1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, MARCH 16, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 1389 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

The Public Officials' Disclosure Act (Bill No. 132) Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1389

Committee of supply: Department of Labour estimates.

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1389

Hon. Mr. King — 1390

Mr. Chabot — 1390

Hon. Mr. King — 1390

Mr. Chabot — 1391

Hon. Mr. King — 1392

Mr. Chabot — 1392

Mr. Wallace — 1394

Hon. Mr. King — 1396

Mrs. Webster — 1397

Hon. Mr. King — 1397

Mr. Radford — 1398

Mr. McGeer — 1401

Mr. Gabelmann — 1401

Mr. Gardom — 1403

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1406

Mr. Chabot — 1406

Hon. Mr. King — 1407

Mr. Chabot — 1407

Hon. Mr. King — 1408

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1408

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS'

DISCLOSURE ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 132 intituled The Public

Officials' Disclosure Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 132 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

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

I ask the House to welcome members of my family visiting here

from Kamloops and observing our proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr Speaker, I would like

to ask the House to join me in a similar request and also I

would like to confess to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) that I have asked two of my daughters and two of their

friends to come to the House today, which means they are out of

school. I thought it might be a worthwhile experience. Although

they are not here yet, they will be arriving about 11 o'clock.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish — let's see — I

think one of their names is — (Laughter) Connie, Beverley,

Linda and Colleen. Colleen and Linda are the friends.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. LT. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Mr Speaker, I don't

know whether they are in the House yet, but there is a whole

hockey team along with its coach Bob Jones coming from

Cranbrook, and they will be in the galleries. I don't see them

right now, but I thought I had better tell you when they do

come in. I want you to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I would like the House to welcome to

the galleries the mayor of our fair city of Chilliwack, Mayor Allan Holder.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 124: Minister's office, $72,978.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, I welcome the

opportunity to discuss this matter of the Minister's salary.

There have been quite a few comments made in the House and I

think they can be added to, for the Minister's information and

the information of the House. I certainly can't agree with some

of them that were made with respect to the trade union

movement.

Since moving to Kamloops 16 years ago, I have been a member

of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union. It

is a good union of which I am proud to be a member. I have

taken

part in its activities for approximately 12 years, both

in bargaining and in annual conferences.

I think the House should know that we don't accept any

dictatorship from our international office in Denver. We do

have a director at the Canadian office in Edmonton, who is

elected every two years by the Canadian membership. He is given

full authority under the international constitution to be the

voice of our union on public and union affairs and any matter

of public policy of our union. At present his views on the

transportation of oil down the west coast of Canada are in

opposition to the international president and he isn't going to

move from that position.

We have had a couple of strikes, of course, over the 16

years too, which isn't too bad.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Why did he say "of

course"?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: There are a couple of organizations, Mr.

Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, in this country which have

extremely tight closed shops which restrict their membership

and police them very severely. I'm speaking of the medical

association and the bar association. I would like to see any

lawyer come to this province and try to practise without being

called — as they call it — to the bar.

I don't know what their checkoff system is but I

[ Page

1390 ]

believe they have a system of dues of some kind. I would

like to see them continue to practice if they fall too far

behind in their dues or violate their internal constitution in

some way. I mentioned it one time before in the House but I

would like to refresh the House's memory of one of the longest

and most disastrous strikes in the history of the province of

Saskatchewan that was carried out by that closed shop, the

Saskatchewan Medical Association.

The good of the public wasn't mentioned very often in the

Press, and they had an excellent organization to carry out

their publicity for them. They called it simply a "withdrawal

of essential services." Now, we have some strikes going on

today in school boards and children have to miss school in some

cases. We have had strikes on the Vancouver Transportation

System and people have had to find some alternate form of

transportation. I just wonder: what do you do when you call

your doctor and he says: "Well, is it essential?" You have to

make this decision on whether it is essential or not. Or

perhaps he has simply gone on an extended vacation or he

doesn't answer his phone. There are many, many ways of

withdrawing services.

Mr. Minister, I won't belabour this point too long, but I

would like to find out, while we are discussing your salary, if

there are any plans this year or next year, in your department

or by your committees, to bring these two closed shops under

some kind of control under a labour Act or some type of

regulation under your department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

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

response to the question by the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson), I can state that there are no plans to interfere in

the internal policies and the internal structure of the two

organizations he referred to. I would reiterate my response

last night which I made to one of the Hon. Members that I would

much prefer that individual, private organizations bear the

responsibility, both social and to the members, of regulating

their own affairs in such a manner that it would not invite

regulation from the government. That would be my response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Last night I posed a series of questions to the Minister.

Apparently it will be necessary for me to repeat these

questions to him as I was cut off by the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace).

I'm not going to stand in my place today and defend the international union

movement or the American unions. Although I belonged to an international union

for 25 years, I think that individuals should have the right to belong to

the unions of their choice. I don't know whether the Minister wants to answer

some of the questions that I put to him or if he wants me to restate the questions.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) last night asked the question with

respect to elevator inspections, and was concerned that there

were elevators which had not been inspected for three

years.

This is not the case. There are no elevators in the province

which have not received an inspection within that duration of

time.

What happens, I am informed, in this type of situation is

that many of the inspection cards are either removed from

elevators — in fact when the inspection is completed and an

inspection card is issued, it is issued to the owner, not

affixed to the elevator by the inspector. As a consequence,

many of them are not posted. Others are tampered with perhaps

by the public, and so on. So you don't really receive an

accurate reflection of the up-to-date situation in elevators in

that way.

We have made provision to increase the elevator inspectors

by three as of April 1 of this year. I indicated, I believe

last fall in the House, that when I assumed this office there

was a backlog of some 1,800 elevator inspections, which were

overdue simply because we lacked the number of inspectors to

keep pace with the demand. We have acted as quickly as

possible. In the estimates you will see provision for increased

moneys to secure additional inspectors.

The Member, Mr. Chairman, restated a question on a variation

of certification for people who are not employees of an

employer. He asked whether or not it would be possible for them

to be included. The answer is no, it would not. Certainly, if

there is no employer-employee relationship I would not think

they would be able to be included.

However I would point out, Mr. Chairman, as I would imagine

the Member knows, the determination of people who may be

included in a unit is decided upon by the Labour Relations

Board. Certainly in making their determination of any specific

application, they take into account all the circumstances of

that particular case and they hear representations by any

interested party if it's warranted.

I believe he raised a question on injunctions. My comments

on injunctions, that he referred to in a Press release, were

simply that I thought injunctions are a very poor way of

achieving solutions to strikes. I think they're a device that

is certainly not conducive to establishing a harmonious

industrial relations climate in the province. What is more, I

would suggest to the Hon. Member, Mr. Chairman, that

injunctions should not be held out as the only effective

method

[ Page 1391 ]

that management or indeed unions have in terms of securing

redress from illegal actions that may take place. There are

other statutes on the books which adequately provide protection

in that respect too.

Injunctions, as they apply to labour disputes, became very

popular under the previous administration. I think the fact

that they are not as prevalent today is rather through the

exercise of prerogative in the courts than a policy of the

former government. I reiterate, I strongly feel that they are a

poor weapon to be used in an attempt to develop any harmonious

relation between employers and employees. Certainly that's not

one of the types of methods that I'm looking for in an effort

to try and bring about a greater degree of peace and stability

in the industrial relations world of British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Public input on the whole hearings?

HON. MR. KING: I think I did answer that last night. I did

indicate that we will be announcing the sites for conferences

around the province at a number of other locations — conferences similar to the Harrison conference. I have stated

publicly, and we will be sending out definite publicity on a

method by which interested parties can make representation

through my office or through the special advisors which I have

secured for the purpose of assisting me in the review. So

anyone who is interested will have adequate opportunity for

input and suggestions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: On the question of elevator inspectors, it's

really unfortunate that you had to inherit such a backlog of

inspections when it was deemed that three additional inspectors

in 1972 would be satisfactory to meet the needs of elevator

inspections in the province at that time.

I think really if you suggest that all elevators have been

inspected and are fairly current, it should be contingent upon

the inspector to have some of these outdated cards removed from

the elevators. It was just a couple of months ago, when I was

in the Doric Howe Motor Hotel there was a card in the elevator

there that indicated it hadn't been inspected for over three

years. There is another building whose name escapes me, here in

the City of Victoria, with outdated cards. I think the

inspector, in his inspection, should look at these cards and

have the things removed.

It is NDP policy, I understand, for a minimum of government and court interference

in the question of labour-management relations. I'm not going to raise the matter

this morning, because the matter is presently under negotiation, but I have

conclusive evidence, really, at this stage — and I don't want to interfere with

what's taking place — that you did issue a directive which does take a particular

side in the collective bargaining process. I'll raise it at a later date and

probably through correspondence rather than on the floor of the House. It has

to do with contracts and a first contract.

However, I do want to say that I think in many instances,

even though you don't agree with the court procedure in

settlement of certain disputes, I think some worthwhile

decisions can be brought down by the courts. And the one

instance in particular that I'm thinking of is the one in the

elevator dispute. I think a far better solution was resolved

through the courts than could ever be brought about by the

process of compulsory arbitration, such as is being considered

in the Province of Ontario at this time.

Last night you did ridicule my question that I put to you.

The question was very simple: would the certification of a

non-existent unit be considered an appropriate unit for

collective bargaining? You thought it was very ridiculous that

I would put such a question. So I'll put it in a little

different form to you, about a variation of certification. I

have correspondence here now that indicates that this has taken

place, that the board has certified a non-existent unit of

employees of an employer. My correspondence goes this way:

"Briefly in

summary we were initially advised that the trade

union had applied to the board to be certified for unit of

employees which we believe and still believe does not

exist."

When I brought the matter up last night, you ridiculed me,

having been a former Minister of Labour, to have brought up

such a foolish and asinine question.

HON. MR. KING: They're your words.

MR. CHABOT: Here is the copy of correspondence from an

employer. It goes on:

"At a later date advice was received that the application

for certification was withdrawn by permission of the board, and

instead the trade union requested a variance or consolidation

of existing certificates, incorporating into the bargaining

unit the same non-existent unit of employees for which the

trade union had initially requested certification. Naturally we

registered our objection with the board to the trade union's

oblique approach towards achievement of the same end, namely

certification to represent a group of employees in a

classification which we have claimed does not exist."

I am wondering whether you have any comments on that subject

which I raised last night. Also, without going through the

question of national agreements which I raised last night, I am

wondering whether you want to

[ Page 1392 ]

comment on national agreements and what your attitude is

relative to them.

HON. MR. KING: On the question of elevator inspections

again, the concern of the Department of Labour, of course; is

that the safety of the public be protected. We're more

concerned in knowing and recording that the inspections are in

fact carried out than we are with whether or not the particular

certificate is up to date on the elevator that the Member may

have observed.

However, if he is concerned about any particular elevator, I

would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he refer the matter to the

elevator inspection branch and certainly they'll look into the

matter.

The certification thing that he has raised, Mr. Chairman, is

a matter that I certainly haven't got all the facts on. I would

suggest to the Member that he provide me with the facts and the

circumstances of the case he refers to. I will certainly look

into it. I don't pay particular attention to every

certification adjudication that the Labour Relations Board

makes. As long as I am satisfied that they have acted within

the laws as they are presently constituted, then I have no

reason to interfere with their adjudication of a particular

case.

Variations of certificates is a somewhat different matter

than the original question raised by the Member. If he's

referring to a variation to allow for the inclusion of

additional employees into a certified unit, this is very

common. If he's suggesting, as I understand it, that a group of

employees who weren't presently employed was involved, I could

only assume that that was a case where a union expected a group

of people to be hired and they were applying for the right to

represent those people before the jobs were actually created.

That may be the case; I don't know.

I would suggest to him that he provide me with the details

of that case and I'll certainly do my best to provide him with

the board's reasons for adjudicating it in the manner in which

they did.

As far as national negotiations are concerned, as the Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) indicated, he belongs to a

union himself in which national bargaining has been the

practice for the last 100 years. Certainly I happen to be in

the same situation with respect to my railroad union too. In

this respect we're governed to some extent by federal and

provincial jurisdiction. I certainly have some views on this

matter, views which I will be raising with the federal

Minister of Labour when I attend the federal-provincial

conference with him in May.

However, the main thing is that if a system of bargaining such as the national

pattern is successful and there's a low incidence of strike action, such as

the case in the elevator dispute, then I would reiterate that I would certainly

be reluctant to interfere with a situation which seems to be very successful.

I don't think anyone would want to interfere with that type of structure.

In certain areas of federal jurisdiction there are problems

as they relate to the province, not only with respect to

negotiations but with respect to other aspects of our labour

legislation. These include safety inspections under the

Workmen's Compensation Board and so on. I'm very concerned

about these areas. As I stated earlier, I do intend to raise

these matters at the federal-provincial conference when it

comes up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay. I

would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River if he wouldn't

mind letting some of the other Members ask questions for a

while and come back and ask some more later. I recognize the

Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll be asking on a different

subject matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, continue as long as the question is

relevant.

MR. CHABOT: All my questions are relevant. You know that,

Mr. Chairman.

The Minister has indicated that it is possible to vary a

certification to include a hypothetical classification of

workers — workers that are non-existent. He's indicated that

it's possible. I don't think that it should be possible unless

the workers are in place. I don't think that the certification

should include a classification of workers that are not

employed by that employer. I'll bring the matter further

because it's a technical situation. I'll bring the

correspondence forward to the Minister. I'm very happy to see

that he will give me full reasons.

Incidentally, the board doesn't give reasons for their

decisions, and you know that. I'm glad to see that on the floor

of the House this morning you promised to give a reason for the

decision brought down by the board on this very question of

variation and the inclusion of non-existent employees into a

unit.

It appears that you've misconstrued the question of national

agreement. A national agreement is not necessarily an agreement

belonging to a union in the United States whose members are

working in Canada. A national agreement is one which can be

signed just about anywhere. It can be signed in Washington,

D.C., it can be signed in Montreal or Toronto, it can be signed

in Vancouver, and it can be signed in Victoria as well.

It's an agreement that really, in my opinion, bypasses all

the laws of British Columbia. It's called a national agreement.

In many instances there are "No strike" clauses and so forth.

It becomes a haven for

[ Page 1393 ]

other workers who are locked out or on strike or involved in

other disputes in the province. It also becomes a form of

financial assistance to unions that are in a dispute with a

local British Columbia contractor.

What I'm saying is that it's detrimental to the well-being

of the workers of this province and to the contractors of this

province to have national agreements. This is primarily in the

construction industry. I'm wondering what the Minister's

attitude is relative to national agreements: whether he thinks

they're a good thing; whether they're contributing something

worthwhile to our society, to the people of British Columbia,

to the contractors of British Columbia.

They were necessary many years ago when British Columbia did

not have the type of large and efficient contractors that exist

here today. I'm sure that the contractors that are in British

Columbia right now can handle most construction projects that

are available. I don't really think that there's a need for

these secret national agreements which prey upon the

contractors and the workers of this province, and which

contribute greatly to the labour strife in British Columbia.

I'm wondering what the Minister has to say about that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's any way

that the provincial government can intervene in an agreement

which is mutually acceptable to two parties in Alberta or Nova

Scotia or anywhere else. His approach seems to be somewhat

inconsistent, though. He's concerned on the one hand for the

interests and rights of the working people. Yet he said that if

they have the benefit of a national union organization in a

strike that exists in British Columbia, they may have an

advantage. They may be too strong.

I would draw his attention, Mr. Chairman, to the railway

industry, which I would have thought he would know something

about. When he suggests that there is advantage in that kind of

a national situation, I would draw it to his attention that the

members of a union negotiating under a national arrangement

have to comply not only with the federal statutes, but also

with the provincial ones. They're subjected to five different

pieces of legislation: The Railway Act of Canada, the

Criminal Code and the national Labour Act , as

well as the provincial Acts respecting trade unions — the

Trade Union Act and the Labour Relations Act — and so on.

I would think, in that situation, that it's a distinct disadvantage to the

railway workers particularly, who are one of the largest groups involved in

national bargaining, to be locked in on that kind of process. As to whether

or not I have views on the matter, certainly I do, but I really don't think

they're relevant at this time. I think that we're in a situation that the Member

for Columbia River should certainly be familiar with. He existed under it for

some 20 years with his administration. I'm wondering what he would suggest as

an alternative.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Make it short, please.

MR. CHABOT: Really, you've left the impression here this

morning, Mr. Minister, that the so-called national agreement

signers — call them what you want; that's a misnomer really — you've suggested that they must comply with all the laws of

British Columbia. That's a bunch of nonsense. I think that the

law should be changed so that they must comply with all the

existing laws of British Columbia that protect the workers of

this province and protect the contractors of this province as

well.

It's not difficult either. If you want me to give you

suggestions — if you'll assure me on the floor of this House

this morning that you'll implement those suggestions, which

will be reasonable, Mr. Minister — I'll give you suggestions

tomorrow morning that will eliminate the type of strife that

has been created by national agreement signers in this

province.

HON. MR. KING: Well, it is rather unfortunate that you had

to wait until this late date to solve all those problems. I

would have thought that you would have taken the action that

was needed during your 18 months' tenure in this office.

However, certainly I'm willing to listen to suggestions,

particularly if we arrive at the unique situation where I

receive a responsible one. I'll certainly listen.

I would reiterate again that the national unions are indeed

subject to the Trade Unions Act . I can tell you with a

degree of chagrin that they are subject to those laws in the

province. I at one time manned a picket line during a national

strike on the railways and had that picket line removed by an

injunction that was provided for on the statute books of this

province, placed there by the former administration.

The injunction was granted on a blanket basis for the total

of British Columbia. There had been no acts of violence or any

other nature which would justify an injunction removing the

picket line at Revelstoke, British Columbia.

Yet, an injunction was granted in Vancouver — a blanket

injunction that was flown to interior points and served

simultaneously on all the divisional points in British Columbia — adjudicated in Vancouver without any knowledge whatsoever of

what was going on in Penticton, Revelstoke, Cranbrook, and

Nelson and so on.

So I happen to know something about the effects of

provincial legislation on national unions. I also happen to

know something about the effects of arbitrary injunctions

issued to break strikes that are not illegal, and that are

being conducted in a peaceful way.

[ Page 1394 ]

So I wonder whose advocate the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) has become. It seems that during the course of the

evening he was rejuvenated with gems of information provided by

someone, which he didn't seem to have in the past. We can only

speculate on that.

However, this is the situation. There is an overlap of

legislation between federal and provincial areas. But to arrive

at the suggestions that the Member put forward, I would think

that an amendment to the British North America Act would

be required. That's not easy to come by, so if he has a

suggestion for accomplishing that, I'd certainly be willing to

listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay,

followed by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few points I think

are worth raising, one about which we've had a considerable

amount of correspondence. It is the question of whether or not

persons of religious conviction should be exempt from paying

union dues; or rather putting it more accurately, that they

should have the choice to have their union contributions paid

to a charity or a charitable organization of their choice.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would point out to the Hon. Member,

if he's referring to the so-called conscience clause, that

there is a private Member's bill on the Order paper on this

matter. Therefore I would ask him to refrain from discussing

it.

MR. WALLACE: I have another matter and I'd like, to just ask

your views on this, Mr. Chairman. There's also a bill on the

order paper to do with the Workmen's Compensation Board. I

would hope that it is the feeling of the House, since that

bill deals only with review boards, that we are at liberty in

this debate to cover the affairs of the Workmen's Compensation

Board if we avoid discussing review boards. Is that the correct

understanding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, thank you. The Workmen's Compensation

Board is a very important part of service to society, to the

injured workman or to the workman who becomes disabled because

of disease. I really regret having to offer some of the

criticisms that I propose to offer, but I feel that some of

these matters should be said.

In the first place, there is good reason to believe that the

medical department of the Workmen's Compensation Board should

be abolished. By that, I'm suggesting that an injured workman or a workman who

develops disease as a result of exposure should be treated from

the medical point of view exactly like any other patient. He

should go to his family physician, who in turn refers the

patient to specialists of his choice, exactly in the same

manner that any other illness or affliction is treated.

Compensation as such should be the decision of the Workmen's

Compensation Board. But contrary to the general feeling I think

that the public have, that there is liaison between the medical

profession and the Workmen's Compensation Board — and there is — the fact that the compensation board medical employees of the

staff of the medical department, not infrequently veto the

stated written medical opinion of the ordinary private

practitioner. Oh, you clapped — that's fine. In other words,

you are obviously of the sentiment that an employee of a

government agency must obviously be correct when perhaps five

or six other doctors are wrong. That is the point I'm making,

Mr. Chairman, and if I haven't made the point, I'll try

again.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): We're supporting you.

MR. WALLACE: Oh I'm sorry, I beg your pardon. I thought you

were supporting the fact that one employee of the board

obviously knows more than sometimes five or six other doctors.

I apologize, Mr. Chairman.

I'm glad to hear that you accept the fact that a medical

judgment is based on a great deal of evidence. It's very

frustrating to medical men trying to both protect the patient's

health and his interests by giving a fair opinion of what the

medical condition really is and how it was created. It's very

frustrating to have three or four, sometimes five medical

opinions agreeing about the patient's condition and then to

have a decision and such a consensus vetoed by medical staff of

the Workmen's Compensation Board.

I'll have a great deal more to say in this regard when we

discuss the bill on review boards, because what I'm trying to

put across is the fact that we must have completely objective

medical advice. With the utmost respect to the medical staff of

the board, they are employed by the board and it's the old

story, that not only must justice be done, but it must seem to

be done. The present mechanism causes a great deal of hardship,

I believe, for many injured and diseased and disabled

workmen.

I would hope, in passing, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister

would answer the question on the order paper — I forget the

number, but it's relating to decisions of the board. Before we

come to debate the bill it would be most useful to have the

information in that question.

On the same theme, there is often delay before a

[ Page 1395 ]

workman is treated because the attending physician has to

contact the board to get certain measures of permission to

proceed with treatment. In that regard again, I feel that if a

physician and perhaps one or two specialists have decided that

a man should have a certain operation, I really don't feel that

some other doctor sitting in an office in Vancouver is likely

to be able to know with any degree of certainty or efficiency

that the advice of these three other doctors should or should

not be approved.

It seems to me again, the essential medical justification of

the case should be decided by the local private physicians or

surgeons, as the case may be. I understand, for example, in

Saskatchewan they have a very small medical staff which acts

only in an advisory capacity, and that this has worked very

well.

The other point that I think should be raised, and where I

again think that workmen are not fairly treated, relates to

this delightful escape hatch called pre-existing disease.

What I'm trying to explain, Mr. Chairman, is that if you

X-rayed the spines of all of us sitting on the floor of the

House, almost without exception — except for perhaps the

youngest Members of the House — you could detect what we call

lipping of vertebral bones, which is apparently a part and

parcel of the ageing process of the human being.

Time, and time, and time again, the Workmen's Compensation

Board simply takes refuge in X-ray pictures which show

pre-existing disease. Now we don't want to take up the time of

the House quoting examples, which I certainly could quote. I

have one particularly distressing case which I will mention.

But ask any doctor who deals with the compensation board, "What

is the most frustrating element of indecisions?" This is the

frequent statement, "about pre-existing disease," and in

particular, I'm talking about back problems.

I won't belabour that any more, except to say that I hope

that this kind of problem will go far beyond the question of

review boards — it's the whole realm of functioning of the

board in this regard.

Another problem which concerns us in trying to help the

workman, is the disclosure of information. There is often

difficulty, even when the workman gives his written permission;

that is difficulty in having information disclosed to unions,

and to MLA's.

The other day — I'm dealing with another case — I got the

most apologetic letter from one of the members of the board of

the medical staff on the compensation board, although I had

sent him a written signed document by the patient giving her

full permission to disclose the details of the case. In this

case I was acting as her MLA, not as her physician.

I think a point that is lost sight of in this whole question of compensation

is that when the legislation is introduced or when it was first introduced,

the principle exists that the workman is to be given fair play equivalent to

the kind of justice he would receive were he dealing with the courts. If I'm

wrong on that I'll be happy to be corrected, but it would be my understanding

that in providing legislation and compensation and access to the compensation

that the individual is actually surrendering certain rights which he would otherwise

use to take his case to court.

Therefore — if that is a correct premise — surely in trying

to ensure that he gets fair play and fair compensation the same

rules that apply to the courts of this land should apply to the

compensation board. If you take a case to court — a civil case,

a car accident or some such situation — you can subpoena

witnesses and you can ask any information that is relevant to

the case to be disclosed.

I am coming dangerously close to getting onto the question

of review so I'll leave it at that. But the fact is that in

general terms for some of these reasons the workmen of this

province I do not believe are getting fair play with the

Workmen's Compensation Board.

I would like to say a little bit about rehabilitation. We

don't feel, as practising physicians, that there is a complete

degree of liaison and understanding between the Department of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement and the doctor out in the

community. It is often the arbitrary decision of the board as

to whether or not a person receives rehabilitation.

Here again, cases quite frequently occur where the

rehabilitation staff are at odds on the question of the

diagnosis, and sometimes on treatment also. I think Alberta can

teach us a great deal. They have a high reputation nationally

as emphasizing rehabilitation in a very effective way.

There's also a lack of success in relocating workers after a

disability or disease has been treated. I think again it isn't

just a question of how much money or how much compensation the

patient might receive. It's a question of being able to

function again, if not in the job he was previously in,

certainly in some suitable other type of employment. This does

not carry a good record in this province — the whole record in

relation to rehabilitation.

Finally I would like to raise the case again that I've

mentioned in this House — this is now the third time of asking.

It's like trying to get the Minister's salary — you have to ask

more than once. This is in relation to the subject of exposure

to asbestos. I know that the Minister is well aware of the

problem, but I'm not sure that the severity and the risk

involved here has been fully appreciated in the past.

I won't go through the whole detail of this case, but it's

to try and emphasize the point when I'm talking about justice

for the workmen. I'm repeating what I said twice already in

this House: if that is our sincere purpose in setting up the

compensation board then surely we must accept the same

principle that I

[ Page 1396 ]

mentioned in the courts of the land — that, if there is

reasonable doubt, that reasonable doubt should be cast in

favour of the workman.

In court you can't always completely prove that somebody is

guilty or innocent. Very often with disabled workmen,

particularly in the realm of lung disease, which probably is

caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos, you cannot prove it

100 per cent.

This case of Mr. Jack that I've quoted before is the most

shameful example, in my view, of how the compensation board is

taking a completely rigid, unbending and almost inhuman

attitude to a situation where the evidence is overwhelmingly in

favour of the fact that this man now has 20 per cent of lung

function, as it happens — and I don't want to go into medical

details.

I just want to talk in general terms and say that here we have a man

seriously disabled. The record shows that he was working in close

confined quarters for the federal government — in the dockyard, in

engine rooms, in boiler rooms, and in very confined spaces where the

lack of preventive measures is absolutely shocking in this day and age.

It's all documented here and the Minister knows about it.

The fact is that the federal government even today have not

upgraded, to the degree that they should, the known safety measures

that are required in the presence of asbestos — damping the dust, using

exhaust fans, giving masks to the workmen, and so on.

The point is that this man worked for several years. He left

the navy one week in grade A condition and started in the

dockyard the next week. We have this bugaboo again — that he

had some pre-existing disease in his lungs. But there's not a

shred of evidence, none whatever. Somebody, somewhere along the

line in the compensation board, dropped in this phrase

"pre-existing disease."

Because you can have asbestosis for up to 15 or 20 years

before it shows up on an X-ray, the man can only produce a

great deal of evidence, such as the fact that of the 7 or 8

workmen that he was in closest contact with for several years

two of them have died, with exactly the same symptoms. Their

diagnosis was proved at autopsy: they both had asbestosis in

conjunction with cancer, which is caused by the asbestos

exposure. We have a third man in the team who has now been

proven — and he's still alive — to have asbestosis.

Three out of 8 of them who worked together, and this is the

fourth man — how much more evidence we have to provide before a

man can get justice and compensation I just don't know.

As to the question of this other man, I am not at liberty to mention his name

since I haven't talked to him. But he has been re-located, I understand, in

the dockyard doing a clerical job but being paid tradesman's wages. He's paid

as much as he would have been paid if he had been able to continue his original

occupation.

I think it's important not only for the workmen but for

society as a whole — the whole question of asbestos exposure,

not only in confined quarters or in industry.

I'm sure everybody saw the headline in the paper that it's a

"time bomb ticking away." I think that was a rather

overdramatic description. But this Doctor Selikof from the

Mount Sinai Hospital in New York is a very well-known and

highly-respected international expert on this subject.

I would just like to quote some of the statements that he's

made about asbestos. He said that he feels that exposure to

this will claim a million lives by the year 2000 and that

millions of other persons are exposed to asbestos fibres to an

unknown degree every day of their lives without their

knowledge.

He told the committee that more than 3,000 consumer products

and a host of building materials contain asbestos, which

accumulates in the human lung. He gives some examples — talcum

powder, polished rice, papier mache used in art classes, and so

on. The food and drug administration last year issued

regulations banning the use of asbestos in garments and has

proposed a ban on the use of talc and talcum powder in food

packaging, because of its asbestos content.

I won't read the whole article, but the fact is that here is

an element in our environment the danger of which is well

recognized at close quarters. But now we have to realize, as

we're doing about many elements in our environment, that

greater danger exists than was previously considered.

Just to finish up, what really distresses me is the fact

that a workman can produce a whole body of evidence, and yet he

cannot prove it. In this particular man's case he could only

prove it by having a surgical operation to remove a piece of

his lung and have the lung diagnosed under the microscope. The

man's health is such that the operation would kill him.

So he's probably like the other two unfortunate gentlemen,

in that his diagnosis will be proved on the autopsy table. Then

everybody'll say, "Oh, what a pity. Really he should have had

help while he was still alive." That's really what I'm

asking.

[Ms. Young in the chair]

HON. MR. KING: Madam Chairman, the points which the Member

for Oak Bay makes are certainly well taken. Having dealt with

workmen's compensation cases for quite a number of years

myself, I'm intimately familiar with the problems he

outlines.

I would make the observation that many of the cases that come before the board

are really impossible

[ Page

1397 ]

to make a completely accurate medical determination on. I

can only agree with the Member for Oak Bay that in those

instances certainly I feel that the benefit of the doubt should

by all means go to the workman. I'm certainly receptive to any

changes in the Workmen's Compensation Act which would make this

more implicit.

It is my intention to include the Workmen's Compensation Act

in the hearings that I will be conducting in the coming months.

Certainly I want to take a look at the whole situation.

I am interested in the Member's recommendation, Madam

Chairman, that perhaps there's a case for the total abolition

of the medical staff of the board. It's something that hadn't

quite occurred to me in that sense. But I would point out

further that there is an avenue where decisions of the medical

staff of the Workmen's Compensation Board can be challenged and

appealed now, through

section 55, medical appeal.

The composition of the appeal tribunal is a recommendation

of a medical person by the union, one by management and an

independent chairman. So there is that appeal process available

to the workman, once a case for a bona fide medical dispute is

established in the adjudication of the case. So they do have

that avenue; the medical staff of the board do not have the

absolute final authority.

I cannot but agree, though, that it seems that there have

been inflexible decisions made. Certainly I'm sympathetic to

many of the comments that the Member has made. I would look

forward to and indeed invite the Member to by all means make

submissions to me over the coming months on some of the changes

that he thinks might be brought about to grant a better degree

of justice to injured claimants under the Workmen's

Compensation Act .

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you, Madam

Chairman. I am very glad that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) brought up the problem of medical treatment under

workmen's compensation, I get a great number of cases in

relation to this and very often I am not convinced that the

decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board is exactly what I

had hoped for.

In this relation I would like to say that these are people who have been on

compensation for quite some time. They are probably older workmen who, as a

result of their injury or illness, have had either emotional or mental problems

that result in back pains or leg pains or something of that kind. Their own

doctor will verify that they require the needed medication; but when the Workmen's

Compensation Board is phoned, they say that it has no relation to the injury.

I contend, Madam Chairman, that it does have relation to the injury; that mental,

emotional and physical ailments are so closely connected that I'm sure that

most doctors would find it difficult to be able to separate them.

Secondly, I would like to mention something concerning

bargaining rights for the public service. I hope that

consideration has been given by the Labour department to expand

bargaining rights for people in the public service so that they

will feel compatible with others, and that promotions will not

necessarily have to be on a political level but can be in

relation to tenure.

I would also like to ask the Minister if anything is being

considered in relation to apprenticeship and demand for joining

a union of people who are working in service stations. By this

I mean the mechanics and the other employees. Complaints come,

not only from the public but also from the automotive

retailers, that a lot of the young people who are employed as

mechanics come in without any training at all. Not only is it

bad for the name of the station where they're employed, but it

also is bad for your car and mine.

I don't know whether this has anything to do with labour,

Madam Chairman, but I should like to ask: has the BCTF been

restored to full membership or are teachers still allowed to

opt out of the BCTF?

I believe that our trade union movement and the various

authorities in relation to the British Columbia Teachers'

Federation are the ones that have raised the level of the

working class and given them better working conditions

throughout the years. Breaking down trade unions or breaking

down organizations like the BCTF is bad for labour in general

and for the standard of living of all people.

As the trade union movement and the BCTF, organizations like

that, raise living standards and raise wage levels, other

people get the same. We would never have had these wage levels

if it hadn't been through the work of the trade union movement

over the years.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Hon. Member. A point of order. That

would come under the Public Schools Act , the relationship of

the BCTF.

MRS. WEBSTER: I wonder if the Minister could comment on some

of the other things.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Madam Chairman, I presume when the Second Member for

Vancouver South was referring to bargaining rights for public employees that

she was referring to civil servants, government employees.

[ Page

1398 ]

MRS. WEBSTER: That's right.

HON. MR. KING: Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, that

jurisdiction comes within the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr.

Hall) department. So I can hardly comment on that at this

point.

The points which she makes on the Workmen's Compensation

Board are well taken. As I indicated earlier, the whole

Workmen's Compensation Act will indeed come under

review. Certainly we're taking a close look at the entire

operation.

While I'm on my feet I might respond to the comments again

for the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on the asbestosis

problem that he outlined. I think it's related to some of the

comments the Second Member for Vancouver South made too.

The problem of asbestosis is grim in terms of its effect on

the adjudication of the claim by the workman. But I think

perhaps what is more significant is the need that it

demonstrates for much more knowledge in the industrial hygiene

area and much stricter preventive measures to protect workers

against silicosis, asbestosis and these types of diseases,

respiratory problems and so on.

It does seem to me that there must be much more

collaboration between my department and the Workmen's

Compensation Board and my colleague here in the Health

department (Hon. Mr. Cocke), to establish a greater degree of

expertise, a greater degree of knowledge in finding the areas

where there is a real problem and establishing preventive

measures to protect the workers and also developing strict

enforcement of such provisions.

We're certainly working on this and I anticipate that there

will be action taken very shortly between our departments to

this end.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): I want to make a few

remarks on the speech of the First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) yesterday. It was quite apparent that he was

not aware of the labour legislation in B.C. where workers in

this province do have a choice in the seventh or eighth month

of each year to decertify or change unions. It is quite

apparent that he is against international unions. I shudder

when I think what would happen on this question if he were in

the Government here today. I think, Madam Chairman, that there

is a place in the trade union movement for international unions

and national unions.

In the face of the development of international conglomerates, the need for

broad international trade unionism is today far greater than at any other time

in our history. If the interest of the workers throughout the world are to be

protected, this principle of international trade unions will have to be much

further extended. The word conglomerate has come into everyday use to describe

the rapidly growing practices of the octopus-like corporations with tentacles

extending into the most remote parts of the world.

Decisions vitally affecting workers and their families now

are often made in boardrooms thousands of miles away, by

financiers who have never seen the plant where these people

work and who, at any event, may be regarded as a relatively

insignificant part of the conglomerate's operations.

There was much criticism of international unions in Canada,

but the critics conveniently ignore the fact that the

corporations for whom the trade union members work are becoming

more and more international. The truth is that today a great

many workers in both our countries don't really have any idea

of exactly whom they are working for. Certainly they get their

pay cheques from some specific company, but the ownership and

the effective control of that company is often lost in the maze

of corporate structures.

About 70 per cent of the trade union members in Canada hold

membership in international unions. In a number of industries

this is just plain common sense. As far as the Canadian members

are concerned, it provides far greater union strength than

otherwise would be within their reach.

In our country we are now experiencing frequent attacks on

the principle of international trade unions. Employer groups

and others sympathetic to them, including such people as

newspaper editorial writers, are proving very free with their

advice to Canadian workers, suggesting they should have their

own purely Canadian unions instead of having alliances with

their brothers and sisters on the other side of the border.

It would be foolish to minimize the recent rash of

breakaways from continental unions. I say "continental" unions

because, really, international unions — we are not using them

in that term when we talk about the U.S. unions — these are

bi-national unions.

However, it should be noted that they are by no means the

only ones affected. There have been several cessations from

national unions in recent years, but nothing in modern labour

history even approaches, in size, the importance of the massive

breakaways this year in Quebec of some 60,000 workers from the

Confederation of National Trade Unions to form a new labour

body. Both of them are Quebec-based organizations without even

the slightest hint of internationalism.

As long as unions continue to do the job for their

collective membership, they should be maintained in whatever

form is desirable to do that job. Should they fail to live up

to their mandates, then adjustments or changes should certainly

be made from within their own structure. History is replete

with such occurrences as the movement continually re-

[ Page

1399 ]

generates itself.

The one recurring theme throughout the entire history of the

organized labour movement is that it belongs to the membership

and is entirely a creature of their desire and as such, it can

only change direction and shape at the membership's command.

There has never been any deviation from this principle.

Self-appointed saviours — such as the first Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), if we can call him a saviour

of the union movement — have appeared from time to time

throughout our history, and will no doubt continue to do

so.

The messages these people, or groups of people, bring to us

are often couched in persuasive terms, but more than often hide

the true nature of their intent — the problems that tiny men

with the small axes to grind seem to have.

The current crop of some politicians and some ex-politicians

is certainly no different, although they appear to be burning

with a convenient nationalistic zeal. The men and women of the

organized labour movement in B.C. and Canada will judge for

themselves if what they are saying is in concert with their

desires.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, yesterday, did

not mention the central labour body in Canada; did not mention

that there are over 1,800,000 workers who belong to a Canadian

labour organization which is central to that of Canada. A body

that has a convention once every two years and passes policy by

Canadians and for Canadians.

It is often said that there is control in this organization

by the AFL-CIO. There is absolutely no control over the central

body by the AFL-CIO. To illustrate this fact, take a look at

some of the differences that have occurred in the past. The

most recent one is the Burke-Hartke bill which is a

protectionist bill and the Canadian labour movement has been

violently opposed to this bill which is supported by the

AFL-CIO.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. RADFORD: I certainly don't. The only true relationship

between the Canadian labour movement and the AFL-CIO is purely

fraternal. Relationships between the CLC and its American

counterpart, the AFL-CIO, however, are friendly at times, as

they are with all of the other labour movements in the free

countries of the world. As I said, while they agree on many of

the fundamental issues, there are some such as the Burke-Hartke

bill.

In international affairs, the Canadian labour movement advocated the diplomatic

recognition of Red China and her re-admission to the United Nations long before

this became fashionable in other Canadian and U.S. circles. Similarly, in relationship

with the Cuba situation, it has taken a position diametrically opposed to that

of the AFL-CIO.

The CLC is also an enthusiastic supporter of the

international labour organization while the AFL-CIO have been

decidedly cool toward this agency of the United Nations. The

CLC for years has been one of the most vocal opponents of the

U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war.

In the matter of affiliations, the United Auto Workers, who

left the AFL-CIO some years ago on ideological grounds, have

remained an active affiliate of the Canadian labour

movement.

Finally, on the issues of political action the Canadian

labour movement, strongly supported by its national and some

continental unions, endorsed social democracy. This is not

entirely true of the AFL-CIO.

Yesterday, a statement was made that thousands and millions

of dollars go across the line. The statement was made that

these figures are available in Statistics Canada. This could be

true that they are available in Statistics Canada, but the

ex-leader of the provincial Liberal Party should know that the

Corporations and Labour Unions Return Acts are a federal

department. Any such examination of international unions would,

of course, be incomplete without also looking at the

Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act , called

CALURA — the federal Department of Trade and Commerce report

which attempts to portray in statistical form the structure and

financial picture of labour unions operating in Canada.

Earlier this year, an item in a Canadian newspaper based on

the 1969 report of the Corporations and Labour Unions Return

Act , was headed: "U.S. unions spend $31 million, got $41

million in Canadian dues." The item was typical of the

treatment usually given to CALURA and findings by most of the

media. The method of reporting information on labour unions

used by the federal Department of Trade and Commerce, is

responsible for much of this misleading information.

The incomplete and imprecise nature of the financial data

concerning Canadian operations of international unions and

national unions virtually invite unfair comparisons and provoke

wild headlines.

When describing the contents of the Corporation and

Labour Unions Returns Act reports, the media invariably and

unscrupulously avoid any mention of the following disclaimer,

which is carried prominently in each edition of the report, and

I quote:

"It should be emphasized that the data presented in the

tables do not provide complete information on labour unions' financial affairs

in Canada. For instance, compliance with the reporting provisions of the legislation

request that financial statements filed by international unions disclose only

those selective expenditures incurred on behalf of their membership in Canada,

namely (

a) salaries, wages and remunerations of officers

[ Page 1400 ]

and employees resident in Canada; (

b) strike

payments to members of locals in Canada; and (

c) pensions and welfare

payments to beneficiaries in Canada, thus ignoring the cost to

internationals of any additional services rendered to their Canadian

membership.

"Furthermore, the reporting provisions of the statute apply

to parent labour organizations only. The financial statements

required by the legislation reflect only financial transactions

within the authority of the parent labour organizations."

John Crispo, the dean of the Faculty of Management Studies

of the University of Toronto, recently stated that the CALURA

reports as they are now prepared, "play into the hands of the

nuts…"

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. RADFORD: I think he is.

"They play into the hands of the nuts — rabid

ultra-nationalists who claim that the international unions are

making a profit in Canada.

"The distortion stems from the limitations of the Canadian

expenditures of international unions through the previously

mentioned strike benefits, salaries, pensions and other welfare

expenses."

Crispo was concerned that some voices opposed to

international unions are vested interests and cited the

Committee for an Independent Canada as nationalistic and a

bandwagon for their own benefits.

Studies have been done, Madam Chairman. Two years ago

studies were done by the central labour body in Canada which

proved that more autonomy was needed by many of the Canadian

workers within international unions in Canada. It was felt that

many of the constitutions of the international unions required

changes and that many international unions were still in love

with their constitutions.

As I say, Madam Chairman, there is a need for international

unions and there is also a need for national unions within

Canada. The speaker yesterday, the Hon. First Member for Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer), forgot to mention that two of our largest

unions in Canada, CUPE — the second largest union in Canada — and PSAC, make up a great number within the Canadian labour

movement.

I'd like to quote again, Madam Chairman, from John Crispo's

book on international unions. He states this:

"The future of international unions in Canada probably

depends more than anything else on their willingness to adjust

themselves to the Canadian fact.

"Whether or not nationalism becomes a potent force, the

challenge of accommodating international unions to the special

needs of the Canadian membership will remain.

"The Canadian-American trade union relationship may

eventually set the pattern for a worldwide development. Unions

can no longer think in terms of narrow national boundaries if

they are to protect the interests of their members. It seems

possible that as international corporate empires spread

throughout the world, multi-national unions will follow.

"The Canadian-American experience is unlikely to be taken as

a precedent, however, unless the international link between

Canada and the United States proves successful."

I say, Madam Chairman, for the future of the working people

of both countries and perhaps the world, let's hope that this

will be the case. I'm not yet finished, Hon. Member. It's

always nice to have two punch lines.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Let's have

the first one. (Laughter).

MR. RADFORD: Before I close, Madam Chairman, I'd like to

pose two questions to the Minister of Labour. The first

question is — and I've asked this before: is the Minister going

to consider, or has he already looked into, the question of

excessive overtime being worked by some of the corporations

within the Province and some of the union members within the

province? As I pointed out in a previous speech, there are many

members within a unit working overtime while some of the other

members are being laid off.

Another case came to me the other day, where in Kamloops

three workers at a pulp mill are going through an arbitration

case right now because they refused to work more overtime. They

were laid off because of this. Apparently in the past three

months these three workers have worked hundreds of hours of

overtime. They were just fed up with working so much overtime.

Because of this they were laid off and there's an arbitration

case right now in fact.

I related before the case in Prince George, where 21

maintenance men within one department worked a total of 7,400

overtime hours last year. I think, Mr. Minister, that we should

be looking into this. We should cut out the blanket permits

that have been issued in the past for working overtime.

Another question I'd like to ask the Minister is whether he

is considering changing the so-called open season of the

seventh and eighth month to any other date. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: So you're willing to relinquish your place in

the speaking order, I gather. The Hon.

[ Page

1401 ]

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Ms. Chairperson, just a brief word or two on the

remarks on the Member for Vancouver South. I know that you

yourself are keenly interested in this matter of Canadian

versus American unions.

The point that I wanted to make last night, and which I

repeat again today, is that I am not against these American

unions, as the Member suggests. I am really in favour of

Canadian unions, if that is the wish of the Canadian worker. I

invited letters from Canadian workers who were members of the

these American unions and said I would apologize to the

Minister of Labour and to the Member if I'm wrong in my

judgment that Canadian workers really wish to belong to these

American unions.

Ms. Chairperson, the people who are being harmed by these

restrictive agreements which the American unions are imposing…

MR. RADFORD: A point of order.

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

MR. RADFORD: He stated that I said "American unions." I

never mentioned the word "American." I said "bi-national"

or "international".

MR. McGEER: Ms. Chairperson, I quite accept that.

"International unions" — that's his term. "American

unions" is mine.

Ms. Chairperson, the companies and the workers for the

companies that have been hurt by these restrictive agreements

imposed by these American unions are not great international

conglomerates. The Victoria Paving Company? Century Steel?

Butler Bros.? Western Reinforcing? These are local British

Columbia corporations.

The three arrangements that have been harmful to the

Canadian union worker are the subcontractors clause, which

prevents a contractor from awarding a subcontract for work

within the union's jurisdiction to any subcontractor, unless he

has an agreement with the union. In other words, all of these

small companies that I talked about yesterday are companies

that have been either harmed or destroyed by the American

unions. That's what's wrong with the subcontractors clause.

It's not these big international corporations that are

suffering, but the growing Canadian corporations and the

Canadian unions that have agreements with them.

The second is the non-affiliation clause, which allows

a member of a union having such a clause in its collective

agreement to lay down tools whenever such a subcontractor

appears on the job.

The third one is the hot-cargo clause, which makes it possible for the union

having such a clause in its collective agreement to refuse to handle, receive,

ship or transport materials from any jurisdiction which they themselves name

as being an unfair producer.

The consequence of these three clauses, which have not been

specifically outlawed under labour relations in this province,

is that American unions can use and have used intimidation and

threats to destroy Canadian unions. This is all that we're

asking the Minister to cure; not to outlaw international unions — that would be wrong and unfair — but to outlaw those

restrictive clauses that are preventing Canadian unions from

getting started and are preventing the Canadian worker from

having his destiny within his own country.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour.

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

Chairman. I don't want to say very much during these estimates,

but just a couple of points, particularly in reference to some

comments made last evening, in one instance by the former

Minister — in his case the "Minister of Management,

" in my view.

He suggested that there was no problem with workers in

British Columbia having the right to organize in this province.

I'm a little surprised that the former Minister could make that

kind of statement. He knows as well as I do and as well as the

rest of the Members of this House know, that the percentage of

organized workers in British Columbia has gone down over the

last 10 to 12 years since 1958.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twisting words again. Twisting words.

Twister.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, one of the problems when

workers are trying to organize in the first instance is that in

many cases they are excluded from being able to organize,

because the definition of "employee" in the Labour Relations

Act is quite restrictive. Many categories of people are not

eligible to be organized because of the specific definition of

the word "employee."

However, if they are able to qualify to organize, they then have to deal in

many instances with employers who are determined that they not be organized.

In this case the employer has all the marbles again because, in the sections

dealing with the rights of employees and the rights of employers, the fair labour

practices section, the onus of proof that there has been wrongdoing has always

lain with the worker and not with the employer. When we change our labour legislation

I'm hopeful that we will change this onus

section so that employees will not

[ Page

1402 ]

I have to prove they were innocent in their activities and will not have to

prove that the company was guilty.

Let's say a group of workers have been able to get through

all the difficulties that are contained in the legislation and

finally do gain certification, even though many of the workers

in that particular plant or location may feel intimidated and

may not have wanted to sign the cards because of fear of being

fired — and in many cases being fired for some other

reason, according to the company. Let's say they are able to

get through this process.

They then sit down to negotiate their first collective

agreement. In instance after instance in this province over the

past few years companies have effectively refused to negotiate,

and I can cite name after name — Sandringham in Victoria

is one; Dominion Motors in Vancouver is another; Nu-Life

Nutrition, A.B. Dick, and the list is endless. It goes on and

on. They have refused effectively to bargain.

So what do the employees do? Finally at one stage they say,

"Our only recourse is to go out on strike." So they have their

legal strike.

What do the companies do then? They hire "scabs."

They hire strikebreakers. As we know in Sandringham and in a

number of other cases, the union is powerless to deal with that

kind of situation unless the rest of the population in the area

is prepared to boycott the premises, to not deliver goods and

services and to not purchase material from that outfit. But as

we all know, that's illegal in this province — another

law that we're going to have to deal with if working people are

going to be given the chance to organize effectively in this

province.

There's a lot more to say about that point. But I just

wanted to point out to the former Minister that I think his

comments about there being the right to organize now really

aren't quite accurate.

I was more concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the comments made

by the former leader — and possibly the future leader

— of the Liberal Party; the terribly demagogic speech

that he made last night; totally irresponsible in my view, Mr.

Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: As always.

MR. GABELMANN: …a speech that leads to a headline in this

morning's Vancouver Province that says, "Canadian Unions

Strangled — McGeer."

AN HON. MEMBER: Irresponsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. GABELMANN: The PSAC, CUPE, the government employees, the B.C. Telephone

workers, the Fruit and Vegetable Workers in the Okanagan, none of those unions

is being strangled; yet they're being maligned by this Member who seeks nothing more than

headlines, whether he's in a public accounts committee meeting

or in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! Order.

MR. GABELMANN: The Press are doing their job. They hear

irresponsible comment…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine

his remarks to the estimates, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I think we need some rational

discussion, if that's possible in this House, on the whole

question of where we're going with unions in terms of what kind

of structures they have.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't get it from Pat McGeer.

MR. GABELMANN: I think of course that it is essential that

the workers themselves make those decisions about what kind of

structures they want. If their particular union has bylaws that

prohibit the kind of structures that they want, they have the

recourse within their particular union to sort that problem

out, as have many unions in this country — the

Steelworkers and the Autoworkers are prime examples of unions

that have gained the autonomy that they require in this

country. The IWA is another classic example.

I don't think that government or elected Members should be

telling workers what to do, though perhaps we should be

involved in a philosophical discussion of the directions that

might be desirable for working people in this world. In my

view, Mr. Chairman, what is essential in this world is that we

really do have international unions. That is an important

function for affluent North America to play in reducing the

poverty-stricken areas in this world.

It seems to me that when a company can put its plants into

27 and 30 different countries in this world, that one union

should be following that company around the world, organizing

that plant, so that the strength of the North American workers

can help to raise the living standards of those people in

Brazil, Italy and other parts of the world.

If we want, as Canadians and North Americans, to improve the

standard of living in the world, the most effective weapon at

our disposal is trade union organization on a worldwide basis.

Our contributions to the United Nations are important, but they

are not going to be nearly as effective as a process of

expanding unions.

This is happening now in the world, Mr. Chairman. There's an

organization called the International

[ Page 1403 ]

Chemical Federation, which is an international trade union,

headquarters in Geneva. Its secretary-general is a former

Canadian. That union has as part of its membership oil and

chemical unions around the world. They're organizing in Italy,

Brazil, Japan and in many other countries in the world. They

are doing more to raise the living standard of working people

around the world than any United Nations agency that I know of.

If we can encourage that kind of direction, Mr. Chairman, we'll

be doing our

part in that worldwide problem of poverty.

The kinds of comments made by the expert on labour from

Point Grey, from the University of British Columbia (Mr.

McGeer), who in my view doesn't know a thing about labour,

serve only a narrow, insular nationalism that will do the

people of British Columbia no good and will do the people of

the world no good.

As a matter of fact, I have some serious doubts about the

trend that's happening in this country towards nationalism.

Yes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't sign the Watkins manifesto.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Member confine his

remarks to the estimates.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm concerned that the…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, really! Let's be fair, Mr. Chairman. Be

fair to this side of the House. You're bought and sold by the

Opposition.

MR. GABELMANN: That's O.K., Mr. Chairman. I'll leave the

whole question of nationalism. We'll get another chance in this

House to debate that question.

I want to say just another word and then I'll close, because

I have a hunch that some of the Liberal Members would like to

be out of here by May 1. I think I'll just cut it a bit

shorter.

That is the question of why workers are striking out, why

workers are reacting against their unions in this province and

in this country. Workers in Quebec in many instances are

striking out against Canadian unions, asking for Quebec unions.

I have heard instances of workers in this province who have

said, "Look, I want to get out of my union. I want a Canadian

union." I ask them what union they're in. They are in the

Canadian Union of Public Employees.

We're dealing not with a question of nationalism, Mr.

Chairman, but with a question of frustration, a question of

alienation, a question of people not being able to deal

effectively with society, not being able to deal effectively

with their employer, hating their job situation, wishing they

could get out of it, not being able to strike out against the

company because the company in most instances is

foreign-owned, or is remote, or is not in daily contact

with the worker.

The only way he has to strike out is to go to his union

meeting and to raise heck at that point. That's fair enough.

That's the strength of the labour movement; it's democratic and

the workers can do that. But in many instances, they're not

really striking out against the union; they're striking out

against the alienation and the frustration that they feel in

their jobs.

We should understand that, and we should try as legislators

to try and create situations in this province where workers

don't have to live with the kind of drudgery they have, knowing

that when they leave school at 18 or 20, they're faced with 40

or 45 years of working at a job that has no material or

spiritual benefits to them, knowing that they're living not for

living, but living just for working. That's what is creating a

lot of the problems we are facing in this province.

I want to make one final comment, Mr. Chairman, and I think

it really can sum up why the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey's (Mr. McGeer) comments should be disregarded.

He was talking about a three-way pact. I just want to

inform the Member for Point Grey, Mr. Chairman, that the

three-way pact is not as he defined it, but rather is the

Operating Engineers, the Teamsters and the tunnel and rock

local of the Labourers' International Union. It was a group

formed not to strangle Canadian unions, but was a group formed

to involve itself in raiding and stopping raiding against

another international union. That's what the three-way

pact was.

I think that the Member for Point Grey should at least, if

he's going to speak on labour matters, try and get some of his

information correct first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. First of all I would like very much if the Hon.

Members would join me in welcoming, to our gallery a group of

students. I

[ Page 1404 ]

understand there are two schools here now, one Magee high

school and the other Queen Elizabeth. If I happened to get the

wrong school, I'm very sorry about that.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to return from the philosophy of the

labour movement and get down to a little bit about the bread

and butter side of benefits and workmen's compensation, which

was being discussed a little bit earlier this morning. I'm

going to be short in my remarks and if I have the ear of the

Minister, I'm going to refer to three specific instances and

suggest to the Hon. Minister that perhaps these are areas

whereby his staff could indeed spend some time studying and see

if we can come up with some kind of an effective remedy to what

are rather serious defects in the Workmen's Compensation

Act .

This is the first situation. We have an individual who is a

logging truck driver in the Cranbrook area in 1950. At that

time he sustained a serious injury. His pay rate at that time

in 1950 was $1.10 per hour. Since 1950 he has been receiving a

pension from the board. He says in his letter to me:

"The medical services provided by the board have been most

satisfactory. However within the past five years it has been

necessary for me to undergo a series of operations all relating

to my original injury. This has resulted in a total of at least

six months when I was completely unable to work,"

and this is the rub,

"But the rate of time-lost payments that I receive is

based on my wages at the time of the injury."

He makes this point, and indeed a very valid point,

"Since my injury occurred 22 years ago, you can easily see

how unrealistic this ruling is."

I gather, Mr. Chairman, that the rate of pay in a similar

job up in the east Kootenay district today would be about $4.95

an hour. Now it is true of course that due to the consumer

price index the individual has received annual increases since

1966. But still, in relating his payments that he received

today to the amount of money that he earned at the time of his

injury in 1950, it is in rough calculation about 500 per cent

lower than he would be receiving today in wage. I would suggest

about the same type of lowness exists in so far as pension

received.

I do hope that the Minister would look into this particular area. Not only

that, I would like to have a statement from him today that he considers that

the philosophy that has been enunciated by this individual in this particular

fact situation is correct, and that we can relate the time-lost payments to

a figure or to a standard that is far more current. Merely going on the rate

of pay at the time of the injury when you get a situation such as this, is really

and truly, in fact, a most unfair standard.

The second point that I would like to refer to is one that

was mentioned a little bit earlier in this session by one of

the more senior and quieter and more pleasant members of the

socialistic cabinet.

He drew to the attention of the House a very valid

situation, and that deals with a person who would be fatally

injured in an industrial accident. He made the point to this

Legislature that the Workmen's Compensation Board is

responsible for his dependents by a pension for his widow for

life, or until she remarries, and an allowance for each child

until a certain age.

But the responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to the family is in

lieu of depriving them of their breadwinner. It's a recognition

that the family is a unit. The board well accepts the

responsibility for this individual and his family by a pension

all based on his past earnings, and I've criticized the

past-earning situation already.

But this pension, Mr. Chairman, is paid in lieu of depriving

him of the ability to provide for himself and his family. But

the responsibility to his family, too his dependents, will only

continue after his death if his death results from the injury

or disease. But if the death results from any other cause, then

the responsibility to the family ceases.

I'd like to ask the Hon. Minister whether the liability to

this family should continue to the same extent it would have

had the breadwinner died from the cause of the accident. The

point that was made by the Minister was this: the compensation

was given for the loss of his ability to provide for himself

and his family, and whether death occurred at the time of total

disability or later should have no different bearing on the

needs of the family than if he had died at the time of the

injury. I think that this is a very, very valid suggestion.

I don't think that if a person does die from some other

ailment that the board should be relieved of its responsibility

to this family unit. In so far as his ability as a breadwinner

goes, it has been substituted by the board at the time he

became totally disabled. The fact of a later death is really

and truly only incidental.

I'd ask the Hon. Minister that where there is a total

disability and death does result at a later date for any cause,

should not the Act apply in so far as dependents are

concerned.

I'm not going to keep it a secret from the House any longer because I can see

him sitting there smiling and blushing and being delighted that someone from

the Opposition is raising his cause. This suggestion was made by the affable

Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), but he doesn't seem to have made a dent

in his colleagues in cabinet. I wonder why. You know, he's quite a nice chap,

apart from the fact that he's completely sending the mining industry into ruin.

(Laughter). But apart from that, he's quite pleasant.

[ Page

1405 ]

He doesn't beat his wife, she says. So I'd like very much to

hear from the Hon. Minister on that point.

The third and last point. I would very much recommend to the

Minister that he bring in an amendment this year to the

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act or the Workmen's

Compensation Act , whatever would be the appropriate

amendment, to provide an election…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member

that he cannot propose legislation.

MR. GARDOM: Under any circumstances, I'm just suggesting

that the Minister might propose it. I'm just trying to throw a

little bread on the water, Mr. Chairman.

But I do hope that the Hon. Minister would give

consideration to something which will cure this fact situation.

We have an individual and he was working in a store late at

night and it was burglarized — he was shot in the stomach

and very seriously injured. He went to the hospital where he

remained for several months. He had more than one operation and

he had serious post-operative difficulties. He contacted

pneumonia, and still today is far from recovered.

Now by virtue of the fact that he was an employee in a

store, the exemption provisions in the Criminal Injuries

Compensation Act , Mr. Chairman, apply because he was

covered under workmen's compensation.

Now, the point that I'm making is this: there is no

provision for him to receive loss of wages. He receives the

full amount of award that he's entitled to under the provision

of the Workmen's Compensation Act . But he's not entitled

to receive from them the loss of wages that he incurred —

he was the manager of this store. He's not entitled to receive

compensation for his loss of clothing. All of his clothing was

destroyed as a result of blood stains and being ripped apart

when he went to the hospital and was receiving emergency

treatment. Among other things, he also lost such items as his

shoes, his wallet and so on.

Now, under the provisions of the Criminal Injuries

Compensation Act , Mr. Chairman, this individual, had he

been a customer in the store, would have been entitled to make

a claim under the Act, and he would have been entitled to seek

a lump sum award. Under the provisions of the Act —

section 13 specifically — which I draw to the Minister's

attention, there's an arrangement whereby a claimant can

receive a lump sum payment to the extent of $15,000 and, in the

case of periodic payments, the income from a capital sum of

$50,000.

In this particular case of which I'm speaking, the

individual would have far preferred and would have been far

better off and been better compensated by society — and

this is social legislation. It was proposed by our side of the

House, and also by the Government when they were official Opposition. It's social

legislation.

I do feel that the individual should be able to have the

election whether or not he will proceed under the Criminal

Injuries Compensation Act or under the Workmen's

Compensation Act . That is totally denied to this individual

today. He has written letters to the cabinet concerning the

point, and I gather he's unfortunately not received replies. I

don't believe one went to the Hon. Minister — one

did not.

But I would draw this to your attention. I would ask you

very seriously to consider the question that I've raised. And I

would commend you to give serious thought to introducing

remedial legislation this session. And I'd much appreciate

hearing the Hon. Minister's remarks on these three points.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the last point

that the Second Member for Point Grey made, I'll certainly be

prepared to discuss this situation with the Attorney General.

Perhaps there is a good suggestion contained there for some

more flexibility between those two pieces of legislation. I'll

certainly investigate that possibility.

I'm not familiar with the case you referred to, but if the

Member would like to provide me with a copy of the

correspondence on it, I would certainly be willing to look into

it.

With respect to the suggestion that was made by my

colleague, the Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), and

which has subsequently been endorsed by the Second Member for

Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), that is a matter which is basically a

philosophical one. And I think there's a good case to be made

for the proposition that the liability of the board continues

regardless of the reason for death. The earning power of the

worker was obviously destroyed at the outset, and would not

have been restored whether or not he lived. And it's an

interesting point. It's certainly one that I would expect to

hear a great deal more about during the period of time when we

are considering amendments and changes to the existing Act.

Pensions under the WCB, of course, are related to the wage

structure that existed at the time that the injury occurred.

This is a pretty difficult proposition, because were we to try

and relate those pensions on a retroactive basis to current

wage scales, I think we'd be in a position of seriously

impairing the workmen's compensation fund. However, there may

well be some more effective mechanism developed than the cost

of living index as a means of keeping the relationship of

workmen's compensation pensions closer to the cost of living as

it exists today and the wage scales that exist today. Again,

I'm quite prepared to listen to presentations on that type of

situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister

[ Page 1406 ]

of Mines.

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

and fellow Members, in case anybody gets the idea that I'm not still interested

in the Workmen's Compensation Act , I thought that I had better say a few words.

To what the Hon. Minister said, I think that I have probably put a "dent" in

the cabinet in regards to some of these things.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm sure he'll be happy there.

(Laughter).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I want to say congratulations to the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay, (Mr. Wallace) also, for bringing up the

point he brought up. Because it only proves that the concept of

workmen's compensation today should be entirely different from

what it was at the time it was first inaugurated. The workman

at that time traded off the right to sue his employer for

compensation.

A lot of things were not considered. And the reason that

they traded this off was because there were long periods of

litigation in cases. Many times the worker didn't get the

results that he should have got. And by trading this off we got

the Workmen's Compensation Act .

We've had lawyers with very legalistic minds who have been

trying to interpret the Workmen's Compensation Act over

all these years. I don't think that some of them tried to

interpret it with the intent that the Act should have.

Now the case that the Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) brought up, that I brought up previously — I've

taken this up on a legalistic basis. I wrote to the

compensation counsellor. I got a three or four page letter back

explaining to me in legal terms why the

interpretation of the

Act was such. Now, I've sent another letter back — a long

letter, too — explaining why I think that his legalistic

mind does not work in the right way, in this regard. I don't

know what the judge is going to determine. I don't know who the

judge is who is listening to the case. But I hope that when the

judge brings down his reward we'll finally win this case.

I've also noticed that in New Zealand they are bringing in a bill to cover

the loss of the breadwinner, no matter whether he loses it by his job or some

other place. And I've written to New Zealand asking them for a copy of the Act

in order that we may be able to consider it also. I think that eventually there's

going to have to be an overall compensation plan to do away with some of these

inaccuracies or things that happen that we feel are not just, and to determine

where we put the dividing line between whether a person got hurt on the job

or off the job. I'm sure that the Hon. Minister is taking all these things into

consideration but there's not enough hours in the day for some of us to get

everything done that we might like to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue one point a

little further. Before the Minister says that I've accumulated

new material, I want to say to the House that in all fairness

to the other Members, as you indicated a little earlier, it

appears that I was trying to do all the talking. So I allowed

all the other Members to speak before raising my point.

We know very well that there's great pressure on the Premier

to change the Ministry of Labour to the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I think that it would

be a mistake, really, to have the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour succeed the present Minister of Labour.

Because the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), despite

the fact that he is cynical from time to time, is a better

Minister…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to the administrative aspects of the estimates,

please?

MR. CHABOT: There appears to be a complete misunderstanding

on the part of the Minister on the question of so-called

national agreements. He talks about changes that are necessary

in the BNA Act. He says he's referred to it on a question of

railways and so forth, interprovincial transport, and things of

that nature. It has nothing to do with interprovincial

companies operating in this province. They're subject to the

labour laws of the federal government.

What I'm talking about is ad hoc national agreements of

multi-national corporations that sign collective

agreements. I don't know whether they sign them in back rooms

or where they sign them. But they are signed. And they're

superimposed upon the provincial scene at the expense of the

existing contractors and workers of this province. They come in

with "no strikes" and "no lockout" clauses and really disrupt

collective bargaining.

The First Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Radford) did read

a small

article from the Crispo report. I don't know if it's

the same one that I'll be referring to. He did indicate that

he thought that he thought that Crispo was an expert in the

field of labour relations. But the Goldenberg-Crispo

report on construction labour relations did have this to say in

1967 on the question of national agreements:

"So called national contractors, or those capable, of handling

multi-million dollar or even multi-billion dollar projects, operate under

special considerations that can wreak havoc with a local

[ Page

1407 ]

collective bargaining relationship. When a national contractor

invades an area to undertake a large project, that contractor pays the going

area wages but does not become involved in local bargaining.

"Suppose that just prior to or during the commencement of a

large scale public or private project, local contractors not

engaged in this project are faced with negotiations involving

several construction trade unions. The unions, knowing full

well that the national contractor not only can help supply

their members with work but will automatically agree to

whatever wage rates can be wrested from the local contractors,

have a field day. It is not an exaggeration to say that

ordinary rules go out of the window. And the pressures the

union might feel from a strike against the local contractors

are removed by the presence of the national contractor."

That was in the Goldenberg-Crispo study on

construction labour relations.

What they are saying there really is that a national

agreement, or a so-called national agreement, puts a

local British Columbia contractor at a serious disadvantage. A

local contractor must abide by the existing rules, regulations

and laws of this province,

whereas a national agreement signer

doesn't have to because he comes in with a "no strike," "no

lockout" clause, pays the going rate, takes the workers away

from the local contractors and puts them on his job site for a

stipulated time — two to three years, depending on the

length of the project.

What I am really saying is that we must take into

consideration the local contractor because he provides a

continuous source of jobs for our local workers in British

Columbia while these multi-national corporations come in just

for specific large projects. They virtually raid the cream of

the workers from the local contractors to put on these specific

projects. Then they're left in many instances with the

situation where the best of the workers have been taken from

them and have gone to these projects. Then, in the natural

course, they must provide jobs for them after the

multi-national corporation has left, having taken their

profits out of British Columbia — which I know your

Government is concerned about. I think that it's in the

interests of British Columbians, of British Columbian workers

and British Columbia investment to consider the abolition of

these national agreements. They come in and they do frustrate

the collective bargaining between the local contractors who

must abide by the laws of British Columbia, and the local

workers who get locked out or involved in a strike in British

Columbia. I think it's a very serious problem, one which is

confronting the contractors and the workers of this

province.

I said a little earlier that I think that the existing

construction industry that we have in British Columbia can cope with the type of projects that we are

facing in the future. They've enlarged and they're capable of

becoming involved in these large projects.

I think that you should really make these multi-national

corporations that come in here with these "no strike,"

"no lockout" clauses on these national agreements, abide by the

same conditions and regulations and face the same type of

problems in the field of collective bargaining that other

contractors in British Columbia do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The problems which

the Member for Columbia River outlined have been with us for

many, many years. Certainly they were with us when he occupied

this office. I don't know what his recommendation would be for

solving some of these problems. At the moment there is no

mechanism on the statute books in the province to deal with

those problems that he's outlined. But as I pointed out

earlier, we are undertaking a review, we are inviting

representations from industry and trade unions. Now if

contractors within the province feel that they are being

injuriously affected by the practices which the Member

outlines, I'm sure they'll take this opportunity to make their

views known to this department.

Significantly, I haven't heard too much about this problem

from any group of contractors within the province. The Member

for Columbia River seems to be intimately familiar with the

situation. But certainly we're prepared to listen to any

recommendations that come in.

Vote 124 approved.

Vote 125: general administration and labour standards,

$1,141,488 — approved.

Vote 126: factories branch, $355,256 — approved.

On Vote 127: apprenticeship and industrial training branch,

$6,640,014.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: A brief question on 127. There's been a

substantial increase in staff in this particular branch. Does

the Minister have any particular programmes in mind of various

trades and apprenticeship programmes? There's been an increase,

I know, in the allotment of dollars — not as substantial

as it was last year. Could the Minister tell us what numbers he

expects to train in the field of apprenticeship

[ Page 1408 ]

training?

HON. MR. KING: Yes. The number of apprentices under training

has increased significantly. What is probably more significant

is that the counselling services to those apprentices has

increased very significantly. There was a severe shortage of

staff which restricted the ability of the department to give

this type of adequate counselling service in the past.

In addition to that, we're experiencing an ever-growing

number of applications for broadening the tradesmen's

qualifications in the apprenticeship training areas to other

crafts and trades. So we anticipate growing demands on this

department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Could the Minister explain why

office expenses under this vote have more than doubled when the

overall vote itself has increased by a far lesser

percentage?

HON. MR. KING: Well, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, there

was a shortage of money in the last estimates. Consequently

there was a higher amount in these estimates to compensate for

the shortage last time.

Vote 127 approved.

Vote 128: labour relations branch, $140,072 — approved.

Vote 129: mediation services, $352,036 — approved.

Vote 130: motor vehicles and accessories, $22,000 —

approved.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order of business. I anticipate pursuit of

legislation on Monday. And then after that back to estimates.

And then back to legislation. And back to estimates. And

Tuesday we'll do some more work. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Private Members day? I think it would be

valid if the Whips could come to some agreement on private

Members…

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:21 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada