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)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

4735 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act (Bill

168).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 4735

Mr. Smith — 4737

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4743

Mr. Wallace — 4746

Mr. Phillips — 4748

Hon. Mr. King — 4748

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill

165).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 4751

Amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 4752

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4752

Division on amendment to

section 1 — 4752

section 1.

Mr. Chabot — 4752

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4752

Mr. Phillips — 4752

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4752

section 2.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4753

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4753

Mr. Phillips — 4753

Mr. Lewis — 4754

Mr. McGeer — 4754

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4754

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4755

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4755

Mr. Phillips — 4756

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4757

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4757

APPENDIX — 4759

The House met at 8 p.m.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

gallery tonight someone who is very well known from White Rock.

That person is well known to every Member of this Legislature

because she's also the hostess at Government House. I would ask

the Members to welcome Mrs. Ebermann and her guests to the

House tonight.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly: (Minister of Education): Public

bills and orders. The second reading of Bill 168.

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

LABOUR DISPUTES ACT

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I am overwhelmed by the recognition from the

opposition side of the House.

Bill 168, the Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes

Act, is a rather innocuous little bill which has been

introduced to prevent a further disruption to the construction

industry in the Province of British Columbia.

I think all Members of the House are familiar with the

lingering dispute which has taken place over the past two years

in the elevator construction industry, a dispute which has

alternately tied up and restricted production in the elevator

portion of the construction industry during the course of that

two years.

This dispute basically hinges on a problem that, in my own

view, has been created basically as a result of a national

pattern of bargaining which has been the history for that

particular industry.

The elevator constructors have customarily bargained for

their wage negotiations and their contract renewal on a

national basis; indeed, to some extent on an international

basis. As a result, it has been very, very difficult to design

the ultimate contract that was found acceptable at the national

level to the peculiar circumstances of British Columbia. As a

consequence, this dispute has lingered on and been the subject

of a good deal of disruption to the industry.

Members will probably recall that after a nation-wide strike

by the elevator constructors union, a number of arbitrations

were structured and set up — one in Ontario and one in the

Province of Alberta — to come to grips with an appropriate

settlement for Canada. At that time the strike was underway in

British Columbia.

I had a series of meetings both with the union and the industry representatives

at which time we tried to find a mechanism for agreement which would solve the

dispute in British Columbia and hopefully utilize one of the agencies that was

studying the dispute either in Ontario or Alberta.

As a result of those discussions, the industry and the union

agreed to abide by the Ontario arbitration award when it was

handed down. In recognition of the union's commitment to abide

by that award, the management group in the Province of British

Columbia withdrew certain suits that were pending against the

union. The union conversely gave an undertaking to restore the

industry to normal by providing for a full complement of

manpower. So we had a basis for temporary resolution of the

dispute.

Unfortunately, it was recognized by both parties that the

Ontario arbitration could not satisfactorily resolve all of the

issues that might exist in B.C. Obviously there would be local

issues and provincial issues which were peculiar to this

province and would not be dealt with adequately in the Ontario

arbitration award.

Nevertheless, both parties gave an undertaking to abide by

the Ontario award as the basis for a settlement in British

Columbia with an agreement and an undertaking that they would

apply it in British Columbia if it were suitably amended to

British Columbia's circumstances.

Eventually that Ontario arbitration award was handed down.

At that time I met with the parties, after they had held some

preliminary discussions, with a view to determining whether or

not they could on a voluntary, negotiated basis, tailor the

Ontario arbitration to their own circumstances and reach

voluntary agreement. This was found to be impossible after a

series of meetings between them, and again the continuation of

the industry was jeopardized.

I called them to the office and proposed a mechanism for

adjusting the Ontario arbitration to B.C.'s needs which would,

in effect, be a collective agreement with the parties. That

mechanism, Mr. Speaker, was an industrial inquiry commission

which I appointed. The terms of reference were discussed with

both the union and the industry in my office and I received no

objection from either party as to the terms of reference of

that industrial inquiry commission.

Incidentally, the industrial inquiry commission was a

three-man group which was representative of the construction

industry and, as a consequence, knowledgeable of some of the

technical problems that were in dispute.

Finally, the industrial inquiry commission handed down their

award. It was at that point that the union agreed to abide by

that award, basically the Ontario arbitration amended by B.C.'s

own industrial inquiry commission, At that point the companies indicated that they were not

prepared to accept this contract proposal

[ Page 4736 ]

and notified me accordingly.

I have a letter from the companies dated July 4, 1973,

containing their commitment to abide by the Ontario

arbitration. And I think it would be well to read this into the

record of the House. The letter is addressed to me and it

states:

"Re: the International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local

82. Otis Elevator Company Limited; Armor Elevator, Canada,

Limited; Westinghouse Canada Limited; Dover Corporation,

Canada, Limited; and Montgomery Elevator Company Limited.

"This will confirm the agreement of our clients to extend to

their employees in British Columbia the results of the Ontario

arbitration award conducted pursuant to the Elevator

Construction Union Disputes Act, 1973, Ontario. That award

would be suitably amended to operate as a collective agreement

in British Columbia.

"We trust this undertaking will be helpful to you.

Signed,

Yours very truly,

Russel Du Moulin

per Bebe Trevino."

He was the solicitor for the company.

Despite this

undertaking and despite the fact that they had not objected in

any way to the industrial inquiry commission which had been

appointed to suitably amend the Ontario arbitration to British

Columbia's needs, they saw fit to refuse to honour this

commitment and have so notified me.

Subsequent to this development, the union, of course, who

had in this case lived up to their commitment, re-issued strike

notice which again called the industry into jeopardy. I

received a number of telegrams requesting action, some of which

I would like to read into the record, Mr. Speaker. One is from

C.J. Connaghan, Construction Labour Relations Association of

B.C., and addressed to me:

THE MEMBERS OF THIS ASSOCIATION VIEW WITH ALARM RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

IN THE ELEVATOR SECTOR OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WHEREIN STRIKE NOTICE HAS

BEEN SERVED BY THE ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS UNION ON THE ELEVATOR COMPANIES. THIS

DISPUTE WHICH IS NOW MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN DURATION HAS ALREADY CAUSED ECONOMIC

HARDSHIP FOR B.C. CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS GREAT INCONVENIENCE

FOR MANY B.C. RESIDENTS. A FURTHER STRIKE AT THIS TIME WOULD MAKE A MOCKERY

OF THE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY YOUR DEPARTMENT TO DATE TO SETTLE THE

DISPUTE AS WELL AS INFLICTING FURTHER UNNECESSARY ECONOMIC HARDSHIP ON ALL SEGMENTS

OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOUR OFFICE TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS

TO AVOID A FURTHER WORK STOPPAGE 1N THE ELEVATOR SECTOR OF THE CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY.

That's dated October 28, 1974.

I received another telegram from Mr. M. Degelder,

vice-president and general manager of Stevenson Construction

Company Limited, which reads:

RE: ELEVATOR DISPUTE

WE WISH TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR

WE WOULD BE GREATLY AFFECTED BY A STRIKE ESPECIALLY IN OUR UNITED KINGDOM BUILDING.

A $4 MILLION PROJECT IN VANCOUVER. THE ELEVATOR WORK IS APPROXIMATELY 95 PER

CENT COMPLETE AND THE UNCOMPLETED PORTION IS STRICTLY LABOUR. SO FAR ON THIS

PROJECT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THREE SHUTDOWNS ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR DISPUTES, AND

OTHER PICKET LINES AROUND THIS PROJECT WOULD BE DISASTROUS, AFFECTING A LARGE

NUMBER OF TRADES, THE COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE RELATED

TENANT IMPROVEMENTS PRESENTLY IN PROGRESS, AND ANOTHER FINANCIAL LOSS FOR ALL

COMPANIES INVOLVED. A GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION TO AVOID THIS STRIKE WOULD BE

HIGHLY DESIRABLE, ESPECIALLY AS THE MAIN ITEM IN DISPUTE SEEMS TO RELATE TO

MAINTENANCE, NOT EVEN TO NEW CONSTRUCTION."

I received a number of telegrams of this nature indicating

the concern and the despair of the construction industry in

British Columbia. In view of the commitments which both parties

had made to me, in view of the tentative settlement which had

prevented the continuation of the dispute and the picketing, I

felt duty-bound, Mr. Speaker, to hold the parties to their

written commitments. That is the reason this bill is before the

Legislature today.

I should mention that beyond these factors it's not quite

good enough for international companies, who make their

decisions in New York or some other United States city, to make

British Columbia the battleground….

Interjections.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): What about

international unions? What kind of talk is that?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any

trade union in the Province of British Columbia which does not

have a local bargaining committee authorized to meet and

consummate an agreement, not one.

[ Page 4737 ]

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: The fact of the matter is that in this

case, Mr. Speaker, the bargaining committee for the industry

acted in a very prima donna fashion in terms of even deigning

to meet with the union, or indeed with government, when we were

interested in bringing the parties together. When it

accommodated their interests, they would deign to fly out from

Toronto to meet on this important work stoppage 1n British

Columbia. I am not prepared to live with that kind of

tail-wagging-the-dog situation as far as the interests of this

province are concerned. This is one of the basic….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Members save some of

their speeches for later?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I think that the

opposition is liable to be stuck for words, but I'll be

listening with great interest to the comments they have to make

on this situation. I know that some of them have commented on

this very situation in the past and advocated that I take

precisely this kind of action to prevent forces from without

the province — indeed from without the nation — controlling the

affairs and the destiny of British Columbia's industry and

British Columbia's citizens.

So that's the background against which this bill is

introduced, Mr. Speaker. I think that it's a bill that is

designed to bring long-term peace and long-term security to the

construction industry, because now we can be assured that

bargaining will take place in a unified way and will take place

within the confines of this province, in this province's

interest.

So I'll look forward to the comments from the opposition,

Mr. Speaker, and I'll be responding in due course.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I

will follow the pattern that has developed in the matter of

debates on bills and indicate to you that I am the designated

speaker for the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker: The chosen one.

Mr. Smith: In that capacity, I presume that you'll

waive the 40-minute time limit, if that's necessary — or the

lady on Hansard will do that for you.

I listened with interest to the remarks of the Hon. Minister of Labour in introducing

this bill for second reading. Really, there is only one thing, Mr. Minister,

that you and I agree upon, through you, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the elevator

strike has been a long and frustrating one.

Your

interpretation, though, of the events that led up to

the decision and the awards handed down and the manner in which

they came about, and the

interpretation I have, are quite

different. I think that it would be well if I took a little

time this evening to put on the record some of these

differences, because I believe that either the Minister has a

very selective memory of certain events that have taken place

over a period of two years or he doesn't wish to remember the

arguments and the genuine concern expressed by both sides of

the industry.

He seems to be a little reluctant to remember what was said

on behalf of the companies involved in this particular labour

dispute, but very, very well remembers anything that was said

to him by the union.

I think it's a matter of record, Mr. Speaker, that the

elevator strike has been a nagging and frustrating situation in

this province — probably more so in the lower mainland than

anywhere else in the Province of British Columbia. It's a fact

that it has seriously slowed down a great deal of construction.

It's a matter of record that in some cases it has prevented new

buildings from opening. That one small segment of the

construction industry has certainly interfered in the public

interest, particularly at a time when new construction is badly

needed in this province.

From the public interest point of view, it should have been

settled a long time ago — settled, done with, disposed of, to

the benefit, I think, of all concerned, to the benefit of the

elevator companies who are involved in an impasse with the

unions, to the benefit of the unions representing the people

who work in that very select area of construction and to the

benefit of the public at large.

I might observe, Mr. Minister, that as I have read the

reports and followed through what happened in the press

releases that you have issued from your office, and the

releases from the news media in the province during the time

this dispute has been before us, that while the elevators may

not have moved too often or too frequently, or the new

installations may not have taken place, you certainly have had

your ups and downs in this particular argument.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Which button do

you press?

Mr. Smith: This bill raises a much larger issue than

the specific settlement of this particular dispute, and I want

to speak about that this evening. It raises the issue of your

whole approach, as government, to labour relations. In short,

what is really the labour relations policy of the NDP

government?

Interjection.

[ Page 4738 ]

Mr. Smith: What is it? You know, we've heard for

years and years, I suppose, about the great job the NDP would

do in labour relations if elected. Why? — because they

understood the problems. We heard and have heard consistently

repeated criticisms of the former government's approach to

labour relations. As a matter of fact, one of the key planks in

the NDP campaign was that they would bring a whole new approach

to labour relations, that they would toss out the old system

and bring in a new system.

Well, you did bring in changes in the labour laws in this

province, and I think that we are now in a position to judge

just how effective these changes have been, because we now can

look at them in retrospect. It's true, you brought in a new

labour code for this province and waxed eloquent and long, both

you and your colleagues, on what a great success it would

be.

If that is true, then why, Mr. Speaker, have we witnessed as

many labour stoppages in the province as we have in the last 18

months? Why? Two of the disputes which have had to come to the

floor of this House could be settled by a bill such as the one

we're debating this evening. We had the B.C. Ferries strike,

and the Minister admitted that in that particular situation he

had a gun held to his head.

I think it's quite in order to review some of the situations

that have led up to the introduction of this bill this

evening.

So we had the B.C. Ferry strike and the Minister admitted

that a gun was held to his head, so he had to come up with a

solution which really was not the solution that he would have

liked.

We have the B.C. Railway problem and this has been referred

to the Labour Relations Board.

This afternoon we debated a bill concerning the teachers and

the trustee situation in the Province of British Columbia. I

think that particular bill was nothing more than a knee-jerk

reaction and really premature legislation at this time.

Twice we have had labour problems settled by this

Legislative Assembly.

The firefighters went out on strike and we had to come back

to a special sitting of the Legislature to solve that dispute.

Now the elevator strike which you are asking us to solve with

this bill this evening.

What is the approach of the government in these particular

situations where public interest is involved? It's an approach

of compulsion, Mr. Speaker, because we had a special session of

the Legislature to compel the firefighters to return to work. I

don't believe the Minister would deny that. Was that not

compulsory?

In the case of the elevator strike…a bill before us this

evening compelling the companies to accept as binding the

findings and the award of the B.C. Industrial inquiry

commission. Is that not correct? Isn't that what we're debating

this evening?

While we are discussing compulsion, I want to refresh the memories of some

of the Members in this House, particularly those in the NDP, concerning some

of their remarks in past debates about compulsion and the type of legislation

that we're being asked to vote upon this evening.

I'm not going to go through all of the remarks and the

statements made by Members of the Legislature in a session

which we held from October 17 to 27 in 1972. At that time the

government took great pleasure in disposing of the Mediation

Act and the commission. Certainly it's well recorded in several

hundred pages of Hansard , and I'm not going to go back

over all the arguments that were presented at that time by

Members of the NDP.

But I am going to refer to a more recent debate, a debate

that took place when the labour Act was introduced into the

Province of British Columbia, and recall to the memory of some

people who may have forgotten, or those who would conveniently

like to forget, some of their remarks during that particular

debate.

I'd like to start by quoting from Hansard , September

13 to October 19, pages 1 to 808, and quoting from page 400 of

Hansard . The Minister, in speaking on this particular

debate was very proud of his new Labour Code, said:

The new labour code has streamlined and improved the structure and machinery of the Labour Relations Board.

The new board will, I predict, be better equipped to assist

those engaged in collective bargaining to achieve harmonious

relations and will, ultimately, benefit all of the citizens of

this province.

I've given an outline, Mr. Speaker, of the

central agency that will hold responsibility for making this new

labour code work. I think it's necessary at the same time to

say that attitudes towards this new legislation are going to be

all-important in the degree of success which is realized from

our new approach.

Well, Mr. Minister, you've tried the new approach. You had

great faith in what you would be able to accomplish by

introducing into this House the new Labour Code, but you don't

have the courage of your convictions, because what you have

done, in fact, is when you were pushed into a corner in some

dispute you left the ultimate decision for the settlement of

that dispute in the hands of this Legislative Assembly.

You appointed a commission of 55 people to mediate the

problem, not a commission of three. It was a cop-out from the

responsibility that you said you were prepared to undertake as

Minister of Labour.

I'd now like to refer to the remarks of one of the other

Hon. Members. The Member's remarks are well recorded in this

particular copy of Hansard , on page 457. The Member is

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

an expert in the field of labour relations, we understand. This

particular Member has said in speaking in debate

[ Page 4739 ]

on the Labour Code in British Columbia:

I campaigned against compulsory arbitration. I subscribed to

the eight-point programme that the NDP campaigned on in last

year's election. I cannot accept the provision that in any way

allows for compulsory arbitration, even though in this case

that compulsory arbitration appears to be in favour of the

trade union movement. If I am to be consistent in my opposition

to compulsion, I can't be in favour of compulsion when it

benefits trade unions. Mr. Speaker, that kind of consistency is

important to me.

If it is important to that Member, we'll watch with interest

how he votes, if he votes, on the passage of this particular

bill through this legislative session.

The same Member, a little later on in the same speech

said:

… arbitration has been made for years, it has been made

eloquently by the New Democratic Party, and I stand by those

statements made both by my party and by myself in years gone

by. I intend, Mr. Speaker, to continue to oppose compulsory

arbitration in whatever form, even when it appears to be to the

benefit of the working people.

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

Mr. Smith: The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour

said that. He doesn't seem to be in his place this evening, a

time when I would have thought that a man so interested in the

labour movement in the Province of British Columbia would have

made sure that he was in the House when a debate on this type

of a motion took place.

It will be interesting to see how other Members who have

spoken on compulsion vote on this particular bill.

It will be interesting to see how the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) votes, because certainly he

was a very strong advocate of the rights of labour and the fact

that no compulsion could be involved.

Mrs. Jordan: Until he got a $40,000-a-year job.

Mr. Smith: And there's the Hon. Member for Richmond

(Mr. Steves) who said: "I do not think that compulsion should

be considered. It's contrary to my own philosophy…

Mrs. Jordan: No!

Mr. Smith: …and also to the policy of the

NDP."

Mrs. Jordan: No!

Mr. Smith: No compulsion, Mr. Minister, by your cabinet colleagues and

Members of your own backbench. No compulsion.

Mrs. Jordan: Stand up and speak.

MR. SMITH: A little later on, on page 517, the Minister says

this:

There is no way that I or my government would recommend compulsory arbitration as a broad device replacing

free collective bargaining as a method of regulating the

affairs between workers and their employers.

Mrs. Jordan: Read that again.

Mr. Smith:

There is no way that I or my government would recommend compulsory arbitration as a broad device replacing

free collective bargaining as a method of regulating the

affairs between workers and their employers.

Mrs. Jordan: Was that Mrs. Dailly or Mr. King?

Mr. Smith: That's the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. King) speaking in a debate.

Mr. Phillips: That's the serious one.

Mr. Smith: Tell me, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister, is compulsion only a one-way process? If it's unfair

to the union, then compulsion can be considered; but if it's

unfair to management, then what course of action do you

follow?

I suggest that as Minister of Labour you have a duty to be

an unbiased and neutral referee in some of these particular

problems that come before you, to be neither pro-labour nor

pro-management, but try to resolve the problem in a fair and

equitable manner to both sides. After all, isn't that what

we're striving for in labour relations in the Province of

British Columbia?

The Minister, in opening up second reading of this

particular bill, referred to some of the events which have

taken place prior to the introduction of this bill. And I think

some of the discussion that did take place should be read into

the record.

Mr. Phillips: Thirteen out of 38.

Mr. Smith: I was interested to see that the Minister

referred to a letter written to the Minister by a particular

law firm representing the elevator companies of British

Columbia. I'll get to that a little later on.

But prior to that, I'd like to just summarize some of the

correspondence and discussion that took place between the

Department of Labour and the union

[ Page 4740 ]

and the elevator companies involved. I'd like to start back

in May of 1973. I think it's a matter of record that the things

that I am about to say are statements which have been made by

the Minister or press releases concerning them.

May, 1973: "A new Labour Minister…. You were

comparatively new in May of 1973, having taken office the

previous fall. You were, I think, conscientiously trying to do

a good job in the department that has its problems.

"A new Labour Minister issued a public statement leading

many to believe that the serious hindrance to the B.C.

construction industry was close to resolution."

He probably felt at that time that settlement was not too

far off.

Hon. Mr. King: Who's the author — Dan Campbell?

Mr. Smith: No, Dan Campbell had nothing to do with

this. If you bother to read some of the press releases going

back to May of 1973, you'll find the exact words I use were

quoted from press releases from press conferences that you had

held or corridor conversations taking place with the press.

In June of 1973, a month later:

"The industry informed the Minister of Labour that the

inflexible position of the union was hurting more workers that

the union alleged to be protecting."

To express it another way: because of the union's position

there were more direct jobless than directly employed, There

was genuine concern on the part of the companies at that

particular time.

Later in June of 1973, representatives of the five elevator

companies involved in the dispute met with the Minister and the

Deputy. At this meeting, the industry was asked to accept the

results of the Ontario arbitration decision. They were asked to

accept this, as the Minister will admit, at a time when no one

really knew what terms would be laid down or what rates would

be awarded by the Ontario arbitration decision.

It was a tough decision for either labour or management to

make at that time, but industry was concerned about the strike.

As a matter of fact, they were so desirous of a settlement that

they agreed to accept a decision. This was confirmed by letter

to the Minister on July 4, 1973. The Minister has already read

that letter into the record — I have a copy of it — so I'll not

read it into the record a second time.

But the interesting part, Mr. Speaker, is that from the time the industry indicated

their desire to come to an agreement and settle this dispute until October of

the same year, nothing happened. When the Minister was questioned on the floor

of this House in the fall session, he assured the Legislature that he had obtained

a commitment from both industry and the union that both sides would accept the

result of the Ontario award.

As I recall, this was put to the Minister in a question

period during that fall session and he replied by saying he had

reason to believe that they were close to some sort of a

settlement and that the industry and the unions would accept

the results of the Ontario award.

Well, the Ontario award came down. But it's also a matter of

record that that award was challenged by the union in Ontario.

Subsequent to that challenge, the Ontario Department of Labour

appointed a new arbitration board with the same chairman to see

if they could resolve the problem.

Meanwhile, in the Province of British Columbia, the elevator

situation escalated — it wasn't a strike at that time — and

more problems became prevalent. It wasn't until February 28 of

1974 that we really found out what was happening with respect

to that particular problem in the Province of Ontario. At that

time, Ontario announced a new award. As soon as a copy of that

award was available, the elevator companies sent a copy to the

Minister.

It's probably interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that for

this consideration the industry received a one-paragraph letter

of acknowledgement from the Minister of Labour but no further

comment about the award in the Province of Ontario or about the

position of either the elevator companies or the union with

respect to a prior commitment that both had made to the

Minister.

And we still had the same problems within the elevator

construction business in the province.

The elevator industry, disturbed by lack of response from

letters written to the International Union of Elevator

Constructors, Local 82, wrote to the Minister through their

solicitor as follows. While I'm not going to read the whole

letter, I think it's important to read into the record some of

the comments of the elevator companies at that time. The letter

is dated April 30, 1974, and it's to the Hon. William S. King,

Minister of Labour, re elevator companies' collective agreement

in British Columbia:

"As you know, on April 10 and April 18, 1974, we have

written to the International Union of Elevator Constructors,

Local 82, asking that the collective agreement resulting from

the Ontario arbitration be executed by the union as it was by

the company representatives.

"We have received no response whatsoever to our two

letters.

"Our clients are of the view that you obtained a commitment

from both sides that the results of the Ontario arbitration

would, in its substance, become the collective agreement for

British Columbia. You stated at the time

[ Page

4741 ]

that, if necessary, special legislation might be required to

insist upon compliance with the results of the Ontario arbitration.

"Our clients are of the further opinion that their

commitment to you has been fulfilled in every respect. The

trade union, however, has not only failed to comply with its

commitment but has done so publicly. The Vancouver Sun

of March 8, 1974, under the headline: 'B.C. Installers Could

Renege stated that the union appeared likely to renege on their

commitment to you of last May, and quoted Mr. Neil as saying

that there was no way the union was going to abide by any of

it.

"We must ask that you advise us of the position which you

intend to take and when you intend to take it as the present

situation of uncertainty cannot be allowed to continue. We

would therefore appreciate receiving your views as to the

implementation of the commitment given to you by both sides at

your earliest convenience."

Written by a law firm on behalf of the elevator companies

involved in this dispute.

It's also a matter of record that this letter was

acknowledged May 27, 1974, and the Minister at that time

indicated that he had met with the union to discuss the

arbitration award from Ontario and the union indicated that

they would not execute the award as a collective agreement.

The question we must ask then is this, Mr. Minister: why did

the Minister allow the union to opt out on a commitment made to

him previously? The evidence certainly verifies that both the

elevator companies and the union had previously agreed to accept the

Ontario award as the basis for a contract in the Province of

British Columbia.

Certainly the letter to the Hon. Minister written on June 7

on behalf of the companies restated their justifiable concern.

I'd like to quote briefly from that letter.

The letter goes into some of the background and detail of

the discussions that have taken place in previous months

concerning this particular dispute. It says:

"To underline our concern may we review the history of this

problem? You will recall that the custom in the elevator

industry has been to negotiate an agreement applicable across

Canada, with regional differences being accounted for within

the confines of the collective agreement itself.

"The last such agreement was entered into on May 1, 1967 and

terminated on April 30, 1972. The negotiations for renewal had

begun in eastern Canada on March 30, 1972, and a strike began

in British Columbia on or about September 8, 1972.

"It will also be recalled that the negotiations took place

entirely in eastern Canada and that at no time was Local 82

ever represented directly in those negotiations."

Then they go on to talk about how in November, 1972, the

elevator strike was declared illegal by Justice Ruttan, and the

fact that a case was brought by one of the companies to try to

get these people back to work.

I think it is interesting to read one of the paragraphs in

this letter, because it certainly places the position of the

elevator companies in sharp focus. It says in this

paragraph:

"Our clients at first resisted an agreement to commit

themselves to voluntarily accept the results in Ontario.

"The basis of their objection was that they had not agreed

to voluntary arbitration in Ontario, and they would not

therefore agree voluntarily to submit to arbitration in British

Columbia.

"The persuasion exercised by you, your office, and by your

respective Deputy Ministers was later successful in that our

clients agreed to the discontinuance of the actions against

their employees."

Agreed not to proceed with the contemplated citation for

contempt, and agreed without qualification and unequivocally to

be bound by the results of the Ontario award, committing

themselves to make that award a legal agreement for British

Columbia. They go on to say:

"The Ontario arbitration board handed down its decision

February 28, 1974."

Then they say:

"We did not receive any reply from Local 82 nor any person

representing the Local. We wrote again to Local 82 on April 18,

1974, and upon still not receiving any response, wrote to you

on April 30.

And they conclude the letter, after reviewing the events

which took place prior to June 7, 1974, by saying:

"All of the local managers of our clients have noticed an

increasing frustration on the part of their employees, and in

particular, their more senior and experienced employees. This

appears to arise from the fact that the men themselves do not

know what is happening.

"Our clients have noticed an increase in the number of their

valuable employees discussing the possibility of leaving the

elevator industry.

"We are advised that at one time the employees of our

clients considered the elevator industry a very pleasant place

to work, but in view of the difficulties which have arisen and

the frustrations which they find arising from the manner in

which they are required to

[ Page 4742 ]

perform their work, they are considering planning a

different form of employment.

"Given the foregoing perspective and context, we are

concerned that the union appears to be ready to instruct its

members to defy the law and now, in effect, to defy the

government.

"Certainly your office was responsible for the momentum of

the return to work, and also for obtaining a commitment from

both sides that would allow a new collective agreement to be

formed between the parties in British Columbia without a

further disruption occurring.

"It now appears that the union considers that it can

publicly renege on its commitment to you with some impunity,

and we draw to your attention copies of press clippings of

March 8 and March 13, among the clippings enclosed.

"It is our position that our clients have complied in every

respect with the commitments given to you. We now ask that you

require Local 80 to comply with its commitment to you, and

through you, to our clients."

Then it is interesting to note what happened, Mr. Minister.

It is a matter of record that after a few more meetings, which

apparently were unsuccessful, a decision was made by the

Minister to appoint a three-man industrial inquiry commission

which, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, by the

Minister's own words did not include within their terms of

reference the power to make the results binding.

You did say at that time that both the companies and the

union had committed themselves to follow the Ontario decision,

and further, that commitment was something you expected to be

followed-up on.

Yet you, Mr. Minister, failed to follow through on your

commitment by appointing the B.C. Industrial Inquiry Commission

and assigning them terms of reference which went well beyond

the parameters of the Ontario award, particularly in the issue

of standby pay. Particularly in that issue — an issue which I

would like to suggest to the Minister will be one which will

come back to haunt him in his term of office.

Mr. Minister, by including this matter in the terms of

reference of the inquiry commission, you opened the door for

similar requests by the unions representing other employees in

other corporations, including every Crown corporation in this

province, including B.C. Hydro and B.C. Railway.

According to the elevator companies, they certainly want that matter clarified

because under the inquiry commission formula it would be possible for an elevator

mechanic to receive as much as $19,000 a year, over and above his regular wages,

for work he was never required to do.

Is this the type of situation you want to inject into the

construction industry generally in the Province of British

Columbia? I think the Minister must realize that he has

certainly opened the door to those types of settlements being

asked by other unions in the province.

I'd like to quote from the report of the inquiry

commission:

"The employer agrees to reimburse each employee when he is

on standby at the applicable rate of pay, being three hours

of time- and-one-half for each weeknight, six hours at

time-and-one-half for Saturday, and six hours at double time

for Sunday, and all statutory holidays shall be considered the

same as Sunday. "

Is it not then a matter of fact that anyone who is

considered to be on standby will receive substantial extra pay,

regardless of whether they were ever called out or not?

Is it not a fact that by including that in the terms of

reference of the industrial inquiry commission you certainly

exceeded to a great extent the terms of the award handed down

by Ontario?

It is not much wonder that the unions, at this particular

point in time, jumped to accept the non-binding recommendations

made by the three-man inquiry commission. Why would they

refuse? Certainly it was probably as much, if not more than

they had any reason to expect. But it was not until a three-man

industrial inquiry commission had been appointed by yourself,

whose terms of reference exceeded to a great extent the terms

of reference and the awards handed down in the Province of

Ontario, that the union representing these employees agreed to

accept, even though they had previously committed themselves to

the findings and the award handed down by the Arbitration Board

of the Province of Ontario.

I note that there's an amendment, which we'll debate later,

on page 22 of the order paper;

section 5 is amended. I'll be

interested to see what the Minister has to say concerning that

particular amendment, because it does provide for clarification

where a dispute is involved. This is one particular point that

I think you have a responsibility to clarify as quickly as

possible, both for the people who are employees and members of

the union and the companies by whom they are employed.

Mr. Minister, in our opinion, you have a responsibility to

remain the impartial referee in the field of labour-management

relations. You have a responsibility to see that both sides,

having once made a commitment, live up to that commitment. You

have a responsibility as Minister, once these people have

negotiated and made commitments to you in good faith and you to

them, that you live up

[ Page 4743 ]

to your commitments as Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker, in view of that, are we to believe that after

being without a contract for two-and-one-half years, the

decision by the union to serve strike notice just one week

before the opening of this small session was not orchestrated?

How did they know when the fall session was going to open? Or

perhaps, Mr. Minister, you're the innocent victim of a union,

whose head office is in Kentucky, with a crystal ball which can

foretell intended B.C. legislation before this House is given

notice of such legislation. To that one question, as to many

others, the public deserves an answer, Mr. Minister.

We in the official opposition do not dispute that you try

hard as the Minister of Labour, that you work hard, that you

get an "E" for effort; but then so does everyone else in the

field of labour relations and every other Minister that has

represented that department in this province. They've all tried

hard, worked hard. They all received an "E" for effort. But the

report card for you must be based upon the results you

obtain.

Your party promised the millennium in labour relations. It

was to be a great new climate, a whole new approach, a real

understanding. You really knew the problems of labour and you

would find the solutions to them. And what have you brought

forth? No new climate; not the promised change but a climate

which has produced the fireman's strike, which had to be

settled by a special session of this Legislature; a climate

that produced the ferry strike, which you say was settled

because they held a gun to your head; a B.C. Railway strike;

the elevator strike, which you ask to be settled now by this

House; a possibility of another ferry strike; a strike by the

agents representing ICBC.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): And landlords;

everybody strikes.

Mr. Smith: In other words, your policy of labour

relations has brought nothing but confusion and frustration in

this province. To add to that we have debated a bill this

afternoon which has enhanced the confusion and frustration

which exist between school trustees and teachers.

What of the climate and your handling of the elevator

strike? Well, if I could quote from The Vancouver Sun

and the words of one of their journalists, an independent

writer: "It's Appalling." Mr. Wasserman, it was, in an

article

of November 2. He had this to say:

"The issues in this protracted hassle, with its succession

of strikes, lockouts and slowdowns, are relatively unimportant,

but what has been really appalling has been the inability of

the government — I'd like to repeat that:

"What has been really appalling has been the inability of

the government, the construction industry, the trade unions and assorted other

participants to come to terms with a dispute that has played a major role in

creating a shortage of mortgage money for houses, among other things."

Is that not a fact, Mr. Minister? The great plans of the NDP

when they were in opposition and the great boasts to be all

things to all people have finally had to be resolved by the 55

people who sit in this House.

Mr. Speaker, this government is now doing exactly what they

used to complain about the previous government doing. All of us

remember Bill 33, the mediation commission Act, and how you

campaigned against it very bitterly, and what pride you took as

the new Minister of Labour in abolishing it as your first piece

of business. So what have you done in the two cases we've now

seen of a dispute affecting the public interest? It's simple:

you set up a new mediation commission, only this one had 55

Members and not three.

This House, Mr. Speaker, must not become a super labour

relations board as well as a Legislature. This province and the

public interest needs an independent agency or forum within

which labour and management can settle the type of dispute

which in two cases have ended up on the floor of this

House.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this government should be frank.

If their new system of labour relations is in fact one of a

55-member mediation commission doing the work that three were

appointed to do previously, then be honest and tell us so. If

in fact the former system was not as bad as you tried to paint

it, be frank and admit it. If you say there is a better

solution, tell us what it is, or go out and find it.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I

thank the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) for his

careful and extensive recitation of the facts which have led up

to this debate. I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it will

greatly shorten the remarks which I would have been making

otherwise.

I disagree with the Member for North Peace when he suggests

that what the Minister is doing with this legislation is to

turn this Legislature into a 55-man mediation commission,

because no mediation commission ever devised or designed by

anyone would face a problem having as great consequences as

this particular problem does with the sketchy facts made

available to us by the Minister of Labour in his remarks

opening this debate.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when I consider that for

the second time in three months this House has been called upon

to use its authority to resolve a labour dispute, and when I

recollect the brief statement made by the Minister of Labour in

the

[ Page 4744 ]

previous case, I am most distressed at the use of the House

for this particular purpose.

Following the meeting in August, when we sent the four

firefighter unions all into one organization and back to work,

I had reason to wonder why the Minister was perhaps nor more

candid with the House than he was in his remarks outlining the

reasons for that meeting and for the action that he then

proposed. I can only come to the conclusion regretfully,

following the remarks that he made in the opening of this

debate, that somehow or other the Minister, when facing this

House with this serious responsibility, is less than willing to

give to the House the clearest statement of facts which have

led to this decision and the decision of the government to take

this extraordinary course of action.

I would have expected, Mr. Speaker, that rather than leaving

it to Members of the opposition to place on the record the

series of events leading to this debate tonight, the Minister,

in advance of the debate or at least at the time the debate

commenced, would have made available to every Member of this

House such a clear, factual statement.

I too have read the correspondence referred to by the Member

for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and I'm regretfully compelled

to the conclusion that the Minister was being less than honest

with this House when he opened this debate.

He talked about the conditions of the Ontario arbitration

award and the fact that it had to be translated into British

Columbia circumstances. He didn't tell us in what way the

Ontario arbitration award was not acceptable to British

Columbia circumstances.

He said that he had appointed an industrial inquiry

commission and that the terms of reference of that commission

were agreed to by both the union and the management. But he

didn't tell us what the terms of reference of that industrial

inquiry commission were.

Why? Why did he neglect to tell us that one of the basic

conditions, one of the basic terms of reference of the

industrial inquiry commission was that its findings would be

non-binding? Could it have been that the reason both the union

and management were in agreement with the terms of reference of

that commission were because one of the basic terms was that

its findings would not be binding? It could easily be, yet we

don't know whether or not that was a significant factor in the

minds of either the union or management in accepting those

terms of reference. But the Minister found it convenient not to

give us that information.

The Minister did not in any way indicate how the agreement produced by the

industrial inquiry commission following its investigation, this non-binding

agreement that it produced, was different from the agreement which came fm the

Ontario arbitration proceedings. However, the Member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith) indicated what was different. What was different, Mr. Speaker, was that

in the Ontario arbitration award, while standby provisions were included in

that agreement, the standby provisions in the Ontario agreement, as well as

the standby provisions in the agreement negotiated separately with the union

by the Armor Company, did not make provision which would have the consequence

of providing an employee with the possibility of receiving $19,000 a year without

doing any work. That's not in the Ontario award, although the whole question

of standby was considered by the Ontario arbitration board as well as by the

negotiations between the union and the Armor Company. Indeed, there was specific

reference to that matter in the minority award of the Ontario arbitration board.

We weren't told that by the Minister.

I hope that when he closes the debate, he can tell us why

the provision of this windfall wage provision for the employees

of the elevator companies in British Columbia makes that so

different from what should apply to the employees of those

elevator companies in the Province of Ontario and elsewhere in

Canada.

What is it about the conditions in British Columbia that

makes that windfall wage possibility applicable specifically to

B.C.? How is that a proper evolution from the Ontario

arbitration award? How could the industrial inquiry commission

in British Columbia suddenly have seized upon this one fact as

necessary in order to translate the Ontario award into a

British Columbia agreement? How could it be?

I'm sure that no one suggested to the industrial inquiry

commission in British Columbia that it might be helpful if they

sweetened the agreement somehow or other so that it was

acceptable to the union. I'm certain that didn't happen. But

the very fact that the Minister in opening the debate failed to

advise this House of that significant distinction might make

some people wonder, and, so wondering, come to the conclusion

that perhaps the industrial inquiry commissions which are

appointed in this province are not all that free from

interference.

That's the position the Minister places not only on us but

also on his industrial inquiry commission, the members of the

Labour Relations Board. That's the situation the Minister

creates.

Now, I expect when the Minister closes, he's going to stand

up and rant and rail about the Member for — he won't remember

which constituency it is — it's West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Aren't you making a note? You'll lose your temper as you have

before and criticize me on a personal basis for the remarks I'm

making here tonight. But the fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, that that Minister has not been candid with this House

when asking us to exercise this supreme authority to send men

back to work and to

[ Page 4745 ]

force employers into organizations so that they can conclude

collective bargaining in this province.

The Minister spoke to the British Columbia Federation of

Labour just a few days ago in which he restated his party's

fundamental position that they stood for free collective

bargaining. Free collective bargaining. I assume that means the

processes of bargaining by organizations which have the

authority of their members freely conducted without

interference. That's his position. That's the position of his

party and of his government. It was commented upon by one of

the papers that it sounded almost like it was an election

speech that he was giving. Within only a few days after making

that speech, we were debating legislation which is just the

very reverse of what he was saying to the B.C. Federation of

Labour.

I wonder almost if the Minister has not seized upon this

opportunity of evening up what he did to the firefighters last

August. It's like a referee who makes different judgment calls

in order to keep the game even. Compensating calls.

But the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that what we are

having with this legislation is worse than that terrible Bill

33. At least in Bill 33, with that terrible mediation

commission, the parties knew in advance whether or not the

deliberations that went on before the mediation commission were

to be binding or not. But we've got a new technique now. What

we do is reach outside of this province and take a binding

award from some other jurisdiction, in this case Ontario, and

say to the parties: "Now, fellows, we think you could take this

agreement. and get together. We'll just make a few changes that

will make it acceptable for British Columbia conditions." And

there are some. Obviously in the agreement you have to change

the names of the parties and we have to change the word

"Ontario" to "British Columbia" where it appears. You have to

make certain provisions to our Labour Code for technological

change and matters of that nature.

And when you are having difficulty in getting them to accept

an agreement on that basis, you say: "Well, I'll tell you how

we'll work it out, fellows. We'll appoint an industrial inquiry

commission to assist you in bringing an agreement out of this

foreign compulsory award. But just so there's no problem, this

industrial inquiry commission won't be binding on you."

And when you've gone through that process, then you suddenly

say to the parties: "Well, we've gone all this way, fellows,

and it's very important for the Province of British Columbia.

So I'll just call the Legislature together and we'll bring

legislation in which makes it binding on the union and on the

employers."

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that this activity on the part of the government, this

technique, will lead to the greatest disruption of labour-management relations

that we will see in this province for many years to come.

Indeed, what we have done after bringing in the Labour Code

establishing this Labour Relations Board filled with qualified

people with great authority to ensure that the processes

between labour and management are carried on properly,

efficiently and harmoniously, is to bring about a situation

where the government at the same time says to management on the

one side sometimes and labour on the other: "You can circumvent

the LRB. Just use political pressure. Hang out. Don't enter

into any settlements. When it gets really tough, I'll take it

into the Legislature and I'll put forward a bill that will

solve the problem."

Political pressures. That's where labour and management

relations are headed to in this province because of this second

instance of the use of this authority by this government and by

that Minister.

If he had clearly outlined to us tonight the precise need

for this legislation, if he had indicated that he had used his

good offices week after week after week in a vain attempt to

bring management and the union together, and that he was being

frustrated by irresponsible actions by one party or the other,

such that this whole industry was in jeopardy and that there

was indeed no other solution than to come to this Legislature,

then the situation would be different. But the Minister has not

drawn that picture for us tonight. Indeed, it's interesting

when you consider the material available to us. If the Minister

has other material I wish he would bring it forward, because we

only have to use in this debate that material which our

research facilities makes available to us.

It's interesting that in response to the opportunity

presented to translate the Ontario award into an agreement,

management moved, produced an agreement, submitted it to the

Minister and to the union, and said, "This, we think, is good

enough." And they were advised by the Minister on May 22 that

the union had indicated to him that it would not at that time

execute the collective agreement drawn from the award.

The Minister then said to management's representatives,

"They — the union — held out the hope of some pending

development in the next two weeks which may effect the entire

matter." What pending development — a little pressure on the

government? Is that the pending development that was being held

out as a reason for not signing the award? Certainly the

Minister has not explained to this House what knowledge he had

on May 22 as to what hopes the union had for some other method

of resolving this difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the consequences of continuing

disputes in the elevator industry have in

[ Page 4746 ]

the past threatened construction projects in this province

of a value in excess of $200 million and that the failure to

resolve the differences, whatever they may be between union and

management, continues to hold the possibility of that threat.

We know that this union was not certified as a bargaining

authority in this province until just a few months ago, and now

it has a right to legally strike, which it did not have before.

And the Minister comes forward at this time with this method of

resolving the dispute and hopefully bringing peace and some

stability to the construction industry — with which no one in

this House, I'm sure disagrees — an industry which this year

has already gone through a long and costly strike.

Mr. Speaker, my objection to this legislation is not because

of that factor. My objection is because of the abuse of this

process, abuse of the supreme authority that this House has to

resolve these difficulties. I suggest that if the Minister had

indicated to the parties that there having been an arbitration

award to resolve the matter in the Province of Ontario — and,

mind you, there was legislation before the arbitration

proceedings and the parties knew that it was binding.

If the Minister had followed the same course in British

Columbia and said to these parties, "Look, the experience that

you have had in the Province of Ontario had lead them to the

conclusion that they have to resolve their differences by

binding arbitration, and we think what they have done in

Ontario has brought some stability to the industry. I will

appoint an industrial inquiry commission to sit down with both

of the parties in British Columbia and they will work out with

you the proper translation of that award into British Columbia

terms," and had told them at that time that if they did

not abide by the judgment of the industrial inquiry commission,

he would have no alternative but to use the power that

government has, then there would be some reason in this

legislation. The parties would have known that they were

approaching that final stage when either they got together and

resolved their differences with the assistance of the

commission, or they were going to face the actions that this

House can work upon them. If that had been the case, then we

are properly here debating this tonight. But it was not.

I suggest that the parties, be they union or management,

were misled in the translation of the Ontario award into

British Columbia terms. They were misled by the use of the

industrial inquiry commission, and that doesn't justify the

initiation of action in this House.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): This bill, Mr. Speaker, once again points

out the mockery of one of the basic positions of this government: that it so

believes in collective bargaining, and is so opposed to compulsion, that it

will always allow free collective bargaining to take place.

It's a government that repeatedly preaches the right to

strike in all sectors of the economy, and in debates in this

House, both on the Labour Code and particularly in resisting

amendments which this side of the House put forward on the

Labour Code, resisted the concept that in certain aspects of

industry, and the service industry in particular, the public

interest far supersedes the interest of any group wanting the

right to strike. Yet, despite that very rigid, repeatedly

avowed position by the NDP, we've already had one incident in

this House where we were all called into special session to put

the lower mainland firefighters back to work. Here again, we

have that same party, with he same avowed concept of industrial

relations, now deciding that the elevator workers should be

compelled to accept a settlement. In this case, of course, it

is the employers who have been resisting imposition by

government of a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I don't think it's for us as MLAs

to debate the elements of the dispute — the question of whether

the issue of standby pay, or any other issue, is the central

part of the problem. To me, at least, the central issue is the

public interest and the way in which it should be protected. On

this side of the House, and certainly in this party, we have

never had any hesitation in outlining our position, and

outlining it now, that in some sectors of industry — and it's

certainly the service industry — the right to strike should be

seriously reviewed and possible withdrawn.

This government appears to want to have the best of both

worlds: they want union support on all possible occasions by

repeatedly making speeches in this House and out of the House

making it clear that one of the basic planks in their labour

policy is the right to strike, and yet here already we're on

the second episode where they really don't have the right to

strike. This is episode number two, and I wonder if episode

number three is going to be the ferry officers. I just hear on

the television newsreel tonight that the ferry officers are

now, by a 90 per cent majority, free to serve strike notice and

tie up transportation between Vancouver Island and the mainland

on Monday.

I'd like to ask another question. With the firefighters we

came into special session to impose a settlement; with the

elevator problem it happens that we were to have a fall session

anyway. I suppose, in some respects, it may be fortuitous and

suitable to this government that if the ferry workers do go on

strike at the weekend that we'll be able, without a special

session of this Legislature, to use the current session to put

them back to work.

It just seems to me that the….

[ Page 4747 ]

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's

been the same session since January 30.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, don't start splitting hairs, for

goodness' sake. The Minister of Transportation, Mr. Speaker,

with gun-to-head, starts splitting hairs in the most pickayune

way.

All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, whether it's a continuation of

the spring session or a fall session or whatever it is, is the

fact that this government says one thing in labour relations

and does another, and it wants to have the best of both worlds.

It wants union support in large numbers by professing that it

upholds the right to strike; yet, as I say, here we are already

under the new Labour Code with a second imposition of an

agreement. And, who knows, within a few days or a week we'll be

imposing a settlement on the ferry workers and putting them

back to work.

The irony for me is that I have to support this bill,

because I don't believe in the unmitigated and uncontrolled

right to strike of all workers in all segments of society. I've

said many times in this House, and I'll say it again — and I

can't ever see any change in my position — that the right to

strike is a brutal and archaic attitude to the human community.

There are certain services, certain types of employment in our

modern society which are so wrapped up with dedication to the

public good that if an individual wishes to be employed in such

a sector of society, then part and parcel of that employment is

the giving up of the right to strike.

We needn't recall, Mr. Speaker, the figures, for example,

that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) quoted of hundreds of millions of dollars of

construction industry tied up, and the particularly serious

aspect of that when it comes to the construction of further

rental accommodation, which we debated just a week or two ago

in this House.

Unquestionably the continuation to any further substantial

period of time of an elevator constructors' strike would be

unacceptable because of the public good. But I think it would

be wrong on our part not to emphasize in this debate that time

and time again it would appear as though this government, for

all its pious criticism of Bill 33 and the odious aspects of

compulsion, nevertheless recognizes what the opposition parties

have said many times: that there is a role for compulsion in

the field of industrial relations and that it is not a

black-and-white situation. Either you believe in the right to

strike and take whatever the consequences are or you oppose the

right to strike, and thereby impose unfair limitations on the

capacity for certain groups in society to negotiate a fair

return for their labour.

I think that in this particular case there is a lot of evidence to suggest

that the U.S. companies are using us as guinea pigs, that technological change

is involved and that they are using Canada as a battleground for future battles

which, on a much larger scale, will take place in the United States. Certainly

I'm opposed to that. I'm not certain how absolutely convincing the evidence

is that that is the case, but by the advice I sought in the labour field, I'm

told that this in fact is part and parcel of the reason for the present dispute

in Canada.

Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that even that

is the central issue as far as the B.C. Legislature is

concerned. It is the fact that we are here to impose an

agreement when two parties have gone through various levels of

negotiation and industrial inquiry commission. The decision is

being imposed, although one party to the agreement disputes the

fairness and the conclusions reached, albeit unanimously, by

the industrial inquiry commission. That is the central point:

that this government has repeatedly said that it is opposed to

that kind of compulsory imposition of decisions when one or

other party is not agreeable to the particular decision.

I just think it is rather sad that we can probably look

forward to more and more situations of the same kind. I'm

interested to speculate, for example, in the field of public

education, where we've patched up the situation this afternoon

perhaps until next year, perhaps no further than next year. I

wonder, for example, if the teaching profession chooses to go

the full route of collective bargaining and unionization under

the Labour Code, whether perhaps not too far down the road

we'll be meeting here, either in the current session or by

special session, to put the teachers back to work.

I just think that the whole basis of this debate has to

revolve around the unreality of the position of this government

and its attitude towards strikes or withdrawal of services.

This bill I will support, because I see the need to avoid the

disruption and the real hardship and economic suffering that

would occur in this province if the workers did choose to go on

strike simply because the employers have refused to accept a

settlement.

I'm not well versed as to what the Ontario settlement was.

Again, I say that I don't think that is altogether the most

important aspect of this debate tonight. We are debating the

principle of Bill 168, and the principle of that bill is

government imposition of a settlement when one of the two

parties is opposed to the conditions of that settlement. That

is in direct contravention of all that this government stands

for — this government with its repeated avowal of support for

free collective bargaining and the absence of compulsion which,

after all, is its most bitter reason for opposing Bill 33, the

mediation commission Act.

I just think that it is rather regrettable that for a second

time within a few months we have the

[ Page 4748 ]

government having to contradict itself by its actions,

compared to its position as stated in debate, and the very

likely possibility that within a few more days we will be here

debating legislation to put the ferry officers back to

work.

Whatever the details of this dispute might be, and what ever

the justification for us all being concerned as residents and

citizens of British Columbia, I think the saddest aspect of the

bill is the fact that by bringing it in the Minister is again

basically contradicting a very fundamental and oft-repeated

policy of this government in relation to the industrial

relations field.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I have

just a few words to say in this debate before it passes. I

notice that the Minister of Labour is hanging his head in shame

tonight at having to bring this bill before this Legislature,

because he appeared most recently before the B.C. Federation of

Labour and he was talking about principles.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister of Labour

doesn't put his principles in his vest pocket. One time he has

them in his suitcoat pocket, another in his back pocket and

another in his pants pocket. They change, depending upon what

will best suit the political expediency of this government. The

whole principle of this bill is one of political expediency,

and the Minister of Labour has fallen into the trap, followed

by so many of his fellow Ministers, of turning whichever way he

feels will best suit the politics of the day.

I recall, Mr. Speaker, very well when the new labour bill

was going through this Legislature and the Minister expounded

all the great benefits to the labour unions and, indeed, to

management in this province. Since that time and since that

cure-all bill passed through these walls, we have had more

labour problems in the Province of British Columbia than this

province has ever known before.

I also recall, Mr. Speaker, when we passed the Public Works

Fair Employment Act forcing any contractor who had business

with the government to have a union shop. Just recently, Mr.

Speaker, his own Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson)

awarded contracts to build housing in this province to

non-union contractors.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Because those contractors were hired by

the government — and I'm referring to a contract to build 150

townhouses on Champlain Heights in Vancouver awarded to

Community Builder Limited, a non-unionized firm — after avowing

while that legislation was going through this House that nobody

would work for the provincial government without having a

closed shop.

Another contract for a 116-unit apartment block for the

British Columbia Railway was awarded to the infamous Dunhill

Development Corporation, and Dunhill Development Corporation does not have a union shop.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister of Labour has fallen

into the same pitfalls that his fellow cabinet Ministers have

fallen by putting his principles on the shelf when it involves

his own political expediency.

And I say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislative move before

this Legislature tonight, although it may be very necessary,

still proves to me that this Minister of Labour has fallen by

the wayside and has fallen into the pitfalls in blundering —

the same blunders that we've seen in this last week-and-a-half

in this fall session of the Legislature — to do patch up

work.

As the previous speaker said, we'll be back here again;

we'll be back here to force other contracts on other labour

unions and management. We'll be back here to force the ferry

workers back; we'll be back here to force the British Columbia

Railway back to work; and probably next year we'll be back here

to force conciliation or compulsory arbitration between the

teachers and the trustees.

And that's why I say this evening, Mr. Speaker, that this

Minister of Labour is hanging his head in shame, and well he

should.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Minister of Labour closes the

debate.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate I

would like to try to answer some of the comments that were made

by opposition Members, starting in reverse order. I think that

would be a reasonable attachment of importance to the comments

that were made.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) suggested

that the bill before the House amounts to political expediency.

He forecasts more labour problems and suggests that we have

witnessed more labour problems since the introduction of the

Labour Code than at any other point in the history of the

province.

Well, that's a subjective kind of statement and a subjective

kind of opinion, one which I would be willing to put to the

judgment of the working people and, indeed, the industrial

relations people of this province. And, of course, that will

eventually come.

So the opinions of the Member for South Peace on that kind

of judgment are not particularly too significant in my

view.

As far as housing contracts are concerned that have been

awarded under a bill, which is not under debate in this

session, Mr. Speaker, the Member's information is incorrect as

usual. I understand it was not the government that let the

contracts he referred to but rather a local agency, To get to the more important and the more relevant comments

that were made, the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr.

Wallace), who has

[ Page 4749 ]

unfortunately departed for the moment, made some

observations that I would like to respond to.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): He's in caucus.

Hon. Mr. King: Yes, he's holding a caucus meeting. I

wonder which one of the Socred people he's holding it with?

There seems to be somewhat of a propensity to move from the

left to the right, doesn't there?

He suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was an attempt to

gain union support….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) wanted to speak on the bill, I wish

his party had left him as labour critic. But for some reason

they chose to juggle that task around and now he seems to get

his jollies from sniping from some obscure bench.

However, if I may proceed, Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised at the

Conservative leader's comments because….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: Yes, I am, because he went on to

complain about the fact that the Legislature had been called

together last fall to impose a settlement on the….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. King: I beg your pardon?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. King: I'm not surprised at any attitude that

I encounter in this House, Mr. Speaker. Some of them are a

little hard to understand but I'm certainly not surprised at

them.

But let me continue. He suggested that I'm less than

evenhanded in introducing the imposition of binding settlements

and at the same time he complained about a settlement on the

firefighters' union, which is a contradiction of his own

allegation. I find it somewhat unusual.

He said that the irony is that he will have to support the

bill, and he objects to using the Legislature as an agency for

introducing a binding settlement. But his alternative, as I

understand it, is to write legislation which imposes binding

arbitration as a matter of course on all disputes. He does not

seem to recognize or admit that that solution is one which

certainly mitigates in favour of the employer and weakens the

equivalent stand of the working people in terms of their

bargaining posture.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that rather than write legislation

which imposes an economic hardship at the bargaining table on

all of the working people of this province, this Legislature

should be prepared to meet from time to time to deal with

disputes on the basis of their merits. And I see nothing

contradictory about that posture which this government has

taken. That has been our position for as long as I can

recall.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

was a bit more interesting. Quite frankly, I had difficulty

following him; he did quite a chicken-dance in terms of what

his approach was going to be to the bill before the House.

He suggested that I was less than honest in providing the

background material on this dispute. I want to suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that I did not really feel it was prudent or necessary

to spend my time dealing with this amount of background

material on one dispute. Certainly, if the Members of the House

want a full recitation of all of the many meetings and all of

the voluminous correspondence that changed hands relative to

this particular dispute, I could go through it. In my view it

would be wasteful to the time of the House.

The problem appears to be that Members have trouble

understanding the issue. The issue is not what is in the

recommendation of the industrial inquiry commission; the issue

is not the contents of the Ontario arbitration award. The

parties chose to accept those conditions for a settlement. It

was their choice that they accept the Ontario arbitration,

suitably amended. It was their terminology, not mine.

The industrial inquiry commission and the terms of reference

were acceptable to the parties. Once that decision comes down

it's not good enough for the parties to then retreat from the

commitment that they gave as a condition for restoring the

industry to normalcy.

So Members just don't seem to understand that there's a

difference between the normal collective bargaining process and

where the parties give an undertaking to abide by an award. If

that is the basis of procuring a settlement, then I have an

obligation to ensure that those commitments are indeed kept by

both parties.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: Now, the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound was concerned that I have not made the

terms of reference available to the House on….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: You know, Mr. Speaker, if the Members

across the way would do a little more listening and a little

less shouting, they'd probably

[ Page 4750 ]

learn a good deal more. They can't seem to grasp the

significance of rational presentation so they yelp like a bunch

of…. Well, I won't say what.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to provide the House with

the terms of reference….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: I think they are helpless, Mr.

Speaker.

The terms of reference for the commission were:

a collective agreement between the parties in the Province of

British Columbia, based upon the decision of the arbitration

award in Ontario, dated February 28, 1974.

(2) To include recommendations with regard to such local

issues as were not considered by the Ontario arbitration award

referred to above.

(3) To include recommendations as are required by law of the

Province of British Columbia for collective agreement in this

province.

I am satisfied that the industrial inquiry commission

complied with those terms of reference which were agreed to by

both parties, and I must insist that they now honour that

commitment.

The people on the other side, particularly the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) had some rather

nasty remarks to make about possibly what my motives were. All

I can say in response is that I'm prepared to let my motives

stand the test of public adjudication in this province, and

he's free to draw whatever conclusions he may wish to do.

But the thing that really rather amused and perplexed me

about the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was his concern

about using this Legislature as an agency for imposing

compulsory arbitration. That seemed to be something that he

found altogether unpalatable.

I find that somewhat unusual because I find that in the

Journals of this House for April 1, 1968, that Member's

colleague, the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer), introduced an amendment to

section 18 of Bill 33 that

was being debated on that day. The amendment was that

subsection 1 of

section 18 be amended by striking out all of

the words after the word "cease" in the seventh line and

substitute the following:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may refer the dispute

to the commission and with the assent of the Legislature of the Province of

British Columbia, may order that the decision of the commission with respect

to the dispute is final and binding upon the parties, except to the extent that

the parties agree to vary the same."

Which means in effect that the Legislature of this province

would be the normal and usual regular agency for determining

whether a dispute would go to arbitration. In light of that

amendment which his party moved and which he voted for, I find

it a bit unusual that he now feels this bill before the House

in any way besmirches or calls to question the integrity of the

Legislature. But it's a study again in conflict and

contradiction as far as the Liberal Party is concerned.

Now, to get to the first speaker, the Member for North Peace

River (Mr. Smith). Quite frankly, I was so confused by his

presentation that I find it very, very difficult to respond to

it in any way. I wonder why they keep changing labour spokesmen

over in that party. I don't know whether it's getting any

better or not. I don't think so, I think perhaps you should

start the reverse order again, because….

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): The

Premier was saying that he should do the same thing.

(Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. King: I was again criticized for using

compulsion, then the Member suggested that we should introduce

compulsion as a normal legislative device, that we should

submit all of these people to compulsory arbitration in a

legislative way rather than dealing with the situation as it

arises and, in a sense, directing the responsibility for these

kinds of disputes where it belongs, whether it be the union or

whether it be the management, rather than presuming that it

will always be the responsibility of the union and therefore

carte blanche removing from them their right to strike on any

occasion. I do not accept that position.

The interesting thing though, Mr. Speaker, is that he seemed

to think it was somewhat of a sin that I bring this bill before

the Legislature. He talked about the award and suggested that

perhaps the award went beyond the needs of this province. Well,

as a matter of policy, I never comment on the awards that are

introduced by third parties.

I think everyone can recall the Hon. John Munro's reaction

when the third-party report was produced in the grain handlers'

dispute, and the result of his comments. His endorsing himself

and associating himself with that award was simply that the

parties refused to bargain and sat back and waited for the

parliament of Canada to deal with it as a matter of course. It

eliminated the ground for any negotiation.

But the interesting thing with respect to the Social Credit

Party is again the contradiction of their position. It was just

last year, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot), who was formerly the Minister of Labour and formerly

the labour critic for that remnant of a party, made these

[ Page 4751 ]

comments in the debate on the Labour Code. On March 15 and

16, the Member for Columbia River said on page 1386 of

Hansard :

… national agreements do interfere with the settlement

of labour disputes in this province…. I think the law should

be changed so that they (national agreement signers) must

comply with the existing laws of B.C…. What I'm talking about

is ad hoc national agreements of multi-national corporations

that sign collective agreements…. I think that it's in the

interests of British Columbians, of British Columbia workers

and British Columbia investment to consider the abolition of

these national agreements.

That's what the Member said. Then he went on, Mr.

Speaker:

I think that you should really make these multi-national

corporations…. abide by the same conditions and regulations

and face the same type of problems in the field of collective

bargaining that other contractors in British Columbia do.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I agree that that was

indeed eloquent, and perhaps that's why he was removed as the

labour critic for that party and replaced by the Member for

North Peace River (Mr. Smith).

Oh, what a study in conflict; what a study in contradiction.

I think, really, to be charitable that the Members over there

are just incapable of understanding the distinction between

collective bargaining and the problems that exist in the

elevator industry.

Basically, the bill not only settles the dispute, but

because the union is now certified in the province, because

those multi-national cartels are now part of the B.C.

construction industry for the purpose of collective bargaining,

it ensures that good-faith collective bargaining will take

place in this province, and that we will not be manipulated by

exterior forces in the future.

I complied precisely with the request of the Member for

Columbia River, and I want to see him stand up and support this

bill tonight, Mr. Speaker.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 168, Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes

Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 165, Mr.

Speaker.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 165; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 1.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, I'm a little out of breath because I just sprinted

down the hall, but

section I has a definition in it for which

purpose I wish that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) was here, because natural

product is defined as follows:

"Natural product means any product of agriculture or of the

forest — of the forest — sea, lake or river, and any

article of

food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from

such product in British Columbia."

In other words, Mr. Chairman, this

section could bring the

entire forest industry of this province under the purview of

this marketing legislation. Not even in combination with the

bill we had introduced today, it could be a backdoor route with

a complete control and/or takeover of the forest industry by

this government.

I realize full well that this definition was lifted almost

unchanged from the previous Natural Products Marketing Act of

1948. That doesn't constitute a defence to leaving this

definition the same way in the hands of this government

because, unfortunately, this government is one which is quite

capable of taking over the forest industry through the

backdoor.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Do you mean the Minister

of Agriculture is going to take over the forest industry?

Mr. Gibson: Gee, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr.

Chairman, I don't know whether it would be the Minister of

Agriculture, I think it would more likely be the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), and

that's why I wish he was here — but he's not.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Anybody you want to designate?

Mr. Gibson: You know, Mr. Premier, you can designate

any Minister you wish for purposes of this Act.

Now, when I raised this point briefly during the

in-principle debate, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

said: "Oh, no, that's not our intention." I invited him to

stand up and say officially, on the part of the government,

that they didn't intend to use this bill against the forest

industry, but there it is in black

[ Page 4752 ]

and white, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: Would you wish such a thing on anyone,

Mr. Premier? (Laughter.)

So, Mr. Chairman, I think the only proper thing to do here

is to move an amendment, which I shall do, to

section 1, line

14, to delete the word "forest" to forestall this possible

backdoor takeover of the forest industry without any further

recourse to this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman: Have you got a copy of that amendment

to send up here?

Mr. Gibson: I have, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: We've got more paper now, cutting down

more trees. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman: The amendment is in order.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr.

Chairman, if I could just make one correction to the remarks of

the previous speaker. When he said this definition was lifted

almost unaltered, or almost entirely from the previous

legislation, he should have left out the word "almost" because

it is lifted right to the very last comma. The government sees

no need to change the definition that has stood the province in

good stead since 1948. We will not accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment, as you've heard, is to

delete the word "forest" from line 14.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Gibson

Gardom

Schroeder

Morrison

Curtis

Richter

NAYS — 27

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

D'Arcy

Sanford

Cummings

Dent

Gorst

Lockstead

Gabelmann

Skelly

Nunweiler

Radford

Young

Lea

King

Steves

Anderson, G.H.

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

Rolston

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, the

Minister, of course, wasn't very explicit on the necessity of

having the inclusion of this word in the definition in the

interpretation

section of the Act. It's unfortunate that he

wasn't willing to elaborate further for the necessity of its

inclusion.

I am wondering why it's necessary as well to have the word

"sea" included, because I know that the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is quite

concerned about the sea. He's talked about agriculture; he

talks about aquaculture — he talks about a great variety of

cultures, I'm sure. But why is it necessary to have this

particular…. Is it not good enough to say that it was in the

former Act. Okay, the Minister is going to answer, Mr.

Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: One of the 10 marketing boards

currently operating in the province is an Oyster Marketing

Board. So it's under this Act that you provide for marketing

boards for products of the sea.

Mr. Phillips: Would the Minister give us an

explanation as to why forestry is in there? I realize that it

was in the previous Act. However, under the previous Act it had

to be local initiative.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

I believe this question has been dealt with by vote.

Mr. Chairman: It dealt with the amendment of the

forestry.

An Hon. Member: That was for the deletion of it.

Mr. Phillips: That was for the deletion of it. I

still certainly have the right to an explanation from you. I

realize full well that there is no way that the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is ever

going to let you take over the forest industry. He's just

brought in his own bill to do that. But I wonder why you want

it left in this particular marketing bill. Is it just because

it was in the previous bill and you've just written it in? What

is the reason for having forest products in this bill?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, as I said before we had the vote on

the amendment to delete

[ Page

4753 ]

the word "forest", we saw no reason to change the definition, and we have

left it completely unaltered.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's not an answer at all, Mr.

Chairman. Under the previous legislation the government

could not force schemes or force plans or force marketing

agencies on the people, but under this bill they can. Why is it

necessary to have this in here?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in

section 2 that can force anybody to do anything.

Section I approved.

section 2.

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

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the Minister, when we were

debating this bill at second reading, might have more clearly

indicated the extent to which marketing boards in the province

would have turned their attention to marketing.

Heretofore, while they've been called marketing boards, it

is quite clear that the scope of their responsibilities and

their activities has been almost exclusively directed towards

the producing of the product. They really are not marketing

boards at all but producing boards. So we're going ahead with

section 2 with almost the same words that were in the previous

Act.

I think it would be important if the Minister would indicate

what the attitude of the government will be in regard to making

these boards truly marketing boards, so that they are concerned

not so much with the production or even the transportation of

the products, but the way in which the products will be

marketed, promoted, so that there will be every encouragement

for the use of British Columbia-grown products in this province

and elsewhere.

We only have one regulated product in this province which

receives this kind of treatment. When I say one product, that's

one class of products, and that's the tree fruits. They have

been eminently successful through their organization in

promoting the use ' conception of British Columbia-grown

natural products.

I recall that in 1970, when the agricultural committee dealt with some aspects

of marketing boards in this province as the individual marketing boards came

before the committee, questions were asked of them as to the extent to which

the marketing board directed its attention to the promotion of British Columbia

products. Almost to a one except, as I say, for the tree fruit industry, they

had scant funds in their budget for the promotion of the product. I think this

has been a sad position on the part of marketing boards and one which needs

to be corrected. I would be interested in hearing what the Minister has to say

on this aspect, because it is so clearly spelled out in the first part of

section

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, it is not the

complete story to say that only the tree fruits gets involved

in promotion. For example, the dairy committee has a regular

levy that they assess against all milk producers in the

province that is used to promote the consumption of milk. You

may recall, Mr. Chairman, having seen last summer, and I think

the summer before as well, one example of that in the form of

place mats that advertised B.C. milk and encouraged people to

consume B.C. milk.

The mushroom board has spent quite a bit of money promoting

B.C. mushrooms. The Broiler Marketing Board has travelled far

afield, one trip last year to Japan, to try to encourage the

consumption of B.C. broilers.

I think that all of the boards spend some money on this. In

addition, the Member, I am sure, is aware from discussion of

estimates last year and the year before that in the

department's budget there is an amount allocated for pushing

B.C. grown produce — $250,000.

All of the boards do contribute as well to programmes that

are perhaps managed by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture or

the Joint Council of Marketing Boards, depending on

circumstances. They do promotional work at the PNE regularly,

jointly, to promote the consumption of B.C. produce, and they

do, on occasion, jointly finance trips abroad to try to

increase the sales of B.C. farm produce.

Mr. Phillips: I'm afraid of

section 2(3), where it

says: "Any scheme may relate to the whole of the province or to

any area within the province, and may relate to one or more

natural products or to any grade or class thereon."

Now this is fine, and it was in the old Act. However, we

have a different situation now, Mr. Chairman. Suppose that

Pan-Pacific Poultry, which the government has an interest in

the Kootenay area…. Suppose, for instance, that they want to

force undue competition on some other marketing area of the

province where the government doesn't have a financial interest

in the processing of that particular product. They can force a

scheme on that

section of the province which will force it down

and allow that

section of the province where the government has

a financial interest to take over the majority of the

market.

The same could be said for wood products, although the

Minister says he isn't going to have anything to do with wood

products.

[ Page 4754 ]

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I didn't say that.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, all right. Then we have the

situation….

An Hon. Member: That Minister won't let you.

Mr. Phillips: Then we have the situation in the

Kootenays where the government is going to own or have a major

share in the processing of wood products. And you have another

situation in the northwest area of the province where the

government is going to have a financial interest in a company

or companies processing wood products.

You can, in essence, protect that area by putting a scheme

not in there but in the other areas, where those same products

are being processed by companies owned individually or

privately, and force them out of business. This particular

aspect of this bill frightens me, because we have seen in the

past just exactly what unfair advantages

government-owned-and-controlled industries have over the

private sector.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, they can give them low stumpage

rates, and they can steal ships from one of their subsidiaries.

But let's get back to the marketing of farm products.

This would be an in for this government to force areas where

there are no schemes, where everything is going fine…. But

if that is a threat under the individual enterprise basis, if

this particular

section of the province happens to be a threat

in the marketing of their products against the government

owned-and-controlled area of the province, the government can

force on that particular

section of the province a marketing

scheme which would curtail the production to the point where

there is a shortage of that product, and the end result will be

that the government's own controlled marketing segment will

show a great profit.

I think that this is a very unfair clause due to the fact

that the government can now force…. I would like to hear the

Minister's comments on how he intends to be democratic in the

enforcement of this particular section.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Well, Mr. Chairman, the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) just amazes me with

the statements he makes.

When he was a Member of the past government he supported the Broiler Marketing

Board, he supported the Egg Marketing Board which said that there shall be no

production of broilers in the Peace River of this province. It said that there

will be no egg production in the Peace River of this province. Yet he supported

that concept throughout the years that he served.

Before I was ever elected to this House, I wrote letters to

the then Members of the Social Credit government' pointing out

these inequities in the system. And did they support their

areas? No, they did not.

I would say that this legislation will do something to

assure all parts of the province that they will have a right to

farm.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): I want to ask

a question of the Minister, and I don't know whether it's best

asked under this

section or under sections 4 or 5.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: You'd rather postpone it. You might as

well face it right now.

I want to know, Mr. Chairman, to what extent this particular

bill is apt to conflict with federal legislation and federal

marketing boards.

I 'd like to know if there was consultation in the

draughting of this bill, and whether there is some attempt at

uniformity of legislation across Canada. We've got these

producer boards limiting production in a number of commodities

now, and we find that the federal government is having to

establish companion boards to try and govern the whole thing

across Canada.

Obviously the jurisdiction and the interests of boards are

very soon going to come in to major conflict — greater conflict

than we have so far experienced with egg marketing. Obviously

co-ordination is going to be required.

My question is: does this legislation conflict with federal

legislation? If not, has there been consultation that

uniformity of legislation exists across Canada?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I think the Member

well knows that he should have asked this question under

section 1 rather than under 2 or 4 or 5. In

section 1 there is

reference to federal legislation. One of the purposes in

bringing this legislation before you in the form that it is, is

to make sure that it does coincide with federal legislation,

and provide for and allow for the fullest cooperation between

provincial and federal legislation on the subject of

marketing.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Are you continuing your same

point?

Mr. Chairman: You're all on

section 2.

[ Page 4755 ]

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, if the Member wanted

to continue his dialogue with the Minister, I would yield.

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman,

section 2 provides

for the initiation of schemes which will lead to the

appointment of marketing boards. Subsection 4 provides a method

by which Members of a board may be chosen — a method by which

they may be chosen — either by appointment or by election, or

partly one and partly the other. So much for the method.

However, the

section seems to have neglected what I consider

to be one of the most significant aspects of a composition of

marketing boards — that is, what it takes to qualify a person

to be a member of such a board. We have heard, certainly, from

Members of the government party, and I think the Member for

Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) in particular has seen fit to criticize the

composition of some of the boards in this province, and to

suggest that by reason of the composition of boards in the

past, that undue control has been exercised by the marketing

board over what should be its legitimate function in the best

interests of producers throughout the province.

There is, however, as well as a problem for the producer

segment, a growing awareness that there is a problem for

another interested group, namely the consumers of this

province. For too long they have been unrepresented and

therefore their point of view has not been considered when

dealing with the policy decisions taken by marketing boards in

the administration of the regulated product under their

jurisdiction.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I propose an amendment to

section 2

by adding a subsection (5).

I must say to the committee that this amendment was

presented to the Clerks' table before the adjournment, but due

to a problem beyond the Clerks' control it did not appear in

the orders which are before you this evening. However, I have

given a copy to the Minister.

I propose that subsection (5) should be added in the

following words:

"All Members of a marketing board or a commission shall be

persons who have been principally resident in British Columbia

for at least two years prior to their appointment or their

election.

And at least one-third of the members of a marketing board

or commission shall be persons who have no pecuniary interest,

directly or indirectly, in the production or the marketing of

the regulated product administered by such board or

commission."

I so move that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in speaking to that amendment: there is no question that in the

proper administration and regulation of the marketing of natural products in

this province that it is important that people who are engaged in the industry

should be represented on such a board.

They bring to the board and to the solution of problems

presented to the board, direct personal experience in the

problems which confront any particular segment of our producing

industry — whether it's eggs, broilers, or turkeys or whatever

the case may be. Those people are properly members. Some might

suggest that they even should be in the minority on such a

board. I don't go that far, but I leave it to the people who

design the scheme to determine whether or not they should be in

the minority.

But I think there should be a significant membership on such

a board of people who have no direct pecuniary interest, and no

indirect interest either by reason of their membership in

associations or their ownership of shares in a company, or

whatever the case may be.

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I said pecuniary interest, and

that's what the amendment proposes.

This would therefore ensure that on every marketing board

there be consumers, people who have an interest other than

directly associated with the production, transportation,

storage, or marketing of the natural product, so that when

matters come before marketing boards for consideration there

can be a fair airing of all concerns in making those

decisions.

It will also provide something that has been lacking in the

past — an opportunity for people without any direct interests,

the consumer segment for one, to recognize in advance the

direction that any particular marketing board might be going in

the discharge of its responsibilities, and if necessary, to

alert the government, the superboard, the provincial board, and

the general public, if need be, through the medium of the

press, of those issues coming before the board which are being

dealt with other than in the best public interest. It will also

prevent improper criticism of boards by those who might oppose

them, based upon the suggestion that their decisions are made

other than in the public interest.

One of the problems we face is that with the use of

marketing boards there is a lot of ill-considered and

ill-advised criticism of proper actions that they take on

behalf of their responsibility. By opening these boards up, by

ensuring that there is sufficient membership on them, people

who can look in and support the public interest, we can assure

that such unjust criticism does not continue.

[ Page 4756 ]

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), from his position as a

producer, has seen reason to criticize the operation of the

board. It shouldn't be left to one member of a producer group

to raise that objection. If objections are proper, then other

people should be in a position to support objections such as we

have heard from the Member for Shuswap.

We shouldn't hear complaints about the operation of

marketing boards from those people who want to get into the

scheme but for some reason or another are kept out. Maybe the

criticisms they level against the boards are justified. But

there's one way of making sure that this is not the case, and

that is by having a broad membership.

Therefore this amendment gives to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in establishing any of these schemes, the right

to appoint as members or to see that members are elected — up

to 100 per cent of the board if they wish — but certainly

one-third of the members of any marketing board must be those

who have no pecuniary interest at stake. I think that that

would serve to meet the needs of the community, serve to

improve the functioning of the boards and serve the processing,

storing, transportation segment as well.

I know that there's an amendment on another

section from the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) dealing with

membership on the provincial board, and that's all very well.

But I think that it is extremely important that at the first

level, the operative level of marketing board functions, namely

the boards themselves, there should be this membership

opportunity.

Mr. Chairman: We're dealing with the amendment moved

by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Mr. Phillips: Well I'll certainly stand to support

the amendment. It's basically the same intent that this party

is getting at in their amendment to

section 3, only in a little

different way. But I must say, Mr. Chairman, in supporting the

amendment, that I was actually aghast to hear the Member

Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) stand up and challenge me and say that he

had written me about certain things. Really, Mr. Chairman, he

was misleading the House, because that Member for Shuswap never

did write me a letter. Never. Never. Never.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: I want it made perfectly clear, Mr.

Chairman, that he never wrote me any letter.

Mr. Chairman: Order! I recognize the Member for

Shuswap on a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: What I said was that I wrote the then

Members for the Peace River areas.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: I didn't name him, but he probably has a

guilty conscience because he has to support that legislation

prior to that.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Let's get the record perfectly

straight. I have a great deal of respect for that Member for

Shuswap, but if I were in his shoes tonight I would leave this

chamber when it comes to voting on this legislative measure

here. Why? I know the Member and I have a great deal of respect

for him.

Mr. Chairman: I'd like to remind the Member that

you're dealing with the amendment presented by the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, and the basis of the amendment

is so that people who have pecuniary interests on this board

can't serve on it.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Well, that's the intent of it.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Well, what is the intent of it?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Giving legal advice while you're

standing there? That's a conflict of interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't give free advice.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, the Premier should ask

the Member for Shuswap to abstain from voting on this

legislation.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You don't know what the amendment

is.

Mr. Phillips: I know what the amendment is, all

right. You don't know what the amendment is because you've just

come in the House from packing your bags and getting ready to

go to chin…. to go to China. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Standing order 18.

[ Page 4757 ]

Mr. Phillips: Standing order 18.

An Hon. Member: Standing order 18. He has no right to

vote.

Mr. Phillips: The thing that bothers me about this,

Mr. Chairman, is that the Member for Shuswap has had a great

deal to say about this piece of legislation.

He has consistently fought for this legislation when he

personally stands to gain from it from his own operation. As I

said, I have a great deal of respect for that Member, but I

don't want him standing in this House making accusations

against me that are false.

We'll support the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate

receiving a copy of the amendment. Actually, it's two

amendments rather than one. With the second part of it, I did

say during the course of second reading of this legislation

that if government is going to give the sort of power to

marketing boards…. Some people think marketing boards have

much more power than they do indeed have. But if government is

going to give that kind of power to marketing boards, the

government has some responsibility to make sure that there are

some checks and balances, There are two ways of achieving

this.

One way would be to have the sort of appeal system that we

have designed and have included in this legislation — that is,

to provide for a provincial marketing board that would act as

an appeal board.

The other would be to give the consumer some representation

on the commodity marketing boards themselves.

Now if we adopted the latter course, we would then have no

one who would be in a position to present the case for the

producers.

The marketing boards right now are organizations of producer

groups, and the marketing boards speak for those producer

groups. In the sort of situations we envisage the marketing

boards would be presenting the case for that particular

marketing group, or group of producers, to the provincial

marketing board.

Now if the consumers were to have the sort of minority representation as is

proposed here on the individual marketing boards, we would have the situation

as we have right now on the Food Advisory Council, which was set up intended

to be representative — and it is indeed representative of the whole community.

Yet the consumer association representatives, who are a minority on that group

out of the total, feel that, although they are there in more numbers than one,

they are still a minority. They are unable to persuade the whole group whenever

they want to make a certain move in a certain direction.

Here we would have a situation when a board representing the

producers of a certain commodity would find that they were

dealing on their own board with people who really didn't know

anything about that particular commodity and the problems

involved in marketing that commodity. They have to deal with

them, and if there were going to be an appeal of any kind, they

would' find that part of their own board would perhaps, on some

occasions, be opposing the appeal itself.

So I can't accept that part of the amendment. With respect

to the first part that all members of a marketing board shall

have been persons who have been principally resident in B.C.

for at least two years prior to their appointment or election,

I can't imagine the situation where a group of producers would

elect someone to the board, or the government would appoint

someone to this kind of a producers organization, to a board

representing producers like that who didn't fit those

qualifications. There is no need to include….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, we could fill the legislation

with all kinds of stuff that would not be objectionable. But

what's the point of putting it in there unless you're afraid

that those people, or you, might be in office and that there's

some need for this kind of safeguard.

We will not accept the amendment.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry

that the Minister saw fit to say those fateful words, "We will

not accept the amendment," because what he has said in

his remarks about the composition of the commodity boards

indicates that their whole attitude is to be completely

destructive of the superboard.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. L.A. Williams: He doesn't want to have anybody on the marketing boards

who might at the first instance put forward the position of the

consumer, even though they were in the minority. Yet, somehow

or other, he expects that if the producer board acts contrary

to the best interests of the general public, some consumer then

has to go to the trouble of an appeal to a board which somehow

or other will have people on it who don't understand the

problems in the marketing board itself.

It seems to me that the opportunity is being missed by the

government by having consumers on marketing boards so that the

consumer interest can be educated and informed at the very

first instance; then you won't have appeals unnecessarily going

[ Page 4758 ]

the superboard.

As a lawyer it has always been my attempt, in the conduct of

my practice, to advise my clients so that they don't get into

court. But what the Minister is saying is: "Let's not have

anybody on the producer board who can keep them out of trouble.

Let them get into trouble, but we'll set up an appeal provision

so that they can have their day."

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: That's right. The medical field

also applies. He doesn't believe in preventive medicine. Let

everybody get sick and then go to the hospital and get

cured.

So let's have the producer boards carry on as they have in

the past — and as the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has

criticized in the past — let them carry on as they have in the

past, and then somehow or other give the consumer or anybody

else in the province who is affected by their activities the

right to appeal to a superboard composed of people who don't

understand anything about the producer segment's problem.

Obviously, the problem the Minister has is that which was

stated in second reading: instead of doing something new,

something exciting, something progressive, and something in the

'70s, he is still living back in 1948.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports

progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee further

reports that on

section 1 there was a division and asks leave

to have it recorded in the Journals .

Leave granted.

Mr. Bennett: I understand that some of the government

Members will be leaving tomorrow for China. We have made light

of it but we would like to take this opportunity to wish them,

on behalf of the opposition, a good and safe trip — to the

Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and the

First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).

One last question to the Premier before he goes with our good wishes: we've

heard a lot about designated speakers in this House, and as we have three pieces

of legislation still before the House to be carried by those Ministries, has

the Premier designated Ministers to take them through, and could he advise the

House who they are?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: First of all, let me say how much I

appreciate the expression of good wishes from the official

Leader of the Opposition.

I might say that this afternoon we learned from the Canadian

embassy that, as representatives of the people of British

Columbia, we have been asked to some areas of northern China

that have not been opened to visitors before. We feel very

honoured about that.

The House Leader has the information of the designated

cabinet Ministers who will pilot the bills through comm