations. It's been my experience, certainly, that many

employers, indeed many working men, were not knowledgeable,

were not familiar with the legislation which did exist on the

statute books to regulate their relationship in the absence of

a trade union organization. So, we hope to ensure that we have

adequate industrial relations officers perhaps to play an

educational role, to make the employers, particularly new

employers, aware of

[ Page 2407 ]

what their obligations are under the various statutes of the

province. This, hopefully, will make for more responsible

employers, better informed workers and, hopefully, less

prosecutions.

As a matter of interest, I point out that our industrial

relations officers in 1973 made 48,893 calls in investigations

in connection with unpaid wages, holiday pay, statutory holiday

pay and so on. So you can see that the demands on this branch

of the department are increasing in a very rapid way.

Again, it's necessary to, I suspect, constantly increase the

budget for that type of service which grows with the economy of

the province. I think it's important rather than just taking

the policing approach to it, the rather punitive approach, that

we try to get across to the people involved the importance of

understanding their obligations so they can, in fact, comply

with them and minimize the chance of prosecutions under the

various statutes.

Again the factory division of the Department of Labour is

increasing in much the same way. This is the branch responsible

for the health and sanitary conditions that exist in the

factories and plants in the province, and it's tremendously

important, of course, to the health of the working people of

the province. Here again, we must ensure that we have adequate

people to do the kind of job that's necessary and again

concentrate as much as possible on an educational approach

which will make people aware of what their obligations are.

We are short-staffed in terms of qualified factory

inspectors. The record shows that currently the branch is only

able to inspect approximately 7 per cent of the total number of

industrial-commercial establishments in the province.

There is provision in the budget this year to significantly

increase the factory inspection branch so we can keep pace

with the inspection and educational services which they

provide.

I'm just going to briefly highlight some of the changes that

are taking place in the department, not only in terms of

administrative structure but also in concept — the type

of department we want to develop and the kind of services we

want to give. I'll just briefly mention some of the different

branches and the changes that are taking place rather than go

into any great detail on the specific tasks before them because

under the vote of the department, Members of the opposition

will have an opportunity to question each particular

section of

the department. Rather, I just want to give you an overview, if

possible, of the changes and the approaches taking place under

the department.

I believe I mentioned last year, Mr. Chairman, that the Elevator Branch of

the Department of Labour has been critically short-staffed. On assuming office,

we found a backlog of over 1,800 inspections that had not been conducted in

the province. I found this particularly alarming in view of the fact that we're

dealing here with the public's safety.

As Members are aware, we not only do the provincial

inspections but we also have a contract with the federal

government to do the federal elevator inspections in the

province. I just don't think we can tolerate that kind of

marginal approach to something that is a very, very crucial

requirement from the public safety standpoint. Again, we've had

to increase the budget to train and secure the kind of

inspectors we need to perform this important function.

I've dealt with the manpower area and most branches of the

department. Another important programme we have, which I will

be able to deal with under a bill that's before the House, is

the student summer employment programme, so I'll wait for that

occasion to comment on the student summer employment programme.

I'm sure many of the opposition people are interested in the

new thrust the Department of Labour is taking in that

respect.

The other area of the department which I have not mentioned

at the moment...and I'm sure you're all familiar with the

important changes that have taken place in the Human Rights

Branch of the Department of Labour. A bill was introduced last

year, and I think that bill has been hailed by most people

interested in human rights in the province as a very, very long

step in the efforts of the government to ensure that people do

in fact have equal opportunity in this province.

Now the total bill is not proclaimed as yet because we're in

the process of gearing our administrative structure to a point

where we can in fact accommodate the kind of changes and the

kind of inspection and education that's necessary in the human

rights area to ensure that this legislation is not just

something that obtains in Victoria or Vancouver but has equal

application throughout every corner of this province and to

every group in this province, whether they be native Indians or

women in the workplace or whatever.

To do this, of course, we have provided for boards of

inquiry which will have the power and the teeth to deal with

blatant acts of discrimination where they take place.

Nevertheless it's necessary to find the right kind of people

and set up the necessary agencies to do this job. We are in the

process of doing that now and we certainly hope that in the

very near future — I frankly hope within the next month

or so — we'll be in a position to bring in the rest of

the Human Rights Act and give final effect to it.

Now, before I sit down and turn over the floor for brief

comments to the opposition people, I would like to announce to

the House, Mr. Chairman, that the industrial inquiry commission

that was set up some time ago to deal with the registered

nurses' dispute in the hospital industry in the province

has

[ Page 2408 ]

been concluded. I have just had the report delivered to me.

We have a settlement and I'm pleased to announce that the

parties co-operated with the industrial inquiry

commission and I understand that the settlement was

voluntary.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: In any event, the main points in dispute, as

I understand it, were voluntarily agreed to. There may well

have been some peripheral issues which the commissioner handed

down a binding decision on.

I'd just like to once again point out, Mr. Chairman, that

this is a real credit to the unions involved and to the

industry involved, because it was a very, very difficult

dispute — tremendously emotional and complicated issues

were at stake in that dispute. We often get into this whole

debate on public interest disputes, but I have held from the

outset of that debate that people should be granted equal

rights. There should be no second-class trade unionists,

any more than there should be any second-class citizens

in the province.

I think this is a real affirmation of a public interest

dispute being solved through the collective bargaining system

where the people who were granted the responsibility proved up

and showed that they justified every measure of responsibility

that we vested in them. I think it's a real triumph for the

collective bargaining system. Lord knows, it has enough

detractors. I think we can all offer criticism. I'm not

suggesting that it's sacrosanct or anything like that, but on

the other hand we hear much too frequently the bad news and I

think it behoves us all to show some interest and at least

acknowledge those that demonstrate real responsibility in the

industrial relations world.

So thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll look forward to a

few opposition questions.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I appreciate the Minister's

opening remarks that he is in a hurry, but I want to say a few

things here, Mr. Chairman, and I'll proceed to do so. First of

all, on behalf of our party, we are certainly happy to be back

here from the rugby recess. We're quite amazed at the empty

seats over there, but no doubt in the next week or two they'll

start filling up.

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

behind you, Alex.

MR. FRASER: Oh, all 10 were here at two o'clock.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), but

anyway we'll get off that subject now.

I'd just like to say to start with that the Minister of

Labour seems to have done a fairly good job in the portfolio up

till now. As a matter of fact I think he's done a better job in

that than he has as MLA for Revelstoke-Slocan. According

to the local paper the Revelstoke Chamber of Commerce are after

him for not representing them properly and...

HON. MR. KING: They sent me a letter of apology.

MR. FRASER: ...you also have to look after your riding. The

budget certainly is up in the Department of Labour and needs

some looking at. It's up from some $8 million-odd last

year to $14.5 million this year. I don't think we in the

opposition have anything to criticize about that because labour

is getting more technical all the time, and certainly we need

more staff to keep up with the ever-changing scene.

We are happy to hear that there is a settlement in the

nurses' situation and I imagine the Minister will give the

press details on the fact that there will be no stoppage there

in that vital field.

I would say this year is certainly going to be the big year

as far as labour negotiations in the Province of British

Columbia are concerned. There are over 400 major contracts

expiring in the province this year covering approximately

185,000 employees. Over 50 per cent of the union membership in

the province is affected, and this union membership affects 18

to 19 per cent of the labour force of the province.

The labour contracts expiring are in several fields but

particularly in the forestry, construction and hospitality

divisions. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, forestry is the

largest industry we have in the province and any work stoppage

there is certainly fatal to the general economy of the

province. The construction contracts are up and the hospitality

division's contracts are up. Other contracts that are involved

are B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries, the newspapers which the Minister

referred to, and shipyard agreements. These are just some of

the contracts that are coming up this year.

I'd like to just read a few of the contracts that are up for

expiry this year and the dates they are up. We have quite a few

that have already gone past the date of expiry. The B.C.

Ferries contract expired March 31; the construction labour

relations contract, which comprises 25,000-odd union

people, expires shortly on April 30; we have pipeline

construction contracts expiring on April 30 with 625 employees

affected; and there are several small contracts, until we get

down to probably one of the largest, the forest industrial

relations contract which expires on the coast on June 14 and represents 29,000, almost

[ Page 2409 ]

30,000, workers.

A large contract at Cominco expires on June 30 where 3,600

workers are involved. In the Interior Forest Products, a

contract expires on June 30 affecting 5,000 workers in the

forest industry. Then again, on August 31 we have a contract

expiring with 1,200 further forestry workers in the North

Cariboo Forest Labour Relations Association. The Northwood

Timber contract, again in the forest industry, expires on

August 31, affecting 750 workers, and so on down the line.

It certainly means that this is a very big year in British

Columbia so far as labour is concerned. We're just really

getting into that now in the province. It's certainly going to

be the biggest year we've seen for some time for contracts to

be renegotiated. As I said earlier, the forest economy, being

SO per cent of our economy — at least, everybody says so

— is very directly affected. In turn, if anything happens

there it will affect practically every citizen in the

province.

I would like just for the information of the House to read

out of information that I found in the Labour department on

unions in British Columbia that have a membership greater than

5,000. This is in the year 1973. The International Woodworkers

of America had a membership in 1973 of 44,500 people. These are

the major unions that I'll be speaking of here. The British

Columbia Teachers' Federation had 22,000 members; the British

Columbia Government Employees' Union had 17,930; the

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers

had 16,000; Canadian Union of Public Employees, 15,000 —

and some of those are already having their difficulties.

Registered nurses, which the Minister has just announced as

being settled — 14,400-odd; Public Service Alliance

of Canada — 13,000; the United Brotherhood of Carpenters

and Joiners — 13,000; the United Steel Workers of America

— 12,300; Hospital Employees Union — 10,000;

Labourers' International Union of North America — 9,400

members; International Union of Operating Engineers —

9,300; United Paper Workers' International Union — 9,000;

Hotel and Restaurant Employees — 8,440, and a lot of

those contracts are coming up this year; the Federation of

Telephone Workers — 8,200, and I think this is another

one that is coming up; the International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers — 7,969; and the

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers —

7,465.

Just a couple, more here, Mr. Chairman: Retail Clerks'

International Union — 6,000; United Fishermen and

Allied Workers' Union — 5,400; Pulp and Paperworkers of

Canada — 5,223. These were unions with memberships

greater than 5,000 during the year 1973.

British Columbia, as I understand, Mr. Chairman, is the most unionized province

in Canada, with 42 per cent of the workers organized. The national average is

around 33 per cent, This year, for the first time, other than so many contracts

up for negotiation, and a crucial year, we also have the new provincial Labour

Code which we will soon find out how it is going to operate and how it will

stand up under the tests of this year. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that last

fall when that passed into law, our party and most all parties agreed with the

new Labour Code, and we certainly wish it well.

I would like to deal with the responsibility of the new

Labour Relations Board. There are four key officers on this

board: Mr. Jack Moore; Mr. Ed Peck; Mr. Weiler, the chairman;

and Nancy Morrison. We would like to know, Mr. Chairman, to the

Minister, what kind of a contract these people have. I think it

has been in the press, but the reason we are asking this is the

performance of this government so far on some contracts they

have had. I particularly refer to the contract ICBC had with

Mr. Adams and the settlement he received when his services were

dispensed with. Also, of course, the famous Mr. Bremer and his

contract with the Department of Education and the settlement he

received.

We would like to know the details. In other words, in these

people's contracts, if they are no longer required, must you

pay their contract and pay them a bonus — which has

happened to the two people I mentioned — or is there

another detail that the Minister has not mentioned in regard to

these people on the Labour Relations Board? In other words, if

you have to dispense with them, what is this going to cost the

public of British Columbia?

Another thing I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, to the

Minister, is how come there are no representatives from

Canadian unions on the Labour Relations Board? Many charges

have been made by union people and others that the Minister is

biased against Canadian unions. It would appear that, as

related to the appointments to the Labour", Relations Board,

there must be some substance to this because nobody from the

Canadian unions is on the Labour Relations Board. I understand

they submitted names to go on, and I would like the Minister to

reply why this didn't take place.

It would appear that the Minister is biased against Canadian

unions. I would like to know why he favours

American-based unions as against Canadian labour unions.

You favour that way and other Ministers of this government say,

"Yankee, go home with your capital. Yankee, go home; stay

home." The tourists, the Minister of Highways.... And here we

have the Minister of Labour apparently favouring American

unionism here. I think the people of the province need some

answers on that.

I would like to read something I have received from the

place called Trail where there are problems with the Canadian

workers, and questions that I

[ Page 2410 ]

believe have been put to the Minister. I don't know whether

he has answered them or not, but I don't think he has. The

questions ask: Why were workers at Trail, Kimberley and Salmo

again denied a representative vote by the Labour Relations

Board? For the second year in a row, these workers have

organized an independent Canadian union and have been denied a

vote by the Labour Relations Board. Somehow the Labour

Relations Board keeps finding reasons why these workers should

not be allowed to vote on what union they want to represent

them.

Why did the Labour Relations Board include an additional 300

persons as part of the bargaining unit that are not part of the

current contract? The Canadian union has a good majority signed

up but the Labour Relations Board has included 300 persons as

part of the bargaining unit. They are not part of the current

contract. This addition means they don't have 50 per cent

signed up.

Why can't the Canadian union have access to the records? The

Labour Relations decision is wordy but vague, rejecting the

application simply because there wasn't a majority signed up.

The union should have access to the company's statement of the

number of people under the contract. This is the information

the Labour Relations Board based its decision on and should be

available to all parties.

Why wasn't the numerical date on the bargaining unit

available to the union during the sign-up period? No one

is required to release figures on the number of employees in

the bargaining unit prior to the vote being taken. Why can't

that number be set during the sign-up period so the

applicant union knows what to aim for? This would prevent the

Labour Relations Board from pulling stunts like adding extra

persons to the bargaining unit not covered by the current

contract.

Why do you need a lawyer to figure these things out, to

interpret the decisions of the Labour Relations Board, to

understand the Labour Code? Any working person should be able

to read the Code and understand what has to be done to form a

union, bargain collectively, et cetera. The Labour Relations

decision should be written in plain language that anyone can

understand. Perhaps these things are not meant to be understood

by those they apply to.

Why was no representative of an independent Canadian union

appointed to the Labour Relations Board? I have mentioned that

earlier.

These independent Canadian unions are democratic and often

militant unions run by the workers themselves, not labour

bureaucrats. Were they ignored because they might ask

embarrassing questions of the government?

By your actions, Mr. Minister, you have made it clear that

the B.C. government is on the side of the U.S. unions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Multi-national unions.

MR. FRASER: Over 5,000 Canadians have demanded an end to the

B.C. government's collaboration with the U.S. unions. The

Labour Relations Board's decisions must be reversed.

It ends by saying that a vote should be taken so that they

can chose the union they desire.

I would like to read a letter that was written to the

Minister, which is a bit alarming if you read the content of

it. And I intend to read excerpts out of it, Mr. Chairman, a

letter to the Minister written by the Canadian Association of

Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers (CAIMAW) about the

publication of the decisions of the Labour Relations Board.

There seems to be something wrong here in the way that they are

actually announced.

This letter was written on March 26 to the Minister. It

says:

"We are calling upon you" — the Minister — "to

immediately appoint an independent authority to investigate the

administration of the present Labour Relations Board.

"The organization of CAIMAW is deeply disturbed at the

treatment we are receiving at the hands of the Board. I will

list our concerns and give you an understanding of our

grievances.

"On the Afternoon of March 21, 1974, the Labour Relations

Board Deputy Registrar contacted our office and informed us

that the Board had rejected CAIMAW's application bid for

Western Canada Steel employees who are presently represented by

the United Steelworkers of America.

"On March 22, 1974, a representation vote among 200 workers

at Noranda Metal Industries, New Westminster, took place. The

vote was between the United Steel Workers of America

(bargaining agent at Noranda since 1958) and CAIMAW. CAIMAW won

104 votes to 84 for Steel.

"On March 21, 1974, late in the evening, the United Steel

Workers of America issued a leaflet to the workers at Noranda

Metal Industries. The following is quoted directly from the

leaflet.

" '400 Western Canada Steel workers stay Steel. CAIMAW's

application has failed because they couldn't sign up 50 per

cent. 4,200 Cominco workers stay Steel. CAIMAW's application at

Trail, Kimberley and Salmo failed because they couldn't sign up

50 per cent.'

"Only at 11 a.m., March 22, 1974, did the board's deputy

registrar phone our office and inform us that CAIMAW's

application bid for Cominco employees in Trail, Kimberley

and

[ Page 2411 ]

Salmo had been rejected. He also notified us that a telegram

would be following.

"According to The Vancouver Sun of March 23,

Mr. Ron Bone, Registrar of the Labour Relations Board, said

that the Cominco information was released only after 9:30 a.m.,

March 22, 1974, to both CAIMAW and the steel workers.

"Mr. Minister, the steel workers knew on March 21, 1974,

about the CAIMAW application at Cominco being rejected. The

board only gave out this information 11 a.m., March 22,

"Who released the information to the steel workers? We want

to know, Mr. Minister.

"The registrar, Mr. Ron Bone, is directly responsible for

the administration activities of the Labour Relations Board. We

must conclude, therefore, that the control of releasing

information from the board's offices is in the hands of Mr.

Bone both directly and indirectly. This position is confirmed

by Mr. Bone's statements to The Vancouver Sun

on March 23, 1974.

"The registrar has obviously failed in his responsibility

and he should be dismissed from the office of registrar."

They go on and ask the Minister to fill the office of the

registrar with a civil servant as it was prior to the

appointment of Mr. Bone. That's a good question. Mr. Bone was

an appointee. Before, this office was held by a civil servant

who should be unbiased in all ways. It's certainly questionable

as to whether Mr. Bone is or not.

"We go further in questioning Mr. Bone's complete lack of

sensitivity in releasing the information on Cominco and Western

Canada Steel at a time when such information could be used in a

way to influence the representation vote held on March 22 at

Noranda Metal Industries. Surely if the actions of the

registrar are to appear to be objective, impartial and fair,

then information must be released in a way that workers, such

as the Noranda employees, can exercise their franchise without

being unruly and unfairly influenced. Again, we go to the steel

worker representative in The Vancouver Sun of

March 23. We were desperately hoping for the information to

come out before the vote at Noranda.

"The steel workers succeeded. They got their

information."

It would appear there is justification for criticizing the

activities of the Labour Relations Board.

"We are more than ever convinced that unnecessary and undue

delay takes place in issuing decisions favourable to CAIMAW. The reverse is

true when the decision is not favourable to CAIMAW. We can supply you with more

detailed information, if necessary.

"We put before you some examples.

"On January 11, 1974, CAIMAW applied for certification for

110 Shell Canada Ltd. employees. The vote took place on March

15 and 16. CAIMAW got a clear majority. At this time, March 26,

we have not," — I repeat Mr. Chairman, they have not — "received notification from the board of certification."

So that seems to justify what they say. When the decision is

against them, they certainly get it in a hurry. When it's for

them, they don't seem to get notification very speedily.

"On March 16, 17 and 18, your investigating officer checked

the records for 3,600 workers on our Cominco application. The

board issued that decision to CAIMAW on March 22, 1974. Why the

haste?

"We won a representative vote by 60 per cent on March 22 at

Noranda Metal Industries against the steel workers. March 25 we

are told there is to be a hearing to decide who won the

vote.

"On November 14, 1973, CAIMAW won certification for 15

mechanics at Arrow Transfer in North Vancouver. Previously, the

certification was held by the machinists union since 1961. The

Labour Relations Board took the certification away from CAIMAW

on March 8, 1974, and gave it over to the Canada federal labour

board's jurisdiction. At the time the board was giving

jurisdiction away to the federal body, the Minister of Labour

of B.C. was asking the federal Minister to bring fishermen

under provincial jurisdiction.

"Is it any wonder that the board's credibility is in doubt?

We find it difficult to accept that a board dominated by

representatives from the American-based unions can mete

out justice to independent Canadian unionists.

"Yes, we could accept the board's decision on Cominco and

Western Canada Steel if the board had credibility in our eyes.

But we cannot accept the haste with which these decisions were

issued. That's the question to be answered by the

registrar.

"A board which appeared to act fairly and issued decisions

with some consistency and was truly representative of all

segments of the labour movement would get our support.

"We sincerely and earnestly trust you will give the matters

raised in this correspondence great consideration and then act

as we request so that justice to Canadian labour will not only

be done but seem to be done."

That was a letter, as I said, written to the Minister on

March 26 by the Canadian Association of

[ Page 2412 ]

Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers which seems to

further justify the fact that there seems to be favoritism of

American-based unions against Canadian unions. I would

like again to ask why, Mr. Chairman.

Just another thing. I'm sorry the Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley) is not in his seat because this certainly

affects his riding. I want to read a telegram addressed to the

Premier of the province, dated March 25, before he left us for

his rugby holiday. He no doubt received it before he left. It

was sent to the Premier of the province by Mr. Roger Crowther

of Ashcroft, B.C. on the subject of Canadian unions. This is

what he had to say:

JUST RESIGNED AS MEMBERSHIP CHAIRMAN FOR YALE-LILLOOET NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAUSE FOR SECOND YEAR

COMINCO WORKERS DENIED RIGHT TO VOTE FOR UNION OF THEIR CHOICE. SUGGEST YOU

KICK THE CRAP OUT OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD.

THIS IS NO CHICKEN AND EGG

MATTER BUT A SABOTAGE OF WORKERS CHOICE TO STAY STEEL OR GO CAIMAW.

STEEL'S AL KING SAID LAST WEEK THAT TO GIVE CAIMAW A VOTE AT

WESTERN CANADA STEEL WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF DEMOCRACY. SINCE

WHEN HAS A VOTE BEEN DETRIMENTAL TO DEMOCRACY? BILL KING'S APPOINTMENTS TO LABOUR

RELATIONS BOARD MAKE ME THINK THAT HE SHARES HIS BROTHER'S VIEWPOINT.

BOARD REGISTRAR RON BONE OF OTEU OF AMERICA HAS TWICE RELEASED

PRIOR INFORMATION TO INTERNATIONALS AND PRESS IN THE CASE OF CUTE APPLICATION

IN JANUARY AND CAIMAW APPLICATION LAST WEEK. REPLACE BONE WITH CIVIL SERVANT

WITH NO BUSINESS OR UNION VESTED INTEREST.

INTERNATIONAL UNION MONEY TAKEN FROM WORKERS AGAINST THEIR WILL

TO SUPPORT YOUR CAMPAIGN DID NOT ELECT YOU. WORKERS' BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS FOR

40 YEARS DID. REMEMBER FAIR IS FAIR. WE ARE THE BOSS. GIVE COMINCO WORKERS A

VOTE OR ELSE WE SAY FUDDLE-DUDDLE DAVE NEXT ELECTION.

That wire was sent to the Premier of the province by Mr.

Crowther of Ashcroft. It didn't go to the Minister of Labour,

admittedly, but no doubt he knows something about it.

I would like to say to the Minister on Canadian unions that

the funds derived from their membership stay in Canada. I

recall — in fact we still hear it — that the

government you're a member of believes in the funds staying in

Canada, particularly as applied to Icky-Bicky...pardon

me, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. One of your

long suits in selling Autoplan was the fact that all this money would stay in

Canada.

You seem to reverse yourself when you come around to

unionism; you cater to the American-based unions. It's

certainly also in reverse of other things that you have said.

We can't understand why you're so biased against the unions

involved. I think there's some hypocrisy being practised here;

and it certainly should be discussed at greater length in this

House as to just how far he's going to take this biased

policy.

I would like to mention a couple of cases of organizing

unorganized workers. I don't know whether the Minister's aware

of them or not; he possibly isn't. I'm particularly thinking of

a firm, a sawmill, in Vanderhoof and another sawmill at 100

Mile House. They had, we'll say, in each case around 100

employees in each mill — a minimum of 100; I think one

has more than that.

The organizers went in to organize these unorganized

operations. I certainly haven't got it in writing, Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister, but I wonder just what these men are

being told. The men have told me that when the organizers go

in, they are telling the men that they're in favour of a union

and the men are in favour of organizing. But before anything

actually happens, they're certified and the union tells them

that they will get a vote. Well, we know that this doesn't

happen, if more than 50 per cent are signed up, and of course

they proceed and they grant certification., It seems to me that possibly the workers are at fault for

not knowing the labour Act. But it is causing a lot of

difficulty in the operations. Of course, they go ahead for

certification. In one case — and I think soon in the

second one — we're going to see a shutdown of operations.

I don't think that the Department of Labour want to see this

happen. But now that they have granted certification, the men

involved in the units do not intend to take any

part in the

unit. It is going to end up with the men out of work and these

mills down. I would like to hear the Minister comment on that

because this is a rather serious deal.

I think that another thing said at the time when an

individual is approached is that he's one of the last few to

sign, and to be on the bandwagon he should join up. The other

inducement apparently is given regarding union dues. If they

sign now, they will have a bargain rate, and if they wait until

next week, why, there will be a different rate.

I think there's something here that possibly the Minister

could comment on, but I haven't mentioned the company names. No

doubt the Minister's aware of the cases that I mention. I'm not

making any charges; I'm just stating facts regarding these

operations. I think there is trouble ahead inasmuch as there

are going to be some people out of work over the...misunderstanding is probably a better way to

[ Page 2413 ]

put it.

As far as we're concerned, as I said earlier, our party

supported the Labour Code in the fall session. We hope that

there is labour harmony in the province this year and that the

province will continue on as it has done and that there will be

no work stoppages, which cost all the citizens of our province

a lot of inconvenience and, of course, money as well.

Another subject, Mr. Chairman, that I deal with only

slightly is the Christian conscience clause in the Labour Code,

where the Labour Code allows a man not to belong to a union,

but he must pay union dues. While this is certainly a step in

the right direction, we're wondering why those dues can't be

channeled to a charitable organization as so many citizens seem

to want to have done. As a matter of fact, I've had

considerable correspondence on that. I would like to hear the

Minister's comments on that.

Mr. Chairman, so they can't say that we held up his vote too

long, I'd just like to summarize a bit for the Minister and say

that we would like to know the tenure of the Labour Relations

Board members. If they're dismissed, as has happened in the

case of Mr. Adams from Icky-Bicky and Mr. Bremer from

Education, is there a premium paid, and so on and so forth,

like there was to the Members; and, if so, how much?

We'd also like to know, Mr. Chairman, why no Canadian union

representative is on the Labour Relations Board. As I said, it

would appear from these actions that the Minister is biased

against Canadian unions, and I would like to hear his remarks

about that. As I mentioned earlier, these people asked and

submitted names to stand for the board, but apparently they

weren't even considered.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): They're

pro-Yankee.

MR. FRASER: It would appear that.... Yes, they're

pro-Yankee. As I said, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea) says, "Yankee, go home." So you over there are very

inconsistent from one branch of government to the other.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's got a forked tongue.

MR. FRASER: It seems that you have several standards.

What's the situation at Trail? We'd like to know what the

situation is there and the Canadian union involvement. The

other thing we'd like to know is why the registrar of the

Labour Relations Board is not a civil servant. Furthermore, as

I indicated here in my talk, he seems to be — his office

anyway — giving decisions out, information . out, again

showing favoritism to the international unions.

Well, this case that I mentioned: the one union got the information on March

21; the other one got it on March 22. That is really hardly fair, Mr. Chairman.

Then there's the Christian conscience clause — and I believe that there's a

motion on the order paper about that. But we'd just like to have a few answers

from the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Hoffa will get you.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I feel that it might be

advisable if I respond to the Member for Cariboo at this point

while the comments he made are fresh in my mind.

In the first instance, he suggested, in light of all the

contracts that will be up for renegotiation this year and the

large number of working people who are represented in those

contracts, that the new Labour Code is on trial. I would like

to correct the Member on that premise, Mr. Chairman.

The new Labour Code has really very little to do with the

normal collective bargaining system under the new Labour Code

as most other jurisdictions have. So there's nothing there

that's significant in terms of new provisions for collective

bargaining.

What we have under the new code, I hope, and under the new

administration, is perhaps a different attitude in terms of

aids and services that the department might give. But in terms

of legislation, the structure is still essentially the same for

the purpose of collective bargaining. So I don't think you

should view it as the Labour Code being on trial in terms of

the bargaining that goes on this year.

I think it's fair to say that a test of the Labour Code will

be a couple of years to monitor the whole climate of industrial

relations in the province with respect to trade union

certifications, the growth of the labour movement and,

hopefully, an impact on the high incidence of wildcat strikes

that developed under the tenure of my predecessor. So I think

that's a fair test for the Labour Code.

The Member is curious about the contract provisions of the

Labour Relations Board members. I would just point out that

they do have five-year tenure contracts. This is deemed

to be essential, and this was discussed under the debate on the

Labour Code: that it's essential for the independence of the

Labour Relations Board that they have some security of tenure.

I think it's a concept which most people in this House respect:

that the board is in fact independent from government and must

be so, because of its adjudicative responsibilities.

Now with respect to any damages that may accrue, that's a

hypothetical situation. I have no way of anticipating what

damage actions could possible accrue from the termination of

any contract. That would be a matter for the legal

circumstances involved, I presume, in the particular case. So

I'm not at liberty to speculate on what obligations the

[ Page 2414 ]

government might have if one of the people were

terminated.

Quite frankly, in my view, the job that the Labour Relations

Board has been doing is one which I'm very proud of, and I'm

certainly not anticipating any termination of any member of the

Labour Relations Board.

The Member for Cariboo dealt at some length with the union

representatives who were appointed to the Labour Relations

Board, and he decried the fact that no, what he called,

Canadian trade union member was appointed to that board. I

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that Member should do his homework,

because he's obviously getting his facts from someone who does

not know the situation over there.

We have one member who was appointed to the Labour Relations

Board, representing the public service area, who happens to

belong to the largest Canadian trade union in this nation, and

that is Mr. Kramer of CUPE. Now that is an independent Canadian

trade union; so I just don't know what the Member is talking

about. Further to that, if he wants to get mixed up in the

politics of trade unions, well, be my guest. But I certainly

have no interest in that whatsoever.

I believe that we should leave to the trade union people the

freedom of choice, the right to select and vote for the union

which the majority supports. I have no intention of getting

into a highly political debate, in my view, on the question of

which trade union a group of workers may want to have represent

them.

Now the other point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, is that

I did not make appointments to the Labour Relations Board on

the basis of what union the individual happened to belong to,

or what management group or what firm the management

representative happened to belong to. Rather, I made it on the

basis of the key industries of this province, to make sure that

the basic and crucial industries of this province were

represented on that Labour Relations Board, because that's

where the bulk of the action takes place. Obviously you need

someone well-informed and experienced in those key,

crucial industries to serve a useful role on the board.

So if the Member for Cariboo wants to get into a situation

where he becomes an advocate for a particular trade union,

well, be my guest. But, as I say, I don't think he's serving

the interests of the working people of the province of British

Columbia by taking that posture.

Quite frankly, I must go on to say that his questions on the Labour Relations

Board functions to this point are very distressing to me. He has read letters

which would seem to tarnish the credibility of the Labour Relations Board. He

has not even bothered in some cases to quote the authority; and I can tell you,

Mr. Chairman, for the record, that a number of letters went to the Labour Relations

Board accusing various members of certain improprieties that proved to be the

basis of libel actions. Perhaps that Member has just read one of those letters

into the record of this House. I think that's grossly irresponsible.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: It certainly sounded like it. He didn't

quote the authority. I ask him to table those documents so I

can tell. I have no way of knowing. Certainly the language

sounded very, very similar. In the case I'm referring to a

letter of apology was sent to the member of the Labour

Relations Board, who had been besmirched by that kind of

charge, which proved to be completely unsubstantiated and

unfounded.

I think that the Member, in all fairness, should

table every document he referred to. Quite frankly, I don't

know what kind of a speech he made beyond reading certain

letters and the Labour department's research bulletin. If it

hadn't have been for those documents, the Member wouldn't have

had too much to say.

But this is a serious thing. The Labour Relations Board is

independent and it must remain independent. By golly, I

challenge that Member, or any other Member of the House, if you

have information of impropriety of any member of that board, to

come forward and place it with the House, or place it

with my office, and we'll certainly take action. Now the one

letter the Member read was from a Mr. Roger Crowther at

Ashcroft.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: And a telegram, yes, and he quoted that. For

the record, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to read my response to that

telegram where Mr. Crowther made certain allegations. The

letter reads:

"Dear Mr. Crowther:

"The Premier's office has referred a copy of your telegram

of March 25 to this office for reply. I can only point out that

the Labour Relations Board is a quasi judicial agency and

completely independent from government. Were it not so, there

might be some validity to a suggestion that political

interference or preference could be exercised in any

application before the board. The chairman of the board, Mr.

Paul Weiler, is a law professor of some renowned standing in

the Province of Ontario, and accordingly has no interest in the

preference of choice of unions which B.C. workers might happen

to prefer.

"Additionally, the members selected to serve on the Board

are well-experienced individuals in

[ Page 2415 ]

terms of industrial relations and have my complete confidence

in terms of their impartiality. There is absolutely no proof that the Labour

Relations Board has either released information in a preferential way, or indeed

undertaken any action which could give advantage to a union in British Columbia.

"Many unions, during the course of a raid situation, publish

propaganda which would seem to benefit their case. The

government or the Labour Relations Board can in no way control

the claims which are made under these circumstances. Surely, on

the basis of such propaganda leaflets, you would not want to

presume guilt on anyone's behalf.

"If any firm evidence exists of improper conduct by any

member of the Labour Relations Board, or indeed of any other

branch of government, I would certainly urge you to bring it to

my attention. In the absence of such evidence, however, I am

not willing to condemn anyone."

And I thanked him for his views.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Minister, as well as other Members of the House,

that if there are any comments which may be construed as

charges of impropriety against any member of the Labour

Relations Board, this would be out of order in debates on

estimates. It should be rather the subject of a substantive

motion. Rather, the matters which should be discussed are those

which are clearly the responsibility of the Minister whose

estimates we're considering.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, that

Member was allowed to proceed to read documents which certainly

imputed partiality and bias on the part of the Labour Relations

Board and certainly on the part of my office. I resent that. It

may be a kind of attractive political proposition to do that,

but I think it's pretty irresponsible also. I think it's

irresponsible without some firm evidence to back up that kind

of charge. There just is no such existing evidence. If there

is, I certainly defy any Member of this House to bring it

forward.

[Mr. Liden in the chair]

Now one other question brought up was the Trail situation, the Labour Relations

Board decision at Cominco. The Chairman's point is well taken; I am not responsible

for each decision that that Labour Relations Board makes. Quite frankly, I find

it somewhat ironic that particularly Members of the official opposition should

question that kind of decision and say that the members of the union affected

didn't know what the Labour Relations Board based the decision on, because for

20 years under the old board that you people administered there were no decisions

written. The decision was completely arbitrary.

In this case, the Canadian workers got a written decision

and they were notified in the Trail situation, which involved

not only Cominco's plant in the City of Trail, but also Salmo

and Kimberley — a unit which was designed under the

former Labour Relations Board under your administration, Mr.

Member — that despite the inclusion or the exclusion of

part-time workers they still did not have the necessary

majority to gain a representation vote. And that decision was

sent out by the Labour Relations Board; they are quite aware of

it. Under any criteria in terms of the unit, they did not have

a majority.

Trade unions, you know, go out and they do their own

political thing. If they lose a decision who do they attack?

They attack the Labour Relations Board or me or someone else,

and that's fair enough. But I think it's rather shocking and

shameful for Members of this House to get into that kind of

dispute when it is really a political issue between the trade

unions themselves. There's absolutely no justification for the

kind of imputations that were made by the Member for Cariboo

(Mr. Fraser). I don't think that that's going to do a great

deal to contribute to industrial peace in this province. I

don't think that's going to do a great deal to modify attitudes

and dampen hostilities. That's not the kind of speech I like to

hear in here at all.

As for the question of the employment of the registrar of

the Labour Relations Board, he was not employed by my office.

He was hired by the administration of the Labour Relations

Board. And he is a civil servant, in effect, to the Labour

Relations Board.

Now, the fact that he has a trade union background certainly

is no aspersion as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Chairman, I am not

ashamed of my own background, and I'm not about to accept a

premise that anyone with a trade union background is okay if he

happens to belong to a Canadian union but is somehow

untrustworthy if he happens to come from an international.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You come from a lame duck

party.

HON. MR. KING: I've been listening to the quackery from

Golden for years, Mr. Chairman. I don't know where the ducks

are existing. Quite frankly, this is kind of an inane debate,

and I don't want to dwell on it too long except to say that I

appeal to the opposition Members that if you want to hammer me

for something in the Department of Labour's approach to

industrial relations, be my

[ Page 2416 ]

guest. But I don't think you should do or say anything

without some pretty hard evidence which would serve to tarnish

or impair the credibility of an independent judicial agency or

quasi judicial agency in this province, It's tantamount to

attacking the courts, and I think it's irresponsible.

MR. CHABOT: Labour courts.

HON. MR. KING: It's not a labour court, but I suggest to you

that the principle of independence is very, very similar. It's

not the adjudicative responsibilities of the agency; rather

it's the independence. That's the principle that you are

jeopardizing and I think that's wrong.

He went on, Mr. Chairman, to talk about the steel propaganda

bulletin that was put out which indicated to certain people

that the information had been released ahead of time to one

party and not the other. That is just not true. That was simply

a presumption by the steel union that they were going to win

the situation in Trail. They went ahead and they put out a

bulletin, apparently, indicating that they were going to win or

that they had won. They did not do that on the basis of any

advice or any information that they received from the

board.

There's no way we can control that kind of situation. All

unions are guilty of it — not just steel. So I don't

think that's very significant.

The other question that he raised regarding another letter

he quoted from was on a vote which the Canadian union won. I

believe it was Noranda. The Canadian union won the

certification vote. Now if the board is all that biased and if

I am all that biased against any union in this province, how

come these people are winning certifications? The facts are

that provided it qualifies and meets the regulations of a bona

fide trade union under the Act, I am not interested in which

union the working people of this province select to represent

their needs and their aspirations.

I think the working people in that respect would do much

better if the politicians stayed right out of the whole

question and left that up to the intellect and to the interest

of the working people of the province.

I think there's two other questions the Member asked that I

did want to respond to. He asked regarding new certification

applications at certain mills up in Vanderhoof, I believe.

Apparently some members were upset because the board had not

conducted a vote after a certification application was

made.

I would just point out to the Member that in that kind of situation if a majority

of people sign up application cards to the union and that application is not

contested either by management or by another union interested, then in effect

a majority of membership cards delivered to the board is a referendum application.

It's a referendum vote of the membership. A majority consensus is being provided

indicating they wish to be represented by that union. So obviously it would

be duplication and completely unnecessary in my view to conduct a formal vote

under the auspices of the Labour Relations Board in every situation such as

that. So really it's up to the members — if they do not want to support the

union then obviously they have the choice of refraining from joining it.

The Christian conscience clause I think was the last point

mentioned by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). All I can

say, Mr. Chairman, is that we had a very comprehensive debate

on that question of the Christian conscience clause when the

Labour Code was introduced last year. I made my position very

clear, and it hasn't changed. I certainly feel that anyone who

benefits from a collective agreement negotiated by a trade

union has an obligation to pay his fair share of the costs of

administering the union involved and so on. We have provided

that they are free from a mandatory requirement to join if they

oppose on a truly religious principle, but in my view they

should not be relieved of their obligation to assist in the

financial cost which benefits all the workers involved in that

unit. So that's my view, Mr. Chairman. The situation hasn't

changed as far as I'm concerned.

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

it's nice to be back from the rugby recess. I don't know how

many of us got in shape during the particular week, but the

news we get from Japan isn't all that rosy as far as the

industrial future of the province is concerned. I suppose that

bears on the Minister of Labour's remarks.

I enjoyed what the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) said this

afternoon. I thought he made some excellent points about

Canadian unions. I was surprised not to hear from "Jobs," the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot). I guess he

got fired from his post as the shadow Minister of Labour.

Mr. Chairman, that may have had something to do with the

policies that he followed as Minister of Labour, which as far

as international unions are concerned were remarkably similar

to the policies that the present Minister of Labour is

following. Quite frankly, they're anti-Canadian unions. I

make that accusation forthrightly and directly. I said so about

the former Social Credit administration and I say so about this

one.

In fact, I feel that the present administration is in bed

with the American labour movement. I say "American labour

movement" because an international union is controlled and

directed from the United States — every single one of

them. Nothing on this earth will shake control of those

[ Page 2417 ]

so-called international unions from Washington. It's a

problem we face in British Columbia that I brought up again and

again in this House. The decisions of the Labour Relations

Board this year are one more example. There is no question that

the people of Trail who worked for Cominco and the others in

that unit were denied democracy by the members of the Labour

Relations Board. Frankly I think the whole works should be

dismissed — every last one of them. They are a

pro-American union and that isn't good enough for British

Columbia today.

The decision of that Labour Relations Board, which I claim

is biased in favour of American unions and biased against

Canadian unions, was apparently transmitted to the steelworkers

in advance of a vote taken in a lower mainland jurisdictional

dispute. I'm happy to say that CAIMAW won that. Despite what

the Minister of Labour says, information was leaked to the

members of that international union....

HON. MR. KING: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this charge was made. I have

read material on it. I have indicated that an investigation was

made and there is no basis for that kind of charge. I suggest

that Member should withdraw that allegation unless he is

prepared to table documentary evidence. I think that's an

irresponsible position to take.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. I think you should

submit documentary information....

MR. McGEER: ...I just state the position that the people in

United States Steel...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you prepared to withdraw?

MR.McGEER: ...were able to bring out a leaflet. Mr.

Chairman, I withdraw they had it directly, I'll say those

people had ESP.

There's no doubt as to what should have been in Trail; there

should have been a democratic vote of all the people involved.

Only when such a democratic vote is taken can the Minister of

Labour stand up in this House and say that people have been

fairly dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: For several years now this business of Canadian unions being

thwarted by actions of the government and the Labour Relations Board has been

going on. There's no question that the American union movement has found it

very profitable indeed to have a Canadian satellite. Something like 89 per cent

of all Canadian workers are forced to belong to these American unions. It's

been estimated that in the past nine years $100 million of Canadian workers'

money has left this country for the benefit of this so-called international

union movement.

I brought in legislation in this House, Mr. Chairman, saying

that there should be, by law, a representative of one Canadian

union on that Labour Relations Board. Is that so

out-of-line, Mr. Chairman? — one Canadian

union member against all those American union members. One

Canadian union member to protect the rights of Canadian workers

to be Canadian if they choose. One Canadian union member to say

that when there's some doubt, as there was in this Cominco

situation, there should be a democratic vote instead of a slick

ruling that this particular Canadian challenger, CAIMAW, hadn't

managed to sign up 50 per cent of the workers in that

union.

The Labour Relations Board refused to divulge how many there

were in that bargaining unit, and therefore how many CAIMAW

they had to have signed up. They kept that information secret

and then brought that out as a reason for not giving

certification to the union. They didn't have any reason at all

for not asking for a democratic vote.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Labour left at

this time. I know he finds it uncomfortable in this Legislative

Assembly. He finds it uncomfortable because he and his

government have been protecting the American union movement for

years.

Mr. Chairman, I think stiff action needs to be taken. I

noticed just the other day that the union Pat O'Neill heads had

voted in favour of becoming a 100 per cent Canadian union. I

applaud them for that because now the union leaders are

beginning to act in a way that the union men want.

Our problem is that there are too many people in politics on

labour relations boards in positions of influence in the union

movement who have the vested interest in maintaining ties with

these American unions. It's standing in the way of what the

workers of British Columbia and other parts of Canada want.

We are elected by the people; we are elected by rank and

file union members as well as others. It's time this

Legislative Assembly began to act in accord with the wishes of

those who elect us. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman,

what those people want and expect us to do is to foster the

development of Canadian unions for Canada.

No other country in the world is dominated the way Canada is

by unions of a foreign country. No other country in the world

finds itself in the position that Canada finds itself in. I ask

you, Mr. Chairman, is, that good enough? Is it good enough when

we know

[ Page 2418 ]

perfectly well that the average Canadian worker wishes to be

removed from this vice? It can only be done by forthright

action on the part of legislative assemblies like this one and

I say, it's high time we began to act, not just by

administrative decisions, but by the kind of legislative

actions that will give Canadian unions an even break. That's

all they need, an even break. Because with the desire of the

workers to have their union dues which are raised in Canada

remain in Canada, to have the regulations and the contracts

made to suit Canadian positions and not those of a foreign

country, you will begin to see the rise of Canadian unions as

they should rise in this country.

What are some of these things, Mr. Chairman? First of all, a

fairly simple one: namely, a representative of Canadian unions

on the Labour Relations Board. Secondly, a decision, whenever

there is doubt, not to use technicalities to thwart the

Canadian union movement, which the Labour Relations Board is

doing now, but to have a proper democratic vote in every

instance, and know that if the American union is to be

continued it is being continued because of a vote of every

single member of that bargaining unit.

Thirdly, the passing of laws in this country that would

outlaw such things as the "sweetheart agreement" which made it

impossible for a member of a Canadian union to work on any

major construction site in British Columbia for years and

years. Mr. Chairman, who benefited from that? In those days

when Social Credit permitted that kind of a "sweetheart

contract" to survive and flourish in British Columbia, Senator

Ed Lawson gained from that with his International Teamsters.

And I'll bet that the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot)

wishes now that he'd brought in the kind of legislation I asked

for when he was Minister of Labour, outlawing those kinds of

"sweetheart contracts." I'll bet he wishes he'd done that now.

It's never too late to repent, Mr. Chairman, never too

late.

No contract should be legal, signed anywhere in this

country, that denies a member of a bona fide Canadian union

from access to that job site — nowhere in Canada. Those

kinds of discriminatory clauses exist today in this country.

They should be outlawed, every one of them. No Canadian working

man's union dues should travel across the border. They should

stay in Canada for the benefit of the Canadian working man.

I don't know if the widely quoted estimate of $100 million of Canadian working

men's dues going across the border in a period of nine years is correct or incorrect.

It's a federal government figure and it's been widely quoted. But if it's 10

cents, it's too much. I think the Canadian union man who pays his dues because

he has to in order to work should know that his money is staying in Canada to

benefit the Canadian union movement. Again, Mr. Chairman, it's not too much

to ask in this day and age.

Some of the Hon, Members think I'm making strong remarks

today. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) thinks so; he's

scribbling notes over there.

Mr. Chairman, I have made these speeches before many times.

I will make them again.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Many times!

MR. McGEER: And I am disappointed there hasn't been more

progress.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You could be wrong.

MR. McGEER: The Member for Kamloops is a member of an

international union.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You'd better believe it!

MR. McGEER: You'd better believe it, he said, and thinks I

might be wrong. I'm sure the Member for Kamloops doesn't agree

with me and I think the Member for Vancouver South doesn't

agree with me. I know the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) doesn't agree with me.

But, Mr. Chairman, there were 7,000 union members who recently

took a vote who agree. They were members of the pulp union.

Remember when Pat O'Neill was head of the B.C. Federation of

Labour? He resigned that job and took, what was it? — a

$35,000 job with the international pulp when the Pulp and Paper

Workers of Canada, a Canadian union, threatened.

MR. CHABOT: A horrible bribe!

MR. McGEER: The whole idea was to protect the American union

movement in Canada. The Pulp and Paper Workers were a little

too dangerous — a "Made in Canada" union. But even Pat

O'Neill's union is now saying they want to be Canadian. I

consider that progress, Mr. Chairman. Never too late to

repent.

And that is why I have high hopes that over a period of time

perhaps even the Minister of Labour will see the light the way

Pat O'Neill did, the way the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)

has, the way the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) has. It

is clearly the wish of the Canadian working man. You don't have

to look very hard to find out that basic fact.

That is what I am asking the Minister and the Members of his

caucus to do. I am asking him, when he finds that out, to begin

to take the kind of action only government can take to produce

results on behalf of that Canadian working man.

[ Page 2419 ]

HON. MR. KING: That was a very interesting conclusion the

Member espoused before he took his seat. On the one hand he

congratulated Mr. Pat O'Neill and the United Paperworkers

International Union for their recent move which was to sever

their relationship with their international parent in the

United States and form a totally independent Canadian union.

And quite frankly, I have no argument with that whatsoever.

That is a decision, as I can only reiterate, which the trade

union people of this province should make.

On the one hand the First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) recognized and congratulated that trade

unionist and his union for taking that kind of action. Then he

concluded with a plea for action which only the government

could take to affect the balance of the Canadian trade union

movement in this province.

How inconsistent can you be? On the one hand you recognize

that an international union has, through their own structure

apparently, the wherewithal to comply with their members'

interest if indeed that interest is to form an independent

Canadian union. You acknowledged and accepted that. Then what

action are you suggesting the government should take? I reject

the proposition, Mr. Chairman, that I as the Minister of Labour

or any politician should become involved in campaigning for a

union which the working people in this province might choose to

represent them.

Indeed, the whole Member's speech was really a re-run

of what he said last year in the debate on the Labour Code. He

talked of discrimination against Canadian trade unionists.

Well, perhaps it's timely that I should once again remind that

Member that I oppose discrimination against the trade union

movement, against the working people of this province, whether

they belong to a trade union or not.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Certainly we have a conscience clause.

Certainly we have. We have a conscience clause which allows

people to opt out if they do not believe, on the basis of

religious conscience, in belonging to a trade union. If you do

not agree with that, that's fine; you and I have a

philosophical difference. But I certainly support the

legitimate attempts of working people to obtain representation

in this province.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey does not

speak from a very solid platform when it comes to his interest

and his defence of working people in this province. If he wants

to go over some of the history of the growth and evolution of

the trade union movement in British Columbia, he will find

people like an old-time mayor by the name of Gerry McGeer, I believe it was, who read the riot Act to the

working people of this province on the court house steps for

asserting their right to strike and the right to organize, I

think it rings rather hollow when this Member gets up and gives

an impassioned speech about the interests of working people.

That is not consistent with the record of his family

relationship in this province; it is not consistent with the

position the federal government has taken.

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

about your brother.

HON. MR. KING: I am very proud of the relationship with my

brother who is the representative of the steel workers' union.

He is working for the trade unionists and the working people of

this province. I am not a bit ashamed of that; I am very proud

of it. In fact, I would suggest that individual has done far

more for the working people than any politician from the

Vancouver–Point Grey area of the Province of British

Columbia.

But the other question is: what about the Liberal record?

What about the record of the federal government in Ottawa?

International relationships. Remember Hal Banks? They brought

him in against the protestations of many eminent Canadian trade

unionists and politicians. They brought him in to terrorize and

gangsterize the working people in the Seafarers International

Union. And, by golly, he went out with charges pending against

him. There were no extradition proceedings ever taken against

him to make him come back and face those criminal charges. The

Liberals said they couldn't find him. But the newspaper people....

MR. McGEER: It was terrible.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: I am just reiterating a debate that went on

last year. But I think that it is timely to remind everyone....

MR. McGEER: Point of order. The Labour Minister is

absolutely correct; I completely agree with everything he said.

If I were an NDP in Ottawa, I wouldn't support them another

day, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. KING: I think that is pretty good advice. I want

the people of British Columbia to take note of that: the former

leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party does not believe

the Liberal Party is worthy of support. I agree with him and I

suggest that is not only the case in Ottawa; that is certainly

the case in the Province of British Columbia

[ Page 2420 ]

too.

It is a pretty hollow display the Member puts on. It is a

real mockery of concern for working people. His background and

the record of his party does not lend itself to the kind of

things he is saying.

The majority of his speech was dedicated to advocating what

internal trade union policy should be. I am not prepared to

argue that one bit. But I was there; I was an active trade

unionist for many years in this province. No one had more

criticisms of the trade union movement than I did at that time

in many ways. But it was constructive criticism from within. I

suggest that if that Member, the First fighting Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), wants to go on to give

his counsel to the trade union movement, he is using the wrong

forum. He should be speaking at the B.C. Federation of Labour

convention, he should be challenging them to adopt and pursue

the kind of policies he is advocating. He should be speaking to

all the unions of this province. Really, what the Member is

doing is advocating what is essentially internal trade union

policy. Quite frankly, I don't think we should spend the time

of the House discussing that kind of internal matter. But I

certainly encourage that battling Member to go out there and

spread the good word among the trade unions of this province.

Certainly, I would be interested to see what kind of reaction

he got.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I listened to the

Minister of Labour with great interest and also the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who was the victim of

the vicious political attack not even on his own person but on

his uncle. (Laughter.) It's a change from the Premier who just

attacks people's fathers.

The Minister of Labour has said this afternoon during his

various presentations, with all earnestness and seriousness,

that that is an internal matter of the unions and he doesn't

feel we should be political about it. In the next breath, he's

turning around and being as political as we just saw him now. I

would suggest to this Minister that he dashes in and out of

this political issue like a breath of spring in a hot sauna.

That isn't in itself in the best interests of good labour

relations in this province.

I don't want to dwell to any great extent on the issue of

Canadian unionism but I do want to suggest, after listening to

the Minister's comments, that, while it might be

unparliamentary to call it hypocritical, if there's any

similarity it's because of the basis of his stand that he has

taken not only in this debate this afternoon but in former

debates.

HON. MR. KING: No similarity between you and I

whatsoever.

MRS. JORDAN: I didn't say there was any similarity, and I certainly

hope for your wife's sake there isn't. (Laughter.) Come to think of it, for

my husband's sake too.

But really, Mr. Minister, the charges have been made in this

House after listening to you say you want the best for the

working people of British Columbia, you don't believe in

discrimination and you believe in the right of choice. You then

take the stand you do against Canadian unionism. It suggests

you're afraid to take a stand on an issue that must be met and

in which the Minister of Labour should stand firm and offer the

opportunity of choice and the right to the workers

themselves.

The Minister himself and the NDP, both at the provincial and

federal level, have talked in terms of Canadian content in

industry, Canadian content in terms of shareholders, even

Canadian content in terms of the television we see. But when it

comes to Canadian content in the terms of dealing with the

multi-national unions, then the Minister backs off, and

becomes weak-kneed.

We want it on record, Mr. Chairman, that we in the official

opposition are for Canada for Canadians and we are for Canada

for the people of Canada and particularly the working people of

Canada. We feel the Minister of Labour, who has enunciated a

policy in this province which he intends to pursue to encourage

the membership in unionism in the province, should follow

through with his other statements in terms of right of choice

and the democratic opinion. He should not only let but help the

unions of Canada take their position so the workers have the

right to control their own destiny in unionism and the workers

have the right of choice as to whether they want to be linked

with the multi-national union bosses or whether they want

to devise their own Canadian union system. Give them the right,

Mr. Minister, and face this issue. All we ask is that the

option be there. That's all they ask.

The Minister has brought up a number of other points which

I'd like to mention. One is this whole matter of the Christian

conscience clause. The Minister constantly fogs this issue

every time it comes up by saying there is a Christian

conscience clause. But we all know it's not really a conscience

clause at all; it's merely a sop to try and make it look in the

public eye that the Minister is doing something for a minority

group in this province. If the Minister's intention is to truly

have a Christian conscience clause and to truly recognize this

minority group in terms of their rights but doesn't want to

give them the right to opt out of the union, then I would

suggest to him that there are some tremendous inequities

evolving from this clause which demand his attention. If, as

the Minister says and as they are compelled to do, these

members should and must pay their full union dues, then surely

they have a right to a certain portion of the benefits from

those dues

[ Page 2421 ]

when they're involved in a strike.

I think this is an issue that might well be referred, if the

Minister doesn't want to deal with it himself or if he's afraid

to deal with it himself, to the labour ombudsman as one of the

first issues. Surely if those who wish to utilize the Christian

conscience clause as the Minister describes it and if they do

pay their full union dues but don't participate in the union

activities, meeting and picket duty, then there must be some

reasonable way to come to an agreement where, if there is

strike pay to all the members who are on strike, those who are

contributing through fees to the support of the union might

receive just a portion of that strike pay. They're faced with

the same problem of supporting their families and themselves

during strike action.

It seems to me that this acknowledges what the Minister in

his mind wants to do for the authority of the union. They get

their money; those who are utilizing the so-called

Christian conscience clause in turn get fair treatment in terms

of their share of that money used for strike pay on a

proportionate basis. Perhaps it would be half of what the other

workers would receive, but surely they have a right to receive

a portion of that benefit to which they are compelled to

contribute.

The Minister got up many times talking about discrimination

and how he wanted to be fair to everyone. When one looks at his

department, one wonders what on earth has happened to the women

of this province. I would refer specifically to the Women's

Bureau of the Department of Labour and its director. This used

to be a very vital and active department which contributed a

great deal to a more equitable situation for women in this

province. I don't suggest it was a perfect situation. But even

the NDP Member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) stated in one of her

speeches in Hansard , September 20, 1973:

This province is probably far ahead of most other provinces in terms of meeting

some of these recommendations...

and these are the recommendations from the

Status of Women report done at the federal level —

...and in terms of meeting

its responsibilities.

This is from one of the Members of the NDP government in

regard to the position of women in B.C. In terms of their legal

rights and their rights in the work force.

That Member should know because she utilized the services of the Women's Bureau

a great deal in her work as ombudsman for SWAG (Status of Women Action Group)

in British Columbia in Vancouver and never did give any credit to that bureau.

Nor did she give any credit to the director of that bureau. Yet there is no

way SWAG could have got off the ground nor taken the stands it did, nor that

Member play the role she did, nor arrive in her position in politics as she

did without the full-hearted benefits of that department which is supported

by taxpayers and which has an enviable record.

But, Mr. Minister, when we look at what has happened in

British Columbia under your leadership of this department, it

appears to me you've guillotined the Department of Labour's

Women's Bureau. Where is it? Prior to your administration this

department was very active around the province. The director

was available for any number of conferences, whether they were

women's conferences or whether it was in schools where I myself

had her not only in the constituency I represent but many other

constituencies in this province, where she went in and spoke

not only of the rights of students in the work force and in the

labour force but of their responsibilities, which is essential

if we are to evolve a responsible and fair working situation in

this province. She was available and managed extremely well for

industrial conferences, for management conferences.

She, through her experience in the labour force as a member

of a union (and a very active member), brought to the people of

British Columbia a very broad scope and perspective in this

area and then achieved a distinguished career within the civil

service. Where is this director today and where is the bureau?

We hear nothing from them, and the public is concerned. When

you go around the province, you find that women's groups and

many other groups which want to have guest speakers are

directed by the NDP to have the new Pooh bear of women's rights

as their speaker and not a civil servant, not a member who can

point out both sides of the question and who can deal

specifically with the problems of labour as they relate to

women.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that you owe a great

deal to this department and that you've neglected it

shamefully. I listened very carefully to your opening remarks

this afternoon where you covered, one, two, three, four, all

the great changes going on in your department, all the great

progress that had been made. I listened and I listened and I

listened, and not once did the Minister mention the Women's

Bureau which was one of the outstanding women's bureaus in

Canada.

I don't want to go into the specifics of the estimates, but

I looked down at the salary scales and the positions within the

Minister's own department. Talk about discrimination. The

Minister is sitting on a powder keg of discrimination against

women in his own department.

His own secretary — which is essentially an

order-in-council appointment, a political

appointment as you like to call them — gets $11,000 a

year. When I brought this up under the Premier's estimates, the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) said: "Well, now she can

bargain." She's an executive secretary, she doesn't bargain.

These rates should be set by

[ Page 2422 ]

order-in-council.

Why is it, Mr. Minister, while you yourself harbour a paltry

sum in the area of $40,000 a year, your secretary, who really

is the backbone of your efficiency, your competency, your

ability to function as a Minister, and the front appearance of

your office, gets a paltry $ 11,000 a year when her wage

increase goes through. Right now she's only getting $9,456. But

the executive assistant gets $17,000 the first year, the first

appointment. And on down — I think all your lady

stenographers are grossly underpaid.

Then one goes down and can't help but recall the tremendous

increases in salaries this government has given — the

massive salaries to various commissions, the amount of money

given to Mr. Bremer, the amount given to Mr. David

Cass-Beggs, all sorts of commissions around this

province.

And what does the Director of Human Rights get? — the

one lady appointed to a position. She gets $16,000 a year

— $ 16,236 when her increase comes. Right now she's

getting $16,020. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this is an example of

blatant discrimination against women.

What does the Director of the Women's Bureau get? She gets

$18,420. Now, Mr. Chairman, it was clearly evident in the past

that this most competent lady was slated for bigger and better

things and more responsibility within the Department of Labour.

What happened to those promotions? What happened to an increase

in salary for her commensurate with her responsibilities? The

salary given to the Deputy Minister — $39,000; the

ombudsman-to-come — $39,000; the Vancouver

Associate Deputy Minister gets $32,000; the special consultant

gets $33,000; Director of Manpower Training — $25,000; the

Director of Human Rights, a lady — $16,000, as I mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, surely in the many appointments this Minister

has made to his staff there was room for a competent, qualified

and proven successful woman. There was certainly room within

the Minister's estimates and the way the government is

adjusting salaries and throwing money around this province to

pay both these women a fair and equitable salary in comparison

to the male appointments he's made to his department.

I don't begrudge these men their money if this is what the

Minister thinks they're worth. This is in no way to detract

from their salaries, but in fact to point out the hollowness of

the Minister's stand and statements in so many of these areas,

and the hollowness of this government as it really plays with

women in this province.

How many lady heads of committees, heads of commissions has

this Minister appointed, has this government appointed? They

are token representations and they certainly don't fall within

the salary scales of the other political appointments they have

made. I think this is most disappointing because I'm sure that the

Hon. Minister would like the women of this province to feel

that politics wasn't the main thrust of his discussions of fair

treatment and fair choice for the working people of this

province. I suggest that the three examples that I have given

do in fact make a mockery of some of these statements.

I'm sure the Minister is going to get up and talk about the

hospital dispute and say what great things the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) did in eliminating discrimination in

that area, and I agree with that except that the other

discriminatory factor it created the very complex problems

which the Minister talked about a few minutes ago. I will

reserve my comments on that until I've seen the agreement which

I hope the Minister will make available as soon as is

suitable.

I'd like to pose two or three other questions to the

Minister. One goes back to the B.C. Telephone strike which took

place in the Interior of this province, and a problem which

arose that was not anticipated by anyone, but which, in my

view, must be solved before any other possible strike takes

place which would involve the various parties.

The previous administration had worked out with the

telephone companies, with the unions and with B.C. Hydro and

those unions, the common use of as many poles as possible. This

was to have the Hydro lines and the telephone lines on the same

poles for practical reasons, for cost reasons and for

environmental reasons — the idea being to cut down the

number of poles we have on our landscape. All entered into this

in good faith.

In all fairness I would say no one anticipated the situation

which arose, which was, in fact, a strike by one party that

imposed a hardship on any functioning of the other party. In

other words, the telephone strike made many power poles hot. I

wish to say at this time that where it was a crucial matter of

extreme health interest, really almost a matter of life and

death, the Deputy Minister was most helpful. And in the end the

Minister was helpful and the union certainly listened. I don't

wish to condemn anyone at this time for action at that

time.

I do suggest to the Minister that these hot poles, for

whatever reasons they were hot, actually were not directly

involved in the services that they were supplying to the

people, the essential services. We had people living 20 miles

out in the bush in trailer courts in 20 degree and lower

weather. Families who could not get their power connected, so

they were living without heat. We had many people who were

building homes for themselves and because the line had to go to

a hot pole, in the middle of their construction they couldn't

carry on with their building. In these terms they lost their

employees and the employees lost their jobs.

There was a tremendous amount of interest being

[ Page 2423 ]

paid to various financial institutions by innocent people

who had not planned in their budgeting for the building of

their homes for this type of an overriding of expenses. In many

cases families who had committed themselves to $18,000

mortgages or $20,000 mortgages found themselves having to pay

an extra $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 and even $4,000 because of the

delay to their construction — not because of a

construction strike, not because of a power strike, but because

of the telephone strike which was using the poles from which

their power should have been connected.

There were many instances, Mr. Chairman, where people were

living in unfinished homes. We got a backlog through people who

were building homes and were living in one home or apartment

which had been rented and sold and they couldn't move out to

their new homes or new apartments. The other people couldn't

get in, so many families had to go into motel accommodation.

This is not only hair-raising for a period of months if

you have children, but it's very much more expensive than the

average family can possibly afford.

Mr. Minister, I did request of you and your department that

when the strike was over and when everyone was in a relatively

happy frame of mind that the Minister request B.C. Hydro and

their unions and B.C. Telephone and their unions sit down and

have a rational discussion about this type of situation which

really isn't related to the key of the strike, but in fact

proved a tremendous hardship and a tremendous cost to a lot of

innocent people who were left absolutely helpless. They could

do nothing; the Minister could do nothing.

I'm sure when one thinks of the responsible attitude of the

members of unions, and I'm sure of the responsible attitude of

the various boards, that a solution can be arrived at where for

public interest and in this instance for environmental reasons,

economy, not to any company but economy to the taxpayers of

British Columbia, we use a common entity — in this

instance, poles — that some provision should be made

where the one service should not be cut off by the disagreement

of another service.

I can envision the various members of the department saying, "Oh, that's heresy.

The whole thrust of strikes is the impact by the worker in terms of how he can

bring his concern to the public's attention, and this is done through economic

hardship to the public or in some other manner." But I would suggest that this

is not a civilized approach and that the average worker and the average union

leader in this province well appreciates this. And when they analyse the problem

that we ran into there, they would indeed — and I would challenge them — take

a responsible attitude so that the strike of one group and a disagreement of

one group doesn't work an undue hardship financially or health wise on innocent

people who have no power whatsoever. They have no clout; they have no voice.

It's the Minister's responsibility as the guardian of the

public of British Columbia — unions, management and the

public — to have an impartial view in this and to look

for a reasonable solution. I hope the Minister will comment on

that.

I don't want to go into the details of the student summer

employment programme, but I would like to know what, indeed,

the Minister plans for the discriminatory action that is going

to evolve from this programme where summer students of grade 11

and 12 education, with no experience, are going to be working

for the government at a higher salary on a temporary basis than

many of our permanent government employees and many of our

responsible secretaries.

I'd like to ask the Minister what he has in mind in terms of

what I call the single, over-50 women in British Columbia

who have worked for many years, who are divorced, who have

raised their families, many of them on welfare, many of them on

a very minimal amount of money, perhaps achieved through

alimony, many of them who have worked themselves to support

their families, and many just single older women. These people,

basically because of having been marri