1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2461 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Energy Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 18). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2461

Islands Trust Act (Bill 112). Hon. Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 2461

Oral questions

Dunhill Development personnel. Mr. Bennett — 2461

Water pollution in Similkameen Valley. Mr. McGeer — 2461

Meeting with Block Bros. and possible amendments to Bill 75. Mr. Wallace —

Possible cost of production guarantees for apple

growers. Mr. Curtis — 2463

Credit arrangements with milk producers. Mr. McClelland — 2464

Identification of persons conducting courts survey. Mr. Gardom — 2464

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates

On vote 130.

Mr. Chabot — 2464

Hon. Mr. King — 2465

Mr. Chabot — 2467

Mr. Wallace — 2467

Hon. Mr. King — 2467

Mr. Wallace — 2467

Hon. Mr. King — 2469

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2469

Hon. Mr. King — 2470

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2470

Mr. Chabot — 2470

Hon. Mr. King — 2471

Mr. Wallace — 2471

Hon. Mr. King — 2471

Mr. Gardom — 2471

Hon. Mr. King — 2471

Mr. Gardom — 2472

Hon. Mr. King — 2472

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2472

On vote 132.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2472

Hon. Mr. King — 2473

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2473

Hon. Mr. King — 2474

Mr. Wallace — 2474

Hon. Mr. King — 2474

Mr. Wallace — 2475

Hon. Mr. King — 2475

Mr. Gardom — 2475

Hon. Mr. King — 2475

On vote 133.

Mr. Gardom — 2476

Hon. Mr. King — 2478

Mr. Gardom — 2479

Hon. Mr. King — 2479

Mr. Gardom — 2479

Hon. Mr. King — 2479

Mr. Gardom — 2480

Mr. Wallace — 2480

Hon. Mr. King — 2481

Mr. Phillips — 2481

On vote 134.

Mr. Chabot — 2482

Hon. Mr. King — 2482

Mr.Chabot — 2483

Hon. Mr. King — 2483

Mr. McClelland — 2483

Hon. Mr. King — 2484

Mr. McClelland — 2484

On vote 136.

Mr. Chabot — 2484

Hon. Mr. King — 2484

Mr. Chabot — 2484

Hon. Mr. King — 2485

Mr. Chabot — 2485

Hon. Mr. King — 2485

Administration of Justice Act (Bill 2). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2485

Amendment to

section 10.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2485

Report stage — 2485

Administration Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 3).

Committee, report and third reading — 2485

Occupiers' Liability Act (Bill 4). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2486

Report stage — 2486

Frustrated Contracts Act (Bill 5).

Committee, report and third reading — 2486

Crown Proceedings Act (Bill 6). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 2486

section 3.

Mr. Smith — 2486

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2486

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2487

section 9.

Mr. Gibson — 2487

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2487

Amendment to

section 13.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2487

section 14.

Mr. McGeer — 2487

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2487

Mr. McGeer — 2487

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2488

Mr. Gardom — 2488

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2488

Mr. Smith — 2489

Mr. McGeer — 2489

section 15.

Mr. McGeer — 2489

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2490

Mr. McGeer — 2490

Mr. Gardom — 2491

Mr. Smith — 2491

Amendment to

section 15.

Mr. Gardom — 2491

Division on amendment to

section 15 — 2491

Amendment to

section 17.

Mr. McGeer — 2492

Division on amendment to

section 17 — 2492

Report stage — 2492

Coroners Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 43).

Committee, report and third reading — 2493

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 44). Committee

stage.

section 1.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2493

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2493

Mr. Gibson — 2493

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2493

Mr. Gardom — 2493

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2493

Mr. Gibson — 2493

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2494

Mr. Gardom — 2494

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2494

Mr. Gardom — 2494

section 2.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2495

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2495

Mr. Curtis — 2495

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2495

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2495

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2496

Mr. Curtis — 2496

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2496

section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 2496

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2496

Mr. Gibson — 2496

Report and third reading — 2496

Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 45).

Committee, report and third reading — 2496

APPENDIX — 2498

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1974.

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'm sure you'll be

pleased to know that in the gallery today we have Mrs. Mercy

Armitage from Hartford, Cheshire, England, with her sister,

Mrs. Jessie Armitage from Vancouver. Both the Mrs. Armitage are

very conversant with the mother of parliaments in England and

I'm sure the Members will not only give them a warm welcome,

but also be on their best behaviour.

Introduction of bills.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Lieutenant-Governor; a bill intituled Energy Amendment

Act, 1974 .

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

ISLANDS TRUST ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor; a bill intituled Islands Trust

Act .

Bill 112 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

DUNHILL DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL

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

the Minister of Housing: I see by the Province that the

Dunhill Development Corporation on April 25 is advertising for

a construction coordinator, a very important job as it points

out. I was wondering, in view of the Minister's statement when

he bought Dunhill, and further in this House, that really the

main asset was a team of experts to put together housing and to

solve problems in this province, whether this ad indicates that

the expertise that we paid….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is argumentative in

the extreme. Obviously argumentative.

MR. BENNETT: Oh, all I'm trying to ask is if in fact people who were

part of that expertise are not working out and whether this is to replace some

of the people who were, in the Minister's words, the experts that he bought

as the main asset of this corporation.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I believe I'm aware

of one person who has left the corporation at this time. Other

than that — is that the question you're asking? Are you

asking about that bit of advertisement?

MR. BENNETT: Well, as supplemental, I'm asking for an

elaboration on whether we're having difficulty with the team of

experts which we bought, and whether this is from some of them

either leaving the company voluntarily or not working out.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, we have had no difficulty from

personnel.

WATER POLLUTION IN

SIMILKAMEEN VALLEY

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to

the Minister of Agriculture. What emergency steps is the

Minister taking to protect the cattle in the Similkameen Valley

against pollution of the water supplies in that area?

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

I'm not aware of what the current dangers are. Why is the

Member expecting the water to be unsuitable for cattle

consumption?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister is aware that

cattle are dying in the Princeton area as a result of pollution

of the water supplies and that measures are needed to first of

all track down the source of pollution, and secondly to protect

the drinking water for cattle and presumably for humans as

well.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it's one thing to say that

cattle are dying because the water is polluted, and that is the

reason. Some people often assume that's the case when it isn't

necessarily so. It is being investigated and I'll have further

reports when we have the results of that investigation.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Has the Minister or

any of his department heads been in touch with the Pollution

Control Branch to determine if, indeed, this water has been

polluted or not?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Minister hasn't been in touch with the

Pollution Control Branch. Reports are

[ Page 2462 ]

coming into my department. Whether or not these will be

conveyed from my department to the Pollution Control, or direct

from the area to Pollution Control, or both, I'm just not aware

at this time. I'll take it as notice and give you the answer

later.

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary, on the same subject. Would the

Minister when he takes that as notice determine who has been

doing the bi-monthly samples of the water out of the

tailing pond? Has it been the Pollution Control Branch or has

it been the mining company and what have been the results of

these samples? Would you determine that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I may determine it; whether

or not I make it public is another question. I'd have to take

that under advisement.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): There's a far more important

question in here than cattle, and that is the infection of the

people in the families in that area. I'm wondering whether the

Minister has, in consultation with the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) made sure that someone from Public Health gets into

that area and finds out exactly what's going on — whether

or not there is an even more immediate danger to the families

who own those farms.

HON. MR. STUPICH: To date there is no such evidence, but it

is being investigated and certainly we're in constant

communication on matters of public health.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Health

perhaps comment on that because I think it's a pretty important

problem. Is Public Health aware of it and are they in there

looking at the problem?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is asking another

Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, the same problem, another Minister.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,

naturally, the Health Branch is watching everything that goes

on in the area. Normally it's the Health Branch that finds

these problems. As I understand it, there isn't a danger to

human life. That's, as I say, as I understand it, but it's

certainly being looked at.

MR. McGEER: It's suggested that the problem is an organic alcohol used

by this copper smelter, copper concentrator. I'd like to ask the Acting Minister

of pollution control, if there is one, what steps the Pollution Control Branch

is taking now to limit the use of that toxic material.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think it's customary to

ask any other Minister's subject. If the Minister is absent

from the House that's a matter of….

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, look. There are cattle dying and

there's some question raised about the safety of humans.

Someone should be in charge of pollution control in this

province when an outbreak has taken place.

MR. PHILLIPS: Has the Minister of Health dispatched any

specialists from Victoria into that area to determine the cause

of these rashes that are breaking out on the families of these

farmers?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as notice. It's

a departmental matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a matter for this House.

MEETING WITH BLOCK BROS. AND

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO BILL 75

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I've almost

forgotten what I was going to ask. To the Minister of Housing:

with regard to a meeting reported to have taken place on Monday

with Henry Block of Block Bros., could the Minister tell the

House to what degree possible amendments to Bill 75 were

involved in that meeting?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't recall that Bill 75 was

mentioned. It certainly wasn't the most important topic of

discussion — just wide-range discussion.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister

planning to have further meetings with this particular private

company and with other private companies? And is there any

coordinated plan to work the private sector into the housing

programme?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I've had other meetings with Mr.

Block and with many of the heads of various development

companies and real estate companies. But as I have said before,

we will be making public very soon a builders' proposal scheme

to the private sector to encourage construction of rental

housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question on the same subject,

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

[ Page 2463 ]

Housing. Are you inviting other private real estate

corporations to your office to discuss this, or is it just

Block Bros.?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I've had discussions with several

different persons, either in my office or their office: Jack

Pool of Daon Developments, Jim Houston of Community Builders; I

suppose I could go on.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, is it a fact that Mr. Henry Block

and other developers in British Columbia have informed the

Minister that unless the legislation is changed, there will be

a drastic drop in the amount of rental accommodation being

built in British Columbia this year and in future years?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't recall Mr. Block saying that.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister for Housing, in light of the

present conversation, make available to the House the date when

he first had contact with Mr. Henry Block about these

projects?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I'll answer

that question.

Mr. Henry Block asked me if he could have an appointment.

And as people ask for appointments we

schedule them, and if we

can see people, we do see them. That's how the meeting

originated and I was able to set some time aside.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I was not

discussing, I believe it was, Monday's meeting. I was asking

the Hon. Minister of Housing when he first or anyone in his

department first entered into dialogue with Mr. Henry Block and

his company in regard to any type of public or government

involvement in public housing — the date?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I can't remember every conversation that

I've had with Mr. Block. I've met with him on several

occasions. I don't know if I met with him the first time I met

with the urban development institute. He may or may not have

been there, and things may or may not have been said. So it's

very difficult. But I would say I've met with him on about four

or maybe five occasions.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, surely the Hon. Minister keeps a

calendar of his activities during his working hours and an

appointment book regarding his meetings. I submit that this is

very important to the House, and I believe the Minister

realizes that it is.

Interjections

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't keep tapes as some politicians

have done in other jurisdictions.

POSSIBLE COST OF PRODUCTION

GUARANTEES FOR APPLE GROWERS

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

is to the Minister of Agriculture on the subject of the Farm

Income Assurance Act . Is the Minister prepared to indicate

that under this legislation there is still a commitment on the

part of the government to negotiate with commodity groups

— particularly apple growers, for the purposes of this

question — on the basis of cost of production?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations with

the B.C. Fruit Growers Association — the apple branch

— have not resumed as of this date; is that correct?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's right.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary. Could the Minister indicate

when such negotiations are likely to resume? Is any attempt

being made by him or his department to reopen the negotiations?

If that isn't the case, what is the hold-up?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I've indicated previously to

the House, and certainly outside as well, that the priority

thing in the department now is regulations under the

Agricultural Credit Act . These are taking longer than I

anticipated. We are having more meetings with the banks,

negotiating with them, than I had expected. I thought the

programme would be on line by this time.

There is still some question as to how far we will be able

to go without the legislation that is currently before the

House. We just can't even guess as to when that will be finally

dealt with by the House. But as soon as the regulations are

prepared, then the staff members involved in that programme

will be able to concentrate on the fruit programme. Within days

of finishing the agriculture credit regulations, which I hope

will be this week, they will have a presentation ready so that

we will be able to enter into further discussions with

representatives of the fruit industry. Let's say sometime next

week.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would

the Minister not agree that time is of the essence with this

particular commodity group

[ Page 2464 ]

inasmuch as they are moving into the more active part of the

operating year and are making purchases of various pieces of

equipment and fertilizers and so on, and are also making

arrangements with banks?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, and of course the arrangements with

the banks will also be involved with the Agriculture Credit

Act , and that will help them there.

It is rather urgent, although whether it takes a few more

days or a week longer than it might, or even several weeks, the

trees are growing and things are happening there and the fruit

is being produced. That won't stop.

I think the growers generally accept the fact that we did

mean it, that we will resume negotiations and that there will

be some kind of programme, even if it's not the final

programme. So I believe there is some confidence. But it's

necessary to go further with it and re — establish

confidence among the growers themselves. I think that's the

important thing.

CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS

WITH MILK PRODUCERS

MR. McCLELLAND: To the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true

that the milk producers were told, when you addressed them

recently, that the credit Act was ready to go and the

regulations were at the bankers?

The second question: have you set an interest rate yet? Will

you be able to tell the farmers what interest rate they will be

paying for these loans?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, to both questions, Mr. Speaker. We

have done a lot of discussion and we have met with the banks

several times — myself and sometimes staff members. But

there was another meeting today, for example. As a matter of

fact, it's going on right at this moment. So it's still being

discussed. I can't say what the interest rate will be because

that, too, is part of the discussion with the banks.

IDENTIFICATION OF PERSONS

CONDUCTING COURTS SURVEY

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the

Attorney-General. Yesterday he indicated that there's

been a survey of court facilities in response to a question

dealing with the new building at Main and Cordova. I would ask

the Attorney-General who is performing this survey of

court facilities.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the justice development

committee of my department with the assistance of some

consultants.

MR. GARDOM: A supplemental. Is the Attorney-General

prepared to name the consultants?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't; that bell just went.

MR. GARDOM: Saved by the bell. You'll do it tomorrow then, I

hope.

MR. SPEAKER: That gives you something for tomorrow.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 130: general administration and labour standards,

$2,732,386.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, as we

adjourned last night I posed some questions to the Minister for

which we haven't received replies. I'd hoped that the break we

had would give him an opportunity to do the research on the

role of the director of arbitration — as to what kind of

a meaningful role he plays in the general administration of the

labour laws and labour standards of British Columbia. I was

wondering if the Minister could tell us that.

One other thing: as the Minister finalized the debate on

this particular vote last night, just prior to adjournment, he

left the impression that the three individuals — the

chairman and the two members of the mediation commission

— were probably the most overpaid people attached to

government in the past. I want to certainly tell the Minister

— and I'm sure he is very well aware as well — that

there are a lot of people that are presently attached to this

government that are receiving very lucrative salaries. There

are people on….

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

Member that we're on vote 130. We are required by standing

orders to be strictly relevant to the vote; therefore, he

should confine his remarks to those items which are contained

in the vote.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about salaries of

individuals within the general administration and labour

standards, and making comparisons. I would hope the privilege

is not going to be denied the Member for Columbia River to

discuss salaries. Last night, you will recall very well, you

allowed a lot of latitude….

[ Page 2465 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member relates his

remarks to the items contained here, he may proceed.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I'm talking about the salaries that are

spelled out in this particular vote, and I'm making comparisons

with some of the commissions which the government has

established where people are receiving $150 a day plus

expenses. People on other commissions are receiving $300 a day

plus expenses. If you look at 300 working days a year, that's

$90,000.

So it's most unfair of the Minister, when we were

questioning him last night, to start castigating the three

Members who played a very meaningful role in heading up a most

unpopular commission, the Mediation Services Commission, at

$42,000 and $40,000 respectively. It is most distressing as

well to see the way they were dismissed on television by the

Premier.

One other question regarding Vote 130. I see there is a

dramatic increase in the cost of printing, publication, and

advertising. It's moved from $3,900 last year to $400,000.

That's a pretty drastic increase in expenditure on advertising

and I'm wondering what kind of advertising the Department of

Labour proposes to undertake this year that requires almost

half-a-million dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Menehan and Dunsky needs it.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, Dunsky's being looked after very well in

other advertising programmes of the government, in particular

in Icky-Bicky — ICBC. They've done very well there

and I'm wondering whether each and every department is going to

reward Dunsky for his services in helping to elect this

government in August of 1972. It'll be the last time.

We also have a new vote — the board of inquiry

allowances and expenses, $120,000. That's a pretty lucrative

allowance — a new allowance — which has been set up

by the government. The Minister led us to believe yesterday,

when debating the industrial inquiries and his more frequent

usage of this particular vehicle to bring about labour peace,

that it appeared to be an incredible success story.

Well, just yesterday the president of the Forest Industrial

Relations and the president of the Pulp and Paper Industrial

Relations Bureau was most critical of the kind of results

brought about by the industrial inquiry which you appointed to

look into the dispute in the forest industry. We find now,

because of the actions of the adviser whom you had appointed in

this industrial inquiry, that there are now shutdowns,

slowdowns and work-to-rule programmes in pulp mills

in various parts of the province.

The president of Pulp and Paper Industrial Relations was most unkind in his

remarks regarding your appointee to this industrial inquiry board. He had this

to say:

"'Job action has been taking place for almost a week at

these and several other mills by maintenance tradesmen called

mechanics who are reportedly dissatisfied at not receiving a

between-contract pay adjustment similar to woodmill

tradesmen of the International Woodworkers of America.'

"Lanskail said the industry asked Hall in that inquiry to

look into a realistic way of relating the wage rates of

maintenance tradesmen in the pulp and wood sector, but added:

'Dr. Hall failed completely to address himself to the matter

and because of this failure we have the problems in the pulp

industry today.' He said: 'It was a cop-out on his part.'"

That's pretty strong language from a man who heads up the

negotiating team on the management side to say that your

appointee to the industrial inquiry commission was a

cop-out. He went on to say:

"'The concern of the pulp mechanics seems to be that the

present IWA bargaining with the industry would place the wood

tradesmen ahead of them for good. We blame Dr. Hall for not

facing up to the problem. We are now hoping the workers will

see the fairness of the advance raise and job action will

disappear.' Lanskail said the overriding problem is still to

find some way to establish a fair relationship between the IWA

and pulp tradesmen.'"

I am wondering if this kind of conflict slow-down,

work-to-rule is going to continue. What kind of

action is the Minister going to take? Or is he going to sit

back until things explode? I think you have a responsibility,

because you set up the inquiry which caused the problem. I

think the Minister should tell us what kind of action he will

take. He took the action in setting up the inquiry. Are you

going to take action now to resolve the problems created by

industrial inquiry?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): The Member for Columbia

River asked a number of questions regarding increases in the

budget for general administration in the department.

Particularly he wonders what function the director of

arbitration is playing and how I justify his salary.

One of the greatest gaps in the Department of Labour that I

found upon assuming this office, and one of the greatest

deficiencies that was drawn to my attention, both by industry

and labour, was the lack of qualified arbitrators in the

province to fill the very many roles that were required by the

parties to collective bargaining. The department felt that we

simply had to do something positive to fill that gap, not only

to secure arbitrators who would be prepared

[ Page 2466 ]

to act when they are requested of the department by industry

and labour, but to do something positive in terms of helping to

educate and prepare people who can act in the role of

arbitrators, so consequently we had to have someone in the

department take responsibility for this function. I might point

out that British Columbia was one of the only provinces which

failed to offer any cohesive arbitration service.

At the same time under the new Labour Code all arbitrations

are required to be filed with the Department of Labour so that

we have a record for the information of unions and management

groups and for the department in terms of research on trends in

arbitration hearings and so on, so there's that additional

function which requires a good deal of expenditure in terms of

creating an arbitration library, as it were.

The cost of doing this is quite modest in British Columbia

when we contrast it with the giant bureaucracies which

provinces such as Ontario have in terms of this whole

arbitration service.

It's very vital in my view and I would think the former

Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) would agree that this is a very

vital and important service in the Department of Labour. We

need more qualified people to come to grips with all those

complex problems and I would think the Member would support the

increased budget to accomplish that.

The other question he asked was with respect to the

increased budget for advertising and printing generally. Part

of that increase is related to the new arbitration service

— the library and the record of arbitrations and so on.

That also covers the Human Rights Branch. I think all Members

of the House would agree that it's absolutely essential to play

an educational role in the rights of citizens under the new

Human Rights Act as statutes of this kind are of very

little use unless citizens of the province are familiar with

and understand the benefits and the provisions that are enacted

for their protection. So it's necessary to develop brochures

and to decentralize throughout the province so that not only

the people in the metropolitan areas but minority groups

— native Indians and so on in every corner of the

province — have equal access and equal protection under

the Human Rights Code. Part of the budget goes to providing

that type of service.

The Labour Code is a brand new and very, very central, crucial document to

industrial peace in the province. We have taken the position of sending officials

of my department out to explain the concept of the new Labour Code to the people

who must function under it. I don't think it's good enough to write this kind

of legislation and then sit back and just expect people to understand it without

getting out and doing some work in terms of explaining not only what the legal

requirements are, but what the philosophy and concept of the code is, in terms

of what we're trying to achieve. This is central in my view to the acceptance

of any new legislation in terms of industrial relations.

When it comes to Dr. Hall, the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) has indicated and quoted from a statement made by

Don Lanskail, the chairman of the FIR and the Pulp Bureau

criticizing Dr. Hall for an arbitration award he came down

with, and asked what I intend to do about it. In the first

place it's apparent, once again regretfully — I'm

becoming to feel rather badly for the Member for Columbia River

— that he just doesn't do his homework. I never appointed

Dr. Hall. His association with the pulp dispute was solely a

voluntary one between the industry and the union. I made no

such appointment. So really I don't feel too responsible if one

of the parties, which voluntarily accepted….

MR. CHABOT: You suggested Hall; you know it.

HON. MR. KING: The parties voluntarily accepted Dr. Hall

and, you know, one or the other may not be completely happy

with his report. Nevertheless, you can't have it both ways. You

can't have a solution under arbitration and then hope that you

have all your own way.

Now Dr. Hall is one of the eminent people in industrial

relations in the province. He has been involved in a great

number of arbitrations, and I think his record is one that is

certainly admired by all sections of the people involved in

industrial relations. I have no hesitation in saying that Dr.

Hall has rendered a great service to the province.

The question of the relationship between the pulp sector and

the IWA, the forest sector, is one which is embodied in the

collective agreement. So if there's a problem — and there

has been, granted — that problem is the result of a

collective agreement which was voluntarily signed by the

industry as well as the union. In my view, both must bear the

basic responsibility for solving their own problems. I don't

believe in the heavy hand in intervention.

MR. CHABOT: The big stick.

HON. MR. KING: I believe the parties as far as

possible should be allowed to work out their own problems.

MR. CHABOT: Lay the wood to them.

HON. MR. KING: In most cases they have measured up to that

responsibility. Now if they don't and if they fail to recognize

the public interest, then we'll consider other devices —

a more persuasive approach; let's put it that way. (Laughter.)

So I think that answers the Member's question.

[ Page 2467 ]

MR. CHABOT: There are going to be a lot of brochures

printed, I see, by the Department of Labour: $400,000 as

compared to $3,900 the year before. I'm most gratified really

that it won't be political propaganda through advertising;

it'll be strictly brochures. I'd like to thank the Minister for

telling us that there won't be any advertising from his

department — strictly brochures.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd like a little

guidance. I presume that this vote allows for discussion of the

Workmen's Compensation Board administration. I find no mention

of the Workmen's Compensation Board in the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the proper place for

that discussion would be under vote 129, which has already gone

through.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we're all trying to get through

the estimates intelligently and in good spirit. There's no way

that we can discuss this Minister's estimates without

discussing workmen's compensation. Now if I'd talked for an

hour-and-a-half yesterday, there would have

been complaints about long-winded speeches. I purposely

avoided it so that I could discuss it under administration. I

would suggest that somehow, somewhere in the succeeding votes

we must be able to discuss the Workmen's Compensation

Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask if it's agreeable

with the House that he discuss workmen's compensation under

vote 130.

HON. MR. KING: On a point of order. I think it should be

pointed out to Members of the House that the workmen's

compensation administration is in no way responsible to my

department. The only responsibility lies in legislative

control, much the same as B.C. Hydro or the railway.

The Workmen's Compensation Board once a year files its

annual report with the House in the same way that the other two

Crown agencies do that I referred to. Now I have no authority

to intervene in the budget of the Workmen's Compensation Board,

It's funded solely by private capital. I think the only

possible area for consideration of that tribunal would be under

the Minister's vote in terms of legislative responsibility. I'm

not sure that the estimates are the proper place to consider

legislative change to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, I would refer to the standing orders

that we must keep our comment directly relevant to items

contained in each vote.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, it seems analogous to me. The Minister's

explanation resembles the Premier's responsibility when we talk about the B.C.

Railway. We've always been allowed to discuss this kind of subject in that way

under the Minister of Finance's estimates. It's my impression that while the

Minister directly has no financial control over the Workmen's Compensation Board,

surely in the legislative responsibility there has to be one Minister of this

government responsible for the function of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

It is so intimately involved with labour matters in general in the province

that I think we seem to be splitting hairs in suggesting that this can only

be debated under the Minister's vote.

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

Member that it is the responsibility of the Chair to enforce

the rules as they are given to us in the standing orders. The

proper place to have brought that matter up would have been

under vote 129. We have now moved on to vote 130. Therefore,

the responsibility of the Chair is to enforce the rules as they

apply to vote 130.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if I may just comment, I have

no desire to pass lightly over the workmen's compensation area.

But there is a notice of motion for the introduction of

legislation on workmen's compensation amendments. I would

suggest that that would afford an appropriate time to discuss,

generally, workmen's compensation legislative considerations.

But since this is consideration of estimates and since I'm not

responsible for a budget as far as the WCB is concerned, I

would think that your ruling is proper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would rule that your comments must

be relevant to the items contained in vote 130, as required by

standing orders.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that makes it a little more difficult, I

must admit. I notice that there are two items there to do with

the compensation consultant and compensation counsellor, to the

tune of some $35,000.

The tragedy of this to the government in not letting me

speak, Mr. Chairman, is that I've got all kinds of good things

to say about the compensation board. Last night I was saying

all kinds of bad things and I got all kinds of leeway to say

them. Now, when I'm trying to hand out a few bouquets, I can't

get at it.

But perhaps the Minister could let me talk about the

financial responsibility of paying for these compensation

consultants and counsellors, and try and give the House some

information as to how that relates or in what way it relates to

the reorganization of the whole matter of claims adjudication.

Because,

[ Page 2468 ]

of course, in a compensation matter it is very important, if

the injured workman feels that he's not being fairly dealt

with, that there's great scope for help from consultants and

counsellors. The reorganization which has taken place presumably

involves these two particular positions.

I'm talking particularly of the kind of information that was

provided in an excellent news bulletin by the compensation

board for the months of March and April, where it very clearly

reorganizes the very important function of claims adjudication

and, in fact, abolishes three of the departments. You know, Mr.

Chairman, we should always be very happy when we hear about

government agencies that are abolishing departments. It seems

such an unusual and rare, but very desirable, change of

direction in an era of bureaucracy.

What's happened here is the claims department, the claims

advisory service and the rehabilitation services department

will be abolished as of March 29, and the new department will

simply have three divisions, A, B, and C, dealing with the

whole question of claims adjudication.

I think this is the best kind of coordination and drawing

together under one roof of these kinds of services. I know that

the degree to which women can receive advice and counsel and

can feel that their difference of opinion with the board is

being listened to is very vital — and preventing the

claim going on and on and probably going to the last level of

medical review panel and all that goes along with that, which

is final and binding.

I feel that if there was more consultation and advice

available to the workman — along the way, as it were, in

the course of the claim — this might not only give the

workman a better deal or a greater sense of justice; it would

in fact cut out a lot of the bureaucracy. I think that the new

chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board is just doing a

fantastic job in several areas, and in particular in his

ability to cut red tape and get down to the bones of the

matter. In many cases, in my limited experience, he has brought

about very fair solutions and recommendations on cases which

have been lingering for some time — up to five years.

I'd like to say that a case I raised in this House four

years ago has been resolved in what I think was a very fair and

satisfactory manner. But perhaps if this compensation

counsellor and this compensation consultant had been available

and functioning under vote 130, I'm sure that some of these

cases would not involve the long and tedious processes and the

hardship to the patient and the inevitable degree of hostility

which builds up sometimes between the patient and the

board.

The other point that I wanted to raise — which is a little more difficult to

raise under the two lines on vote 130 — is the hope that in the reorganization

and in recognizing the importance of these kind of people, we could hopefully

look at this whole phrase "pre-existing disease" in a new light.

Without going into a long exposition on that, Mr. Chairman,

because you are looking very pensive, I think this is an area

where some neutral person or some person who has an essential

function in a consultative or a counselling nature should

always be available to make sure that when claims are being

considered that the purely radiological evidence of some aging

process or some degenerative process is not given undue

attention in light of the real problem which is the injury to

the workman.

Time and time again the workman certainly gets the

impression that he is not getting a fair deal because some

routine investigation shows the existence, say at age 50, of

some degree of….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw the Hon. Member's

attention to the fact that there will be a bill introduced

shortly with amendments to the Workmen's Compensation

Act. And it may very well be that that area is covered.

Also, I regretfully….

MR. WALLACE: Oh, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Also, regretfully I would ask

the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the particular items

in the estimates. I think you are wandering away.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I know the Conservative Party is

very well informed, is, in fact, endowed with many talents, but

one of them is not telepathy. And I can't tell what the

intentions of the Minister are because he has given notice of

amendments to a bill. With the greatest respect for the Chair,

if you are ruling me out of order on that basis, I simply have

to challenge your ruling. There is no way I can…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. WALLACE: …anticipate what the Minister will one day

bring into this House as....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am not ruling the Hon. Member

out of order on those grounds. I would rule him out of order if

he continues this line of debate without relating his remarks

to the particular items before us in the estimates. I would ask

the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the items in the

estimates. I was merely trying to be helpful. Would the Hon.

Member continue?

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just have a few more

comments anyway. They mainly relate to the fact that the

compensation consultant and the

[ Page 2469 ]

counsellor, I would assume and hope, are to be given greater

emphasis in the reorganized department because some of the

problems I am trying to bring to the House — albeit in a

somewhat circumlocutory way — are related, magnified and

go on and on and on.

If there were more people in a consultative and a

counselling capacity early in the claim process, we would in

fact, perhaps, obviate a great deal of the problems that go on

and on with cases that are either unresolved, or where the

unfortunate patient doesn't accept the decision of the board,

or feels that there has not been enough done either to inform

him of his rights under the Act, or to make him knowledgeable

about some of the facilities and forms of advice that are

available to him.

I wonder if the Minister could give us some idea on these

two items in Bill 130 — compensation consultant and

compensation counsellor — why, in fact, they are in this

bill and if, in fact, the Minister's administrative

responsibility is not directly to the board since the board

acts on its own and within its own administrative structure.

Maybe the word "compensation" is misleading in this vote. At

any rate, within the limitations of the wisdom of the Chair,

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to make that point. I would be

interested in the Minister's response.

HON. MR. KING: After that tortuous and circuitous route, I

will try and traverse the same path, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to say that I do appreciate the Member for Oak Bay's concern

with Workmen's Compensation matters. Indeed, for the record, I

would just like to observe that he has been a considerable

degree of help to my office in considering this whole area, and

I appreciate his co-operation. In the past I haven't

hesitated to call on him for his advice. I know it is a genuine

concern.

The particular vote of the Workmen's Compensation consultant

and the counsellor comes under the Department of Labour vote

for a specific reason: to maintain the independence of the

worker's advocate — his independence from the board

— and so his responsibility and the wages come under the

Department of Labour vote which secures and maintains that

independence from the board.

In other words, the worker seeking assistance in terms of

determining whether or not he may have an appeal, in terms of

determining whether or not he has correctly assessed his case

or whether the Claims Department has, he should have access to

an advocate who is separate from the board and is not part of

the initial and original decision that was made. So, that is

the reason for it. This was developed under the previous

administration, and it is simply a continuation.

We lost the previous Workmen's Compensation consultant — he resigned last year

to pursue his practice in law again — and there was a period of time when we

just had the counsellor working by himself until we could attract a qualified

person to act as the consultant.

They have received additional office staff because their

workload was very, very heavy. So, we are simply continuing a

structure that has prevailed for some time.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to say to the Member for Oak Bay

that the bill that will be introduced, hopefully, very shortly,

deals with amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act

and covers quite a wide variety of interests. I am sure it will

provide the latitude for the Member to really get into the kind

of discussion he would like to on some of the other things.

I appreciate his comments regarding the changed

administrative structures within the board. Although I am in no

way responsible for them, I certainly am pleased and excited

about some of the new trends taking shape within the board.

I hope that that deals with the questions which the Member

raised.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I have a few

questions on page N-97, at the beginning of the vote

— about 15 lines down we have the Director of the Women's

Bureau, the Assistant Director of the Women's Bureau and the

Consultant to the Women's Bureau. And I asked questions on this

under the Minister's vote.

My rough calculations indicate that we are actually going to

be spending less money in the coming year on these, presumably,

ladies — maybe they are men who work in that department,

I am not sure — but we will be giving less money to these

four people than previously for their operations and for their

work. Certainly, two of them go up in pay, the other two

apparently go down.

I raised this yesterday, Mr. Chairman, because I was

concerned that we are not doing very much when it comes to

encouraging equality of opportunity for the female sex. The

Minister came back and said that it really didn't matter

because this is going to be taken care of — in the Civil

Service at least — by collective bargaining, and it would

be tough, of course, if the union adopted male chauvinist

attitudes. It wasn't the government's basic responsibility

because they were going to act as the employer, and they

weren't going to get involved in such things as equal pay and

opportunity for women — that was a subject for

negotiation at the bargaining table. I think that is the wrong

approach — I said so yesterday and I won't repeat it.

I do feel that in this area we seem to be getting a

downgrading, an obvious financial downgrading if you take into

account inflation, a very substantial financial downgrading of

the work being done by the

[ Page 2470 ]

Women's Bureau. I would like to know why. I would like to

know why the government which came in on the promise of a

women's Ministry — something forgotten by their Members

since they preached this on the hustings back in '72….

I would like to know why it is a very, very small area which

is devoted to assisting women in getting equal opportunity,

both in terms of pay and in opportunity for employment, so that

perhaps women can have a little bit of assistance in getting

around the sort of chauvinistic advertising from the Provincial

Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Hall'

s) department, which I brought to

this House's attention some time ago.

It seems to be downgraded once more and I am worried

because, first of all, it is contradictory to the government

party's policy — it doesn't appear to be contradictory to

the government's policy. It's contradictory to my understanding

of what, indeed, the policies of all the parties of the House

are. I would like to know why we have in those three lines of

this particular vote 130 this reduction in the amount of money

from $46,452 to $44,358.

It is great to have policy statements by the NDP, and great

to have policy statements which go to the public as policy of

the party. But when the government gets in and starts

downgrading even the little that has been done in previous

years with respect to assisting women and the operation of the

Women's Bureau, I think it's very poor indeed. I wonder if

there is some explanation for it.

HON. MR. KING: I perhaps misunderstood the Member's question

last evening. I took it to relate to the public service in the

government. My comment that collective bargaining would perhaps

solve many of the anomalies and discrepancies that had existed

over the years was in no way a cop-out. The Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) should understand that, under

the new Labour Code, trade unions are also prevented from

negotiating discriminatory rates. That is a new and first

protection which in my view has been long overdue in terms of

protection to women.

The other point the Member raised regarding the budget and

the staff for the Women's Bureau is obviously a bit misleading.

There has been a reorganization of the department. As you know,

the Manpower Training Branch has taken responsibility for this

whole area of job placement and training and so on. What we

have now are the same people involved but, rather than an

isolated group as an offshoot of the department as they were

formerly, they now have attached to them apprenticeship

counsellors from the apprenticeship branch who assist the

Women's Bureau in ensuring women's content is ensured in

employment opportunities.

Additionally, the branch works with the federal Department of Manpower and

Immigration to monitor job opportunities for females within the province. There's

no dissipation of the funding and the resources, both financial and physical,

in terms of that important

section of the branch. I give the Member that assurance.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the fact that apprenticeship

counsellors will be helping the Women's Bureau civil servants,

be they male or female, but that's something which may well be

very much in the future. I think it's a good idea; I'm not

denying that. If you can get more girls in apprenticeship

programmes I think things will improve; I'm all in favour of

that. But that, if I can go back to my first point, is

something that may show results well on in the future; it's not

going to show results in anything less than 5 years, maybe 10,

15 or 20 before the girls who go through those apprenticeship

programmes actually get out and start hitting the positions

within their trades and, of course, within the union structure

which they should be getting and they're not getting at the

present time.

I agree that it's good to have apprenticeship counsellors

working with the Women's Bureau, but your assurances, Mr.

Minister, simply do not seem to go far enough. I was under the

impression that an NDP government would provide special

incentives to ensure equal work for women at equal rates of

pay. I don't really see anything very much coming out of a

Women's Bureau which, candidly, is being diluted — with

all due respect to your suggestion that they're going to move

into other areas as well — and which, in actual fact, as

a bureau is going to be reduced in importance in pay.

I know it's easy to put forward legislation as we have done,

but when the Provincial Secretary's department, the Queen's

Printer, starts advertising discriminatory rates of pay and

then, in answer to my queries on this, the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) gets up and says, "Well, it's for different

jobs." — which indicated clearly that there was going to

be job discrimination between males and females — I just

don't think we've gone very far at all.

I would urge the Minister to have a good look at this.

Perhaps he hasn't taken much interest in it up to now and

perhaps this came into the estimates in a routine way and he

hasn't picked it up. I hope this time next year I will have a

little different type of estimate to look at in this regard. I

really don't think we're doing a thing to get around the

problems of discrimination, both in pay and in terms of

opportunities.

MR. CHABOT: Just a brief question. I see we have an

allocation for a labour ombudsman: $39,000. There's also an

allocation of expenses of $90,000. That's even more allowances

than the Premier of British Columbia gets; $90,000 is slightly

more than

[ Page 2471 ]

the Premier. There is no indication or any provision for

office facilities or additional staff or anything like that; it

specifically spells his allowances out in the estimates. I was

wondering how he's going to find it possible to spend $90,000

allowance during the forthcoming year.

Also, there has been a large increase in the travelling

expense under this vote from $65,000 to $134,800. I am

wondering if this is where some of the travelling expenses of

the Labour Relations Board comes from, or is it just because of

the increased staff in this particular vote? Is that why there

is an increase in the expenses? If the expenses in travelling

allowances for the members of the Labour Relations Board aren't

here, where are they concealed?

HON. MR. KING: The expenses for the Labour Relations Board

are under the board's vote. I'm not sure what the number of

that is off hand but it's further along. The expenses

associated with the ombudsman are related to not only paying

the salary and the travel expenses of an ombudsman when we

appoint one — and I would point out that that

section of

the Labour Code is not as yet proclaimed — but the

expenses will involve setting up an office, securing the staff

which he would require to conduct investigative work, and

office and clerical help and so on.

I think all Members can appreciate that an ombudsman, to

play the kind of role which is necessary, would require

absolute independence from any agency of government to ensure

that his investigations and his conclusions were based on the

facts in an impartial way rather than related to any

subservient position to a government department. Part of it

would be a one-time expenditure in terms of setting up

his office and securing his staff.

MR. WALLACE: Somewhat along the same lines, I was just

puzzled a little bit by the tremendous figure that's included

for code 013: printing and publications and advertising,

$400,000.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I see; I beg your pardon.

MR. CHABOT: Brochures. No advertising; strictly

brochures.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I gather this question has been asked

already, Mr. Chairman. I was out of the House, I gather. Could

the Minister tell me, in a word, how it's gone from $3,900 to

$400,000?

HON. MR. KING: I did point out earlier that that involves the establishment

of an arbitration director and the branch of the department. In my view this

was an area that had been neglected for many years. We had no machinery for

ensuring that there were competent arbitrators to act when required throughout

the province. We feel we have to have a reserve of arbitrators whom we as a

government might call on or that the parties to a dispute might call upon. I

think that we have a further obligation to involve ourselves in the training

and preparation of people to fill that role.

In addition to that there is the human rights code. The

advertising for that branch is under this particular vote you

refer to. As you can appreciate, that involves a tremendous

educational role, as does the new Labour Code. We have put out

brochures. The Deputy and the Associate Deputy Ministers have

travelled around the province explaining to labour and

management groups what the intent and the conceptual background

of the Labour Code is and what we are trying to achieve. I

think this is a necessary function which would have helped in

the past had we done more of it.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Hon.

Minister raised a very interesting point there when he was

talking about the need for the training of arbitration

personnel in the province. Could you furnish us with some

particulars of what you are envisaging along that line?

HON. MR. KING: I think there's a real vacuum in terms of

education in this province for all aspects of industrial

relations. The department is considering at the moment a

variety of educational programmes that hopefully will

facilitate a more sophisticated and a little more responsible

approach to industrial relations. Many of these areas are the

kind of proficiencies which were only acquired in the past

through experience — getting involved in an active way in

disputes. We're hopeful we might, through a series of seminars

conducted under the auspices of the department, bring in

lecturers and run the kind of seminars that would help to

develop the kind of skills necessary.

While I'm on my feet in this respect, I might mention that I

anticipate further expenditures within the department for this

kind of educational role on the labour side also.

I have said on many occasions that it's rather negative for

the government to grant by legislation tremendous economic

power to trade union people in terms of the ability to call a

strike and tie up an important

section of the economy when we

fail to provide any system of education and preparation for

these people to assume that office. Simply by the fact of

winning a local union election many people find themselves in a

position where they hold this power in the hand of tying up a

very, very important industry. I have found through my own

experience

[ Page 2472 ]

that in a number of situations the poor working person who

aspires to that position and reaches it is not very well

equipped to carry that kind of burden of responsibility.

In my view, I think that we have to give more attention and

more resources to developing some detailed knowledge, some

preparation — perhaps courses in economics, perhaps

courses in trade union administration and sociology, those

kinds of sciences — so that people in whom we vest this

power are at least qualified and equipped to exercise that

power in a responsible way.

We too often, in my view, sit back and decry

irresponsibility when we do absolutely nothing to ensure that

working people of this province, particularly, have access to

the kind of skills that they need. So I make no apology for the

increases in the budget, in terms of developing skilled

arbitrators, better negotiators and all the variety of aids

that we need to make collective bargaining more functional in

this province.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has enunciated

extremely responsible suggestions here. But are these all in

the formative stage? I gather he was thinking on his feet, and

I commend him for what he said, but are there any programmes?

Do you have any programmes to support the matters which you

just mentioned?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, we're formulating programmes at the

moment. As you can appreciate, I think we've done a great deal

within the 18 months we've been in office in terms of the

legislative change and all the administrative functional

changes that were required to accommodate that legislative

change. But quite frankly, yes, we do have many of these

programmes underway in terms of the initial preparation. It

will be some time before we get them all off the ground, but

this is the direction we're going.

MR. GARDOM: I understand, then, from the Hon. Minister that

none of the suggestions he's raised today as yet are really in

programme form.

HON. MR. KING: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to congratulate the Minister

on the last few words, probably the most significant statement

that he's made, or indeed has been made, in this debate so far

on his estimates. We congratulate him from this party, as has

been done by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey,

because we think that's an excellent suggestion. We were very

impressed by that.

But I ask this question, which perhaps can be also pondered on by the Deputy

Premier (Hon. Mrs. Dailly): why is it that in the estimates we have education

programmes and policies dealing with such things as sociology and economics

for trade union leaders under code 013, which is printing and publications and

advertising?

It passes belief that these estimates we get can be so

misleading in the titles applied to them. I know that this is

not the Minister's fault. I don't think he's trying

deliberately to conceal, but we have no end of difficulty in

the opposition and as Members of the Legislative Assembly in

properly discussing and analyzing Ministerial estimates when

the estimates…and $400,000 comes up and it's totally

misleadingly labelled.

You should be sued by the Minister of Consumer Services (Ms.

Young) for false advertising. It's ludicrous that we have to

probe with questions on every line to try and really find out

what's there, when the title of the actual amount of money is

just false.

We found

that that came under the laundry, the laundry estimate,It happened with the Attorney-General's estimates on

the question of clothing. He didn't even know whether the

clothing estimates were for guards or prisoners. Eventually he

found the clothing for prisoners. I see he's borrowed one of

the jackets from one of the prisoners. (Laughter.) for the

correctional services. New clothing came under laundry.

Now we have education programmes coming under printing and

publications. I trust that the Deputy Premier is taking a close

note of what I'm saying, because the way these estimates are,

it just makes a farce of the debates. It takes us much longer

than it would otherwise take if we didn't have to keep on

questioning to try and find out what's really there.

Vote 130 approved.

Vote 131: Factories Branch, $621,604 — approved.

On vote 132: Apprenticeship and Industrial Training Branch,

$9,601,114.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I come

forward with great expectation that the Minister under 007,

which is advertising and publicity — not James Bond

— which goes from $1,500 to $25,000…Perhaps in his

little magic grab-bag he'll come up with something new

and exciting, because probably that's been mislabeled too. It

is a real chunk of money, a tremendous increase — a many

thousand per cent increase — which perhaps covers some

other exciting and interesting new programmes.

That's one question. I wonder whether he would indicate

whether or not code 007 does give us something more than it

says on the surface, because

[ Page 2473 ]

in actual fact it's advertising and publicity; the last one

which we found so interesting was publications, printing and

advertising. It sounds sort of similar. The increase is of a

similar enormous increase in magnitude. Perhaps there's

something hidden there that he could enlighten us on.

The second point I'd like to question under vote

132 is a question raised yesterday by the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer): that is the

private or independent vocational school. We have many schools

of this nature. Most of them are business colleges teaching

shorthand, typing, bookkeeping procedures, things of that

nature. We've all seen the schools. Some of us such as myself

have attended them, and we've learned to type or whatever

else.

I think that the point raised yesterday was not touched upon

at all by the Minister in his reply, but the fact is —

and I'm quoting November, 1973 figures — the New

Westminster Business College is allowed to charge

$52.50 per month for roughly the same training that

the Duffus College Limited charges $70 a month for and

Pitman can charge $85 for and McKay Tech and Dave Gordon

Systems can charge $130 for.

The provincial vocational schools charge the federal

Manpower department anywhere from $120 to

$150 per month for virtually exactly the same training

that is provided by the New Westminster Business College at

one-half to one-third of the amount.

Now I know that the reply could come back quite simply:

"Well, all these colleges find their own level; they charge

what they wish." But that's not the case. They're all resisted

by the government to a 5 per cent increase only.

Therefore, any college which has a slow starting base winds up

with a continuing low tuition fee. Those that start with a high

tuition fee wind up with a continuing high tuition fee.

Now this iniquitous system was developed under the former

administration and I just fail to see why the present

government continues it, because 5 per cent is way out

of line with inflation. You gave every civil servant 10 per

cent or more. It has no relevance whatsoever to the costs of

providing the education. It's an arbitrary figure set at an

absurd level, so the whole thing makes no sense at all.

I just cannot see why the Department of Labour continues

this practice, and I can't see why they will refuse

certification to these trade schools if the 5 per cent figure

is not adhered to, because there are, as I said, enormous

discrepancies. Some fees are virtually a third of other fees.

Yet those that are well down are perhaps trying to buy new

equipment, new typewriters, new calculating machines; they're

quite unable to do so with their present structure of fees.

I wonder whether the Minister would indicate whether he will either alter,

retain or abandon this present 5 per cent limitation and 5 per cent maximum

increase in tuition fees. I realize that the government doesn't wish to support

independent schools — we went through that before with the Minister of Education

— but here is where a clumsy and short-sighted policy is damaging institutions

which are providing very necessary skills and necessary skills which help our

young people, in particular, who want to get into the work force relatively

quickly.

Perhaps the Minister would like to gladden my heart with a

statement that he's going to abandon the 5 per cent, because

unless he does the present chaotic situation will simply

continue, and the tremendous variation in quality of education

will also continue.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member might have gladdened

his own heart had he looked into it a little more

closely. The 5 per cent was abandoned last year and a 10 per

cent increase rate granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What date?

HON. MR. KING: I believe it was just before the registration

in October of last year. Now, The Duffus School of Business

that was brought up yesterday — however you wish to

pronounce it — the duffers over there referred to it,

anyway…They requested an increase in their fees last year.

They were allowed to increase the fees up to 10 per cent. They

got in on this increase in the percentage. Previously, of

course — you're quite correct — the limit was

5 per cent.

These courses are designed to respond to needs in industry

and in the work force. It's essential that the department be

assured, as the licensing agency for these trade schools, that

the content of those courses will truly meet the needs of

industry — the skills which industry requires. So there

is a committee which meets and assesses the curriculum and the

training material which these schools propose to use. At the

same time, this committee can consider the rates that are

proposed to charge and if there are unusual costs, they can

grant changes in the rates, but it's essential, I believe.

I think the Member would agree that unless the content of

the courses and the prices charged to students were regulated

in some way, it would open up the possibility of all kinds of

gouging and in some cases ' questionable training in terms of

meeting industry's needs. So this is as it has been for some

time, fully supported by industry and by the trade union

movement in the province, and I think it's a good

structure.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to thank the Minister. I

mentioned that I was dealing with the very end of October,

November, and the situation then. I

[ Page 2474 ]

appreciate the fact that apparently very shortly after,

despite the discouraging letters that the Minister signed on

April 19, '73, and July 6, '73, there was a change. It does

show that he does change his mind and I'm delighted to see

it.

I quite agree, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that

there needs to be perhaps some control, and there's no

suggestion from this side that that

industry-union-government committee does not

continue to look at future needs. I think it's very essential.

But would he perhaps indicate how the limit is now off? The

percentage limit was obviously just ludicrous. Is it now a

question that each rate application must go before the

Minister's department or before a board? How are rate increases

now permitted? I personally feel that the public educational

system, which provides the same courses, is a very good check

on the amount that these private institutions do charge. But

perhaps he would indicate to us how the new system is

working.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member didn't seem to

understand that it's not a new system. This has been the

procedure for some time and I as a politician do not grant

these provisions without an agency to advise me. I simply

proceed by the recommendations I receive from the trade school

administration.

In the case of the Duffus School, the committee met. They

appreciated the cost involved in developing this school, and

they decided to allow him to charge $1.25 per unit hour of

instruction in general commercial courses. So depending on the

circumstances involved, this committee, which is trained and

experienced in dealing with this kind of thing, makes the

recommendation to me, which I usually concur with.

MR. WALLACE: I'd just like to refer again briefly to the

whole question of apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship

and the joint announcement that was made on December 17 by the

Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly). Just to quote from that announcement for a moment:

"The Minister of Labour shall have the function…he'll have

to meet the identified manpower needs by taking prime

responsibility for the development of pre-apprenticeship,

apprenticeship" and several other classes of programmes. I know

there's some apprehension, particularly by the community

colleges in the province, that this is essentially an

educational function which should remain under Education and

should not be diverted or diluted or in any way passed over to

the responsibility of the Department of Labour.

Maybe this is just a philosophical difference which is being expressed rather

than a practical one, and if that's the case we can discuss it on that basis.

But we have heard in previous debates that there was real value — and I certainly

believe there is — that as part of training the student should at least receive

part of the training in the work situation. I understand both from the Minister

of Education herself and from other people in the field that I've talked to

that this is a very worthwhile trend and we can anticipate amendments to the

Public Schools Act like some of the amendments to the Workmen Compensation

Act to make it more feasible for students to participate in a work situation

while they're still essentially students.

I'm sure the Minister well knows that there was great

concern, particularly in the Prince George area, where student

nurses were to be regarded as employees of the hospital rather

than to be students simply in training, on the basis that as

part of their training they were in fact providing a service to

the hospital, which should be paid at a certain rate. I think

this is a very important area. Maybe we're moving in the right

direction, and maybe we're not.

All I can tell from reading the public reaction at the

colleges, and from people like Mr. Galt Wilson, a good

Conservative who was recently displaced as president of the

B.C. Colleges Association, and I wouldn't imply for a moment

that that was anything but the wheel of fortune, Mr. Chairman…At any rate, this does seem to raise the issue very clearly

in the minds of educators as to whether or not the tendency to

ask the Minister of Labour and his department to take this

degree of responsibility and involvement for the content of

training programmes away from the Department of Education. I'm

sure there are good reasons for the Ministers to issue this

joint announcement, but I wonder if the Minister could perhaps

give us some clarification on the motivation behind this.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member really asks two

distinct questions. As far as the role of the Department of

Labour and the related role of the Department of Education is

concerned in training programmes, I see no conflict whatsoever,

or no really basic change in the relationship which has existed

over the years. On the joint apprenticeship committees, there

has been liaison between the Department of Labour and the

Department of Education in terms of developing curricula and

choosing instructors to conduct apprenticeship training courses

and so on.

I think it's unquestionably the responsibility of the

Manpower Development Branch of the Department of Labour to

identify the areas of skill shortages and areas of projected

skill needs. This is a service which is relative to collective

bargaining in industry. Therefore, it's a responsibility of the

manpower strategy in the province. I think it's clearly

[ Page 2475 ]

the responsibility to identify the areas of need and to then

go to the colleges through the Department of Education and

co-operate with them in terms of obtaining the facilities

for the training, developing the curriculum and finding the

appropriate instructors. In other words, they are responding

and providing a service to the Department of Labour to fulfil

the needs that we identify in just manpower.

That's roughly the relationship which has existed over the

years. I think what really created the controversy, and quite

frankly a degree of paranoia in some quarters, was this whole

question of the licensed practical nurses being designated by

the Labour Relations Board as employees within the meaning of

the Act, which meant that they were part of the bargaining unit

of the Hospital Employees Union. Now that is a decision that is

made in law by a quasi-judicial agency. I have no comment

to make on the decisions which the board comes down with.

Based on that, of course, the trade union and the hospital

association negotiated a collective agreement, in which was

contained a training programme for licensed practical nurses.

Now, the colleges seem to wrongly assume this was a political

decision; rather it was a legal decision which the trade union

and the hospital association responded to. Our manpower branch,

our Apprenticeship and Industrial Training Branch, is there to

assist in the development of all apprenticeship training

courses.

Of course, subsequent to that, the newly designed Labour

Relations Board has overturned that decision. I understand

there is an appeal pending. So really I'm not at liberty to

comment any further on that problem of the licensed practical

nurses.

Whatever the board decides, we're bound by in law. It's as

simple as that. It's not a political decision to intrude in a

relationship that existed. It's a legal right, initially, which

was established by the union and which has now been reversed by

the board, so pending any appeals, I'm not at liberty to

comment further.

MR. WALLACE: While I realize that the Labour Relations Board

decisions are not to be commented upon by the Minister,

assuming that nothing changed in the present context and the

appeal fails and the situation remains as it is, does the

Minister and his department have any policy regarding

remuneration for Licensed Practical Nurses in the course of

their training, where they're providing a service, whether or

not they are remunerated through the budget of the specific

hospital providing part of their training?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, as the Member probably knows,

prior to this government taking over, there was a stipend

provided to licensed practical nursing students by the

Department of Health. The former Minister of Health, the

former

Hon. Ralph Loffmark, chopped off that stipend, so, in

effect, the student practical nurses were in the hospitals as

students, or whatever, for no recompense. That is why,

presumably, the union sought to have them designated as

employees, because they felt that during the course of their

practicum in the hospitals they were, indeed, performing

work.

If the final decision of the Labour Relations Board is that

they are not employees within the meaning of the Act, there is

absolutely no provision under my department to recognize them

as employees and enforce the minimum wage or anything of that

nature. They would not be workers, hence they would not be

entitled to any recompense unless the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) wanted to consider some special provision.

MR. GARDOM: A quick word to the Minister dealing with the

licensing of auto mechanics, Mr. Chairman. It seems that over

the years in B.C. the mechanics have always called for it, and

the public wish them to be licensed. At one point I even

introduced a private Member's bill, and I hope that didn't

prove to be the kiss of death.

Lloyd Kinneard, who is the representative of those people

with the skills which I'm talking of, has always advocated that

it can be attended to by regulation under the Apprenticeship

and Tradesmen's Qualification Act .

There are no end of arguments for the licensing of

automobile mechanics — to increase the standards, prevent

abuse and so forth and so on. Yet I gather that it has still

not happened in B.C. It has occasioned in other areas. What is

the argument against it here or do you favour their being

licensed?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on this question I recognize

the efforts of Lloyd Kinneard over the years. I have held many

meeting with him and, I think, provided him with every

available forum to make his case.

The department in Vancouver did conduct a hearing at which

time all interested parties were heard and there's by no means

an unanimous opinion on compulsory certification in the

automobile industry. The recommendation which I received as a

result of those public hearings and the representations made

was that we should not grant compulsory certification. I think

the Member asked why….

MR. GARDOM: No, no. I asked when.

HON. MR. KING: Oh, when. Last year. I forget the exact

month, but last year.

MR. GARDOM: Do you know the general results of the

hearing?

[ Page 2476 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member wait to

be recognized so we can get his mike on?

HON. MR. KING: The general results were, for my purposes at

least, a recommendation that compulsory certification not be

granted, but it was based on a variety of considerations. I

think a genuine concern that there were insufficient licensed

mechanics in the province to accommodate the full provision of

mechanics for every area of the province, with the possibility

of grave shortages of licensed personnel in various parts of

the province and the danger of setting up certain monopoly

situations in a variety of areas too.

Vote 132 approved.

On vote 133: labour research and planning branch,

$355,194.

MR. GARDOM: I would like to make some observations

concerning this vote, Mr. Chairman, and also ask the Hon.

Minister a number of questions. In my view, this is, or should

be, one of the most significant votes in his department. Quite

frankly, I'm sorry that the allowance is not considerably

higher than the amount we see. I'm also sorry to not as yet

determine from the Minister his full and total concept of the

labour research and planning in the Province of British

Columbia.

In my view one of the most significant functions of

government should be research into the areas of strikes and

lockouts and the hardships resulting therefrom, and principally

from the point of view of the general public because public

attitudes to strikes and lockouts have changed over the years

but unfortunately the processes have not.

From time immemorial, up and through the industrial

evolution, everything appeared to be slanted in favour of

management. If management acted to the disadvantage of labour

or to the disadvantage of the general public, that was perhaps

too bad because for each of them pretty well their only

recourse was to the law of supply and demand. But that law of

supply and demand performed in former time areas of our

civilization only in the local sense and not in the country

sense as it does now by virtue of the communications explosion

if nothing else. The results of the unlawful disruptions

formerly affected a far lesser number of people than they do

now.

There's no question that the fight by labour for fair return where a fair return

was denied was a very difficult one but I say that labour, backed by public

opinion and accompanied by the rewards and products resulting from technological

change, did overcome and labour has received, as has the bulk of society, good

return and better goods and better services from the combined efforts of labour,

of management and also from an effective use of capital.

On the whole we've seen that there was general benefit to

labour, to management and certainly to the public weal, plus

increased revenues via taxation to all governments for their

social programmes. So, all in all, the trend was good and

everyone was benefiting, but are they benefiting today? I

seriously question that.

I say that judging by the very high and terribly apparent

degree of public discontent, indeed well founded public

discontent, the answer is no, loud and clear. We find

industrial turmoil growing year by year. We find the public

interest is being callously disregarded and I think the general

public are fed up to their eyeballs with being continuously

stomped on.

Now, the views I'm expressing may not win many political

friends or influence many political people, but I would say

that all governments are failing to appreciate that the general

public have had a bellyful of the expense, the hardship and the

inconvenience that is being continuously thrust upon them by

virtue of always being the seemingly powerless and voiceless

odd man out — always bearing so much of the uncalled for

brunt resulting from labour-management disputes.

As I started off on these remarks, I talked about the ever

increasing complexity and interdependency of society and, by

virtue of that, no longer are there just two partners in an

industrial management-labour situation. It used to be

management and labour; no longer. Today there are three:

management, labour, and the general public — certainly in

the industry-wide situations and certainly in the public

sector.

If in those situations management and labour refuse to get

along and they illegally strike or they're illegally locked out

or they fail to bargain in good faith and they don't consult,

confrontation results, illegal stoppages result, and who

suffers? — the general public.

I would say this to the Hon. Minister, if the public is

damaged by illegal acts as a result of the illegality of

management or the illegality of labour or the illegality of

both of them, should not the public themselves be entitled to

some kind of redress? This is what the general public in this

country is starting to clamour for. I think what is needed is

some kind of protections and remedies for public damage.

Now, no government has effectively researched whether there

is a need for these kind of remedies that I'm talking about, or

to what those remedies may be. I would request the Hon.

Minister direct this branch covered by this vote to undertake

that task. For one thing is very, very apparent and certain:

the general public are cheesed-off. A few janitors or

maintenance engineers, call them what you will,

[ Page 2477 ]

closing schools. A few air-traffic controllers and

firemen shutting off air transportation. A few postal clerks

stopping the mail. Where is it going to end?

Are there going to be no public remedies and no public

rights? Damages that result to innocent, law-abiding

third partners from the illegal acts of one or the other of the

partners, or both of them, should be recoverable. I suggest

it's a denial of natural justice to the third partner, if he's

only to be a third partner, to take all of the brickbats.

Should not essential services be better defined, and more

widely defined, to include public ferries, electricity,

telephone service, education? Has not the right to strike or

lockout, by virtue of the tremendous interdependencies of

society today — has that not become, as opposed to a

right, a privilege?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: And should not public opinion be solicited for

their…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would draw to the attention of the Hon.

Member standing order 61,

part 2: "Speeches in Committee of the

Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause

under consideration."

MR. GARDOM: Well, it's strictly relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask him to confine his remarks to the

vote that we're now debating.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much for your guidance, which I

indeed appreciate. They're strictly relevant because I'm asking

the Hon. Minister….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This whole matter was canvassed

yesterday.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, would you mind reading the vote?

It says "labour research and planning," and I'm asking

to put some labour research and planning into these points.

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

Member that he may mention these things, but he must refer them

to….

MR. GARDOM: You want me to report it every time I make a

statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. He is not to recanvass

arguments which have been canvassed previously in vote 129.

MR. GARDOM: Should it not be a function of the labour research and planning

branch to inquire and solicit from the general public their opinions, request

their representation, as to whether or not a right to strike or a right to lockout

has in this day and age become a privilege as posed to a right? Should not the

validity of class actions be investigated by the labour research and planning

branch under vote 133 to enable plaintiffs to sue governments or corporations

or unions, not only on their own behalf but on behalf of the community at large,

for damages resulting from illegal interruption?

Should not this labour research and planning branch

determine the viability or otherwise of having an independent

industrial relations research service outside of this vote,

financed one-third by government, one-third by

labour and one-third by the management — all the

three parts contributing — and have as its job to

fact-find, and make public information that would be

objective and neutral and independent and provide some kind of

proper economic survey and impartial statistics so the public

would better know in any kind of an industrial dispute what the

score actually was as opposed to having continually to face a

bunch of wildly conflicting statistics — and certainly

subjectively oriented statistics — as management and

labour gyrate around the bargaining table?

Should not, under this vote 133, labour research and

planning, the Minister be directing the people involved here to

determine as to whether or not there would be any viability to

the suggestion of having a uniform contract date, with a

specific obligation for all parties to start negotiating at

least six months before expiry?

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

Member that I think he's stretching the credibility of the

House by trespassing into areas which have already been

canvassed under the Minister's vote. I would ask the Hon.

Member to confine his remarks strictly to the matter of the

amounts contained in this vote and to the specific duties of

the persons who are listed here, and not to any matters which

they may decide to bring up at a later time.

MR. GARDOM: One never trespasses in the springtime, Mr.

Chairman. Never, never, never, never.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty finishing, and I

assure you I've only got about three or four points more, if

you'll bear with me, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Never

mind the rules; go ahead.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, we're getting a lot of chit-chat from

the Minister of Communications.

[ Page 2478 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member continue

and bear in mind the ruling of the Chair?

MR. GARDOM: Well, it's a bit difficult with that

caterwauling across the floor. He's a very disturbing

Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: Would you bring him to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member continue, bearing

in mind the directions of the Chair?

MR. GARDOM: I'd be delighted to do that. In any event, I

would request the Hon. Minister if he would not see fit to

request this labour research and planning branch to determine

the viability or otherwise of having a uniform imposed contract

date to prevent the leapfrogging of statistics one upon the

other. Because what we've got to do is to produce a healthy

economic climate and better stability for all of the people of

B.C. and less in the apples-and-oranges argument

that they've had to face continuously.

Would not this labour research and planning branch be well

spending its time if it investigated into whether or not there

should be an imposition of a public levy or a public tax upon

those who would be responsible for unlawful lockouts or

unlawful strikes so those particular wrongdoers could face a

little more than personal shortfall? Then we'd find that the

governmental or public revenues would at least keep pace, and

at least keep up to date.

I think, in closing, I would commend the Minister also to

request this research and planning branch to look at the

labour-management programme, the labour-management

system in B.C., from a far wider point of view than it has ever

done — I say from an eight-prong point of view:

cost, prices, productivity, markets, standard of living, wages,

profits and public interest. The public are the people who are

continuously being clobbered, and they're very, very tired of

that indeed.

I do feel that there's an opportunity under this particular vote for the Minister

to step forward, as he indicated he was going to do earlier today — as I stated

when I got up a little earlier on — in one of the best statements that we've

heard from a Minister of Labour since I've been a Member of this House…in

his attitudes to better training for people both in labour and in management

and in the processes of arbitration. But I would like to see him demonstrating

the same kind of innovative suggestions, the same kind of innovative ideas,

as he did on that other topic to this one. And I would ask the Hon. Minister

to please answer these questions, which I'm sure he will do if you give him

a chance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All of the matters which the

Hon. Member brought up should have been brought up under vote

129 yesterday when he was absent.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely, if I may say

so, on your part, impertinent. This is labour research and

planning. What I'm talking about is labour research and

planning. If the Chair wishes to become editorial, it's not

acting properly in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made. The Chairman should

stay in order, and I would request that the Hon. Member stay in

order as well.

HON. MR. KING: I hope the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey didn't have a rough trip over. I

wish he had been here yesterday.

MR. GARDOM: I had the flu.

HON. MR. KING: The Member questions the budget for the

research branch and notes that there is not a significant

increase in the budget for that branch. Really, it's a bit

deceptive again in that last year the labour research branch

was included with the apprenticeship training branch. It's been

separated this year and budgeted for separately. So there is a

considerable and a significant increase. In fact, the staff in

the research end has doubled from 12 to 24 people, I would agree with much of the need that the Member has

identified for investigating new concepts in industrial

relations — perhaps for different reasons than the Member

espoused. Nevertheless, I do think research is crucial to

developing new and better methods of resolving labour disputes

and offering services to the parties. Indeed, I think

management and labour generally would say that they have found

a better service available to them in terms of research

assistance from the Department of Labour, not only in terms of

the publications that are put out, but in terms of specific

projects if they should require assistance from the

department.

The Second Member for Point Grey made much of the need to

look at the public interest and minimize the right of workers

to strike, and he suggested that this might be the subject of a

great deal of research. Perhaps I could suggest that he study

the Woods task force report of a few years ago that was

commissioned by the federal Liberal government. He would find

16 volumes which completely disagreed with and repudiated the

concepts which the Second Member for Point Grey puts forth. So

in that whole area that he mentions, while it is of grave

concern and

[ Page 2479 ]

I agree with him, we constantly have to look for

improvements. I would suggest that the attitudes and the

concepts which he suggests should surround the research has

indeed been researched very, very carefully over the past. As I

mentioned, the Woods task force report dealt very

comprehensively with these questions the Member put forward,

and the results of that research were certainly not conducive

to looking down that road any further.

But generally I agree with the Member. There's a great need.

We intend to beef up this service. We intend to be as

innovative as possible in developing a wide-ranging

research policy in this province, and the Member's attitude is

well taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey, if he has a further matter.

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. GARDOM: Well, I haven't started yet. How can I continue

before I start?

Would the Hon. Minister inform me what programmes are being

undertaken by this labour research and planning branch at the

present time and, secondly, whether or not their results are

made public?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that varies a great deal. I

think the Member can appreciate that some of these projects are

for specific purposes in peculiar circumstances. Labour

relations being a very sensitive area I'm not at liberty to

reveal all the projects we have underway. These might

compromise the success. They might be viewed as a threat to

normal patterns by some of the parties involved. We're

proceeding as rapidly as possible in an attempt to gain the

co-operation of parties and so on to look at different

avenues.

I wouldn't care to discuss them publicly or reveal them to

the House. They're not perhaps major things that should be

highly emphasized; rather they're innovative approaches that

are internal and we hope to make some headway, at which time I

would be glad to discuss them.

MR. GARDOM: Is there a responsibility on the Hon. Minister

in his annual report to present a complete report of the

activities of this research and planning branch and what it's

done? Otherwise, it really just becomes an instrument of

government to determine whether or not the research is

effective, ineffective or will be utilized, and the general

public are deprived of the results and the opinions that might

emanate from this expensive procedure.

HON. MR. KING: Well, the Member raises one question and then

switches back to another. The research branch has quite a

number of basic functions which are contained in the annual

report. The basic service is the analysis of collective

agreements, which is a very valuable service to the parties to

collective bargaining — wage analysis, emerging and

different trends in contract negotiations, pensions and that

type of thing; the whole question of job evaluations —

how we handle that; the question of new technology —

technological effect on work forces, and the whole variety of

functions which the research branch normally conducts and makes

available, not only to the parties but the public also if they

are interested.

When the Member talks about innovative things, I agree that

we have to do more of this. But I don't think you really get at

those kinds of issues by highlighting and publicizing some

grand venture which will probably minimize the chances of

success by putting pressures on the parties involved to the

extent that they might not be able to co-operate as fully

as they would have otherwise.

What I'm suggesting is that we intend to use the branch in a

low-profile way to try to set up better relationships in

a given industry where it's a relationship between a union and

an employer — perhaps to be able to be prepared to

innovate and stray even from the hard terms of the collective

agreement of a little bit more if they have that kind of

confidential access to sophisticated research.

I don't think we should seek to jeopardize that kind of

low-profile co-operation by highlighting it

publicly — at this point anyway.

MR. GARDOM: Does not the Hon. Minister think that it would

be very much in the public interest, since this seems to be the

statistic branch? Am I correct in that?

HON. MR. KING: Statistic branch.

MR. GARDOM: All right, it's certainly more than statistics,

but it's also the statistic branch. When we get into these

newspaper advertisement campaigns, which are almost warfare

campaigns between management and labour, and you have these

wildly conflicting statistics, would it not be in the public

interest on the third page to have this independent body that I

suggested — or if you like, under this particular branch

— publish what they consider to be the relevant

criteria?

HON. MR. KING: Well, I would certainly consider that if both

parties agreed. Otherwise, as my hon. legal friend on the

opposite side appreciates, it would place the Department of

Labour squarely in conflict with claims, whether they're

political or valid, made

[ Page 2480 ]

by certain of the parties. I don't think that the Department

of Labour should become involved in an adversary role with

management or labour. That would, I think, be the inevitable

result if contradictory reports were issued by our

department.

MR. GARDOM: Well, it obviously might be contradictory to

each side, Mr. Minister. But if you have a statistic that is

black and is wrong, and you have a statistic that is white and

is allegedly correct, and the correct one is grey, right in the

middle, I think it would be a proper government function to

inform the general public of that.

MR. WALLACE: That suggestion might finish up red, white and

blue. But seriously, Mr. Chairman, I just have a little

apprehension that the research department doesn't seem to

follow the definition of what research is all about. Research

is to find newer ways and better ways.

While we're agreed that there must be statistical collection

of data, I hope the research department isn't just a bunch of

more clerks, or more bureaucrats going around simply collating

facts, figures and statistics which really do very little to

tell us the motivation behind people which leads to

labour-management problems. Surely research is to find

out in this field, as it is, say, in medicine, things we don't

already know and to probe and carry out experiments.

It was to me a little disturbing that the Minister said that

some of the research going on relates to somewhat peculiar

circumstances. My

interpretation of that is that he's dealing

with minority situations or problems which are not the general

run-of-the-mill problems. I may be wrong; the

Minister is shaking his head. "More peculiar circumstances" was

the phrase he used.

Now the problem in labour management is tedious and

repetitive like a lot of our speeches. It seems to be the same

problems arising time and time again, regardless of taking any

cognizance of the changing society in which we live. Some of

the points which the Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) mentioned…. I don't propose to recycle

them.

Nevertheless, I think the people of this province and the

people of Canada are desperately seeking research in the hope

that things are going on in this labour-management field

which we don't understand and which, with more intensive study

and research, we might begin at least to understand in part.

It's the completely senseless nature of many of the problems,

or the degree to which the dispute goes beyond reasonable

bounds — and then a whole lot of innocent people

suffer.

I'm sure that the research should surely be based on finding new methods or

even new attitudes or new approaches to the problem, even if a year from now

you come and tell us that your new attitudes didn't work at all. At least I'd

be happier knowing that at least every year or every two years there is some

new, definitive programme of research carried out. I just, with respect, Mr.

Chairman, feel that we've not had a specific enough answer by the Minister as

to what this department actually does, and the nature of the programmes.

Now the Minister says that in some instances it would be

against the public interest, or against the interest of

parties, to know what kind of research is being carried out.

Surely there must be some of the programming. We're doubling

the staff from 12 to 24 — and I think that's good. But

I'd like to know in some kind of detail what level and what

specific kind of functions are these new 12 staff or the whole

24 staff going to be doing.

For example, Mr. Chairman, there's one item, 035, described

as a shared research programme, which goes up from $25,000 to

$100,000. Surely the House is entitled to some kind of —

not a complete breakdown perhaps — but some kind of

specific detail as to what we mean by a shared research

programme, and why it is to be four times the cost this year

compared to last year.

We also have this fact again of printing and publications.

It seems to be an item along with travelling expenses.

Travelling expenses are doubled. Right through this Minister's

series of votes there are these items, and yet we don't get

enough specific explanation of the actual programmes which this

department is to be embarking upon. I think the Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey raised many valid points, and I

don't want to repeat them, but could — the Minister now

tell us a little more specifically what this department's

doing?

The Members do not seem to be familiar with the basic

research which this branch conducts throughout the year. Each

month the research bulletin comes out; it is quite a voluminous

document. I'll read the table of contents so the Members may be

better apprised of the kind of functional work that the

research branch does on a constant basis.

Requests for research bulletin readers.

British Columbia labour force review.

Analysis of union membership.

Labour disputes in British Columbia (the number of disputes

and the area or sector of the industry they are in).

The consumer price index.

Wages under collective bargaining in Canada.

Major collective agreements expiring in this current month

— March, 1974.

Report of the Mediation Services Branch.

Arbitration awards.

Contract settlements in British Columbia.

[ Page 2481 ]

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

HON. MR. KING: This is the kind of basic information which I

think you can appreciate, with our work force and our degree of

unionization, contains a great deal of statistical information

that is very valuable not only in terms of collective

bargaining but in terms of organization of the work force, in

terms of making all parties familiar with new trends in

bargaining, and so on.

This is a very, very important and basic type of information

that is made available in the province. We have had quite a

reorganization of the department. Perhaps Members can

appreciate that the old Labour Relations Board is now in

Vancouver; we need additional research to complement their

needs. Certainly, this kind of thing has put more weight and

responsibility on our research officers, so they have a

broadened area in terms of the kind of information they are

getting out — board decisions, this kind of thing.

I would just like to comment a bit further that both the

manpower and industrial relations branch of the department

require a great deal of research. I think Members on occasion

tend to identify and isolate this whole conflict area of

industrial relations rather than viewing in totality the whole

sphere. Surely we can't have harmony in the labour force unless

we pay attention to adequate training, adequate mobility and

adequate replacement of people displaced by new technology.

This whole scope is essential if we are to give the working

people of this province a feeling of greater security and

perhaps less reason for conflict and animosity when they go to

the bargaining table.

As you know, the manpower development branch is concerned

with setting up a cohesive strategy of manpower of this

province. I mentioned that earlier in my remarks. This involves

hard research. I think when we start offering this kind of

effective service to the workers, we are going to have workers

who are more content, more secure. These are the kind of

psychological aspects that affect the attitude of trade unions

and their membership when they go to the bargaining table.

It is a very broad spectrum of interests. But I don't want the Members to get

hung up on this comment I made, which was a bit of an off-the-cuff comment,

about special projects. I did not mean "peculiar" in the sense of being some

unusual occurrence; I meant a situation that is peculiar to a certain industry

— a dispute. It may be a common kind of dispute but it is peculiar to one industry.

If that industry agrees, "Look, we need help," and the facilities of our collective

bargaining structure are not adequate to resolve this difference, then does

it not make sense to say to those parties we will send in a research officer,

we will send in a mediator, whatever is required — any service from the Department

of Labour that might help them to find a better way? My suggestion to the opposition

Members is that if I should feel obliged to identify and reveal every one of

those situations to the House immediately, I could possibly jeopardize the chance

of any real co-operation taking place.

So I just mention that in passing. That is the kind of

service I think all members would agree with. Surely that

should be our function: to deal with specific disputes and try

to dampen them down so that we reduce the incidence of work

stoppages and conflicts in the economy of British Columbia.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like to

ask the Minister how far afield his studies and research are

going to find another method of settling strikes in the public

sector? I am talking about strikes which have been talked about

before this afternoon where the general well-being of the

public is affected.

There are jurisdictions in this world of ours where there

are relatively no labour problems at all. I would like to know

how far a field the Minister's research is going. People of

this province and the people of Canada are sick and tired of

strikes which affect them, where a very few people can disrupt

the entire economy and well-being of the general,

ordinary person on the street. I think if this government is

going to make progress in the field of labour, their research

must go further a field.

I would like to know just how much research is being done in

other jurisdictions.

HON. MR. KING: A great deal of research is going on. I would

point out that a new approach essentially has been taken; all

Members of this House voted for that new approach last year.

Let's give it a chance to work. We are certainly getting

involved in the broadest kind of research conceivable.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly took the attitude that this new

approach by the Minister should work and I was quite prepared

to sit back and hope that it would work. But then yesterday

afternoon I must say I was very, very disappointed when I found

out that the same government which was going to take this new

approach was bringing in strikebreaking tactics in this

province. That is exactly what they were when the Provincial

Secretary made his announcement that the government was finding

another way of having cheques delivered. This in essence cut

the feet right out from under the mail delivery people in this

province. I don't think that if you are going to take that

attitude it is a new approach at all.

To laugh and scoff and say that wasn't a strikebreaking

tactic is utterly stupid. It certainly was. If this is going to

be your attitude, you are not going to

[ Page 2482 ]

make any progress. If this is the type of thinking you have,

you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If you are honest and sincere, you would go and look at

other jurisdictions where there are relatively few problems

within the field of labour. But I think that the action this

government has taken is utterly not acceptable. Just because it

happened to be a federal labour union that was involved…. I

realize that people on welfare, Mincome, insurance cheques, et

cetera, have to be delivered. But that points back to the

complete idiocy of strikes in the first place in the public

sector where they affect all of these people. There has to be

another way.

You say that you don't believe in compulsory arbitration.

Yet the school teachers of this province have accepted it for

years and I don't think they are so badly off.

What countries are you researching in? What jurisdictions

and how many people have you sent out to do studies on this?

What is going on?

Vote 133 approved.

On vote 134: Labour Relations Board, $706,000.

MR. CHABOT: This is a vote in which we vote the money to get

the new Labour Code of British Columbia functioning under the

Labour Relations Board. It is a drastic increase from $140,000

to $706,000 — six times as much money. I hope we have six

times as much success as well.

Now, looking at the specifics of this vote, I find the

chairman gets a salary of $39,000, the vice chairman gets

$38,000, and two other vice chairmen get $33,000. Then lumped

in under $373,000, again one of those omnibus votes. It says,

"board members, senior and clerical staff, including temporary

assistance." That probably covers a multitude of things which

don't appear on the surface. I would imagine the other seven

members of the board will be paid under that vote of $373,000.

1 was wondering just generally what the salary range is for the

seven members.

I look at the vote on office furniture and equipment and

find there is $5,000 allocated. I find it is the smallest vote

in these various estimates you have for office furniture and

equipment with exception of the office of the Minister. They

are establishing new offices, I understand, for the new Labour

Relations Board.

With 10 members plus staff that is certainly going to cost more than $5,000,

I would think, for office equipment — $5,000 wouldn't even buy the desk for

the Minister of Human Resources. What do you expect to buy for the kind of offices

you're setting up for the Labour Relations Board with $5,000? Where is that

money coming from that you're going to equip these new offices with? Is it coming

out of that $373,000 which appears to be clerical staff, including temporary

assistance, as well as some of the salaries of the board members? What else

comes out of that $373,000, I wonder?

We see the salaries here of the Labour Relations Board

members. We see they have $50,000 travelling expenses up from

$9,600. Beyond the realm of travelling expenses, there must be

fringe benefits attached to their salaries. I posed this

question yesterday without receiving a reply from the Minister

and I thought I'd wait for the appropriate vote. I'm a patient

man and I waited for the appropriate vote. It seems we're now

on that vote. I'll ask the Minister if he could give me some

idea as to what kind of fringe benefits. We know there's a

$39,000-a-year salary for the chairman; we know he

and the other board members have $50,000 to travel. But there

must be some fringe benefits attached to the position and, if

so, what are these fringe benefits?

HON. MR. KING: They are the normal benefits customary in

that kind of a contractual relationship with the

government.

The queries the Member makes regarding the low furniture

provision for the new building that houses the Labour Relation

Board is understandable. The building was developed and

furnished by the Public Works department as a government office

so that we simply had to acquire what additional furniture was

necessary for the Department of Labour's needs. Generally, it

was furnished and equipped.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Burnaby and Kingsway. No, I beg your

pardon, that's the West 8th Avenue facility rather than the

Burnaby one. So that results in the low amount for the

furniture supply.

The question of the travelling expenses. The board now sits

in panels and may travel as panels to adjudicate applications

and so on throughout the province. This means the board is not

firmly entrenched in the Vancouver or Victoria area, with the

subsequent cost accruing to trade unions and management groups

to always travel to that major centre. The board panels may

travel to various Interior centres: Golden, Cranbrook,

Invermere even, and give service to the working people up in

that area of the province.

MR. CHABOT: The Public Works department looks after the

building. I'm wondering, is that a public building or is that a

leased building?

HON. MR. KING: I believe it's a leased building, Mr. Member.

I'm not certain of that at the moment.

[ Page 2483 ]

MR. CHABOT: Well, I guess it would be unfair for me to ask

you what the lease rate is because it's not your

department.

HON. MR. KING: It might be fair but I couldn't tell you.

MR. CHABOT: You say the fringe benefits attached to the

five-year contract you have with the heads of the Labour

Relations Board are normal benefits with government, normal

type of benefits. What are these normal type of benefits? Do

these people have a chauffeur-driven car? Do they have a

government vehicle? Do they have a leased vehicle? What kind of

normal situation are you talking about? What is their

condition? Do they have the automobiles provided to them?

If they have these things, where do they come from? Do they

come out of this $373,000 which talks about senior and clerical

staff and temporary assistance? There must be some vote from

which these fringe benefits come. Could you give me some idea

as to what the fringe benefits really constitute? You say

normal. What kind of dollars are we talking about regarding the

fringe benefits of these people we have under contract for

five-year terms? What kind of dollars per year do these

fringe benefits cost the taxpayers of British Columbia?

HON. MR. KING: It's not a greatly significant amount. There

are some leased cars involved. I want to assure the Member

that there are no chauffeur-driven automobiles or there

are no shares in the company arrangement for the people. But

there are normal leased vehicles for, I believe, three of the

members of the board, the chairman to the vice-chairman.

Presumably there will be another one for the fourth

vice-chairman who is off at the moment recuperating.

MR. CHABOT: Do you have some idea as to what the costs of

these leased vehicles are to this vote and where it appears in

this vote? Does it come under that $373,000?

HON. MR. KING: No, it comes out of the $50,000 travelling

expenses. I believe the vehicles cost on the lease basis in the

neighbourhood $105 a month.

MR. CHABOT: Each vehicle?

HON. MR. KING: Yes.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'm just a little concerned about a question

raised a couple of times in the House about secrecy with regard to the Labour

Relations Board. I had a complaint the other day from some people in the Grand

Forks area. Perhaps I could pass along that complaint to the Minister at this

time and he could tell me whether or not he considers an investigation with

regard to the secrecy of the board should be carried out or at least some new

regulations laid down.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Mr., Chairman, I understand that this problem occurred at a

company called Davidoff Logging in Grand Forks. Sixteen

employees of the company voted for certification. It was a

close vote; it was narrowly voted to certify. It wasn't a

supervised vote incidentally. But later on, because of some

irregularities, I'm told, in the vote and the consequences

surrounding the vote, three of those members sent letters to

the Labour Relations Board telling them that they had changed

their minds, they would like to have another vote, and they

weren't given all of the information they felt was necessary in

that vote. Incidentally, those three votes would have made a

difference in whether or not the company was certified.

Subsequent to that, the certification was okayed. At the

next meeting of the union local in that area, the information

I'm given is that those letters which were sent to the Labour

Relations Board were read aloud to the members at that local

union meeting and used to embarrass those three dissidents into

signing up with the union.

The question I'd like to ask is how did the local union ever

get a hold of those letters which were sent to the Labour

Rela