1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 997 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction

Presentation of delegation from State of Washington to the House

— 997

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill 85). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 998

Mr. Gardom — 998

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 998

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill 89). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 999

Mr. Gardom — 999

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 999

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

stage.

Amendment to

section 73.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 999

Hon. Mr. King — 1000

Mr. Chabot — 1000

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1001

Mr. McGeer — 1002

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1002

Mr. Wallace — 1003

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1006

Mr. Gardom — 1007

Mr. Gabelmann — 1007

Mr. Curtis — 1009

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1009

Mr. McClelland — 1010

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1011

Hon. Mr. King — 1012

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1013

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1014

Mr. Steves — 1014

Mr. Phillips — 1015

Mr. Cummings — 1017

Mr. Chabot — 1017

Mr. Phillips — 1018

Division on amendment to

section 73 — 1018

Mr. Wallace — 1019

Division on amendment to

section 73 — 1019

section 74.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1019

Hon. Mr. King — 1019

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1020

Hon. Mr. King — 1020

Mr. Williams — 1020

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1021

Hon. Mr. King — 1021

Mr. Steves — 1021

Amendment to

section 75.

Mr. Wallace — 1022

section 76.

Mr. Chabot — 1022

Hon. Mr. King — 1023

Mr. Williams — 1023

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1973

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, it gives

me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce to the House a

number of visiting legislators and their wives from the State

of Washington, from the Senate of the State of Washington. On

the floor of the House today I would like to introduce to the

Members the Hon. Ray Van Hollebeke, Acting Majority Caucus

Chairman; Hon. George Fleming, Majority Caucus Vice-Chairman

and Secretary; Hon. George Clarke, Senior Minority Member

present. Accompanying them, and in the Members' gallery are:

Mrs. George Fleming; Mrs. George W. Clarke; Senator and Mrs.

Pete Francis; Senator and Mrs. John D. Jones; Senator and Mrs.

A.L. Rasmussen; Senator and Mrs. Eugene V. Lux; Mrs. Ray Van

Hollebeke; Senator Booth Gardner; Mr. and Mrs. Stewart Clark — all of whom are in the Members' gallery.

It's another return visit — by the Senate this time — and as

Provincial Secretary, I take a great deal of delight in

introducing them; as Minister of Travel Industry, it perhaps

gives me even more delight.

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

privilege of adding a personal note. Among the Senators is a

former roommate of mine at Seattle University, Senator Van

Hollebeke, the Majority Caucus Leader. Ray's career and mine

seem to have paralleled somewhat — the labels are a little bit

different. (Laughter.) I must say in the ironies of one's

lifetime experience or fate, or whatever you would have it, it

is a great privilege for me to welcome Ray Van Hollebeke as a

Senator to our Legislature.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we

of the official opposition are very happy to have the

contingent of Washington Senators and their wives here today. I

think these visits add a great deal to the feeling between the

State of Washington and British Columbia. While I realize both

the State of Washington and British Columbia are only a very

small part of this continent, I think it is a good initiation

to get this sort of exchange going, On behalf of the official

opposition, we welcome you to our province.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, this is becoming

a Friday morning performance — almost as regular as bran flakes. We are exceptionally

delighted over here to bid the warmest welcome to our visitors, but I would

like to ask the Hon. Premier one question: how long is this session going to

last, because we have 50 states to go? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: We only intend to annex one state.

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

is a pleasure to join in welcoming our distinguished guests. I

appreciate the opportunity to have met a number of them before

the sitting commenced today. I understand that Alberta and

Oregon are getting very worried. (Laughter.)

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today, in your gallery, I am sure you will be pleased

to know that we have three Business and Professional Women:

Mrs. McMasters, who is from Victoria and Chairman of Public

Relations and Affairs — I use the "relations" more advisedly

that I do "affairs" in speaking of women's activities — and

their two Vancouver cohorts, Mrs. A. Michie and Mrs. B.

Michie.

When I met Mrs. McMaster in the hall she said, "There are

two NDPs in the gallery, would you like to welcome them?" I

said, "Yes, indeed I would," because I was going to ask

what had happened to the Social Crediters — of course there

have never been any Conservatives, and Mrs. McMasters is a

Liberal. But I find to my chagrin that both these ladies are

Social Crediters. I would ask you to welcome them all as they

try to gain a better understanding of the parliamentary process

and conduct in British Columbia on behalf of working women in

British Columbia.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

draw to the attention of the House that we have a visit from

the students of Claremont Senior High School today. They will

be accompanied by their teacher, Don Sanford, whose

sister-in-law is the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). I would

like the House to join with me in welcoming them to the

House.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 85, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SUPREME COURT ACT

[ Page 998 ]

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

moving second reading for this bill, I should tell the House

two things it does not do. Full disclosure: in the first place

it does not constitute a bill to pack the Supreme Court of

British Columbia. Secondly, it does not make it impossible for

any Member of this House to accept one of the judicial

vacancies hereby created. I move second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the Hon.

Attorney General has told us what the bill does not do, now

perhaps he would tell us what the bill does do — who the two

people are?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the debate.

Sorry. Did the Hon. Member wish to speak?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: With leave of the House, may the Hon. Member

speak?

Leave granted.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we are

of course in accord with the suggested measure of increasing

the bench of the supreme court which has been heavily

overworked over the past years. There's no question of a doubt

about that.

I would have hoped, however, that in the bill, at least in

his remarks to the bill, the Hon. Attorney General might have

indicated to the Hon. Members perhaps some increase in the

duties and responsibilities of the courts, and particularly

during the long vacation months of July and August. I think

we're now living in a society complex to the extent that it is

not wise to keep our courts closed for litigation during the

summer months.

I well appreciate the need for the judges to have their time

off and also to have their time to prepare and furnish their

reasons for judgment, and a great deal of the summer months are

consumed by the supreme court judges in doing that. But that in

itself is not an argument for the fact that the courts should

be closed at that time because if we had an increase in the

number of judges they would quite effectively be able to have

their relegated holiday periods and also their time within

which to prepare their judgments.

I think there's been a considerable strain upon the supreme

court bench and I think that they should all indeed receive the

accolades of the people of British Columbia for the amazing

work they have done. It always seems to be fair game to

criticize a judge in society, but very, very rarely does one

ever find people in society saying too much to help him.

I'd also hoped that the Attorney General in this bill would have had another

measure — and that is one to provide interest on judgments. The Attorney General

and I have discussed this at length over the years; it has been one of the extreme

shortcomings in our system of jurisprudence that it is not possible for a judge

in our country, as it is in some of the states in the United States, to grant

interest upon a judgment.

This would tend to lessen the amount of litigation and it

would also, without any question of a doubt, bring about more

just rewards. In these days of high interest rates, Mr.

Speaker, in many instances a defendant who doesn't have the

necessary moral precepts, shall we say, chooses not to pay an

obligation and prefers to run the risk of trial knowing it

could well be lost because, in the final analysis, he would end

up more in pocket in interest earned than having paid it in the

first situation.

Take the case of a $1 million claim…and this abuse is

not really found too often in the smaller claims but in the

larger ones, and it's the larger claims that block the courts — make no mistake of that fact. If you have, say, a claim for $1

million, interest at 10 per cent on that over one year is a

considerable amount of money. It's $100,000. If the defendant

is able to stall the case for the better part of the year….

MR. SPEAKER: May I tap the gavel for a minute?

MR. GARDOM: Delighted!

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to point out that it doesn't seem

to include that principle in the bill. It has to do with

judges, and they are not allowed to deal with the money in the

court except by order.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, with all respect, Mr. Speaker, the intent

of my remarks, as Mr. Speaker well knows, is to indicate to the

Hon. Attorney General the fact that it's regretful that within

this bill there is lacking the necessary measures to give the

courts the jurisdiction to do that of which I am now speaking.

So we have a situation where there is a stall for a year and

there's $100,000 interest that comes to the defendant. There's

$100,000 at 10 per cent on this large claim. If he knew that

when he went to court he would have to face a judge proclaiming

as the amount of the judgment plus an amount of interest, we

would not have the courts cluttered with a number of

claims.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, I

agree that we're looking very seriously at the use of the

courts and the expense of courtroom facilities all through the

year with holidays spaced out through the year, which is a way

to reduce unnecessary delays in the court and to take the best

advantage of our facilities. In terms of what the Hon. Member

said about prejudgment interest on

[ Page 999 ]

judgments, I hope to file next week the report of the Law

Reform Commission in this House, and I wouldn't be surprised if

we didn't see action on that next spring. I move second

reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 85 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 89, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

COUNTY COURTS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill,

It enables county court judges to have their full powers when

they visit another county to look after the backlog of work in

that county, so there's more mobility among our judges.

It empowers the chief of the Supreme Court of British

Columbia to have general superintendence over the county court,

because we don't have a chief of the county court. It's so

closely interrelated that if we are to have a judicial flow

without, as I say, undue delays, there should be some general

superintendence. I move second reading of the bill.

MR. GARDOM: Is it contemplated that there'll still be a

senior judge of the county court within this measure? I'd ask

the Attorney General that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In Vancouver or where?

MR. GARDOM: Yes. The other point is that when introducing

this bill it's surprising to me that the Attorney General has

not given thought to increasing the jurisdiction of the county

court, because if you did that you'd greatly relieve the

workload of the supreme court. If memory serves, the

jurisdiction of the county court at the present time is $2,000.

That came in many, many years ago. We've run into an inflated

monetary situation, and why couldn't that be put up, say, to

$10,000 today and make the procedures in the county court

easier, make it more available to the public to get to? After

all, one of the prime purposes of the courts is public

availability and instead of increasing it, you seem to be

detracting from it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we'll give consideration to

the jurisdiction of the court along those lines. We always are

doing that. In terms of the senior judge of the….

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, that's not in the bill. I don't want

to debate with the Hon. Member, but he would be astonished

possibly to understand the extent to which the serious assize

cases have gone into the county court and that kind of thing.

It's a changing picture all the time. But in terms of the

senior judge, if there are five or six judges at the county

court in Vancouver one of them will be senior. But it isn't an

official position, and it happens in that county only. I move

second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 89 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

LABOUR CODE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 71 and 72 approved.

section 73.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman,

section 73 deals

with firefighters, police and hospital unions and essentially,

as I read it now, gives the right to the union, in case they

feel they're going to be locked out by the employer, to elect

for an arbitrator to take over.

It seems a very curious provision because it would strike me

that the reverse of the situation is far more likely to be the

case. In other words, the hospital administration would be far

less likely to close down the hospital than — I trust, an

extremely rare situation — would the employees of such a

hospital be willing to do the same thing.

It strikes me that to be at all even-handed in this, and

indeed to make the concept which is in this

section of

resolving the dispute by arbitration effective, it would be

necessary to grant the same rights to both parties. In other

words, if the hospital union or policemen's union or

firefighter's union feels that the employer is being

unreasonable — if they wish to take the thing to arbitration or

they feel that there is dragging of the heels there — they

certainly should have the right that's granted in this section.

But in addition, if the employers — namely the hospital, the

city in the case of policemen or firemen — feel that the same

type of tactics are being

[ Page 1000 ]

practised against them by the employees, they in turn should

have the same rights.

We're dealing here with essential services, and we're

dealing here with a situation…and if we cast our minds back

to the Montreal police strike for example, a strike which led

at least to the death of one man, and if we cast our minds back

to the problems of hospital and medical withdrawal of services

and the experience of some jurisdictions, in particular of

Saskatchewan…. If we think of these things we realize that

we're not going to permit a situation to exist in this province

where the entire firefighting apparatus, for example, of the

City of Victoria or Vancouver is non-operational.

In other words, there was a withdrawal of services. I think

it's time for us to consider honestly at this stage what

precisely we're doing with essential services.

Now I know that it's easy enough for us to pass legislation

and say, "Oh, well of course we're going to give firefighters

and policemen, and hospital employees the right to strike."

It's pretty simple in the abstract to say that. But we know

that in actual practice, if such a situation occurred, the

government would bring in emergency legislation on the floor of

this Legislature and that right to strike would be snuffed out

like a candle in a high wind. It wouldn't exist.

If we are to put in the concept, of which I approve, of the

unions having the right to insist upon compulsory arbitration

when their employers — the hospitals and the cities — are

treating them cavalierly, I think the same right should be

granted to the other side. In other words, the

even-handedness.

I've argued even-handedness before in this Legislature, Mr.

Chairman, on similar proposals, but none perhaps is quite as

clear as this one. Because we know full well that in actual

fact firemen, policemen and hospital workers will be brought to

work by legislative action. We know that. It's a fact of life

that we're all going to have to face up to.

So we're in a situation where to suggest that they and only

they can go for compulsory arbitration and their employers

cannot is, of course, to indicate a situation which will be at

complete variance with the facts if a labour dispute in this

area took the course that I have indicated.

I therefore, Mr. Chairman, would suggest that

section 73 (1)

be amended so that we delete the whole thing and put in its

place the following words: "Where a dispute threatens an

essential service, either party may apply, by giving notice in

writing to the Minister and to the other party, to resolve the

matter by arbitration."

In other words we extend the section. We accept the concept

of this

section but we extend it to the more realistic

situation that might occur.

At the same time we set up and make it clear in our legislation that we are

going to have machinery set up to settle essential-services disputes without

necessarily coming to the floor of the Legislature where passions are inflamed,

where indeed, as in the case of Montreal, there may be bodily injury or death

resulting from such a work stoppage, and where the emotional climate of the

province is not conducive to a rational, dispassionate settlement of a dispute.

We are serving notice, by putting an amendment of this nature, that there will

be compulsory arbitration in essential services at the request of either party

and that this compulsory arbitration can be worked out beforehand dispassionately

and reasonably between the two parties; they can set up a system so that if

a crisis does occur they will have at least established the framework and the

machinery to settle and resolve it in the best possible way.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment, I feel, is a modest extension

of the principle that the government has incorporated into

section 73 (1) and I so move.

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

interested in the Member's reference to even-handedness. I

wonder how he reconciles his concern and his objective of

attaining even-handedness by seeking to extend the equivalent

right to opt for compulsory arbitration in the ease of firemen,

policemen and hospital workers, when in fact no equivalent

right exists in terms of the right to strike and the right to

lockout. It's unthinkable. I frankly don't know of any case in

history where a municipality has locked out firemen or, indeed,

policemen.

So in effect there is no equivalent right. There's no right

to lock out. The only people who are relinquishing a

meaningful course of action, a meaningful weapon, here are the

employees who, if they opt for compulsory arbitration, do

relinquish that right to strike. To suggest that it is an

even-handed concept to provide to the employer the right to

commit his employees to compulsory arbitration in that

situation is to me more realistic.

The provision here allows the employees to elect to resolve

their dispute, either by the collective bargaining process or

by compulsory arbitration. It's been my experience that the

firemen, certainly, have indicated a preference for a system of

arbitration to resolve their disputes. Now this is available to

them at their own discretion. I think it's unrealistic and

unacceptable to suggest, though, that workers, whether they are

firemen, policemen, hospital workers or indeed any other group,

should forfeit the right to strike at the discretion of

management, particularly when the management has no equivalent

right in effect to lock out in this kind of situation. So I

oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

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

[ Page 1001 ]

Chairman, I rise to support the amendment because the

Minister has indicated very clearly that it's discretionary

power. He's indicated that the firefighters would be inclined

to go the arbitration route and I know from my experience that

the police unions would be inclined to go the arbitration route

as well. Not too many years ago, in fact in the spring of 1972,

the registered nurses' union opted voluntarily to go before the

mediation commission for a binding settlement on their dispute

with the hospitals of British Columbia.

I think that these three groups, which have been clearly

identified as essential services, really want a genuine

arbitration procedure. They don't want this wishy-washy,

half-baked procedure which is established in this

section of

the Act. From my experience and my discussions with these three

groups of essential workers, they have indicated they prefer

arbitration to settle their disputes, and that's in fact

basically what would happen by the institution of this

amendment.

It's a reasonable amendment. It's an amendment that ensures

that we won't have disruption in the areas that have been

clearly identified as essential service areas in the

province.

However, because of certain circumstances that might develop

in a dispute between these various groups and management, they

might not opt to go that route. Then what is the procedure? Is

the procedure that we call the Legislature together? — which can

be very inconvenient to the public; it certainly doesn't

protect the public interest by calling the Legislature together

in the event that the police force and the hospital workers

have gone on strike.

So in effect really I think we must be realistic about this,

that basically these people do not have a right to strike.

Because if we spell it out here, which we have done, they have

been given the right to strike.

They might opt not to strike, but they might opt to strike.

If they do opt to strike then it's quite obvious that we as

legislators would not tolerate that kind of situation.

Therefore I think that this amendment, which is being

introduced by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) is a reasonable one and one which would meet with the

approval of the three groups which we have referred to in this

section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to a degree

by the Minister's remarks because I think that his remarks

indicate that the true import of the amendment was not

completely grasped. Perhaps if I explain it again it's a

possibility the government will accept this amendment.

The Minister made clear that some groups — he specifically referred to firemen,

and the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) has indicted other groups of

nurses and police in addition — are interested in proper compulsory arbitration

proceedings. I applaud wholeheartedly these men and women in these unions who

have taken this responsible position, but I just pose this question to you,

Mr. Chairman:

A short time ago we had a Minister of the Crown announcing

that a strike was settled, not on its merits but because a gun

was held to his head. Now I wonder for how long the responsible

people who are trying hard to keep essential services going in

this province and who suffer — let's face it, who suffer

frequently in the course of their duty and also because of the

fact they are in this unique position with respect to other

workers — I wonder how long they're going to continue to want

to act responsibly when they see other unions acting — in their

minds, the minds of the nurses and the firemen and the

policemen — less responsibility, and where Ministers of the

Crown agree that irresponsible action leads to larger

settlements.

Now I'm afraid this situation has come up very recently. I

hate to think that the government's good intention in 1973,

which is essentially to accept the good will and good faith and

responsible position of policemen, firemen and nurses, has been

put it in this weak-kneed

section of the Act. We accept their

good faith. We say, "Sure you can do that," but at the

same time we in no way make it necessary for them to act in a

way which will continue this responsible course of action in

the future.

Indeed elsewhere it's clear that encouragement is being

given by Ministerial action on settlements to far less

responsible attitudes. The words used by the Minister were,

"Why should they relinquish the right to strike? "

The Minister knows full well right now — and I wish he'd

admit it — that the police in Vancouver, if they go on strike,

will not be on strike for minutes before the Premier will be

called upon and the Attorney General will be called upon to

reconvene this Legislature to put the men back to work. Now why

should they be given…. and why should we discuss this phony,

phony situation where relinquishing the right to strike is

essentially relinquishing something they don't have, because as

soon as they use it, we're going to take it away? Now we know

that; every one of us here knows that. Why don't we face up

honestly, why doesn't the government face up honestly, to a

situation which they know to exist, we know to exist, the

policemen know to exist?

It's this attempt to deal with these things in a — I won't

say dishonest — but I'll say a cavalier way. An attempt to

cover up the truth, which really is not in the best interest of

labour in this province or of management or of the public. And

who will be more hurt than the public in the case of a hospital

strike or

[ Page 1002 ]

a firemen's strike or a police strike?

The Minister has made his view. He talked quite eloquently

about relinquishing the right to strike. But they don't really

have it. When he faces up to that fact, then we can go back and

start discussing amendments which are realistic in terms of

arbitration.

He talks about, "Well, they're probably going to accept

arbitration any way." That's fine. As I said, these people are

mostly responsible, but they are at the same time seeing other

Ministers of the Crown acquiescing to what the other Ministers

themselves have admitted to be irresponsible strike action and

irresponsible settlements.

Mr. Chairman, I trust that explaining the amendment more

fully will give the Minister an opportunity to reconsider his

position. Because it really is ridiculous for us to stand up in

this House and talk about rights to strike, when everybody

knows that they don't really exist — to talk about this great

right as something sacrosanct and yet we know full well that

we're talking about something which is totally fraudulent

because we're going to take it away if they exercise it.

Therefore, it really, in effect, is non-existent. I trust the

Minister, having considered those points, will reconsider his

position.

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

like to carry this debate a little bit farther by asking a

hypothetical question of the Minister of Labour. Las week we

had a hotel fire in downtown Vancouver. It's all very well to

say that the minute the police went on strike or the minute the

firefighters went on strike, of course we'd be called in to

emergency session of the Legislature. After two or three days

we'd arrive; after two or three more days we'd pass a bill. But

a conflagration could start in Vancouver or Victoria 10 minutes

after the firefighters went on strike.

Five lives were lost just last week in downtown Vancouver as

a result of a hotel fire. What would be the attitude of the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) one hour after the

firefighters went on strike if a major fire did break, out?

Would he refuse to cross the picket lines — let the buildings

go up in smoke and people die? Because according to his

attitude, he'd be a scab if he crossed that picket line and

took a fire engine out.

It's fairly obvious, I think, Mr. Speaker, to see the

dangers of a strike among firefighters, even for 10 minutes.

But that same danger exists — to a lesser degree — if you've

got a strike, even for a short period of time, in a hospital or

with the police force.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): How about the federal nurses?

MR. McGEER: I don't think they ever should have been permitted to go

out on strike.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): They went out anyway.

MR. McGEER: Yes they did, and I think that there should be a

means of settling by compulsory arbitration any disputes where

life or a limb of any citizen may be at stake. We've carried

this idea of the sanctity of a right to strike too far when we

place in jeopardy the lives and health of citizens of this

province.

That's why I ask the Minister of Labour directly: what would

he do if the lives of people were at stake because of his

legislation?

It's quite clear in this particular section, as it now

stands, that the firefighters can go on strike. No matter how

swiftly we might move, it's quite possible that could be the

particular moment that a vandal set a fire somewhere, because

the indication of that fire in downtown Vancouver was that it

had been deliberately set.

Unfortunate as it may seem, we do have a very, very small

percentage of individuals whose degree of responsibility to

their fellow man is negligible. We do have people who take

bombs on aircraft, who assassinate presidents, who deliberately

set fires. They are deranged but they exist in society and they

move freely in this society.

So were there to be a firefighters' strike, it's by no means

inconceivable that some nut with a vengeful hatred of his

fellow man deliberately starts a fire in a densely crowded area

of one of our major cities. We have to think of and anticipate

some of these things. It's our responsibility as legislators

not to place legislative guns in the hands of irresponsible

people.

It was the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) who admitted he had a gun to his head and that

the terms of the settlement were based on irresponsibility. And

it would take a very blind union leader not to be encouraged by

that sort of thing.

So Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Labour to give a

little deep thought to this particular

section because he's

exposing a very vulnerable side of our society. I for one say

it's absolutely wrong. Amendments are required of the sort that

the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) put forward.

I urge in all sincerity for the Minister of Labour to consider

accepting it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I note the quiet, calm approach of drama

given by the former leader of the Liberal party. He proceeded

to say or suggest under this particular section, without the

amendments, "We'll put legislative guns in the hands of

irresponsible people."

Then going back over his speech, he listed some of

[ Page 1003 ]

the activities that would be possible if this amendment was

not passed. Included in those possibilities he named bombs on

planes, fires — he named assassinations. The only thing he

stopped short of was Watergate.

Now, by innuendo, the Member is trying to leave the

impression that if responsible people are given responsible

rights, all of a sudden they become irresponsible. He finds it

necessary to talk about….

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): He didn't make that

point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He did so make the point, Mr. Member. You

go back over his calm approach of saying that. He said, "…legislative guns in the hands of irresponsible people." That's

exactly what he said.

At this very moment, we witness the results of not having

mature labour relations between his own federal jurisdiction

and the federal hospitals. Law or not, the federal nurses are

walking the streets on a picket line, and with devices there

for them to come to some resolution of their problem. Are you

suggesting that someone's going to run into Shaughnessy

Hospital with a bomb, assassinate the administrator or start a

fire because the nurses aren't there? Of course not, Mr.

Member. But the way you drop the words in your calm dramatic

approach obviously left, or the attempt was to leave the

impression that these people are going to turn into monsters if

they're given the right to strike.

The impression is that somehow those nurses who were on the

picket line were begging the government not to recognize them

as equal citizens. "Please keep us downtrodden so that we'll

have an excuse to stay downtrodden." When the doctors went on

strike in Saskatchewan they were acting as human beings, not as

doctors. They were reacting to a situation that they found

themselves in and no law in the world would have deterred those

doctors in Saskatchewan from going on strike.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It was wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was wrong. Of course it was wrong. But

laws have never stopped people from doing things that are wrong

and laws have never kept people in line to do things that are

right.

In the final analysis individual placement of acts depends upon the conscience

of the person involved. A sick person who is taking a bomb on a plane doesn't

check to see whether or not there is a right-to-strike for the airline attendants

before he takes the bomb on. If there is an assassination taking place, his

evaluation of his particular act doesn't relate to this

section to find out

if civil servants have the right, or firemen are on a legal strike, before he

makes the assassination attempt.

What we are trying to do is to bring some rational, mature

approaches to dealing with people who work in sensitive jobs.

The federal government tried it itself. We're going to try

here, too. But there is no legislation in the world that is

going to guarantee good human behaviour. We can't even

guarantee it in this House, and we're the cream of the crop,

allegedly. That's what we keep on telling ourselves.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I find the drama-laden, very, very

unnecessary analogies that were drawn by the former leader of

the Liberal Party (Mr. McGeer) right out of the 16th century.

You're not dealing with serfs, slaves or peasants. You're

dealing with people who have put many years into training in

their own walk of life before they have taken those jobs. And

when a nurse goes out on a picket line, don't tell me she's

enjoying that experience or that she's holding a legislative

gun at the head of her employer. When a registered nurse is out

on a picket line it simply means she's tried every single

possible avenue to get a reasonable contract to work and there

was nothing left for her to do.

You can't treat people, just because they are nurses or

doctors — yes, doctors, too; and I won't say lawyers — just

because they are nurses, or doctors, or firefighters as if they

are something separate. They pay the same price for a loaf of

bread and a quart of milk as everyone else.

This is a bargaining device. This party believes in people

as human beings and we are suggesting that as human beings,

regardless of their vocation in life, they be given the right

to speak on the basis of equals. If we are wrong, Mr. Chairman,

then our faith in human behaviour will be proven wrong. But we

believe in people. We believe that people are responsible; they

do have common sense and will respond to equal rights with

equal responsibility. I completely reject the amendment from

the Member.

MR. WALLACE: Debate on this

section and on this amendment

really follows on somewhat from the debate we held yesterday.

The Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), in winding up

yesterday's second reading on another bill, made it quite

clear, in describing and debating collective bargaining rights,

that implicit in that right was the right to strike, that there

could not be one without the other.

But here, Mr. Chairman, we have a

section in the labour code

where the firefighters, the policemen, and the hospital workers

are given every encouragement to go to binding arbitration. And

while the words "essential services" are not used anywhere in

the section, the reasoning is quite clear and receives my full

support, namely that those persons, firefighters, policemen and

hospital workers — and I look upon doctors and nurses in the

same category — are a special category of employees who,

[ Page 1004 ]

if they strike, subject the public and the community not

only to considerable distress but real danger to their

life.

It seems strange to me that my argument of yesterday was

refuted by the government in terms of public employees who

indeed would create tremendous distress and difficulty for the

public if they were to go on strike. And yet here we have my

argument of yesterday, which was rejected in regard to the

public service employees, being accepted by the government in

regard to firefighters, policemen and hospital workers.

The Premier, with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman,

accused me of being inconsistent. I think if anybody is being

inconsistent it's that government. In other words, we are

accepting that firefighters, policemen and hospital workers are

essential but the public service employees are not

essential.

Why could we not have a clause in

section 73 of this bill

similar to the clause we had in yesterday's bill? It is quite

clear, Mr. Chairman, and this point has been covered several

times, that if one party tries to bring in an amendment to the

labour relations bill or the public service employees' bill it

will be ruled out of order. So if there is anybody inconsistent

around here I don't think it is this side of the House. It's

the government.

I said yesterday — and I stand by it and this party

certainly believes it very strongly — that there are certain

segments of society who should not have the right to strike.

Now that is our difference of opinion with the other side of

the House.

It is not, as I said yesterday, that we in any way lack

support for the idea of collective bargaining. But we have to

make it plain, apparently time and again, that you can have

collective bargaining without the right to strike.

It is obvious from the definition and the phraseology used

section 73 of this bill that the government does indeed

recognize a different attitude, a different philosophy towards

firemen, policemen and hospital workers. I would think that by

recognizing the importance of settling their problems through

binding arbitration, as defined in

section 73, they realize

that it is just quite impractical and ill advised that any of

these groups of employees should be able to strike and throw

the whole community, or maybe even the whole province, into

serious trouble.

The amendment which I favour also makes it clear in subsection (

I) that if

the concept is to be that they should have binding arbitration rather than the

right to strike, then surely both the trade union or the employer should have

the option to suggest that the point has been reached where collective bargaining

has failed and it is time to seek binding arbitration. And the amendment proposed

by the Second Member for Victoria, (Mr. D.A. Anderson) would meet that requirement.

But I think more important than the point of giving both

parties the option to seek binding arbitration is the point I

made initially, that yesterday the government made it very,

very plain, through the Hon. Provincial Secretary, that

collective bargaining means nothing unless you have the right

to strike.

Well, here we have three particular groups of employees

where….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you are saying that they unquestionably

have the right to strike, and you approve of that, I take it?

The government believes that firefighters, policemen and

hospital workers should have the right to strike. Is that what

you are saying, Mr. Provincial Secretary?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): You read the bill.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we may differ in the

interpretation, but

your

interpretation seems to get a little different each day

we're in this House. That wasn't the

interpretation I heard

yesterday.

I would submit that you can't have it both ways: you are

saying that you are trying to make them go to binding

arbitration, and yet you also say that the

interpretation of

section 73 means that they can go on strike and, as such, you

are saying that firefighters, policemen and hospital workers

should be able to go on strike.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm glad we've got that clarified.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, let me go over that again, because

naturally I want to understand what you feel over there. You

are saying that this

section — and I hope the Provincial

Secretary after I sit down will stand up and clarify any

misunderstandings I have….

HON. MR. HALL: That would take too long.

MR. WALLACE: Now that's a rather ridiculous remark. The fact

is, Mr. Chairman, we are all trying to be sure that we

understand the exact meaning of what is a fairly complex bill.

I don't think the Provincial Secretary really meant to make

such a snide remark in relation to a sincere attempt to get the

truth of what this bill really means.

The Provincial Secretary has interjected in the debate that

this

section gives these workers the right to strike. Now he's

shaking his head. Mr. Chairman, this gets more and more

confusing. A minute ago I

[ Page 1005 ]

tried to say that they were encouraging binding arbitration

to prevent strikes. At that point the Provincial Secretary said

they could strike; now he says they cannot strike. I sincerely

do hope that the Minister of Labour some day will clarify the

meaning of this section.

Our party wants to make its position very, very clear. There

are essential services in society and the workers in these

sections, in our opinion, should not have the right to strike.

Should we ever become government, they will not have the right

to strike for the reasons I have outlined.

It is all very well for the Premier to say that people act

responsibly, and they do 99 per cent of the time.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): What about the doctors in

Saskatchewan?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, what about the doctors in Saskatchewan? I

have never said anything different than I said in this House

this week on the debate; the action of the doctors in

Saskatchewan was totally wrong and should not have occurred.

The lady Member (Mrs. Webster) who interjected simply makes my

point that people do not always act responsibly. When they act

irresponsibly, there can be very serious danger to the public

good and even to the lives of individuals in our society.

It really doesn't answer the problem for the Premier to say

that people act responsibly. Let us hope they will. We know

that at most times they do, but there can be a small percentage

of times when, by acting irresponsibly, the consequences to

society are very grave indeed.

This is the point which makes us feel so strongly about the

importance of recognizing that certain groups of employees have

to be looked upon differently from the great majority of

employees. As I tried to make the point yesterday, the word

"essential" and the word "service" mean two very important

things to society. If it is essential, it means you just

cannot, even for a short while, get along without them.

There is the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon.

Mr. Radford) shaking his head. I suppose you can get along

without hospitals, can you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: You don't think there was some real damage when

the doctors went on strike in Saskatchewan. Don't you think

people suffered?

HON. MR. BARRETT: But that was illegal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member…?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the

Chair?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I keep getting interrupted;

I feel I am entitled to answer the interruptions.

The other argument that the Premier puts forward is so

facile that he throws up his hands and says, "It's illegal." It

really doesn't matter whether it's legal or illegal; people are

going to suffer. It is the same Premier who is always talking

about law and order.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's exactly the point I am making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that each

Member wait their turn to speak rather than interrupt the

Member. Order, order! I would request the Hon. Members wait

their turn to speak and let the Hon. Member for Oak Bay carry

on.

MR. WALLACE: It is obviously a very popular topic, Mr.

Chairman.

The Premier, quite rightly, talks about respect for law and

order and has done in this House many times, and so do we.

AN HON. MEMBER: So did Spiro.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, that's a great comparison. I think we will

overlook that remark. (Laughter.)

The fact is that this government has shown its weakness in

the face of illegal acts. While the Premier may criticize

attempts by legislation to produce good and responsible

behaviour on the part of citizens, the fact is that his own

government caved in in the face of an illegal act.

The basic concept of an orderly society is that the first

function of government is to govern, to uphold the laws and to

see that the laws are obeyed. If that, Mr. Chairman, isn't the

first function of government, I don't know what is.

If public discomfort and damage has to be regarded as more

important than upholding the law, then indeed we are in

trouble. I agree with the Premier to the extent that you cannot

legislate good behaviour or responsible attitudes. I would also

submit that you cannot have a government submitting to illegal

acts and capitulating to the perpetrators of these illegal

acts.

I feel it makes the ground rules of society a little

clearer if government were to take the responsibility of

defining those essential services where strike is illegal. If a

person wishes to pursue a career in one of

[ Page 1006 ]

these fields — doctor, fireman, policeman — it should be the

well-recognized, mature, sensible attitude that if such a

person must have the right to strike, then those particular

callings and professions in life are just not open to him. If

any person in our society feels so strongly that he or she must

have the right to withdraw service and he or she wishes to

pursue a job such as firefighting or medical practice, then it

just should be a condition in that profession that the right to

strike does not exist.

Obviously, the two sides of the House differ; but I think it

is important that each side of this House puts its opinion

clearly on the record. That is what I am doing now.

The Premier, who says you cannot legislate good public

behaviour, is correct. To return to my earlier point regarding

the government's function to govern, I would submit that if our

philosophy existed and those parties did not have the right to

strike in the true sense of the government upholding the law,

then there should be penalties against persons who break the

law and who go on illegal strikes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slavery.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon, Mr. Minister? Slavery?

Slavery, Mr. Chairman? Slavery to protect the public good? Is

that what it is?

AN HON. MEMBER: You know better than that.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I say, I think the

debate on

section 73 probably has to be the most important

section to clarify for this House — and also clarify for the

public of this province just exactly what the difference is

between the government and the opposition. Because I make the

point that certain rights cannot be extended to essential

services, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) interjects the word "slavery." A

very interesting, different concept.

I think the history in the origin of trade unions was to

free the worker and give him fair play in the marketplace and

justice in his employment. Any good aim or any good goal of

society always has to be tempered and balanced against possible

dangers and disadvantages. Because we believe that there are

certain segments of society who cannot have the right to

strike, the Minister of Health says this is slavery.

Frankly, I always had a great regard for the Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance and that comment really shakes me. I think if the Premier

was upset about the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) talking about

bombs and assassination, I am equally distressed to find the Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance thinking in terms of slavery because doctors

should not have the right to strike. I think that's a pretty ridiculous and

extravagant way to look at this problem which both sides of the House are sincerely

trying to resolve.

The government, in its debate yesterday, made it clear that

public employees of the government are not to be looked upon in

the same light as the firefighters, the policemen and the

hospital union. I am reconsidering the whole matter. I still

hope to bring in an amendment to yesterday's bill which the

government will consider, for the simple reason that this

section 73 contradicts what the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall) said yesterday. Again he winces and looks very

distressed. As I say, I hope he will explain the problem.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That is the second time you have tried to get

me to sit down and stop talking on this question of essential

services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HALL: Are you going to hog it all day?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: They are divided over there, Mr. Chairman. The

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon.

Mr. Lauk) thinks I should carry on and the Provincial Secretary

thinks I should sit down. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea) is in the middle. That's where the highway always should

be.

Anyway, the point has been made that the government said

yesterday that you cannot have collective bargaining rights

without the right to strike. Yet in regard to firefighters,

policemen, and hospital unions their attitude is a little

different.

I'm suggesting very clearly that they should not have the

right to strike. If binding arbitration makes sense for these

groups, and if the government is going to be consistent, they

should accept the same philosophy of encouraging binding

arbitration in the employment of public service employees.

Furthermore this amendment makes it only fair that it should

not be restricted to the trade union to seek or elect to go to

arbitration when collective bargaining has failed.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to be brief and deal with

section 73. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked me if

this

section takes away the right to strike. The answer is no,

and that's why I shook my head. The Member later on asked me

if, indeed, it gave them the right to strike — the answer is

no, that's contained in another

section — and I again shook my

head. So I was right.

[ Page 1007 ]

I want to refer you to line 5 — "may elect" — and I say to

you, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that full and free

collective bargaining contains the right to strike. What

section 73 does is to say to firefighters, police and hospital

unions that "When you've reached some sort of an impasse, if

you want you may elect."

MR. GARDOM: What the Hon. Provincial Secretary stated,

almost as a Sermon from the Mount, is open to the parties at

any time in any event. It doesn't have to be built into

legislation.

HON. MR. HALL: You tell him — not me.

MR. GARDOM: But in this

section we're talking about firemen,

we're talking about policemen, we're talking about hospital

workers, we're talking about essential service, we're talking

about jobs with an extremely high degree of public

responsibility, that are vital for the functioning of society.

And it's well-motivated people who go into these endeavours.

There's no question of a doubt about that. They're not press

ganged, or dragooned, to become nurses, or firemen, or

policemen. We live in a free society and they elect,

themselves, to take those jobs.

When they're electing to take those kinds of jobs it's our

position that they should accept it as a condition of service

that they do not have…. And it's not a right to strike — I've heard the words "right to strike" spin through this

chamber continuously. Mind you, it's not a right to strike in

these essential services; if anything it is a privilege — certainly not a right. At one time it was considered a right,

definitely. But it has become, by virtue of the proliferation

of society and the interdependence of society, a privilege. And

we consider that it is a privilege that should be denied as a

condition of employment in essential services. And that's the

whole point of the argument over here.

I think the amendment that has been moved by the Hon. Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) states it exceptionally well

where he says, "Where a dispute threatens an essential service,

either party may apply, by giving notice in writing to the

Minister and to the other party, to resolve the matter by

arbitration." So at least we've got two sides of the coin as

opposed to the one in the bill as it now stands.

I gave the illustration before, and I'm going to repeat it, of what happens

in the event, say, of a doctor walking off the operating table because he's

going on strike. My friends, he cannot do that. He cannot do that under the

existing laws of this country, because that man could face a claim for criminal

prosecution for criminal negligence. He could face disbarment from the hospital,

he could face a claim for damages from the injured individual or the next of

kin of the person who died on the operating table. And make no mistake of that

fact.

This is not a right under essential services, it's a

privilege. And it's a privilege again as I say by virtue of the

fact that we have become so terrifically dependent upon each

other by virtue the technological changes that have come about

such that one cannot exercise what was formally considered to

be a right under these circumstances to the detriment of the

public weal.

In discussing this section, and in the NDP and the

socialists bringing in this thing, it seems to me that I'd call

this a "labour boss section," because it's got

absolutely nothing to do with the wishes of the general

public.

If you had a plebiscite of the people in British Columbia

today, I can assure you that 95-98 per cent of them would back

the measure that the Member for Victoria has introduced this

morning. They do not wish strikes in essential services. They

do not wish strikes in essential services! Ask the people — just ask the people. You're trying to force-feed this stuff

onto them.

Do you know what you've done by refusing to accept this

amendment? This amendment is one of the most serious ones in

the whole bill. By refusing to accept the amendments which

prevent the emasculation of the courts, it seems to me that…. Speaking for myself — and I do hope there will be others

following it — I'm certainly going to be greatly inclined to

vote against this bill in third reading. Because there's been a

gross departure from the principles that were originally

enunciated in this House by the Minister when he introduced

this bill in second reading.

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

the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) suggests that

the majority of British Columbians don't want people in the

essential services to strike. And that's true, quite true.

The people on the job, the people in this House, and the

people in the community don't want strikes. They not only don't

want strikes in the essential services, but they don't want

them in any other sector of society.

This could be a long week's debate on the philosophical

point, so I will try and be brief, but I wanted to deal with

two things. One is the philosophical questions raised by the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). And then I want to deal with

the specifies of the amendment.

The question of slavery was bandied back and forth across

the floor during the Member for Oak Bay's comments. Frankly, I

agree with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) that if you

say to any group in society that you cannot strike and you're

not

[ Page 1008 ]

allowed to leave your job collectively, then that is a form

of slavery. It may not be a direct parallel to the kind of

slavery that existed in the southern States, but it is a form

of that slavery. There are some people in our society who are

going to have to be firemen, some people are going to have to

be policemen, and some people are going to have to be hospital

workers. Whether they choose it or not, there have to be some

people performing those tasks. So you're saying to those people

that if they feel it's essential for them to make their point

in collective bargaining they don't have the right to withdraw

their services.

But, Mr. Chairman, you do have the right to withdraw your

services — you just don't have to go to work. Just don't show

up. In fact you can quit your job. The point is that everyone

in this society has the right to strike, whether we enshrine it

in the law or not. You just don't show up for work. And that's

the point.

The amendment introduced says let's solve it by compulsory

arbitration. The intent of the amendment is to reduce strikes

in these services. Unquestionably the effect of this amendment

will be to have a proliferation of disputes and a proliferation

of strikes in public service. What the legislation does is

devise a procedure by which we can avoid disputes in the public

service.

If the hospital employees, the firefighters and the

policemen go into collective bargaining knowing that the

employer, whether it's a municipality or the provincial

government or whoever it happens to be, has the right to impose

a settlement on them, they are going to be very uptight and

very unwilling to listen to fair discussion. Because they know

that people on the other side of the bargaining table can

impose a settlement.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: The fact is that in public service operations

the employer also has the club because he is, in effect, the

government. And where does that leave the person on the job?

That is the point we have to remember. We have to give them

some power in the situation. What the legislation does, and

what the amendment doesn't do, is that it allows for an

attitude of trust, allows for a feeling between the two parties

that they can resolve their dispute.

Mr. Chairman, I thought when I came to this Legislature that

I wouldn't have to go into basics. But it seems that Members,

particularly in that Liberal Party, just don't understand the

feelings, don't understand the emotion that people who work for

a living have.

The fact that the Liberal Party Members have never worked

for a living perhaps has something to do with that.

MR. GARDOM: Don't be stupid! What an asinine remark!

Absolutely stupid!

MR. GABELMANN: Lawyers and doctors and….

MR. GARDOM: I've done just as much or more work than you've

ever done, my friend, and make no mistake of that!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Workers of the world unite! Let's have the

spirit of goodwill in this debate.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, there's work and there's work.

If lawyers, for each case they worked on, had to have their

fees set by some collective bargaining procedure between the

lawyer and the client, I wonder how they'd like it. And if they

couldn't solve those problems, to have some third party come in…

MR. GARDOM: There is a third party, dumbbell!

MR. GABELMANN: …and impose the settlement.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: The lawyers that I know, Mr. Chairman, impose

a fee on their clients.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: Tell Ray Haynes to write something better than

that for you.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, maybe I should start again

because we obviously….

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I haven't been very articulate, and

maybe I haven't explained it very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. GABELMANN: I do want to be serious for a moment because

I think the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was serious in his

comments. He was stating a point of view and attitude, one that

I totally disagree with, but one that I respect coming from him

because I know he believes it. I'm not at all that certain

about some of the other comments that have been made from other

sections of the House. But the point, Mr. Chairman, to that

Member for Oak Bay, is that it doesn't matter whether you allow

people the right to strike or not.

If they are in a situation where they want to strike because

of the situation, they're going to. That's the point. So what

we have to do is devise laws that create a way around that, to

create a feeling for those

[ Page 1009 ]

people that they do have some options, that they don't have

to sit there and take what the employer gives them; and in

public service that's the feeling.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Read the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, I'll read the amendment. The amendment

calls for arbitration….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Read it, read it.

MR. GABELMANN: The effect of the amendment would allow for

compulsory arbitration; is that not right?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Both sides.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, both sides. You know this is the point

I've been trying to make — both sides. The employer is also the

government who imposes the compulsory arbitration. If you can't

understand that problem, faced from the point of view of the

working people, then you're not going to understand

anything.

Interjections.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would like to

have my turn when it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: "In that case, sit down," the Member

says. I feel very strongly about this because I really think

that there's a breakdown in communication between the two sides

of the House on this section. If I may cite a couple of

personal examples, I think that some of the most pleasant work

I have had to do in municipal service in this province has been

in negotiation with representatives of the B.C. Federation of

Peace Officers, the police union, and the B.C. Association of

Firefighters.

We've had some very awkward and strenuous, sensitive

discussions with these organizations from time to time when

agreements have been about to expire or have in fact

expired.

But I think really the government is missing the point here

with respect to the firefighters and police officers. They do

not want the right to strike. They have made this abundantly

clear to me. I would think they have made it abundantly clear

to others. They want avenues of recourse to third parties, of

course. They want to be able to get to an independent

arbitrator or board of arbitration, but they have behaved

extremely responsibly in negotiation.

They have always, I think, held paramount above their dispute with the employer

— not government, as the previous speaker indicated, because government in that

context means the provincial government, but "employer" meaning the municipality,

which certainly doesn't carry the clout of provincial government and the ability

to bring in new provincial legislation at the drop of a hat if it is required

— their responsibility to and in the community.

They've been unhappy with previous legislation, but surely

the Minister of Labour, with his knowledge of labour-management

relations, knows that these people do not want the right to

strike. They seek this other avenue which would avoid the

conflict leading to a strike. But we must bear in mind, Mr.

Chairman, that somewhere at some time in some police

association or firefighters' association, there are going to be

some hotheads who would pursue the right to strike to the

fullest, and the word "may" is just not the right word in this

particular case.

I think the amendment as introduced by the Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is a good one. I wish that the

Minister of Labour and the government as a whole would face up

to the situation that we are talking about very responsible

people, serving their communities in the province; but there is

still that possibility, remote or not so remote, that at some

time a police force or a fire department would go out on strike

in a situation of extreme intensity and difficulty.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman,

this is rather an interesting debate, and I think that many times we miss the

point. We're all talking about the right to strike. I begin to wonder whether

strike is the right word to use because in the populace it's got a cynical connotation

— something like "war." I don't think people realize how a strike comes about;

many of them don't realize what a strike is and, to me, nobody wants a strike.

I've been on many conciliation boards between management and

labour and I've usually found that the workers would lean over

backwards rather than strike. They'd do anything to prevent a

strike. Many times it's the rigid position of the people who

claim to be management that brings about these problems. To put

it in law that you cannot strike…!

When a person goes to the bargaining table and he knows that

he has no right to do something that somebody else has a right

to do…. Because we must not forget that the only

article the

average worker has to sell is his labour power. Under our

system we say that if people have something to sell they've got

a right to say how much they want for it. If the worker feels

that he is not getting enough for his labour power, the product

that he has to sell, then to say that he hasn't got the right

to say that he's not going to sell it in one case and in the

other case you

[ Page 1010 ]

give that right, it creates friction, The old cliché, "You can take a horse to water but

you can't make him drink," is still true in this case.

It doesn't matter how many laws we put on the statute books,

you can say to a man that he's got to continue to work and yet

he doesn't have to do it. We can look back in history and

people have died because they wouldn't do what somebody else

said they had to do.

Many people died in the war because they wouldn't give

information to the enemy. They were killed. You go back through

history; back in 1880 in England they tried to bring in a law

forcing people to work. It didn't work, and in 25 years the law

was gone. They had to do away with it.

The United States is littered with laws that were brought in

to try and make people do something they didn't have to do. I

don't think for a minute that placing on the statute books that

a man has no right to withdraw his labour will do any good.

We've got to educate.

Don't forget that many people today, who have inherited

great deals of money from their grandfathers or great-grandfathers, make their contribution to society by renting that

money and making their living off the rent. The people who

really make the contribution to society are the working people

who produce, because you create nothing unless you produce.

That's the real contribution to society.

The people who are contributing by investing money that has

been earned 100, maybe 200 years ago — they would starve to

death if somebody didn't contribute their labour power to

produce. That's what we must not forget.

I think someday, when people will realize that we're all a

part of the whole, we might come to some solution whereby the

contribution of people will be the principal thing. We won't be

splitting between labour and management, but we'll be all in

the same boat as producers and we'll receive from that

production our just returns.

Only then will we get away from worrying about people

withdrawing their labour from essential services. The only way

you can stop that will be maybe by education or by fair

treatment. I'm sure that this is the way we want to go. We say

that everybody must have that same right, the same right. To

say that some have it and some haven't only creates friction

and problems, and weakens the case altogether. I think that as

time goes on this will eventually get less and less in the

country.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief

as well. The Minister of Mines made an interesting speech — it

would be nice if anyone in the House could understand it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We understand it.

(Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: He's pointed out that he doesn't understand

the problems so he's come up with some kind of a simplistic

solution that really doesn't mean a thing.

The voice of the B.C. Federation of Labour spoke earlier in

the debate. He too indicated much of the problem we have with

labour relations in this province. It's because of the

glorification of the strike as a weapon in a dispute between

two people. I spoke about that yesterday.

The Premier as well got up and made his performance again

today and said that it's only through rational and mature

approaches that we're going to start to settle labour disputes.

Well I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the first way to start on a

rational mature approach is to be honest. Be honest in your

legislation. And that's not what you're doing.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

On the one hand the Minister of Labour and everyone else

over on that side of the House is saying, "These people in

essential services must be treated the same as everyone else."

But you're not treating them the same because you know very

well that you will not allow them to strike because you'll take

some kind of action the minute they walk off the job that you

wouldn't take in any other kind of a service. So you're not

treating them the same and you're not being honest.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is the only

Member, in my opinion, to have really hit the nail on the head

so far in this House — and that is that the people of British

Columbia do not want our employees in essential services to go

on strike or to have the right to go on strike. If you'd go out

and talk to the people, Mr. Chairman, you'd find that is the

truth.

A strike in that kind of service, whether it be a

firefighter or a policeman or a hospital service, does

jeopardize the lives of thousands of people in this province.

We can't allow them to go on strike and to place those lives in

jeopardy.

I'm not too happy with this amendment because I think it

really fuzzes up the whole question which is: do we allow the

people in essential services to go on strike? But because the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) stood up in this House in

all of his high glory and said, "We're going to accept

amendments to this legislation. We'll be happy to take your

suggestions and include them in this legislation." But he's

shown us in this House that he has no intention of accepting

anybody's own amendments. So we have to put forward amendments

like this, which, even though they fuzz up the whole question,

they're the only way we can get around this problem of

allowing

[ Page

1011 ]

essential services to go on strike.

That's really what we're in objection to on this side of the

House, Mr. Chairman. If we allow the people in essential

services to go on strike, we're only perpetuating the problem

that was indicated so well by the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) earlier this year. And we're

going to have a perpetual gun to the heads of responsible

employers in all of these vital services.

This is an exceptionally strong weapon, and an exceptionally

strong weapon in the hands of an irresponsible trade union

leader. I don't think that we can allow it. I think that we

must support this amendment, but we must also go on record as

being totally opposed to the right to strike for essential

services in this province.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Chairman, I just can't imagine why that side of the House continually tries

to fluff up, continually tries to confuse the issue by erecting this kind of

straw man that they obviously don't understand. It's just unbelievable; it's

incredible. Here is a positive section, a positive

section in this bill that

provides essential services an opportunity to seek this way out of labour confrontations.

MR. McCLELLAND: Vote for the amendment.

HON. MR. COCKE: I certainly will not because what that does…it's a very negative suggestion. All we hear over there

is gloom and doom about these strikes, and so on and so forth.

But at the same time, Mr. Chairman, did you note that among the

arguments that they raised, these were very responsible people

that they were talking about. We agree that they were very

responsible people, Mr. Chairman. Those very responsible

people, on most occasions, if they come to that point in time

where they must select that final way to achieve agreement will

likely opt for this section.

MR. D.A, ANDERSON: What if they don't?

HON. MR. COCKE: If they don't, that Member knows that the

final authority rests here in this chamber. That's neither here

nor there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! No, no!

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. That's under any circumstance,

that always has been the law. The law is created here. But you

don't put those kinds of laws on the statute books because of

the fact….

AN HON. MEMBER: They did.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes they did. Compulsory…. You saw what

happened to Bill 33. You see what happens to that kind of high

pressure stuff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do it anyway.

HON. MR. COCKE: What do you mean, do it anyway? We're

talking in terms of a devastating situation and everybody knows

that's what happens under those circumstances.

But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, what this does,

it provides a vehicle, a vehicle that's right there and very

readily ascertainable that the people can go this route. They

don't have the route however, imposed. We believe in a little

bit of freedom around here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. That's something you two don't

understand. You want to enshrine that heavy-handed stuff. Yet

that bunch over there were the people who did enshrine

compulsion, compulsion, compulsion.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's have a little order. Let's have a little

order.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a heavy hand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Socialist!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's the heavy hand of a capitalist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that that bunch

over there were not responsible. As a matter of fact, they're

most irresponsible, but I recognize that they all weren't

responsible for Bill 33. Some of them were, especially that

former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot). He was around. He voted

for that; he voted for that piece of compulsion. Now he wants

to put that on our heads.

No, Mr. Chairman, we don't believe that the way to go is

this compulsory route. We believe that the way to go is to

respect people — respect them for what they are and what they

have to contribute.

Mr. Chairman, one of the Members suggested that we should

take amendments, and the Minister of Labour said, "Certainly."

He's amended the bill with a lot of ideas which have come

forward. But the fact of the matter is: that kind of an

amendment would never be acceptable to this side of the House,

and

[ Page 1012 ]

they know it.

HON. MR. KING: : Mr. Chairman, this has been a rather wordy

debate. So many things came to my attention that I wanted to

comment on, but I'm not sure I can deal with them all. There

were a great many things said.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The last speaker

didn't say much.

HON. MR. KING: I do want to try and wind this debate down in

a rather temperate way. I would just like to point out that

some of. the statements made this morning were not particularly

temperate. I don't think it serves anyone's best interest to

have Members of the Legislature using such terms as

"irresponsible trade union leaders", "irresponsible people with

legislative guns in their hands" — using the terms "scabs" — which I have never used in this House. I don't think that's

really too responsible from a party that likes to adopt the

mantle of responsibility. The leader seems to try very hard but

falls somewhat short.

MR. PHILLIPS: Your halo is slipping.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), he's a

nice little chap and I like him very much. But he has no

monopoly on sincerity and I don't think he should try to

portray that in too much of a righteous fashion. I accept his

position; we have a difference of opinion. And so be it. This

is the agency; this is the institution where those differences

of opinion should be enunciated and the vote that eventually

comes on this legislation will reveal the different attitudes

that the parties hold. And that's good.

The people have a right to determine the approaches of the

various political parties to this question or any other. But to

try to make points to justify a position by using inflammatory

language of that kind against the parties involved out there is

to me not too palatable. If you want to attack me in that vein,

why, be my guest. But I think we should avoid making slanderous

statements against the practitioners of industrial relations in

this province, be it the trade unions, or be it the management

groups.

Now one of the points that I wanted to make was that the people involved in

the police departments, fire departments and hospitals have had the right to

strike over the past number of years. When the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

and Members of the Social Credit Party talk about it being dishonest to provide

the continued right to strike, I wonder how they reconcile that with the position

that has obtained for the past period of years? Surely they were aware that

in the background lurked the mediation commission, the monster of their making,

with the arbitrary right to impose compulsory arbitration, not only on the hospital

workers, policemen and firemen but on every worker in the Province of British

Columbia. Now if that's an honest approach, if that's consistent with what they

are saying here today, then I certainly don't appreciate that kind of consistency.

But there is a point that was confused quite a number of

times, and I don't think deliberately so, by Members of the

Liberal and Conservative Parties. You say on the one hand the

policemen, firemen and hospital workers are responsible people.

I agree that they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every one?

HON. MR. KING: No, not every one. But generally speaking

they are responsible groups who recognize that they are

involved in a service that is tremendously important and

emergent to the well-being of the public. They recognize that,

and that is why the firefighters particularly, and the police

officers, indeed the hospital workers also, made representation

to the three special advisers to my department asking for

options, asking for some alternatives to the strike weapon.

Now that's exactly what we have provided in this

legislation. We have provided an alternative. If they feel as a

matter of good conscience that the strike weapon is

unacceptable as a method of resolving their differences, they

can now opt for compulsory arbitration. But it's their

decision; it's not imposed upon them. And the problem with

compulsory arbitration, it tidies it all up very nicely and the

politicians can forget all about it: "Well, that's looked

after. It's tucked away in a nice little shelf."

But I suggest that although you may question whether or not

all those people are responsible, you can similarly question

whether every municipality that bargains and employs these

groups is responsible also. If a group in society, whether it's

a trade union or anyone else, has a feeling of being aggrieved,

has a feeling of failing to keep pace with counterparts in

society, has a feeling of being discriminated against in

economic and social terms, notwithstanding the legislative

terms that you're suggesting we apply to them, then I suggest

to you, Mr. Chairman, that these people are going to take

action to draw their plight to the attention of the public,

whether or not we write laws saying, "Yes, you may" or "No, you

can't."

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) answered his own

question. He said that yes, there is a good chance that people

will go out despite the laws. But we debated this bill in

second reading and I drew to the attention of the House at that

time that we're trying to change the accent and the approach

[ Page 1013 ]

industrial relations from that of a punitive approach, where

you pass rigid laws and demand compliance and, if that is not

met, then you visit harsh penalties upon the parties.

Let's face it, Mr. Chairman, this is what has been tried for

the last 25 years in this province. I would suggest with all

humility that the industrial relations record that obtains in

this province is not one that I would like to continue. The

record of the previous Minister of Labour is, quite frankly,

not one which I would like to emulate. I'm not being unduly

critical, I'm just suggesting that his approach and the

approach of the former administration certainly never provided

labour peace and industrial stability in this province. So it's

about time we took a new approach. This is what it's all

about.

To argue that we must impose this in an arbitrary way is to

me unrealistic. These groups have asked for this option and

they now have it. I don't think in a legislative way that we

should presume irresponsibility on the part of any group in

society. I think that's wrong. To me it's rather a repugnant

concept.

So let's give this a try. I'm sure that these parties are

responsible. I think they've proved that over the past number

of years where they have, in fact, had the right to strike. I

can't recall a strike by firemen or policemen in British

Columbia, and they've had the right to strike. Now if that

isn't a demonstration of responsibility, I don't know what

is.

I might draw to the attention of the House also that in many

other jurisdictions, where there has been a strike in these

basic public services, they usually have maintained a skeleton

or emergency crew to ensure that the public interest was not

irreparably damaged.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the railway strike? No way!

HON. MR. KING: No, that's true in that situation. But you

know, you have to examine both sides of the coin. If the

circumstances are repressive, then you build up a body of

hatred and resentment that is going to manifest itself in a

harsh and irrational response. That's true of all social

relationships. So this is what we're talking about.

These people have an option. What we've sought to do all the

way through this bill is to provide a number of options to the

ultimate weapon of strikes.

We assert that everyone has the right to withdraw their

labour, and we may disagree philosophically on that. Fine. Well

and good. But we have tried to provide options, alternatives to

the use of that ultimate weapon and surely that's going to be

the test of whether we succeed or not.

It's going to take some years. I can't make any guarantees

in this respect, but it is a new approach.

The punitive approach hasn't worked, so let's give this a

valid try and let's do so with some degree of goodwill and in a

spirit of cooperation on all sides of the House to help make

it work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, since I moved this

amendment the debate has been very wide-ranging and I think

perhaps Members in their speeches have forgotten perhaps what

the amendment precisely is. In the effort to set up straw men

which were then destroyed — efforts done by virtually every

Minister and government Member — I think again the point of the

amendment has been lost.

The amendment is to 73(1) and it would be to say, "Where a

dispute threatens an essential service, either party may apply

by giving notice in writing to the Minister and to the other

party to resolve the matter by arbitration."

Mr. Chairman, much is made of the fact that nurses in the

federal service are now on strike. They are on strike for a

number of reasons because, in my personal opinion, the Treasury

Board offered them far less than they should have. They have a

legitimate grievance.

Why are they on strike? I believe they are on strike because

there isn't an intelligent, sensible method accepted by both

sides for compulsory arbitration of a dispute of this nature.

It is accepted that if there is such a dispute the thing to do

is to go on strike.

Strikes, Mr. Chairman, are really what are at fault in terms of being mistaken

as an end, when they are really a means; they're a means to settle a labour

dispute and this amendment would only substitute a different means. They're

a clumsy method; they're a method which involves tremendous hardship. Let's

not kid ourselves. This strike of nurses is involving hardship and very, very

possibly loss of life,

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

Member said it was a privilege.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The strike that has been taking place is

the type of thing that I think we should get around by

substituting some other mechanism. Strikes are clumsy as can

be. Some groups have far more power in strikes than others, as

the Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has made

perfectly clear in his statements; the discussions of B.C. Rail

have made it perfectly clear that there are certain groups

which have far more power under that weapon than others and

therefore it is clearly a very uneven, unfair weapon within the

labour movement itself in terms of resolving the disputes of.

varying groups. We're suggesting that in these essential

services a separate and different type of approach, a different

means be used to achieve the

[ Page

1014 ]

same end.

Mr. Chairman, we've had a fair amount of discussion of this

being intemperate and immoderate. We don't think so. We think

that in a situation such as this, where we know full well — and

I do appreciate the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Cocke'

s) honest approach to this question — that the Legislature will be

called into session to handle the problem in an essential

service, we are not dealing fairly and honestly with the

members of the labour movement who are going to be taking this

legislation and trying to make it work in their own lives; we

are not, when we refuse to recognize the fact that of course

the right to strike in essential services will be abridged by

legislative action almost as soon as it takes place.

We know this will be the situation in the case of firemen.

We know it will be the situation in the case of policemen. I

don't know whether all hospital workers or nurses will be in

that position, but at least we know in the other two cases it

will be that.

It's unfair, and it's unwise, and it really is dishonest to

talk about strikes and the ability to strike and allowing

people to strike when we know that as soon as it took place we

would have breached that right away and we would prevent them

from continuing and we'd try and settle it by legislative

action.

This type of amendment tries to avoid the problem by setting

up the machinery beforehand. So that it can be settled

beforehand, the machinery can be put together in a

dispassionate and quiet way prior to any dispute hitting the

headlines or prior to any fire that may be started by an

arsonist under the circumstances suggested by my friend from

Point Grey. Prior to that happening we could establish

machinery which would take care of the problem. It is not an

amendment which destroys the labour movement in any way, shape

or form. It is a type of amendment which some of these people

themselves have been talking about when they ask for

arbitration in their disputes. We think that it's the type of

amendment which we put forward in good faith and which the

government should consider in good faith, instead of putting

forward, as they have done, a large number of straw men which

they have proceeded to knock down thereafter.

It is not an amendment which we think in any way destroys

the principle of the bill. It's not an amendment which destroys

even the concept of 73 (1); it extends it logically to a

position where we feel it should be, and I would urge that this

amendment be accepted.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I'm not

the kind of guy, I'm sure, that would go around saying, "I told

you so."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LEA: But in second reading of this debate I said

that this bill should be the one bill in this House that would

prove where we are, philosophically. And I believe that now

we're to the point where each side is letting the other side

know where they stand in regard to society. It's becoming

obvious and clear. But I don't think there is a society that

can make it which says, "We're going to take certain groups and

take away privileges and rights and give them to another group

that the rest of the group doesn't have." You just can't do

that and survive.

Was it Bonhoeffer, when he was released from the Nazi prison

camp, who said, "You know, they came along and they arrested

the Communists — it didn't bother me, I wasn't a Communist"? He

said, "They came along and they arrested another group. It

didn't bother me — I didn't belong to that group. But,"

he said, "then they came along and arrested me." And he said,

"You know, nobody else cared either — I was the last one."

That's what life is all about: you just don't take one

segment of society and say, "We're going to do something

special with you," or "We're going to take something

away from you." We're in it together, and we have to allow and

give to everyone the same rights and privileges that we enjoy

ourselves. That is the way we have to go, or we'll destroy

ourselves as a society. If you can't understand that basic fact

of life. And I believe that what we're all here to do is to try

and decide which side we're on philosophically. I think you're

doing it nicely and next time it won't be 60-40.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I listened with much interest to

the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) a couple of

minutes ago talking about setting up machinery beforehand to

avert strikes and problems in the essential services. I'm

wondering if he's really read this Act, because what we are

doing is setting up the machinery beforehand. With the type of

machinery that we envision, contrary to what he envisions, we

are putting implicit in that machinery some degree of trust and

responsibility which we are placing upon the working people in

the essential services.

I wonder about that particular Member's feelings and what

his concept of trust and responsibility is. It seems to me we

are saying, "We trust the working people to act responsibly."

And we have that little band of lawyers over here saying, "We

don't trust anybody, even each other." Maybe it's because of

the type of occupation and the type of party they belong to

that they don't have that kind of trust, that they want to

control everything, and that they cannot delegate trust and

responsibility to other people.

I'd like to give an example of how this might

[ Page 1015 ]

work, myself having been a teacher for a long time. We have

always gone to arbitration over any of the problems that we

have in the schools — over our wage increases, over

technological change, over teaching and learning conditions,

and so on.

I think that we have, over the years, developed a fair

amount of responsibility. We had a one-day strike a year ago,

and it sure took a lot of soul searching even before we went

out for that one day.

One of the checks that we have to consider is that when

people in the central services go out on strike they have to

consider the balance of how this is going to affect the public.

They have to consider that if teachers go out on strike this

disrupts family life when the kids have to be home from school.

The firemen have to consider that people are concerned that

their homes are not protected if there's a fire. So this is a

check against strike action from the general public.

We also have to consider that when you're in a service such

as hospitals, fire halls and policemen, as with teachers, it

saves the public purse a lot of money by going out on strike.

So you're not really hitting up anybody on a monetary

value.

MR. CHABOT: Teachers aren't an essential service.

MR. STEVES: I didn't say teachers were an essential service.

I'm using the comparison because there is a public check there;

I'm giving this as a comparison because we do have arbitration

in most of our disputes. We would like the right to go on

strike, if need be. But if we were to go on strike we have

these other checks that we consider.

With regard to giving the essential services the right to go

for arbitration, I think they can judge these things

responsibly, and they would generally take the arbitration

route rather than strike action. In fact, I can't foresee a

group in essential services having to strike when they do have

the right to call for arbitration. They would be able to judge

that in effect they may be creating some problems if they did

go out on strike. I don't think anybody in essential services

wants to do that. I think they are responsible people and that

they can be trusted and that we should give them that

trust.

For those Members of the Liberal Party who don't think

people have any intelligence other than their own, and that

they can't trust people, I say let's give them a try for a

change, and see if there is some intelligence out there in

society outside of the Liberal Party, It seems to me that the

attitude I get from that little band is that they're the only

ones that know what's good for everybody else, and that they

would like to impose their will on everybody out in society,

and in the workforce as well.

I think that we should trust people, and try and work together rather than

impose decisions upon them.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I've been trying to stay out of

this debate because, as I said in second reading, the party

wanted to be logical.

However, the remarks by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea), in bringing in the analogy of what happened in Germany

before the war, reminded me of what is happening today in

Canada. I can remember a few years ago when there used to be a

strike, for instance in the automobile industry. The general

population of our country would say, "Well, the automobile

workers are out on strike, but that doesn't bother me."

And then a little later there would be a strike, we'll say

in the lumber industry. By and large the general population

would say, "So there's a strike in the lumber industry — well

that really doesn't bother me.,, And there would maybe a strike in some of the petroleum

industries. And the general public would say, "Well, so what?

That really doesn't bother me."

But then there was a strike by the post office workers. And

everybody in Canada said, "That really bothers me."

And then recently there was a strike by the airlines — just

one segment of the airlines — and it threw the entire travelling

public who travel by air into a state of turmoil.

And more recently there was a strike by our national

railways.

What I'm really trying to say is that it wasn't very long

ago — some 10 years ago — that when there was a strike they

were not strikes in essential services; they were strikes by

some of the manufacturing industries. And it didn't really

bother the public at large. But then a particular government in

Ottawa decided that all of the civil servants should have the

right to strike whether they were in essential services or not.

What has really happened now is that we have strikes in

essential services and they do bother everybody. It is not in

the public interest.

I appreciate the Premier's remarks in saying that we can't

legislate people, but I also want to remind you of what I

consider a very reasonable person, a very well-thought-of

person in one of those major unions in the United States,

recently said — a union which has a fair amount to do with the

business that I'm in. That was George Meany, a very

well-thought-of man. What did he say? He said, "I think we're

entering a period in our history where strikes have got to be

outdated."

HON. MR. BARRETT: We don't agree with that.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier says he doesn't agree with Mr.

Meany. But the Premier probably realizes

[ Page 1016 ]

deep down in his own heart — and I think before the next

election he's going to take some action which will prove

exactly what the Premier thinks. He doesn't want to say it at

this time, but the Premier really thinks that strikes have got

to be outdated and that there' got to be a new method of

solving labour disputes.

Now I realize that the people employed, the ordinary

individuals, 99 per cent of them are very conscientious people

and they are in those particular services because they want to

do a particular service to the public. However, as I said

before and I said it two weeks ago, Friday morning when I was

discussing second reading of this labour bill, I said that both

in business and in labour you get — and I won't say

overzealous, and I won't say irresponsible — I will say overambitious labour leaders the same as you get overambitious

people in management. This is where the crux of the situation

comes in.

Although these people are all very well-meaning, they will

follow the leader, Mr. Premier. You know that and I know that.

They may not want to do it but if 50 per cent of them do it,

the other 50 per cent are going to go ahead. You know that

there have been some very brutal disputes in labour where

people who don't follow are sometimes intimidated. You know

that, Mr. Premier.

Now the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) made a little talk in the House not long ago. I would

have thought that we were back in the 1920s. We've progressed,

Mr. Minister of Mines. We have progressed a lot since then.

HON. MR. KING: Not really.

MR. PHILLIPS: We are living in 1973. Your government is

serious about trying to solve the labour problem. The official

opposition is serious about co-operating, very serious about

co-operating, but we must also realize our responsibility to

the public at large. What is in the public interest? I said in

this debate, at the very beginning of this debate, that the

public interest is not even defined under the

definitions. I

think we have a very serious problem, This government says they

are so greatly interested in the public interest and they don't

want to legislate against strikes.

I want to refer you to the Energy Act which was passed in

this House in the last session. What do you have the power to

do there in a case of emergency where the public at large is

involved? You have the power to enter, to seize, to control and

to charge…

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): Speak to the

amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: …back to that particular utility if they should withdraw

their services because it would involve the public interest. Wouldn't it, Mr.

Premier? You have taken unto your government those powers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Come one, we'll discuss it in the

court.

MR. PHILLIPS: Haven't you, Mr. Premier? And yet you say,

"Oh, no, we can't legislate against strikes."

Just let there be a strike by management in a utility where the

interests of the public are involved and you've got more than police

power. You can do whatever is necessary to protect the rights of the

people. Now is that far removed from having a strike in an essential

service? Not at all. I don't mind you people getting in bed with labour

union leaders but I don't like you to prostitute yourselves to them. You've got to take a firm stand on this.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's only 12:15.

MR. PHILLIPS: I realize that it's only 12:15 and, as I say,

I did honestly and sincerely not want to get into this debate.

But I felt compelled to say these few words, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When are you going to get into the debate?

I'm sorry I asked that question. You've done a wonderful job,

but we don't agree with your question. Carry on.

MR. PHILLIPS: You say, Mr. Premier, that you can't

legislate people to stay on a job. You know full well, Mr.

Premier, that if you pass a law whereby a person going on

strike is going to be fined and it's going to hit him in the

pocketbook, you know what will happen, Mr. Premier. You know

what wages are all about. You know what fines are all about.

Certainly if these labour union leaders who are leading people

in essential services to strike are going to be fined, you know

what effects it will have too, Mr. Premier.

However, Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is that we've got

to come to grips. This is 1973 and the people are fed up with

being denied certain services the same as they would be fed up

if their gas was shut off, if the telephone was shut off and if

their hydro was shut off. You've taken the police, dictatorial,

complete powers under the Energy Act to protect the public

interests. All I am saying is that you've got to take a firm

stand in regard to other certain….

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm in order. Yes, sir, you'd better believe I'm in order.

I'm hitting home, aren't I, Mr.

[ Page

1017 ]

Minister of Labour. I'm telling you the facts. You've got to

stand up and be counted. You've got to face these guys in the

labour business and tell them exactly that it is the public

interest you are interested in. They are the people we've got

to protect.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's the matter with you? Oh, now, now.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's venom if I have ever seen it in my

life — coming right out on the floor of this House.

However, that's the type of thing we've got to do away with.

We've got to be calm. We can't spew hate on the floor of this

House. We've got to be logistical. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Logical. (Laughter.) Or whatever it is.

I am glad I made these few remarks because the Minister of

Labour listened; the Premier listened. He knows that he has

these police powers under certain other Acts and a lot of Acts

that he is passing. We tell him when he passes these Acts what

great powers he is taking unto himself. Now he is going to have

to realize…. He says he is interested in the public

interest. Well, he's got to remember that some strikes aren't

in the public interest and this is where the whole crux of this

debate comes in. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the

opportunity to say these few words this morning.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I didn't

really want to get involved but I have been hearing words

called responsibility. The responsibility of firemen. The

responsibility of policemen. The responsibility of nurses. I

would like to have one more responsible — the Legislature.

We have the most irresponsible opposition there is. The

working man won the right to strike. The only person who can

take away that right is this Legislature in a specific Act for

a specific length of time. You might as well face up to the

fact that the responsibility is here.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: You can't make laws to take away the responsibility from

us. If we force a settlement on people it becomes a political act, because we

have taken away a right. I just wanted to make this one point. You'd better

be responsible and vote against this amendment.

MR. CHABOT: I'll be my usual brief self. I just don't

understand the significance of this statement of the Member who

just spoke. I do understand the significance of what the

Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) was attempting to say.

That Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance

stands up here from time to time and attempts to fuzz things

up. I think he hasn't looked at the Act. It's quite obvious to

me that he hasn't examined it. I think he's been too busy

reading Colonel Foulkes report. Mr. Minister, you are supposed

to make that report available to the House. Colonel Foulkes was

making that report available to the public yesterday. Most

disrespectful to the House. I think you should pay attention to

the legislation that we are discussing, not getting involved in

allowing Foulkes to go off half-cocked in the public

sector.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: We're talking about the public interest now

relative to

section 73.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. State your point of order.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Member is being irrelevant as usual. My

point of order is that he's not speaking to the section. What

he is speaking about he knows nothing about, and it is quite

incorrect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. We're dealing with an amendment

section 73 and I think that's what the discussion. should

be.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. Colonel Foulkes released a report

last night which the Minister said he'd release in this

House.

HON. MR. COCKE: He never released a report last night. He

made a speech.

MR. CHABOT: Bits and pieces of the report were released last

night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you please stick to the amendment that is

on the floor?

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will. Now

that Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance over

there talked about compulsion. We're opposed to compulsion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

[ Page 1018 ]

MR. CHABOT: Bill 33 was a compulsory Act. It is quite

obvious that you haven't read this Act because there are

certain phases of compulsion in this Act too. You'd better

believe it. You'd better read it. Two of your backbenchers, the

sawdust twins, voted against parts of the compulsion that are

reflected in this legislation.

All we are asking is that the Minister, before he stands in

his place and attempts to discuss the amendment which we are

discussing at this time, recognizes what he is saying and does

not constantly make a fool of himself in this assembly. Now, I

think that the essential thing we are discussing really is

whether the workers have the right to strike or not in this

essential service.

The section, as it presently reads, allows the one side to

opt for arbitration. In fact, it gives a strategic advantage to

the union in collective bargaining, and there's no doubt about

that. By allowing the right of arbitration only on one side, it

will create difficulties.

I think the amendment, even though I'd prefer a different

amendment than the one we are debating at this time, will allow

a better balance between both sides and, in many instances,

would eliminate the necessity of calling the Legislature

together to resolve a public-interest dispute. It would be less

damaging and it would allow the two sides to be more

responsible in their negotiations so that there wouldn't be any

disruption.

I'm sure that the Premier is anxious to resolve this. He

just said "aye" so I presume he's willing to vote for the

amendment. If the Premier will continue his "aye" I'll take my

seat right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to comment on the words that our

friend from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) gave us a

moment ago when he talked about responsibility. And that's what

we're talking about: responsibility to the public. I want to

tell the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain just how

responsible the Premier is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Forty-five to one.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier was going to bring in this

Legislature the War Measures Act to protect the public

interests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, come on.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. Does the backbench know what was in

that Act? Do you know what was in that Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please deal with the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm dealing with the public interest, the right to strike

and that fantastic power the Premier was going to take unto himself by bringing

a bill into this Legislature. (Laughter.) Boy oh boy, I would sure like to know

what was in that bill, Mr. Chairman.

I tell you, that's responsibility. He thought we were going

to freeze to death this winter and he said, "No way." He was

going to bring in a bill into this Legislature to freeze the

assets of Westcoast Transmission. All we are talking about

here is an amendment, a small amendment to protect the public

interest in case of strikes of police and firefighters, right?

Responsibility to protect the public interest.

But the Premier was going to protect the public interest by

bringing in a bill. You know, it didn't affect me. They said it

in the lumber industry but it didn't affect me. They said it in

the mining industry, and pretty soon there was a bill that said

it in the petroleum industry. It didn't affect me.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, it was your Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea) that brought it up.

HON. MR. LEA: Don't ruin things for the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I don't know

what was in that bill. I'd like to know what was in that bill,

and I'd like to know if that bill was to protect the public

interest. How far reaching…? Order? Order, they say. I say

order too. I want the bill brought in the House. Bring the bill

in the House, Mr. Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, talk to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Bring the bill in the House and then we'll

compare this little amendment that we are asking for, just to

protect the people from strikes in two essential services, with

that bill the Premier spewed to the press without it being

brought into this Legislature. We'll see what responsibility is

and we'll see what the public interest is.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 34

[ Page 1019 ]

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in the House, when you rise

and report, would you tell the Speaker of the vote and ask that

it be recorded in the Journals .

section 73.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: I wish to move the amendment to

section 73 (1)

on the order paper. I'll be very brief because this has a more

limited goal than the amendment we've just defeated. Again, I

make it very simply this: my amendment doesn't seek to delete

the section, as the former amendment did, but simply builds

into the

section the simple phrase of three words "or the

employer," meaning that not only the trade union but the

employer may also elect to seek arbitration.

I think this side of the House is clearly in favour of the

principle of arbitration. But, as the Minister has said many

times in this debate, Mr. Chairman, there are two sides who

have to be given fair and just consideration. Surely if we are

encouraging the principle of arbitration to prevent strikes, we

should be encouraging both sides to seek arbitration.

I would have to disagree very strongly with the Member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) who said the employers

of policemen and firemen are the equivalent of government. They

are the equivalent of a municipal level of government, but I

think it's quite wrong to imply that they have anything of the

legislative clout which is held by the provincial government. I

think that is really inaccurate. If this government really

believes that the thrust of this whole legislation is to give

fair play and fair consideration and justice to both parties in

a dispute, then if one party should be encouraged to seek

arbitration, surely, Mr. Chairman, it's painfully obvious that

that same opportunity and encouragement should be extended to

the other party, namely the employer. I move adoption of this

amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Phillips

Anderson, D.A.

Richter

McClelland

Williams, L.A.

Jordan

Morrison

Gardom

Smith

Schroeder

Wallace

Fraser

McGeer

Curtis

NAYS — 34

Hall

D'Arcy

Gabelmann

Macdonald

Cummings

Lockstead

Barrett

Lorimer

Gorst

Dailly

Williams, R.A.

Rolston

Strachan

Cocke

Anderson, G.H.

Nimsick

King

Barnes

Calder

Lea

Steves

Nunweiler

Young

Kelly

Brown

Radford

Webster

Sanford

Lauk

Lewis

Stupich

Nicolson

Liden

Skelly

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I ask that when you report to the

Speaker, you tell him that a division took place and that it be

recorded in the Journals .

Section 73 approved.

section 74.

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

in my name on the order paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 74 deals with technological

change. It's a matter of acute concern to the entire

construction industry — labour as well as management. I know

the Hon. Minister wishes to get on, but I wonder if he would,

first, explain the amendment and second, deal with to some

degree the submission of the CLRA brief in particular. I could

go through the arguments that have been put forth by the

industry, but I won't do so. I'll simply wait until we get some

sort of explanation from the Minister before I consider putting

my amendment forward.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to

section 74 is

a drafting one. It's to bring conformity and uniformity between

this particular

section — 74 — and

section 93 (1). There was a

difference in language there as it referred to review by

certiorari or arbitration and technological change. This is to

bring uniformity to those two sections, It's drafting

language.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: While my colleagues check on 93 (1) — where I personally don't see

[ Page 1020 ]

where certiorari applies — nevertheless….

HON. MR. KING:

Section 93 (1) (b).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 93 (1) (b), thanks very much.

May I ask then whether the Minister has had a chance to look

at the brief of the Construction Labour Relations Association

concerning technological change, whether he would like to

comment on the points made in that brief, because otherwise I

would think that perhaps we should exclude the construction

industry from the provisions of this particular section.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, indeed I have looked at the

Construction Labour Relations Association brief. I met with

members of their executive and again with other representatives

of their group.

We have a basic disagreement in terms of the effects of this

technological change. I feel, on the best legal advice I can

obtain, that the apprehensions held by the Construction Labour

Relations Association that technological change would become

involved in the question of jurisdiction are without

foundation.

It clearly applies to a relationship between employees and

employers that is a continuous relationship and whereby

workers' security of employment is threatened by technological

change.

Now, that's not the case in the construction industry where

they hire from hiring halls, and there's no continuity of the

relationship. In that way it seems impossible or most

unrealistic to suggest that the technological change clause

could be applied to an issue which is properly a determination

of who work properly belonged to — a jurisdictional issue.

MR. GARDOM: The Minister was talking about certiorari. I don't see any

reference to certiorari in either of these sections. Would he please indicate

to the House what his reference is in this regard?

HON. MR. KING: I say, Mr. Chairman, I made the point, I

think, that it seeks to prevent an action or a review by

certiorari. The wording is changed for that purpose.

Amendment approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on this question of

technological change, I would wonder whether the Minister would

deal with the hypothetical situation where, through no fault of

the contractor, alterations are made either by the architect

or by client commissioning a building where, say, wood was used

instead of cement on a wall. Under the terms of the Act, I would think this would

be the type of technological change which could be involved.

Even though it's not a substitute in the entire industry of one

system of construction for another, it's a substitute of one

material for another.

It would seem to me, in this particular instance, where

after the construction has begun and, say, on the facing of a

building they switch from one material to the other, the

wording of the Act would imply to me that because the material

has switched, it would be a technological change, or could be

considered a technological change.

I wonder if he would like to indicate whether under those

circumstances the whole collective agreement comes up for

reconsideration. Clearly it will mean substituting one trade

for another if you substitute one product for another — wood

for cement, for example, or vice versa. I wonder whether that

would, under those circumstances, result in the technological

change provision coming into effect. I would trust that it

didn't, but the reading that the lawyers of the Construction

Labour Relations Association have given this bill has indicated

to them that it would.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it should be recognized that in

the first instance this

section of the bill on technological

change provides for the parties to negotiate their own

technological change provisions, so we seek first of al