[ Page 553 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

On the motion of the Honourable C.M. Shelford, Bill (No. 39), intituled Synthetic Food Products Act.

On the motion of the Honourable L.R. Peterson, Bill (No. 36), intituled An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, Motion 14 on the Order Paper.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Order, I would like to refer to section 27, page 8, Standing Orders (interruption). Mr. Speaker, there was no agreement last night. I asked what the House leader had in mind for today. He had not, then, made up his mind as what was on for today. There was no agreement existing whatsoever. I refer, on a Point of Order, the Speaker to page 8, order 27, section 1. This being Private Members' Day, Motion 14 does not have precedence, in my opinion, over the other motions on the Order Paper,

MR. SPEAKER: The House passed, on the opening of the Budget Address, or the day prior to the Budget Address, a motion which requires the House to go into Committee of Supply at the opening of the sitting; otherwise, it will require leave to move over the Committee of Supply.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

The committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I call now for Motion 14 on the Order Paper.

MR. BARRETT: Point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well.

MR. BARRETT: I refer to page 8, section 27, number 1 of Standing Orders, subsection 2, that Government business has precedence every day, except Wednesday and Thursday, which is Private Members' Day. The Premier, in my opinion, would have to ask unanimous leave of the House to call the motion before the other motions on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter was called to my attention prior to the sitting. In the very brief time that I have had to look into the matter, I find a ruling by Mr. Speaker Irwin, in 1956, which appears on page 131 on the Journals of that year, which very briefly states that, whenever Government business has precedence, Government orders may be called in such sequence as the Government may deem fit, and the right is reserved to the administration of placing Government orders at the head of the list on every day, except Wednesday and Thursday, today being Wednesday. From the foregoing, you will appreciate that any departure from the order of business set out in Standing Order 25, previously mentioned, can only take place on a motion to suspend the appropriate Standing Order and such motion being a substantive motion requires due notice or the unanimous consent of the House before it can be made without notice. However, the Speaker goes on to say that, "The rigidity of this rule is relaxed by Standing Order 48, under which a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day (as opposed to routine proceedings) may be made without notice, " Journals, page 131, 1956. It would, therefore, appear that if the Government wishes to move to Motion 14, it would be neccessary for a motion without notice to be made that we may do so. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: In speaking in opposition to that motion, I don't know the exact wording of the motion. I imagine it would be submitted in writing to the House. I'd like to see the motion we are debating, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Since no notice was indicated, when we are moving to Orders of the Day, I should think that this would be acceptable, as has been the case in the past, by a verbal motion. This has been done on many occasions.

MR. BARRETT: May I have the wording of the motion verbally, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The wording of the motion is that the House proceed to Motion 14 on the Order Paper.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. In opposing this Motion, Mr. Speaker, I think that we are in danger of eroding the practices and the procedures of this House that we have established over many, many years of trial and error in the parliamentary system. There are only two days of the week that are Private Members' Days, those days being Wednesday and Thursday. It has not been the practice, unfortunately, of this House that those days have been set aside regularly for private members. As the result, there are a number of motions already on the Order Paper and there are also private bills on the Order Paper, by private Members, that haven't yet been called.

Mr. Speaker, the amount of time involved by the Government, if it wishes to proceed to Motion 14, would be nothing more than allowing the mover of the motion to stand up and make his statement on the motion in a democratic fashion. If the Government then wished to adjourn the motion it could have a backbencher or a Cabinet Minister stand up and adjourn that particular motion and work orderly, in precedent and, under the rules, down to Motion 14. It would not unnecessarily delay the House. It would not cause any undue delay in debating 14, because 14 could have been called yesterday, if the Government had felt that the emergency was so great. What is at stake, here, Mr. Speaker, is simply the precedent of running over the established procedure to protect the rights of the private Members. There are only three motions prior to 14 and it is very, very easy, under the existing orders, without supporting this motion, to get to Motion 14 and still protect the rights of the private Members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion. I do so because of the precedent of the House. I do so because of the precedent of

[ Page 554 ]

the British Parliamentary system, which, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, has not and should never, by this sort of motion, overrule the rights of private Members of this House. By overruling the other motions that sit on our Order Paper, the Leader of the House is suggesting that his motion, which happens to be 14, is of more import to this House than the other motions that now sit on the Order Paper. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is open to considerable debate, when you consider the nature of Motion 7, which has precedence on theOrders of the Day . Motion 7 deals with the entire future of this Province and the entire future of the ecology of this Province. I suggest that, under no logic, could the Premier, who has moved this motion, suggest that his motion should take precedence on the basis of implication of import to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion, I also draw to your attention, as I have just now looked at Rule 48, that it says, too, "No notice is necessary of a motion to proceed to theOrders of the Day ." That is not the motion we are considering. The motion we are considering at the moment is to proceed to a specific part of theOrders of the Day . I would ask your consideration of that. I can appreciate that 48 says that the Government can introduce a motion to go to Orders of the Day, but we are not doing that. We are going to a specific part of theOrders of the Day and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable Members allow me just a moment, please?

The motion, in effect, suspends our Standing Orders and, Standing Order 48, by implication, indicates that, if we are going to suspend the rules in order to get into private bills, notice would be required. So, by implication, it would appear that, if we were going anywhere else, no notice would be required. Reading that, together with Mr. Speaker Irwin's ruling, I would rule that the motion is in order and is indeed debatable, without notice. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): I point out that you have to read that in the light of the clear statements in Standing Order 27 (2), "…whenever Government business has precedence." Now, of course, today, it hasn't. Government orders may be called in such sequence as a Government may think fit. In other words, on those days the Government may set the Order of precedence of Government motions. But this is not one of those days. This is Private Members' Day and the right is reserved to the administration of placing Government orders ahead of the list on every day, except Wednesday and Thursday.

Now, the order of business the Honourable the Premier seeks to get to is Motion 14. It is my submission that we should have a motion to go to Orders of the Day and suspend the rules, in effect, under Standing Order 48. That's what we are debating really is Standing Order 48 to go to theOrders of the Day . Now, if we do that, we can do it by motion but I still say, because it happens to be Wednesday, the Government doesn't have precedence on Wednesdays on selection of the particular items on the Order Paper under Standing Orders on motions. Therefore, we would have to go to the motions as they are, as they occur on the Order Paper and certainly private Members' motions are first on the Order Paper. You would have to go through them to get to Motion 14, which this side of the House, perhaps, would be only too agreeable to do.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to express the appreciation of the Chair for the assistance that has been provided by the Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I would point out, however, that his case rests on the presumption that the matter of motions is Government business, which, in reality, it is not. Government business would be public orders and bills rather than motions and adjourned debates on motions. So, we're not really discussing the priority of Government business or the fact that it is Private Members' Day today. We're trying to ensure that a motion made, after having got into theOrders of the Day , to proceed to a certain motion, under "Adjourned Debate on Motions" and motions themselves is in order. This is the motion that's before the House. Under these circumstances, I cannot sustain the viewpoint that is put forward by the learned Member. I do believe that the motion that is before the House at the moment is in order.

MR. DOWDING: We have always had in this House, as long as I can remember, the courtesy of calling motions in order. You don't go jumping all around.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to challenge your ruling that the motion which is before us is one which is proper and without notice and debatable. That's the motion that we proceed to theOrders of the Day. What you're….

MR. SPEAKER: This is not the motion that's before the House, with respect.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I could see…if it were written, we could see it. Perhaps, we could debate….

MR. SPEAKER: It is not usual to write the motion into the order of business.

MR. WILLIAMS: If it were a question, Mr. Speaker, to proceed to a particular motion on the Order Paper ahead of any others, I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to 27 (1) which is quite specific — that all items standing on Orders of the Day shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the Order Paper. Now, there is in brackets, the words, "except Government orders" and you, Sir, have just now said, that "Government orders" refers to bills, not to motions. Therefore, the motion, which the Honourable the Premier is attempting to have brought before the House, now, is not a Government order in view of the ruling you have just made — because it isn't a bill. We are, then, thrust to the words of 27 (1) which says that all items standing on the Orders shall be taken according to the precedence assigned to each upon the Order Paper. We are bound, therefore, to take the order that's on the Paper and the motion to which he wishes to proceed is fourth in precedence.

MR. SPEAKER: The learned Member may have overlooked reading Standing Order 48.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I may respond, I have not overlooked 48, Mr. Speaker, which only means that to proceed without notice is to proceed to Orders of the Day. I will admit that

[ Page 555 ]

without notice we may go to Orders of the Day. That's where we are right now. The question under debate is whether Motion 14, which you, Mr. Speaker, have said is not a Government order, is entitled to precedence. There is nothing in 48 which takes away the specific precedence which is granted by 27 (1).

MR. SPEAKER: That was not the view of Mr. Speaker Irwin, in 1956. It is not my view today. I do declare that the motion that is before the House dealing with Standing Order 14 is in order and I think we have dealt with the Point of Order in some depth. I must now rule that the motion is in order. Any further discussion, then, should be on the motion itself.

The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, I wish to challenge your ruling.

Upon appeal to the House, the Speaker's ruling was sustained.

AN HON. MEMBER: …challenged?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the ruling was challenged. There was no division. The Honourable Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I want to speak to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The division has been called. There can be no debate.

MR. MACDONALD: I thought it was on a Point of Order, surely.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Let me clarify the situation. The Speaker made a ruling that the motion before the House was in order. That ruling was challenged by the Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, upon which challenge the House did not divide. Subsequently, the motion is now before the House, upon which the House is now dividing, that the House proceed to Motion 14 on the Order Paper. This is the position that we are in, is it understood?

The House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Messieurs

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Labour.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Vancouver Burrard, Motion 14, which reads as follows:

Whereas it is predictable that a work stoppage in the transportation industry in the current dispute between certain trucking firms and the General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 31 will not only interfere with the freedom and rights of many of the people of British Columbia to carry on their lawful and chosen activities but will also discourage and divert investments in industrial undertakings within British Columbia and adversely affect the economy and welfare of its citizens:

And whereas it is expected that the parties engaged in the dispute will respect and observe the laws of the Province:

This House recommends that, in order to protect the public interest and welfare the work stoppage resulting from the dispute between certain employers in the transportation industry and the General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 31 shall immediately cease, and that the normal operations of those employers shall be resumed forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Would the Honourable the Minister of Labour be seated? The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my Point of Order is that, in my opinion, the motion is out of Order, as it is a motion that has two "whereas's" which give assertions rather than statements of fact. There is an assertion and, according to the rules of this House….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable Member be good enough to quote the rule.

MR. DOWDING: It has been ruled many times, Mr. Speaker, that no preambles are permitted.

MR. PETERSON: …to debate the recitals as well as the operative part of the motion, Mr. Speaker, and… (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The honourable Member has had an opportunity to present his Point of Order. Surely, the Attorney-General has a similar right.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is common in motions to have recitals to express the intent of the resolution and the

[ Page 556 ]

reasons for the resolution. If they find them objectionable, they are subject to amendment, in the same way that the other part of the motion is or, indeed, they are not compelled to vote in support of the motion. I suggest that the recitals and the operative part of the motion can all be taken into consideration during the course of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: There was a period, when they started using preambles in this House, that they were ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker Irwin and they were ruled out by previous Speakers. Starting back in the 1930's, they were ruled out of order and we've never done it since. The idea is really strange that we are expected to buy assertions in "whereas" clauses that may or may not be true. The Honourable the Attorney-General cannot possibly in this House, in this debate, back up such assertions as he makes in those preamble clauses. That's why the Speakers have always ruled them out (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is some doubt in my mind, that has been raised by the Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds and I think that there is substance to what he has had to say in connection with the preambles to motions placed before this House. I haven't the Speakers' Decisions before us and, if the House has no objection, I would say that we proceed with the substantive part of the motion and that I would bring in a ruling at a later time for the future guidance of the House. I have no….

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would be agreeable to have only the operative part of the motion and to not debate the recitals at this stage.

MR. SPEAKER: I would recommend the House adopt that practice under the circumstances. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is there permission from the seconder to delete the two clauses?

Do you agree to delete the first two clauses, Mr. Member? Yes? Well, I just wanted to make sure that the seconder agreed. If it's agreed with the seconder, we accept that. We are debating, now, the last paragraph in the amendment, which is in order. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Labour.

MR. PETERSON: May I now proceed to indicate why this motion is before the House and the argument in support of it? Under the provisions of the Mediation Commission Act, it is the prerogative and it is the responsibility of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to determine when it is necessary to intervene in a strike or lockout, or an anticipated strike or lockout, in order to protect the public interest and welfare and to bring such a dispute to an end.

The primary purpose, as honourable Members who were here when that particular bill was presented to the House will recall…the primary purpose of that legislation in giving to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council that authority was to prevent any unnecessary delays, to prevent the expense of calling a special Session of the Legislature; however, when the Legislature is in Session, it is the policy, and I trust will continue to always be policy, that it will be the Legislature that is called upon to make that determination. That's why this motion is before the Legislature today. That's why the operative part of the motion is sufficient to indicate the intention of the Legislature as to whether or not the Government should intervene to bring this dispute in the transportation industry to an end.

I have some argument to advance to the House, which is a normal procedure on motions. I think, Mr. Speaker, in support of the motion, I do want to refer to the transportation industry, generally, first of all. I think that we have to acknowledge that the transportation of merchandise, of supplies, the transportation of equipment, as well, is the lifeblood of commerce in this Province. It is an important economic activity in itself. More important, yet, is the link that it provides between production, on the one hand, and the distribution and consumption of goods and services, on the other hand. In this overall operation, the trucking industry does perform a very vital function in the overall transportation system. It is essential, of course, to our export trade, and I would ask the honourable Members to remember that Canada and, in particular, British Columbia are primarily export Nations. We rely very heavily on foreign trade and the trucking industry is an essential operation insofar as the continuation of our export market is concerned. Therefore, when transportation services are withdrawn, other economic processes are inevitably curtailed to the detriment of our total economy.

The work stoppage in this industry commenced on Friday, just a few days ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean the lockout commenced on Friday.

MR. PETERSON: Well, there was an initial small strike. The reason I am referring to it as a Work stoppage, Mr. Speaker, is very simple, because there is both a strike and a lockout. The strike was initial, but the lockout is the much greater problem because that affects many more employees and many more employers — the lockout of the Teamsters' Union. I think because…I'm sure the Members understand a strike against an individual employer and then a lockout against the whole industry by the employers, that the fairest way of referring to it, as I have in this resolution, is to a "work stoppage."

It's already being felt, Mr. Speaker, even in these few days. I would suggest it is a far more serious dispute than the transit dispute, that we've just come through. More serious because, on the one hand, the transit dispute was confined to two centres in the Province — Vancouver and Victoria — and, also, in that particular dispute it was possible and many did find alternate means of transportation. Earlier in this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, we commented on and commended the public for the way they responded in that particular dispute in helping others and providing transportation. But this is not the situation in this trucking industry lockout and strike situation.

The construction industry, in particular, and I would ask the Members to recall this industry was shut down for a long period of time, just a short while ago…I would ask the Members to remember, as well, that it is this construction industry that we are relying on, to a large extent today in terms of providing new jobs for people. The impact of this trucking dispute work stoppage is being felt in the construction industry today. I am advised that there has been some

[ Page 557 ]

shut-down of deliveries to construction sites. It is always difficult, and I found it extremely difficult this summer, to determine how extensive the shut-down is. Nevertheless, I am advised that prestressed concrete beam deliveries, for example, are completely shut down and structural steel and reinforced steel deliveries are 80 per cent shut down at this particular time. The indications are that many major construction projects will be completely shut down within two weeks. On the other side, of course, in terms of deliveries to railways and to the docks, these also are affected. I understand that deliveries to and from docks have been estimated as high as 85 per cent shut down.

This is just the beginning of this particular work stoppage. It only started on Friday, Mr. Speaker. There can be no question that the continuation of the dispute would be contrary, in my submission, to the public interest and welfare. It is predictable that the work stoppage will adversely affect the economy and welfare of the citizens of this Province. In other words, we know it's going to happen. Anyone with any common sense can see what's happening. What should we do? Sit back and wait for the damage to be done? Or should we move now? That's the question and that's the issue.

It's not an easy question. I'll be the first to concede that. It's not easy to determine precisely when intervention should be made in a dispute of this nature, remembering that, by that intervention, we bring to an end the lockout, we deprive the right of the employers to continue the lockout, we deprive the right of the employees to continue their strike. So it is not an easy question to be put to the Members of this Legislature, or to anyone, for that matter. I suggest that there are circumstances where intervention is preferable to the consequences of continuing a work stoppage. I suggest that this is one such case. I propose to offer further reasons in this respect.

I want to say, as well, that I personally regret the necessity of intervention in this case because it has been my experience over the years while I have been Minister of Labour, that the particular union that's involved in this dispute has been a very responsible union. It is a union that has enjoyed a very able leadership, Mr. Speaker, and I think, too, it would be safe to say that it has provided leadership as well to the rest of organized labour, in times when leadership was thoroughly needed. So, Mr. Speaker, this union, I suggest, has an excellent reputation and has done much to improve the reputation of organized labour as a whole in the Province of British Columbia. But, notwithstanding this record, I do suggest to the Members that each case and each dispute has to be considered on its own merits. I told Senator Lawson, as I tell you, in my opinion, the timing of the shut-down in the trucking industry couldn't be any worse than it is today. If we allow the dispute to continue then we would be imposing an intolerable burden on the economy of the Province, and I am going to tell you why, in my opinion, that is so.

Currently, we have unemployment levels in the neighbourhood of 80,000 people. There has been a lot of talk, and quite rightly so, about the number one problem — unemployment — how to create jobs for the people of the Province of British Columbia. I ask the Members to bear in mind, as well, that of these 80,000 people, many of them have been out of work for a considerable period of time. Now, we are approaching the period, and this is normal as we move into the second quarter…it is normal for the economy to pick up for greater economic activity, for more jobs to be created. At this particular time I suggest that we cannot afford a disruption of the kind that is inevitable with a work stoppage in the transportation industry. It not only affects the industry directly and those employed in the transportation industry, but it affects many other industries in the Province. It would, I suggest, effectively suspend the anticipated improvement in economy that I referred to, as well as add a crippling blow to those who are now looking for employment, especially when we rely on the construction industry so heavily for employment.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the results and they must be very fresh in our memory. The results of strikes in the towboat industry, longshoring, Post Office, all facets of communication and all important features of dependable trade with other countries. I suggest to the Members that we can't, on the one hand, condemn, as Members of all Parties have done, the delays on the part of the Federal Government in dealing with these disputes, when these disputes came under their jurisdiction, if we are not prepared to act now when there is a dispute affecting the transportation system that comes under Provincial jurisdiction. I think, as I indicated in an earlier address, that we have to bear in mind that, if we are going to establish a reputation in the world as efficient and dependable suppliers of goods, if we're going to improve the prosperity, in other words, of our people, and create jobs then we must ensure that production or delivery is not seriously delayed through work stoppages. That is the purpose of the motion.

Apparently the only issue that has brought about this dispute is whether a "struck goods" clause is to be included in the new agreement. This is a clause under which union members would have the right to refuse to handle the products shipped by an employer involved in a strike — as to whether that should be included in the collective agreement in place of a provision which is presently in the agreement, that is, the expired agreement, which permits the union members to refuse to cross picket lines set up by another union. That is the issue that brought this work stoppage into being in the first place. I take this position that this issue, this change in principle, is certainly not of sufficient importance to the people of British Columbia to justify the adverse effect of a continuation of the work stoppage and the adverse effect that stoppage would have on the economic life of this Province. It is as simple as that.

I suggest that these are factors that have to be taken into consideration as to why we should be moving, at this particular time, to bring an end to this dispute.

What would follow the passage of this resolution? I want the Members to clearly understand the situation as to the procedures I would propose, assuming that this motion meets with the approval of the Assembly. First of all, if the motion were passed, Mr. Speaker, then I would recommend to the Executive Council that the dispute be referred to the Mediation Commission for a binding award. This reference is necessary if we are to accomplish the object of the motion which is, namely, the resumption of the normal operations of the trucking industry. But before I would be prepared to make that recommendation to Executive Council, notwithstanding the passage of this resolution, before we'd pass the necessary Order-in-Council, I would want assurance from the employers that they are prepared to pay the new rates of pay that were the subject of tentative agreement between the parties. In other words, we don't want the workers to be prejudiced by returning to work at lower rates than those which have been agreed to on a tentative basis.

[ Page 558 ]

Once operations… (interruption).

That's right — Tentatively. Once a strike or work stoppage takes place it's possible for everything to come into dispute again. It certainly is possible, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. That's been my experience. I hope it's not so. But, in any event, unless this took place, they would go back, not at their agreed rates of pay, they'd go back at the old rates of pay and the old agreement. That's what we don't want. That's why I'm making this submission. Once operations do resume, I also want to make it clear that I hope it will not be necessary for the Mediation Commission to commence hearings. Should it be necessary, in other words, to pass the Order-in-Council, thereby bringing an end to the lockout and strike, I want it to be very clear that there will still be sufficient time given to the parties to negotiate, to resolve their own differences. Admittedly they haven't been successful up to this time, through the negotiations, in resolving the issues in dispute. But, on many occasions when that has happened, when the work stoppage is intervened, it still is possible to go back and through negotiations, resolve the dispute. That's item number one that we would ask the parties to do and not have the Mediation Commission jump in immediately and hold hearings.

Secondly, assuming that they are not able to agree to negotiations, to discussions and bargainings on their own, then I would suggest to the parties that they consider the possibility of agreeing upon an alternative procedure — to hearings before the Mediation Commission. In other words, they may agree to have their dispute settled by a single arbitrator, especially, if they agree upon only one issue in dispute — and a technical one, I suggest, as to a "struck goods" clause compared to the "hot goods" or refusal to cross picket lines. This is the type of thing that could well be considered by some expert who they could find as a single arbitrator. They may indeed want to agree upon a three-man board. In other words, we would not want to impose upon the parties any particular procedures to settle the dispute. There is a procedure there, should they not be able to agree, themselves, through negotiations, or through alternate procedures, then, I suggest, there must be, when we compel them to return to work, there must be some alternate procedure provided and that would be provided through the Order-in-Council. Our concern, Mr. Speaker, is simply this — that the matters in dispute be resolved within the confines of an operating transportation system rather than a shut-down system for this one issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: First of all, I'd like to express the opinion that the Attorney-General is making a mistake with this motion. Without going into too many details of that, and I will comment on that further, I'd like to point out to the Attorney-General that he's done very little research on the motion to begin with. First of all, we found it necessary to delete the two clauses beginning with "whereas." Now that we debate the last, I'd like to point out to the Attorney-General that, even if this motion passes, even if this motion goes to the Cabinet, and even if an Order-in-Council is passed on this motion, the dispute will continue. You have not researched the dispute enough to find out, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is more than one local of the union involved. The motion itself, even though it passes, becomes a fruitless motion that does not serve to solve any problem at all simply by the lack of basic research on what the dispute is, who it involves, and where it's going.

I'd like to point out to the Attorney-General that his wording states here, "This House recommends that in order to protect the public interest and welfare the work stoppage resulting from the dispute between certain employers in the transportation industry and the General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 31 shall immediately cease… " When the First Member from Vancouver East brought to the Attorney-General's attention, when he said it was a work stoppage, the First Member interjected your remarks and said to you that it was a lockout, and you said, "No, it dealt two ways. It was a lockout and a strike." But the Attorney-General either has been misinformed or is ignorant of the facts. Local 31 is indeed on strike against one operation and that is named here in this motion. But Locals 181 and 213, which are not named in this motion, are locked out. The motion, as it is worded now is directly aimed, not at the employers who have locked out the men, but has picked on only the men who have chosen, through democratic rights, to go on strike. It shows the haste, it shows the lack of information and it shows the lack of understanding of what this dispute is all about. The tragedy, too, of the wording, Mr. Speaker, is that it gives weight to the accusation by the leader of that union, Senator Lawson, that the motion was inspired, not by the Department of Labour as he has accused, but by the employers themselves. If Mr. Lawson wanted evidence to that accusation, which I make no comment on, if he wanted evidence to that accusation, all he would have to do is read the wording of the motion and find that it is not an attempt to solve the work stoppage, it is an attempt to stop a strike of one local against one employer. That makes patently incorrect, and I might suggest, false, the Government's argument that they are indeed moving to resolve this problem on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Even if this motion passes, the lockout can continue legally — can continue legally because neither Local 181 or 213, which are the locals involved in the lockout, are named in this motion. Unless the Attorney-General… (interruption).

It is too late. You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of correction. That is the kind of correction we receive after the debate has started. It is an admission that there has not been a research of facts in this case at all. It is an admission by the Attorney-General that even though the plausibility of this argument being heard in this Chamber is one advanced by the Attorney-General, he admits to us publicly that the Order-in-Council will be altered, any way he wishes, at any time, after this debate.

Look, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has bungled this thing right from the beginning. He has tried to modify his approach to this. He says that Mr. Lawson is a respected trade union leader. All trade unions have respected leaders. That's how they get there, by the vote of their membership. They are respected by their membership and if the membership doesn't like them, it turfs them out. I don't have a vote in trade union affairs, Mr. Speaker, neither does the Attorney-General. I'd like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the membership dictates the terms of the leadership of any democratic union. I'd like to say further, that when he gives the aura of praising Mr. Lawson, which none of us disagrees with, he then says, in his comments, and lists a number of options that are available to these disputing parties, after he holds a shotgun at them and says, "These are the options."

I challenge him, Mr. Speaker, to state why not one of

[ Page 559 ]

these options was offered publicly to the disputants last Friday? Why was there a delay in offering these options? The timid approach — first of all, you say to this House, "We can't call upon the Federal Government to interfere, unless we're prepared to interfere ourselves," and then you say, "But, but, but, but." If these options are, indeed, available, why weren't they offered on Friday? Why wasn't your Department put to work over the weekend to test every single one of these options you listed to the two responsible parties. That wasn't offered at all.

As to the emergency, that indeed is a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker, indeed a matter of opinion, because there has been no body of evidence presented to the Members of this Chamber that any one of the charges of inconvenience listed by the Attorney-General is, in fact, an occurrence that is taking place at this moment. It is pure speculation, hearsay and conjecture. Although he may very well attempt to solve this dispute through hearsay and conjecture, what does his action now mean to free collective bargaining from here on out in this Province? It means that, no matter what the facts are in the dispute, the Attorney-General will, himself, determine what may possibly happen from the dispute and, from hearsay and conjecture, make his decisions based purely on nonfact.

What are the facts? We have had no body of evidence. We have had submissions made, I don't know if anyone else here has received a telegram from the union, but I have a submission from the union. I don't know if the Attorney-General has the same copy. I have no way of knowing, whatsoever, if the submission by the union is correct or incorrect. I see you have the same submission, signed by Mr. Lawson. I suppose you have the same and I'll read it. This is what Mr. Lawson says, "As of this date, February 23, 33 trucking companies have signed new agreements with our union, including "struck goods" clause. Thirty-three companies employ approximately 1,200 Teamster members. In addition, bakery products continue to be delivered by other Teamster locals, under agreement. Milk and dairy products continue to be delivered uninterrupted by other Teamster locals. Fuel supplies and groceries continue to be delivered by trucking companies under Teamster agreements, uninterrupted. In addition, freight companies whose agreement runs for one more year continue to operate. Concern for public welfare is being protected. Trucking services available to all areas of the Province"

There is no valid basis for the unwarranted Government intervention in this dispute, that threatens the end of free collective bargaining. If indeed, Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the head of this union are correct, then the Attorney-General has either misinterpreted the facts, or is misinforming the House, because basic supplies are available to every citizen in British Columbia and have not been interrupted. If the Attorney-General cares to pursue the argument that he has given, that the transit strike was less harmful because it meant interruption only in two urban areas, I point out to the Attorney-General that even during this strike, the elderly citizens of British Columbia can still walk down to the corner store and buy their groceries and buy their staples, but under the transit strike they were denied, for 30 days, the opportunity of going downtown and doing other shopping that may have been far more essential for them. So it is not correct, it is simply not correct to say that, on the one hand, the transit strike was confined only to the urban areas but that this strike is inconveniencing everyone in British Columbia, when the union makes the claim that such indeed is not the case. Staples, groceries, food, milk is available, delivered by trucks, throughout this Province.

What has been the result of the Attorney-General's interference? You are dealing with very hard feelings and very committed parties — on the one hand, the trade union which is obligated to fight for the best possible deal for its membership, and companies which are obligated to fight for the best possible deals for their shareholders. They take, by their very nature, hard-line, positions in bargaining. That's the nature of bargaining. That's the nature of fighting in this House, even though we might be great personal friends, in some instances, on policy matters. What divides us is a space on this Floor and ideology. But, once we come head on, in this House, there is an exchange of a point of view. There is hopefully some learning from each other but decisions are made freely, openly and shared with each other. That, in a small part, is exactly what goes on in a collective bargaining process. Two people with very hard positions come together and try to resolve those differences.

How would you feel, Mr. Speaker, if someone else came into this Chamber and announced that they didn't like your process of arriving at decisions and it was delaying the public business, as sometimes the public business is delayed in this House, and it is necessary, therefore, to apply compulsory arbitration to the decisions of this House'? How would you feel about it? You would know that it would be a negation of the whole process of a democratic society. You would not accept that kind of arbitrary decision and that, in its own way, is exactly what has happened here — but happened too early, happened, not only wrongfully, but too early. As of last Friday, one-third of the union members concerned had signed with nearly 40 per cent of the companies concerned, freely, in a free collective bargaining process, agreements that were binding and lasting. What could have happened and what might have happened, if we are indeed to debate in the area of conjecture, as the Attorney-General has only allowed us to do, because we cannot call witnesses on this motion — what would have happened if we had allowed to let our minds think about it? What would have happened over the weekend if the Government had not interfered? There may have indeed been more signing. There may have indeed been more negotiating periods. There may have indeed been a solution to this problem found freely by the two disputants. But as soon as the Attorney-General appeared on the scene, he indeed did throw sand in the gears and stop the natural process of two very strong parties coming to some kind of mutual agreement.

Now what has he done to those two parties? Psychologically he has created a condition where the companies must stand fast. Psychologically he has created a condition where the unions must stand fast, because now it doesn't become a test of free collective bargaining, it becomes a test of power and of strength — and that's a mistake. We have a great deal to learn from the Japanese in this regard, Mr. Speaker. They have an expression known as "allowing to save face." But once the big hand of interference comes in, based, by evidence here in the motion, on ignorance, once the big hand comes in, there is very little room to save face and you force both parties publicly to take a hard line and, in effect, erode the free collective bargaining process. That's the danger. That's the danger of this motion, and the danger is compounded by the complete ignorance of the Attorney-General as to the facts. He is basing his argument purely on conjecture.

[ Page 560 ]

There is no possible way, no way, that any Member of this group can vote for a motion that is based on conjecture. It is difficult at the best of times, Mr. Speaker, to make responsible decisions in this House. Many, many times we must do that on bills, when we don't even know all the facts of those bills. Time is so compressed in this Legislature that we make decisions here, as Members, without fully knowing all the facts but, at least, through committees, those that are functioning, at least, through debate here, in the House, we do achieve some knowledge and some information.

No one can tell me, Mr. Speaker, that, on the evidence presented by the Attorney-General and the fact that he doesn't even name all the disputants in this particular motion, no one can tell me that we are in any condition, whatsoever, to make a responsible decision on this particular motion. Therefore, we must vote against it. We must negate a proposition that has been presented on the basis of conjecture and conjecture, alone. That's not the way I was elected to make decisions. That's not the way I want to make decisions. That's not the way decisions should be made in the area of human relationships, especially between management and labour. There are enough problems already. I cannot help but say this, Mr. Speaker, that there is a feeling within me that part of this motion is politically inspired, politically motivated, on the basis of further dividing the people of our Province, of labour against farmer, poor against rich, the haves and the have-nots. It is a mistake to further divide our society. It is a mistake, as responsible legislators, to not reach out in the sensible way to embrace people and their ideas and bring them together, hopefully, in closed rooms, so that they can resolve their problems together. I have a suspicion that, because of the manner in which this was presented, because of the haste with which it was presented, because of the lack of hard facts in the presentation of the Attorney-General, I have a suspicion that the motion was politically motivated.

Then if you take that suspicion one step further, that it was placed on the Order Paper on Friday, and there has been no indication that new evidence was available to the Attorney-General between Friday, Tuesday and Wednesday, why was the motion not called yesterday? There was no opportunity for the Opposition, yesterday, to ask that its motions be heard. No need, yesterday, to interfere with the rights of Private Members' Day. No negotiations going on, yesterday, that would have made it necessary to delay this bill.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the motion was delayed by 24 hours because the Government was weighing the political factors of the motion, rather than the object that has been expressed by the Attorney-General. I think you've made a terrible blunder, through you, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a mistake to use this House, in the democratic process, to force people to come together in decisions that are not valid without having the facts. The fact is that you don't even know who the disputants are, you haven't even named them, and you suggest to correct that you are going to add it to the Order-in-Council. I suggest to you, for all of us to save some face, for this House to have some grace, for this House to retain some dignity in the eyes of the people of this Province, that the Attorney-General should stand up and move adjournment of this debate forthwith, leave the House, offer the options that he has made available to the disputants, now, and give them some time to consider those options before calling the adjourned debate on this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, in his remarks, has raised questions as to the speed with which the Honourable the Attorney-General brought this matter before this House last Friday, by placing it on our Orders. I believe it to be true that, in the days and weeks to come, the Honourable the Attorney-General and the Government will need to answer why it was done so quickly, just as, in the same way, they will need to answer why they did not act quickly in other disputes with which this Province has been affected over the past year. But that's not what we are debating. I say to the Members, "Don't be moved from the point of this motion by the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition. He tries to spell out the words in the motion and suggests that there is something wrong. Well, I read them and read them very carefully and I think they do embrace the matters which are before us today. In his remarks the Leader of the Opposition, I think, clearly spelled out the reason for this motion. He said that the bargaining parties in this dispute had got to the stage where the attitudes had hardened, where the union negotiators were concerned about the rights of their members, where the employer negotiators were concerned about the rights of their companies and the shareholders of those companies. This is why the motion is before us today, because, while those two groups can be concerned about their own special interests, we, in this House, must be concerned about the public interest. If it hurts the feelings of some members of some groups in this community then let them be hurt, because we have seen enough instances when, for their own private interests, the public interest is damned and it shall not happen any longer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has not in my view, and I will agree with the Leader of the Opposition in this regard, firmly placed before this Assembly the full facts upon which we could make a determination. I find it interesting that in his opening remarks the Honourable the Attorney-General said that, under the legislation, it was the responsibility of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to determine whether a dispute was contrary to the public interest, but that now that the Legislature was in Session, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council would allow this Assembly to make that determination.

I would, with respect, draw the Attorney-General's attention to the Statute, because a determination is not what we are asked to make, nor is it what the Cabinet is asked to make. All that the Lieutenant-Governor need do is to voice an opinion. All that we are being asked in this motion today, Mr. Speaker, as Members of this Assembly, is to consider the matters as they may come before us and to make certain recommendations. Based upon those recommendations, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will be aided in reaching that opinion. Therefore, we are not called to sit in judgement and make a determination upon evidence, as it is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, but merely upon such information as is presented to this House, either by the Attorney-General, or by the Leader of the Opposition, or by private examination by each Member of this House.

From the moment that notice was put on the Order Paper last Friday, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it became the responsibility of every Member in this Assembly to take what steps he could to ascertain, as best as he was able, what the facts of the situation were right up until the moment when

[ Page 561 ]

this motion was called. The Leader of the Opposition said he did. Well, I wish to assure you, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I did likewise, and I found that those remarks made by the Honourable Attorney-General today are supportable and they must therefore, have a bearing on my opinion. I also find that while companies, some 33 or 34 in number, employing some 1,200 Teamsters have signed contracts, there are companies which are either struck, or locked out which employ 3,500 workers and they are involved. I also find that, as early as this morning, the strike has spread to other operations and indeed in the Courts of this Province, in the city of Victoria this morning an employer was obliged to seek injunctive relief because pickets from the Teamsters had shut down some operation not connected with this dispute. Such injunction was granted and is returnable on Monday.

AN HON. MEMBER: No problem then.

MR. WILLIAMS: So far as this one employer is concerned, no problem, unless you consider, Mr. Member, that it is some problem that you should be forced into the Courts of this Province, in order to resolve disputes of which you are not a party. The indications are, from my examination, Mr. Speaker, that other projects in the lower mainland of considerable significance to this Province and to its economy are threatened with the same kind of shut-downs. So that the strike, although it is only a few days old, is having, right today, a wider spread effect than just the interests of the two parties concerned. It is to be regretted that this procedure is required. There is not a Member here who would not wish that these two parties could have resolved their differences. That's what free collective bargaining is all about, but no State can allow itself to be placed in the position, when two parties are unable to settle their differences by free collective bargainings, to be left powerless. That is the first purpose of this motion. So long as the public interest is disadvantageously affected — from my examination, I find that I am reluctantly compelled to the conclusion that the public interest is so disadvantageously affected.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the Honourable the Attorney-General suggested all of the many and varied avenues for resolution of this matter, other than going to the Mediation Commission, to a binding conclusion. I trust that he is right. I know that, within the scope of Mediation Act, the Government has wide powers to move in various and mysterious ways. Indeed we have seen this over the past year. But as I read the Act, Mr. Speaker, I find that the words are obligatory (interruption). Yes, I'll tell you how you move in mysterious ways. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable the Attorney-General does blunder. I think that he moves in these mysterious ways with planned precision as a matter of fact. One of the mysterious ways in which you move is when you come to another strike of great public interest, or series of strikes and work stoppages and that was the construction industry, when the Government went the full way and used the Mediation Act. Over the weekend they compromised their position, they compromised the law. Now, what did they do in that case? They didn't go to the Mediation Commission. No, Mr. Speaker, they appointed the Deputy Minister of Labour to sit down with the parties. They got the parties to agree. It was all very nice and quietly done over a weekend, after having invoked the provisions of this Act.

In the case of the forest industry, which was heading for a conflict of tremendous proportions, the Mediation Commission was involved but, at that time, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, by Order, approved the appointment of someone of very special knowledge and skill to meet in that dispute and to resolve it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, since the formation of the Mediation Commission and the establishment of that august body, it would appear that the Government has done its very best to avoid placing before that body any dispute of significant consequence. With good reason I suspect, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I think that there is great danger in proceeding in this direction, if this dispute is to find itself in the hands of the Mediation Commission. I think that, by its very nature, the matter at issue between these two parties is one of technicality which needs to be resolved by some person with special knowledge and skill. I think, because of the importance of this industry to our economy and consequently the importance of this union to that industry, that they are, at least, entitled to the same kind of treatment as was made available to the forest industry and to its labour union and unions.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we are, in this House, to make a recommendation with regard to the public interest, I think we must also concern ourselves with a recommendation as to how this matter might best be resolved also in the public interest. We would hate to find that the direction taken by Government, which may eventually be to the Mediation Commission, was to provoke a situation between the management and the labour group which perhaps might lead to lawlessness, because that, too, would be against the public interest.

I will say one other thing about the manner in which the Attorney-General suggested…or one of the alternatives that he suggested that might be used, this depended upon the agreement of the parties with him. I think it would be a tragedy if we were to accept that as one of the solutions, only to find that either one of the parties, for whatever reason, was not prepared to give its agreement. I am sure that the late Teddy Roosevelt would have been proud of the speech that the Honourable the Attorney-General made today because it certainly was one of those "talk softly, but carry a big stick" speeches.

Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Attorney-General and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council wishes to have recommendations from this House that they must be complete and they must be responsible. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I have given notice, I propose an amendment to the motion before us which is standing on the Orders, as follows. Seconded by the Honourable the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, I move that there be added to Motion 14, the following words: "And that some person or persons having special knowledge in the matter be appointed to endeavour to bring about agreements between the parties in relation to all matters in dispute, or, alternatively, to make recommendations for settlement of the dispute."

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General on the amendment.

MR. PETERSON: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat reluctant to indicate to the honourable Member that the amendment is not acceptable, because I think the address that he just gave is probably one of the finest he's given in the House. I do appreciate the way in which he has put forth the argument in support of the main motion. My reason, Mr. Speaker, for finding his amendment unacceptable is primarily that, with the motion

[ Page 562 ]

as it stands, we have a large number of options open to us which I tried to indicate when I spoke a few moments ago. The amendment narrows this down to one procedure only and that is the appointment by Government of a special person or persons to make recommendations. Now, in the past, when others have been involved, and the honourable Member made reference to two of the occasions, one in the construction industry where the Deputy Minister of Labour served as a mediator and made recommendations, this, Mr. Speaker, was not by appointment. This was by agreement of the parties. In the other dispute, in the coastal forest industry, when the services of Mr. Justice Nemetz were procured, this, likewise, was the agreement of both parties. In neither case were appointments made, as such. It was a matter the parties, themselves, agreed upon. I've already indicated that that course of action is open, as well as other options, because it is not our desire to set down to the parties a mandatory procedure and say, "You must follow this." Our concern is that they must get the transportation industry back in full gear and then whatever they can agree to to settle at, then, fine. We don't want to restrict them in any way. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, would be a restrictive amendment and, therefore, would not be acceptable.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment, I will be very brief. We are opposed to the amendment. We are opposed to any amendment that would try to justify the particular motion of compulsion. We also oppose the amendment because it is testimony to the position of that Liberal Member, and I'm not going to predict the other Members' votes, but it is testimony for that Liberal Member's position, that compulsory arbitration is an acceptable form in dealing with labour disputes. We cannot buy that proposition. We cannot accept it. Beyond that, the Attorney-General has made a valid point. He has made a range of options and why should this, under any circumstances, confine ourselves to one option? The vote for this amendment means a vote completely in support of the Government. If that is the position the Liberals wish to take then they should remain silent in this debate and vote with the Government. Not try to walk down the middle of the road and have it both ways. It cannot be done.

I am suggesting the defeat of this amendment. I'm suggesting again, on a defeat of this motion, that the Attorney-General take the opportunity of withdrawing the motion stating publicly to the disputing parties, withdrawing the nonamended motion and give the parties the options directly, setting aside this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second this amendment. I want to say, first of all, that the necessity for this debate to be held at all must sadden me, as I think it saddens everybody in this House. In my opinion, we shouldn't even be discussing the amendment or the main motion. The problem is that it's been called. As yet certainly in my opinion, and I think, listening to the Honourable the Attorney-General as he spoke originally, he did not demonstrate that there was an immediate emergency. He did demonstrate conclusively and I certainly confirm, as many of us have, that there is going to be a serious situation in a matter of a very few weeks. It seems too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour, with all of his knowledge supposedly of labour affairs in this Province could not have allowed the due processes of collective bargaining to function. If you have any confidence in it at all, you have to give it a chance to work. Above all, in this kind of matter, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to develop a feeling of good relations, good personal relations, in these kinds of negotiations. Labour negotiations are a very personal thing. Many of us in this House, I'm sure, have been involved in them and you know how personalities and feelings creep into them whether you wish them to or not. It is virtually unavoidable. So when you impose the kind of thing that the Attorney-General did last Friday, this fast precipitate action, you certainly don't improve the climate of personal relationships, you damage it. People get locked into harder-nosed positions and they find it more difficult to come together. A feeling of bitterness develops and, I'm sure, that many of us have found in talking to some of the people concerned in the last few days that this feeling has been developed.

I look back with some very bitter memories, Mr. Speaker, to last summer. I was very much personally concerned in the construction industry, in the construction work stoppage. I suffered many of those problems firsthand. The weeks and the months went by and there was no move from this Government. Nothing. There was no recognition then of the suffering, the losses and the damage to the whole economy of the Province, as well as to the individuals. They laughed it off at the beginning. It wasn't nearly as bad. They didn't pay any attention to it. By the end of the summer and later on the fall they started to think about it and pay attention to it.

If I can read part of the preamble to this motion and think of the words in this preamble, in terms of the construction industry last summer "…interfere with the freedom and rights of many of the people of British Columbia to carry on their lawful and chosen activities but will also discourage and divert investments in industrial undertakings within British Columbia and adversely affect the economy and welfare of its citizens." Well, if ever a strike, or lockout, or a work stoppage, was affecting the economy and the welfare of British Columbia, it was the construction strike last summer, the construction stoppage, and the Government did not act as the weeks and the months went by. But who did get the help from this Government? The forestry industry. Last summer they gave some help and they moved very quickly. On July 7, there was an Order-in Council. Mr. Justice Nemetz was appointed before any strike or lockout took place and he solved that dispute very quickly and with a great deal of respect and prestige from all sides. Last summer, Mr. Speaker, the Government neglected the construction industry for many weeks. They said, "Let the collective bargaining process work." Why didn't the Government appoint someone like Mr. Nemetz last summer to solve the construction industry? Surely, if the urgency is as great as the Attorney-General has tried to describe, and as I would say it is going to be in a very short number of weeks, the trucking industry is entitled to similar treatment to the forest industry from last summer.

Mr. Speaker, it is already very clear the low esteem in which the Mediation Commission is held, certainly by organized labour, certainly by the public, and certainly by this Government. The Government, on several occasions now, with agreement on both sides, has by-passed the Mediation Commission. It has shown there is no confidence. The public

[ Page 563 ]

has certainly lost confidence in the Mediation Commission. It's been made so clear that this is not a body in which we can place any confidence at all. The one union that did try to use their services and to follow the law because it said, "This is the law, we will try to cooperate, we will try to do it,"…the one union that tried that was double-crossed and was betrayed by the Mediation Commission.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking in this motion….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BROUSSON: I'll withdraw the word "doublecrossed."

Mr. Speaker, we propose this amendment to ensure that a means be found that is acceptable in this very highly technical matter that remains in dispute in this particular situation. You gave this kind of help to the forest industry. Surely, while you provide compulsion to the trucking industry, you can also provide the kind of prestige and expert help that is needed.

If I may comment, Mr. Speaker, finally, on the objections of the Honourable the Attorney-General, he suggested that this amendment limits the option. It does not, in any way, limit his options. In the first place, the main motion is only a recommendation and, finally, this is a suggestion for the first step to be followed, not the final step necessarily. I have pleasure in seconding the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Order. Are we voting now on the amendment to the motion as stated, as amended, or possibly amended?

MR. SPEAKER: No, we are not voting on the main motion. We are now voting on the amendment. It was moved by the Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound and seconded by the Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but the main motion, the wording of the main motion…. Pardon me, it is conceivable, I believe, to argue that the final motion, as amended, would depend on the original motion that we would consider.

MR. SPEAKER: If this motion were carried then, of course, the motion would be whether or not Members would support the motion, as amended. But we haven't dealt yet with the amendment which is the first matter before the Legislature. We must dispose of this amendment one way or the other. Are you ready for the question?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Would you please give us an indication as to whether or not you have ruled that the two preambles to this Motion 14 have been struck out or deleted.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I hope I'm not setting any precedent here by allowing some discussion during the time we're waiting for a division. If the House will forgive me, I will say that the matter was raised as to the propriety of the preamble, by the Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I agreed with what he had to say at the time, that it is not the practice of the House to allow preambles to motions. The suggestion made by myself was that the House may wish to consider the principal part of this particular motion. The Leader of the Opposition rose and said that he would consent, if the seconder would, likewise, consent. The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard consented to the amendment by a deletion of the first two portions of the motion. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition then consented to allow it to proceed. No further objections were raised to the Chair and, under the circumstances, the motion was allowed to be debated. I hope that clarifies the situation (interruption). I'm sorry but, at this particular time, I can't allow further debate. When this motion has been taken care of, I will allow you to raise a Point of Order.

The question is that Motion 14 standing on the Order Paper be amended by adding thereto the words: "and that some person or persons having special knowledge in the matter be appointed to endeavour to bring about agreement between the parties in relation to all matters in dispute, or alternatively to make recommendations for the settlement of the dispute."

The House divided.

The amendment was negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 4

Messieurs

NAYS — 47

Messieurs

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: You said you would allow further discussion, at this point, on the question the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has raised. Now, perhaps if I'd made myself more clear in my earlier statement, we could have avoided this. Mr. Speaker, I am asking for clarification as to whether or not you have ruled that the motion we are now debating contains the preamble or whether it does not

[ Page 564 ]

contain the preamble.

MR. SPEAKER: I have not ruled, but it does not contain the preambles, by consent of the House.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the rules are that a motion may be neither withdrawn nor amended without notice or leave of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition indicated leave and no one raised objection. So leave was presumed.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a vote was not called.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there was no vote called.

MR. CLARK: He did not ask for leave. Mr. Speaker, in the years that I have sat in this House, I have never heard someone had to move that leave be granted.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no one moved that leave be granted — just no objection was raised. Would the Honourable Leader of the Opposition care to clarify this situation as he recalls it.

MR. BARRETT: As I recall it, the Attorney-General stated that he would withdraw the two paragraphs. My objection was whether or not the seconder agreed. At that point the seconder said he did agree, through the mouth of the Premier. Then the two paragraphs were deleted. At that point I accepted the deletion. I didn't accept on behalf of anyone else except myself!

MR. CLARK: The motion we are debating is still the motion that is on the Order Paper. You have not ruled whether or not it's out of order (interruptions).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Are there any further observations to be made? The Member proceed. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the main motion, this is a very significant debate for the people of British Columbia — a watershed debate really. I think it spells what we're doing here today, Mr. Speaker, as the death knell of free collective bargaining in the Province of British Columbia.

I think that in a free society, we're leaving the corporations free to manage prices and to fix prices to the detriment of working people in this country. We're leaving the financial institutions free to set their interest rates, to charge their rents and fees but, in the case of the labour section of the community, Mr. Speaker, and I include in this all working people, organized or not, their interest is vitally at stake in this kind of action we are taking today. In their case, they are going to be denied the use of economic power when that economic power is freely and regularly used against them. They are going to be denied free collective bargaining even though that's continuing and was continuing up until the introduction of this resolution.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we're seeing a definite swing in our society, where those who are in positions of power and wealth and privilege will be in ever-increasing positions of power and wealth and privilege in our society, and the working people will have very little redress. If you destroy free collective bargaining, as we are doing here today, with this kind of a resolution, and you leave the working people powerless, and you leave the working people in this particular strike powerless, where they are striking on a question of principle, a question of labour principle, don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that really you are leaving all the working people of the Province of British Columbia naked against the economic power that is used against them for all time to come. You are shifting things in this Province to increase the power of wealth and privilege in the big corporations and you're going to make it a very lot harder task for any kind of a working person, organized or unorganized, to get for himself a decent wage, decent standard of living and decent conditions of work.

We have come along way since Bill 33 was introduced in the year 1968. We've come a long, long way, Mr. Speaker. At that time, on Thursday, February 22, 1968, when the bill was introduced, according to the Vancouver Sun, Mr. Peterson told reporters, after introduction of the bill, that a minute number — those were his words — "a minute number" of disputes will be referred to the Mediation Commission for binding decision. Pressed by reporters for elaboration on the types of dispute the Cabinet might act upon, Peterson mentioned municipal garbage workers, policemen, hospital workers and other groups employed by public institutions. We have come a long way when a dispute, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, where any Government attempt to negotiate a settlement has not been made, where the public interest has not been affected. It may be affected two weeks from now. Compulsory arbitration is invoked in this kind of resolution at this time. That is not what the Attorney-General or the Minister of Labour, he was both then and he still is, was saying at that time. He was saying to use it in a minute number and he was talking about the policemen and institutions and so forth. I know the bill is broader, Mr. Minister of Labour, but that was the basis on which it was introduced and presented to the people of British Columbia — not that it would mark the end of free collective bargaining whenever the Government chose to put an end to that bargaining on behalf of the employers.

Then, again, later in the same debate, March 28, the Minister of Labour said, "…that Bill 33 does not mean the Government is trying to push a panic button in labour relations." That's exactly what we are doing today. We're pushing a panic button even while…until the introduction of this resolution in the Legislature, the matter was being settled by companies signing up.

AN HON. MEMBER: One after the other, settling up.

MR. MACDONALD: Settling up in the area of free collective bargaining, with the worker having a chance to preserve this principle for which he is striking. You can agree with it or not, Mr. Speaker, but that principle is, "I am my brother's keeper. I want to help somebody else in an industrial dispute. I don't want to handle struck goods." That's labour solidarity. That's a question of principle. Like it or not, they have a right to project that in free collective bargaining and not have that bargaining cut off by compulsory arbitration. You can't arbitrate a principle of that kind, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the Mediation Commission going to do with that one? Are they for it or against it?

MR. MACDONALD: On the same date, the Labour

[ Page 565 ]

Minister said, and this is March 28, "The Debate is centred about the pros and cons of compulsory arbitration. I am opposed to compulsory arbitration of all disputes. It is absolute nonsense to suggest this bill does away with free collective bargaining." That was two years ago and the good, kindly Dr. JeykIl has slowly turned into Mr. Hyde, insofar as the working people of this Province are concerned. The effects of it are not going to be felt particularly in this particular dispute, Mr. Speaker. These are long-term effects and the working people of this Province are going to be hurt in their pocketbooks and in their conditions of work by the kind of precipitate action that the Government wants us to take today. Later on, the Minister of Labour said this, "It is ridiculous. It is fallacious thinking to say that this bill ends collective bargaining. It will encourage better collective bargaining than we have ever had in the past."

Yet, Mr. Speaker, while that process of collective bargaining was going on and a number of the trucking firms were reaching agreements with the Teamsters' Union — I haven't got the figures of how many — this resolution was put upon the Order Paper of this Legislature and that kind of a process came to an end. The settlement came to an end. So the panic button has been…41 have been settled. The process was carrying on.

We are asked to approve this resolution before the public interest has been affected, contrary, surely, to the spirit of the Mediation Act, if not to its words. We are asked to step in, as a Legislature, because this Government has failed to present any kind of a workable labour policy to this Legislature or to the people of B.C. For two years, Mr. Speaker, ever since 1968, we have been staggering blind from one industrial relations conflict to the next — flying blind. One time, we try to deal with the thing this way, another thing, that way, but never before have we gone to the extent that we are going today. There is no labour policy of which this Government can boast. There has been no consistent labour policy that has come out from the Government benches in the Province of British Columbia over the last two years. The attempts of the Opposition to get a rational dialogue in one of the committees of this Legislature, so that an industrial relations policy acceptable to the various interests in this Province could be worked out, have been thwarted, time after time, by the Government majority. You have refused to discuss labour relations, industrial relations, where it could be fruitfully discussed, in a committee, hearing representatives of the employers, representatives of industry, representatives of the public and experts in that field. Instead, this Government has pursued, as it is pursuing today, its vendetta with organized labour, from which I suppose they expect they can extract votes in the ballot box, Mr. Speaker. I say this is far from being a labour policy. This is a declaration of bankruptcy, a declaration of no labour policy and no willingness to discuss a labour policy, on the part of the Government benches.

So, it is this group that will oppose this because there are long-term indications, as I've said. This is going to be a very bad precedent for all the working people of the Province of British Columbia. We oppose, as we must oppose, this kind of hasty, ill-considered and ill-prepared action at a time when the dispute was in process of being settled, and the principle for which this union is standing — which is a pretty human principle to help your other fellow trade unionists, to organize, or if they are not organized, to get a union, and to not handle struck goods — a pretty good principle which is being sold down the river by this hasty, ill-considered action, Mr. Speaker, which this group opposes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, there is one phrase on the tips of all British Columbians, today, be they management, labour, the average citizen or politician. That phrase is, "There has to be a better way." We have had this cold war between labour and management in British Columbia for far too long. The public has been hurt, the labour movement has been hurt, management has been hurt, the economy has been hurt, during this decade of the 1960's, and now on into the 1970's there has been no improvement. All these years, Social Credit has been in power. You're the Government that is supposed to provide the leadership for all the people of British Columbia (interruption). "We've done it," that's what the Minister of Public Works says. Yes, you've done it, Mr. Minister. In 1970, nearly 3 million man-days of work lost; in 1968, 406,000, and so on, down through the decade. But, at the start, in 1960, 35,000 man-days of work lost; in 1961, 34,000; 1962, 32,000. These figures were bad enough but then, after you got entrenched in power and your policies began to take effect, then we began to see the changes as your confidence grew and your arrogance grew. In 1965, 104,000; 1966, 272,000; 1967, 327,000; 1968, 406,000; 1969, 450,000; and 1970, 2.1 million. What kind of a record is that? What sort of leadership have we had from this Government?

Now read what happens in unemployment, because that has been the consequence of this policy which has led to soaring man-days of work lost. Believe me it is continuing into 1971. There are more man-days lost in January of this year than in the first three years of the decade, each one of those years. Now we are into February and another major confrontation.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way and your Government hasn't found it. The consequence is severe. Look at the unemployment figures for last year. July, 76,000; June, 87,000; May, 72,000; and what is it today in British Columbia? 82,000. This is the consequence of a bankrupt labour relations policy. It's the consequence of lack of leadership on the part of the Government. It's the consequence of this cold war which is becoming no longer a cold war but is escalating into a hot war. All the while, Mr. Speaker, the Government has made more claims of victory than the Pentagon has made claims of victories in Vietnam — because your words and your actions don't agree. You are the man who took the false promise to the people of British Columbia, saying to them, in that 1969 election, "It's going to be take-home pay with Bennett, or strike-pay with Berger." What happened after that? Did the people get take-home pay? No, they have had strike pay, and unemployment and lay-offs and misery. "The Liberal Government didn't do their job," says the Member from Esquimalt. Yes, there were disputes last year, that were under Federal jurisdiction… (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. McGEER: Yes, there were disputes, Mr. Speaker. Those disputes, in total, equalled less than 3 per cent of all the man-days lost. The other 97 per cent was Provincial responsibility. Last summer when the labour management wars were carrying on and jobs were going up in flames,

[ Page 566 ]

that's when the Premier went to Japan. That's when there wasn't a public crisis — when there were 2 million man-days of work lost. There wasn't a public crisis last month, not when the people had to walk during the snow, not when the transportation wasn't functioning. No. The Premier asked, at that time, for the people to telephone him to tell him how much inconvenience there was. Now this situation comes along and he can't pile in fast enough.

Mr. Speaker, the Mediation Commission was set up to solve all these problems. I can still remember the fanfare of the Minister of Labour and the Premier when that Mediation Commission Act was brought in. How it was going to solve all our problems. All it has done, Mr. Speaker, is to create problems. The Mediation Commission has been an utter and complete failure and, during this period of time, the most regrettable thing of all is that no lessons have been learned. Nothing was gained from all those strikes and lockouts of last summer. All we're doing is preparing the way for a confrontation that will make what happened last summer seem like peanuts. Each time that we have one of these confrontations, the sides dig in a little harder, each time the lack of the leadership on the part of the Provincial Government becomes more evident and each time the public of British Columbia has to suffer a little more because they don't want the cold war. They don't want an escalation into a hot war. They want to find a better way.

The Minister of Labour isn't producing that better way and the Premier isn't producing that better way and the Mediation Commission isn't producing that better way. Yet, it has to be found, Mr. Speaker, and we regret profoundly that this motion was brought in, because it is quite clear from the motion, itself, that the Teamsters' Union is not receiving equal treatment with the other unions in British Columbia. I suspect, if had it been the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Government wouldn't have dared a confrontation of this kind but, because it was a Teamsters, the motion was brought in before the day was out. You can't blame that union, that has a record for abiding by the law and accepting decisions that are distasteful to them, for feeling that they have been stabbed in the back, to use the words of their president. This is a union that has won the respect of the public of British Columbia because it has been willing to work with management and with Government to find this better way.

One of the reasons why we have profound regret about this motion is because a union we could have looked to for leadership has been singled out for particularly harsh treatment on the part of the Government that has lacked the courage to face the B.C. Federation of Labour at a time when they should have been faced, and faced squarely.

Mr. Speaker, the second reason why we have profound regrets about this motion being brought in is because there is no way an intelligent person can argue that the public interest has been affected to the same degree as in disputes when the Government stood idly by — and I refer to the construction crisis of last summer and I refer to the transportation strike of last month — because in both these cases, the economy was much more greatly harmed and the public much more greatly inconvenienced. Yet in neither one of those times did the Government see fit to stand up for the public interest. Yet now in a lockout which really has not affected the economy to a severe degree as yet, though it will if it's allowed to continue, this motion was brought in. The consequence of that motion, and I have no doubt when I say this, Mr. Speaker, having myself discussed the problem with both sides, has been to end the process of discussion as both sides began to retreat and wait for Government to insist on the terms of the settlement.

Now, we have another reason for profound regret, Mr. Speaker. That is that the Mediation Commission has failed to solve a single major confrontation in all its history and there is no reason to suspect its record will improve, in this instance. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we have managed to avoid at least one major strike in this Province by appointing a respected mediator, and I refer, specifically, to Mr. Justice Nemetz and the service he did to both sides and the people of British Columbia by avoiding a strike in the forest industry this past summer.

Mr. Speaker, we put forward an amendment this afternoon designed to see that someone would be inserted into this particular problem — to get Mr. Nemetz to solve it….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Member may not reflect on a decision already taken by the House. Proceed.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I won't pursue the outcome of that amendment. I only wish to express the regret our Party has at the way this particular dispute has been handled. We don't see it in isolation. We see this as another battle in this continuing labour-management war in British Columbia. We see no end to these disputes as long as the Government and its policies remain. We think there has to be a complete change in the personalities involved before we are going to have labour peace in British Columbia. We think there has to be new leadership, sound leadership, that will provide the kind of climate where these warring groups can settle down and begin to work in harmony for the betterment of British Columbia. But, at the same time, you have placed our Party in a position where we have no choice but to declare what we should do in this particular situation. Our position is consistent, Mr. Speaker. We think these strikes and lockouts are wasteful. We think the damage that has been caused to the economy of British Columbia is unacceptable and we think that the positions of the leadership, Government, labour and management are untenable. We will support the motion, Mr. Speaker, but we will support it with profound regret.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): In speaking in favour of this motion, I do so because I believe it is not a censure of the union movement and I'm sure it is not a censure of the Teamsters' Union in this Province.

This motion has one sole purpose and that is to put people back to work. I think it can be conceded that putting them back to work is not going to be anything more than an inconvenience, at the most, to the union leaders. It is not going to be an inconvenience to the truckers, themselves, because from the instructions we have heard from our Attorney-General these men are going back to work on terms that have already been decided upon, in some ways, and there will be no loss of wages which means that, if they go back to work, they will not be losing any wages. If they went out on strike they certainly would. I think that this is a very important matter.

I think that the public of British Columbia should be thankful that we have such a thing as the Mediation Commission Act, to which we can refer union struggles in this Province. It's pretty obvious, from the history of strikes

[ Page 567 ]

in this Province, that they always end up with some form of compromise, one way or the other. In trying to make sure that this strike does not get any worse than what it is, all we are doing is shortening the period in which the workers can do nothing but lose money. I'm of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is taking the only action it can take. I think that it is far better for these men to go back to work and settle as they earn because this is the best way to serve the general public of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, this debate today, I think, is one of the most important debates that has faced this Legislature. I'm rather surprised that there are so many empty seats in the House when the debate is taking place. I think it is really an important debate and I don't think it should be underestimated. I don't think the Government Members have a right to take it as a fait accompli that it is already settled as to how it is going. There wouldn't be much use of debate, otherwise. I think that everybody should be interested in studying this resolution and motion and taking part in this debate.

I never thought for one minute that the Government would be so naive as to bring this motion forward in this House. Somebody did ask me what I thought but, knowing this Government, and that they are looking, hoping and wishing for a real confrontation, knowing that that's the reason they brought this forward. You are naive in relation to the basic problem that you are discussing here today. That is the problem of free collective bargaining. Don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that the only product that the working people, and I mean all working people, from nurses right down to the man who works in the mines, the only product they have to sell is their labour power. That's the only product they've got to sell. Yet, now you are going to dictate, when you don't dictate it to anybody else in the Province….You don't tell the business people that they've got to do this. You don't tell them when they price the articles on the shelf. You don't say anything about them, but you are going to use the blacksnake whip on the workers to tell them what to do. We're not in slavery days today. You can take a horse to water, and this is one of the principles, Mr. Speaker, that they must remember. You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Mr. Speaker, you're making them worse than horses, I say to the Honourable the Premier. You are making them worse than horses, because you're making them nothing more nor less than a pawn in the game. That's what you're making them, a pawn in the game. We're not living under slavery, Mr. Speaker. Back in the old days when the master could wave the blacksnake whip, then, they made the men do what they wanted them to do. Today you're using Bill 33 in compulsion, as the blacksnake whip. That's what you're doing. They tried this, back in 1800, in England, and they had to withdraw the bill after a few years because it didn't work. You cannot make people do something against their will. We know that. Hitler tried that. That's exactly what we're trying here today. We are trying to force the workers to accept something that we think is better for them, or that you think is better for them than they, themselves, think, in their negotiations. By so doing you are making nothing but a mockery out of the labour laws and the collective bargaining in this Province. Don't forget that the working people, practically everybody is a worker in the Province, don't forget where the battle has come from. We've had a long battle in the labour movement to get recognition even. It's only back in 1937 that even collective bargaining was recognized. But, since 1949, 1950 and 1952, this bargaining right has been squeezed and squeezed and squeezed, by this Government, and by management with the blessing of this Government.

The bill that you brought in in this arena last year, where you allowed the employers all to collectively bargain and tied them all into the bargaining unit, that has created a problem. This is creating a problem, not only in this case, but in the case of the pulp workers, where pulp mills have signed agreements with workers and now they refuse to live up to those agreements for the simple reason that the other pulp mills haven't signed up yet. This could go on for a long time. But you do nothing about that; therefore, you've added to the problem by the bill that you brought in here last year in tieing all the industries into one movement.

Since 1952, we have had a steady decline of the rights of labour. Bill 41, Bill 42, right down to Bill 33, until you took away practically all the rights. At that time the Honourable the Minister said, "We only use this as a last resort and only in conditions where it is against the welfare of the public." "Against the welfare of the public." This is what the Honourable the Minister said at that time. But, since Bill 33 was passed this Government has been getting bolder and bolder all the time. At the time Bill 33 was up before the House, this is what I said. There's no doubt in my mind, "You of the Government think that you have many of the working people with you and so you have had, because they accepted your promises of a few more crumbs and because so many of the workers fail to see you are the 'false prophet,' which you really are. That is why they have voted for you."

Working people are not hard to satisfy and as long as they have something to wear or something to eat and a roof over their heads, with a little pleasure, they go along without concerning themselves too much about politics and how necessary an interest in politics is if they are going to hold their advances. This is exactly what has happened. Since 1968, I said at that time that there would be no confrontation with workers at that time and that they would be waiting to see how this bill worked out and what this Government was going to do with this bill. Finally, it deteriorated and the Government got bolder. First they threatened. Then they put an Order-in-Council through. Then they waited with the transit strike for a whole month. Then they put a resolution on the Order Paper and they found out that the strike was settled, so they withdrew that resolution. This time, they even move before the strike was practically called, or the lockout was called. They scrambled, they wanted to have a handle to hang on to so they could demonstrate to the Chamber of Commerce and to the business people in this Province on whose side they belong.

I'm saying that to every one of you. You people are workers and you represent workers in this Province. Don't forget, all the workers are in this bag. All the workers, because every worker in the country is benefiting from the struggle that labour has been through for the last hundred years. The pensioners and all of them are benefiting from the struggles that labour has gone through. When you think, Mr. Speaker, that labour is something separate and apart from society, when you take that attitude, this to me is a damaging attitude and a poor attitude, because, as you get bolder and you ask for a confrontation with labour, when you do this, undoubtedly your main vendetta is against the organized

[ Page 568 ]

trade union movement. This is your main vendetta. But, while you have this vendetta against the organized trade unionist, the vendetta is against all working people throughout this country — every worker in this country. If the trade union movement were smashed tomorrow, let me tell you, every worker would suffer right down to the very last one of them and every pensioner would suffer.

I am rather surprised at some of the Members over there who belong to trade unions and they won't get up and say anything in regards to a motion such as this. I say this is the kind of a motion that you've got to consider very, very carefully because, as you get bolder and bolder, and while, maybe…I'm not saying that if you pass this motion the Teamsters' Union won't go along with it and maybe will return to work. But, sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, the confrontation will come just as sure as it came in the past. Years ago, when they passed it in 1800, when they passed the combination bill in England, they had a confrontation. When you get that confrontation, when labour will be solidified throughout this Province against a motion such as this, then you'll find that you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink. That's what you will find out in the final analysis (interruption). Mr. Speaker, the Member said, "Sit down." This is far too important a motion to just sit down or to go out of the House and not take any interest in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a motion to stand up on, I'll tell you. Stand up and be counted.

MR. NIMSICK: This Government has steadily felt the water. They have felt their power and arrogance all the time, building up and building up, because, each time, labour compromised to their decisions. This will not go on forever, I'm warning you, because it hasn't done that in the past and it'll not do it now, in the future. It's inevitable eventually. This one may work but, eventually, sooner or later, you win come up full force against the real confrontation. This is something I said in 1968, too, "I realize just as well as you do that many of the workers will not wake up to what this bill is really doing to them and they will continue under the illusion that employers today are not like they were 50 years ago until they come face to face with the effects of such bills. With this brief history that I have given you, I am sure that you will understand the struggle that the working people have gone through over the years. They came from a point where they were considered as a nobody and they had to fight with blood, sweat and tears, every inch of the road. Every improvement they got in legislation came only after somebody sacrificed their livelihood or their life to bring it about."

Let me tell you, the business people of this Province and everybody depend on the payroll they have. Don't forget that lockouts or strikes…there's nobody affected as badly as the men themselves. When the people realize that labour is the most important factor in our society….

AN HON. MEMBER: People, people.

MR. NIMSICK: Labour or people. This is what Lincoln said, "Labour is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labour and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. Labour is the superior of capital and deserves much higher consideration."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's speech are you quoting from?

MR. NIMSICK: My own speech, and I am quoting Abraham Lincoln from my own speech.

This motion does not recognize that fact. When there's a strike on in a community, once they are out on strike for a while, the business people are crying and everybody is crying — and don't forget the strikers are hurt — but when those people hurt themselves then they come to the Government and they ask it to put restrictive legislation in to force these people back to work so they won't get hurt. You're not worried about the worker getting hurt, you're worried about business getting hurt. That's what you're worried about! You're worried about capital getting hurt!

That's exactly what you're worried about, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker. You're worried, Mr. Premier, about the capital that it is going to hurt because it was admitted there, that our export products are going to suffer. This is what he said (interruption). Listen, I'm willing to suffer as long as free collective bargaining is given a chance to work and you sure didn't give it a chance to work in this case.

This is another quote from my own speech, Mr. Speaker, "This bill before us does not recognize this right and will not bring peace between management and labour because it relegates labour to an inferior position. It does not recognize the working people as people but rather just as a commodity in the production of our country. The only time that we will have peace in this regard will be when the working people are considered as part of society and able to share in the fruits of their labour, not by how cheaply industry can purchase that labour, but by the ability of the country to produce." This is when we will have labour peace, not until then. Don't forget when you pass this motion ask yourself in all conscience, each and every one of you, because you are all part of the working force of this Province…maybe you're getting beyond that now, but you're all part of the working force…and when you're stabbing one working man in the back, you're stabbing them all in the back, organized or unorganized. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a sad day for Government in British Columbia and it is a sad day for the people of British Columbia, because this is only one step towards that absolute dictatorship where you are trying to grind labour under the iron heel that they were under years ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I think that it could be properly said that the reluctance to discuss this motion that was exhibited when it was first introduced is quite understandable. I think, in all fairness, that we on this side should say that we had the same concern and reservations in the period of time when we were considering the import of this motion that those people had on the other side of the House but we came to different conclusions.

My friend, who has just taken his seat, is a highly respected labour man, but he gave the key….

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's not.

MR. VOGEL: Now, just a minute. We have to be fair. He gave the key to the philosophy that he expressed when lie spoke in terms of 1800 — 1800! When Bill 33 was debated on

[ Page 569 ]

this Floor, Mr. Speaker, I had a few comments as many of the Members had at that time. I was quite interested in the import and development of the philosophy that had to do with the rights of working people and spoke about the days of the robber barons. Most of us who read widely when we were young and reformers and so on are quite familiar with all those problems that arose in that day. Following the debate on Bill 33, we had an election and, as far as my area was concerned, Bill 33 and all those things that we had debated on this Floor, was a paramount issue. I didn't try to duck that issue, Mr. Speaker. I presented that issue wherever I spoke, simply because if we are going to continue to talk about 1800 in 1971, we're just demonstrating that we are completely out of date with our thinking. Working people… (interruption). No, no. What we're saying, Mr. Speaker, is that sensible free collective bargaining should endure, but how can you have free collective bargaining if one side is going to put themselves in a position where they hold a shotgun at the other fellow's head? That's not free collective bargaining. What we are trying to do is unload the shotgun and get down to sensible, intelligent bargaining based upon statistical facts. What are you talking about when you talk about keeping the trucks rolling? What are you talking about? You're talking about keeping the pay cheques coming, too. If these people who speak so emotionally and without real constructive thought on this issue, if they forget that the pay cheques to those working people are not important, let them remember the wives of those people. Don't forget that fact. That was why the public generally accepted what was presented in good faith — Bill 33 — an attempt to resolve what is fair and proper in the returns to the working people, in terms of sensible, intelligent, constructive debate, based upon statistical facts. That has got to come if we are going to keep the standard of living that we have achieved through our technological development in this country.

The whole thing, Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see is that we are not back in the days of 1800, when people were struggling for just a pittance — that's perfectly true — to keep a roof over their head and some oil for the lamp to put in the window and a bit of firewood and so on. We are talking about the days of two automobiles in the garage, modern homes, and everything like that. You can't sustain that without continuous productive efforts. You cannot do it and that is what my friend has forgotten over there. I say, Mr. Speaker, that anything we, as a responsible Assembly, can do to ensure that the highest degree of productivity can be maintained on a continuous basis and ensure also that having done that, there will be a fair and reasonable distribution of the benefits of that production, then we are working in the interests of all the working people of this country.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the principle that lies behind the motion that we are now considering rises far above the specific dispute that is mentioned in the motion. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will not support the motion.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, during this Session, has been waiting for an opportunity to shift the responsibility of his Cabinet onto this House and to shift the responsibility of his mismanagement of the Labour Portfolio onto this House. Mr. Speaker, the motion suggests that compulsion in a free market economy can and should replace the strike or lockout. I do not accept that principle. The motion removes the incentive for voluntary agreement and it will remove it in this dispute, and it will remove it in all subsequent disputes in this Province. Mr. Speaker, this is not strike control. This motion in no way is strike control. It is settlement avoidance and clearly so. The motion opens the door for this union and the companies involved to prepare not for settlement, but for compulsory arbitration.

From this date forward, these two sides in this particular dispute, and I suggest in others, will no longer be looking to the bargaining table for settlement but will be devoting their efforts instead to their arguments before some board of arbitration, regardless of what phrase the Minister of Labour may attach to it.

Mr. Speaker, I further suggest that this motion turns a labour dispute into a political issue. I stated in the debate on Bill 33 and I state again now, Mr. Speaker, that when labour disputes become political issues, the Minister of Labour and the Government in office of that day will decide the action in a labour dispute based on political advantage, rather than what is right for the workers or what is right for the companies. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this dispute as the Labour Minister attempted to do in the Hydro dispute, he is basing his actions on political advantage and really not on what is right for both sides.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear.

MR. CLARK: Now, Mr. Speaker, after a year… (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you wish to object, stand and make your objection.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, now, since Bill 33 passed in this House, British Columbia can join itself to all the other experience that has accumulated in the world. Experience that has occurred in other countries which have injected compulsion into labour-management relations. We can now be added to the long list of those who have proven that compulsory arbitration has never provided a positive force for labour peace. Never, anywhere in the world. Mr. Speaker, when I made my contribution to the debate on Bill 33, I made four statements which I would ask the Members to again consider in light of what has happened since that debate on Bill 33. Those four statements were: that compulsion, once threatened, will be threatened again, and that compulsion, once used, would be used again. This has happened in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I will go further and suggest that each time compulsion is threatened, the threat will come easier. Mr. Speaker, each time compulsion is used, the use will be easier. British Columbia proved that during this past summer and this motion further proves it.

Mr. Speaker, having said that and made my position clear, I could not ignore the news that the Premier brought to the House. I just wish that the actions of the Minister in Manitoba were contagious to the Premier's Cabinet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I propose to support this motion but, because I consider it to be a very important topic, I want to state briefly and I hope clearly,

[ Page 570 ]

my reasons for doing so.

Perhaps I should say at the outset that I do not claim any expertise in labour affairs; however, I think that all Members of this House are aware of the fact that the early settlement of this dispute is vital to the public good of this Province. I don't see any point in delaying it any further because, although I believe that good progress had been made toward a settlement up to last Friday, and I would like to believe that maybe the differences could have been resolved by the end of this week, if they had been left untampered with, the damage was done last Friday when this motion was brought into this House so quickly after the beginning of the strike. I think that the effect of bringing this motion to the House last Friday was to effectively destroy any further bargaining because the scales had already been tipped in favour of management at that point. This is my point of view, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, recall when Bill 33 was debated I believe for over 16 hours in this House. Every Member in our Party, the New Democratic Party, spoke against it and voted against it because, at that time, I believe we could see the very serious ramifications, particularly of section 18 of that bill. Certainly, the motion which the Labour Minister has produced today proves how right we were at that time. For this motion, which focuses on the public interest, is indeed a very weak and dangerous motion. I would like to quote from a very well-known U.S. arbitrator, Professor Robben Fleming, who said, "The public interest is a very appealing but ill-defined concept." Another famous French professor, a political scientist, also stated that public interest is an indefinable concept. I would like, also, to remind the House of an article by that famous humorist, George Bain, who wrote recently on Trudeau and strikes. George Bain came to the conclusion that the Prime Minister's pseudo-liberal, logical comments on the postal strike simply boiled down to an argument against any wage increase to anyone ever.

This is what concerns me about this motion and why I consider it a very, very dangerous motion, because one could boil it down to the fact that this Government could be embarking on a policy in the Province of British Columbia which means that no strikes by anyone ever will take place in this Province. That is why I will not support this motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, during the discussion on the motion today we've heard a great number of comments from people referring to various sides and to various groups. We've heard references to clauses and changes and certain small particulars of the bill, whether it was one local or the other local. It seems that somehow in all the middle of this part of the discussion, that perhaps this House has lost sight of what the debate is really about on this resolution. The Member from Kootenay made a statement that one side didn't represent labour or one side didn't represent management. Perhaps, in this House, Mr. Speaker, at this moment there is need for someone who represents one other group that, to my knowledge, hasn't been heard from here today. That is a very large and a very quiet group, unfortunately — the very large group of the unemployed in the Province of British Columbia at this moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CAPOZZI: We are not dealing with a question of whether anyone on this side or on that side of the House is here today to force someone back to work to satisfy some question of principle. We are here today, Mr. Speaker, or at least as far as I am personally concerned, and I know I speak for many of the others here, for the one and only single issue: how can we put our people back to work.

There was a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition about this being a political move. Mr. Speaker, I say this, that if it is political to want those people who are unemployed back in honest employment, then it is political. If it is political to turn and ask the father of a house, who is presently not working, whether he wants to go back to work, then it is political. If it is political to try to get some of the young people, whom we have heard so much about, back into the employment stream, then, Mr. Speaker, I say that it is a political move. But I would point out from the discussions that we have heard from the various Members, I would direct only one question and I would direct it to management and I would direct it to the Teamsters and I would direct it to the Members of this House. If they were to take the issues which are finally at stake, would they be prepared, at this moment, to stand in a hall with a group of unemployed from the Province of British Columbia and finalize their negotiations in front of them, would they be prepared to? Would you, Mr. Member from Kootenay, be prepared to make your speech about the workers' rights in front of those who are not working? I'm not happy about saying to somebody, "You must go back to work."

AN HON. MEMBER: What a phony.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Member, I'll tell you one thing, if I am a phony it takes one to know one. I would say this, that of all the people who have represented hypocrisy in this House, that Member represents it. If you say that the question of unemployment, and if you want to say, Mr. Member, and sit in your comer, that the question of unemployment is a phony issue, then you say it. He said it. If he is saying, Mr. Speaker, that these are the issues…. Because this is not an order for people to go back to work. This is a request for the members of the Teamsters and management to answer one question, one question only, and you raised it, Mr. Member: am I my brother's keeper? The real question in front of all in this Legislature, and I must believe that if this is not the place to discuss it I know of no other place…the issue raised by the Member from North Vancouver–Seymour who said the Legislature is not the place to discuss this issue, this is where it should be discussed. This is where this very issue, should be discussed today…. We spent three days of debate on unemployment. Those same people on that side of the House stood up, time after time after time, and said, "Put our people back to work, give us jobs."

I'm saying and the Teamsters know it and management knows it, we are saying that you will get, Mr. Member, the full salary. If you recall the statement that was made in the House by the Attorney-General, "…before I am prepared to recommend to the Executive Council, I will want assurance from the employers that they are prepared to pay

[ Page 571 ]

the new rates of pay that were the subject of a tentative agreement." Now, if you do not believe the word given in the House by the Attorney-General then I say that you have a long way to go in the respect that you should hold your fellow Members in. It means that you don't give your word in the House. This was the statement made by the Attorney-General to this House, made by the Attorney-General on this, Mr. Speaker, to stand back and try to make…but that's not part of the issue. It's just another attempt to carry this thing over, to fuddle the lines because they are not prepared to vote today on whether to give employment back to the people. I say, Mr. Speaker, the time is here with us, at this moment, in deciding the issues in conscience. In conscience is that single issue, which remains undecided and unsolved, that one single issue, whether it be hot products or crossing the line, is that single issue, in front of everything else, important enough to keep 75,000 unemployed out of work? Is that what we've reached in the Province of British Columbia at this moment? I say that, when we send out this resolution, we are requesting both management and labour to take into consideration one final group and that is the group who are brothers to both of them, a part of all of us — and those are the unemployed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate and want to start out by making it very clear, without equivocation, in any way, shape or form, that I intend to oppose this particular motion. I've listened to the debate. I listened to the explanations of the Attorney-General as to why the motion was brought in at this time. I listened to the Members on the other side of the House give their reasons and, Mr. Speaker, even the Members on the other side of the House have described this whole motion as ill-timed, a result of a blunder. They, themselves, have said they have reservations about it but…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said?

MR. STRACHAN: The Member from Langley said, "…although we have reservations about it." You used the word "reservations" as I recollect. The Member from Richmond said it was ill-timed and a blunder.

It's evident that these are opinions that are held over there. I don't know why there was distrust in caucus, or whether it was right off the top of the part-time Attorney-General's, part-time Minister of Labour's head, or two heads. I don't know but, as I listened to the debate, and the Member from Vancouver Centre tried to relate it to the 75,000 unemployed and the impact that this is going to have on these unemployed, the passing of this motion will not put one, single person, who is classified as unemployed, back to work.

The Minister said that there are indications that within two weeks some of the construction jobs may have to close down as I recollect what he said. The Member from Langley started relating it to the standard of living in the Province of British Columbia, the nice homes, the two cars and all the rest of it. Every single word that has come from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, has been related, singularly and solely and only, toward a dollar measure, toward a dollar measure. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is one of the major things that is wrong with today's society. You try to equate everything, you try to measure everything, with a dollar yardstick. When the Minister of Labour brought in Bill 33, as was pointed out earlier, we were told it would apply to those in public institutions, hospital workers, municipal garbage men and so on. But the concept of public interest has been greatly expanded. Unfortunately it has only expanded when it suited the Minister and his Government. I wish the Member from Vancouver Centre was here, when he was talking about the unemployed, because just last summer on Vancouver Island, right here, there was a great many people out of work, not because they were on strike, not because they were locked out, but because of collusion among the employers in the Province of British Columbia. I am referring to the fact that the Bamberton Cement Company, under orders from their principals in Vancouver, were told they couldn't sell a single bag of cement. Because of that, that secondary boycott, which is illegal on the part of the workers, hundreds and hundreds of workers on Vancouver Island, carpenters, couldn't build the senior citizens' homes, couldn't build the schools, couldn't build the hospital extensions and so on. What happened? Not a single word, not a single word from that Minister of Labour, who almost broke his neck to get this thing onto the Order Paper.

Again, let's examine the labour record of last year. Someone over there tossed the question across the Floor about the Merchant Service Guild and their situation. As you know, Captain Davis went to jail over that one because of this same legislation, which didn't allow them to picket before the employer's place of business, because of the definition of the employer's place of business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is his place of business?

MR. STRACHAN: Where is his place of business? Over in some street in Vancouver. The intent of any fair labour legislation gives a man the right to picket the place where he does his work. The place where he does his work. That's the situation we found ourselves in in this Province, where the worker didn't even have the right, after having gone through the full legal process, to picket the place where he does his work — on the waterfront. All he could do was march up and down outside his employer's office, somewhere around Howe Street, or wherever it is in the city of Vancouver. They could picket there from now to eternity without stopping a single tugboat from moving up and down the coast.

The Minister indicated that there was a matter of principle involved in the present dispute. He doesn't think the principle is important enough. Well I've always realized that the Minister didn't have too much understanding of the labour situation or labour attitudes. I know that he's never realized there is no equality of bargaining in the labour management confrontation process in British Columbia, or anywhere else, for that matter. There is no equality of bargaining. One man sits down at one side of the table, one man sits at the other. One man has the economic power, based on the money, the control and the direction of his business, and the other is trying to create a situation where those associated with him can improve their standards of living, their comforts and establish and maintain certain principles. What I dislike about this particular legislation is this, that it is being fought on principle and a sound principle. There may be people in British Columbia who don't know what a "scab" is. A famous writer by the name of Jack London gave a fairly lengthy description of a scab and, among other things, he said he was lower than a snake

[ Page 572 ]

(interruption). Well, you know when Jack London lived, not too long ago.

But the fact still remains, you say, how long ago was that? The thought occurred to me when someone over here was talking about economic gains from passing this motion. I'll go even further back and quote somebody else. You know the thought that came to my mind when I heard someone over there talking about the economic impact of forcing these people back to work on a matter of principle? "What should it better a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul." That's what came to my mind and that's further back than Jack London. Does that mean it is wrong? I don't think so.

These men are not in this position because of financial desire. There is a basic principle here — that no man shall be put in a position of legalized scabbing! That's basically what it is. No man shall be put in a position of either having to break the law or scab. Every single contract in the Province of British Columbia should have that written into it. As a matter of fact the laws of the Province…. You could wipe out every other law affecting labour in this Province, and if you wiped out that, if you put in that one law which recognizes this matter, that it profiteth a man nothing if he loses his soul, by giving that man the freedom and the right to refuse to be a scab…. With elimination of some of these other laws and this basic right established, it would then move more equitably and more balanced into the bargaining process. Believe me, if there were more equity and equality in the bargaining process, I suggest to you that more and more agreements would be reached without interference, without compulsion and without force.

I don't think the Minister realizes either, that while there was a period in the history of the trade union movement in this Province, when the leadership of the individual trade unions pretty well was able to get the members to agree with the recommendation with regards to acceptance or rejection of a particular agreement or a particular contract. But, surely, there must be a realization seeping slowly into that Minister's mind that the situation on the job today is vastly different. That, once again, the men on the job are making the decisions. Once again, the men are insisting on their right to job action. Legislation of this kind, as I say, can only increase the temperature of the man on the job. It can make criminals out of honest, working men.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister has no labour policy. We have no Labour Minister. I don't think this motion will contribute anything to the overall labour management situation in the Province. I just want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that if this motion passes and is implemented, it's already gone beyond what he said in 1968. It's obvious that, under prodding and pressure from the attitudes I've heard from many of you across the way, it will be used more and more as time goes on. It will be used any time it suits the purpose of this Government. As far as I'm concerned, I stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers of the Province of British Columbia in opposition to compulsion and in favour of free collective bargaining.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, first let me indicate one or two things that have crossed my mind since this debate began, beginning with the Minister of Labour, that part-time Minister. He indicated "struck goods" or "hot goods" or something like that. He doesn't know the difference, Mr. Speaker. He obviously doesn't know the difference and there is a great deal of difference. "Struck goods" means you've got to go across the picket lines to get them. I think, as far as I'm concerned, there is a great deal of difference between struck goods and hot goods. Now, to go on from there, I think that… (interruption). It wasn't clear enough for me, Mr. Speaker, and, therefore, it's not clear enough for the people in this Province. If that's the case, how come you've got a work order here? The Member from Vancouver Centre says, "This isn't a work order, this isn't forcing people back to work." Let's see what it says, Mr. Speaker. It says, "between certain employers in the transportation industry and the General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 31 shall immediately cease In other words, they shall go back to work immediately. That, as far as I'm concerned, is a back to work order, Mr. Speaker, placed on this Floor a few hours after a lockout was called.

I wonder if the Minister of Labour is clairvoyant. If he weren't clairvoyant, how did he get the news so quickly and was able to act so fast? He didn't act very quickly on other disputes. They took him some time. I would wonder, Mr. Speaker, if this Legislature should stay in Session for the rest of the year and for all the years to come to assist that commission that obviously hasn't done its work. We predicted it wouldn't be able to nor can it, because it's compulsion. We are supposed to be living in a free society, Mr. Speaker, and everything that we stand for goes down the drain on a motion such as this.

You've had the club, Mr. Speaker. They've had the club — that Mediation Commission — and it's not enough so, therefore, they want to drag the whole Legislature into the act. Twice you've done it in the last short while. You have created havoc, this Government. You've created real havoc in labour-management peace in this province. Surely the evidence is in, at this point. Surely the acid test was this last summer — everybody waiting for the axe to fall, everybody wondering what was going to happen and nobody prepared to do anything. When this back to work order motion hit this Floor, at that point, what did you expect management to do? If it were going to be an absolute certainty that the lockout would not fail, that presented the opportunity to make that certainty pretty secure.

Mr. Speaker, I think the question that occurs to everyone is how did the Minister know so quickly? Was this thing planned? I think that this is one of the things that we should really be getting at and I think those people across the way should begin wondering about it, instead of their unanimous endorsation of what this Labour Minister is asking us to do in this House. Mr. Speaker, they guaranteed the success of the lockout. I wonder what's happening next. There will never be labour-management peace in this Province with the kind of interference that we are seeing.

We are a free society, Mr. Speaker, and we listen to clout, clout, clout, all the time, and we are tired of listening to that kind of clout. That Member over there would like freedom for himself, alone — for himself, alone, obviously. Surely we've seen a real deterioration since this Mediation Commission Act was implemented a couple of years ago. Trying to make a tribunal out of the commission was an outrageous Act. It has never worked up until now and, so, we're using the Legislature.

The fact that workers have a government agency lined up with management against them is absolutely ludicrous. If they are not lined up with management, how did they know

[ Page 573 ]

so soon? The blunders committed by the commissioners should have brought about automatic termination of that group (interruption). That's right, the blunders that have been created by those commissioners in that Mediation Commission should have brought about automatic termination. They've got something more secure — a binding agreement with this Government — that's even more secure than any union agreement in this Province obviously.

So, where are we going in B.C.? What kind of fear has prompted the Minister to move as he has'? He has curtailed freedom in this Province. Could it be that this Government's financial condition is so bad that a short work stoppage might bring down the applecart? Can't we afford a minor work stoppage? You seem to be able to afford….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. COCKE: You seem to be able to have afforded a major work stoppage last summer. Why don't you people learn that the Mediation Commission Act will never work? It'll never work.

The Minister has as much as admitted that it was no good because he brought it to the Legislature instead. He knows we're not going to be sitting all year. The Premier wouldn't let him (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: I believe the legislation is so cumbersome that it can't work, won't work and he's trying to aid and abet that commission by this House. I think it is just terrible.

We are opposed to the commission and we are especially opposed to compulsory arbitration because we are supposed to be living in a free society, Mr. Speaker. We feel… (interruption). Yes, I am against compulsory arbitration right down the line. We feel the act and the commission have borne out our worst fears. My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat, who spoke ahead of me, indicated what had been said in years gone by on the same subject and certainly it has borne out our fears. If the Government really felt that the act and the commission were of benefit to all, why did they wait for a month, during the transit and wait for six hours, during this disagreement. The Minister said it wasn't important, the transit wasn't important. I'll tell you something. The transit was equally as important….

MR. PETERSON: I said no such things. The honourable Members have misquoted me on several occasions now, and I'm not going to have any more of it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I understood that he would stand up, after I was through, and have the last kick at the cat.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member must accept the statements of the Minister.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the transit was a work stoppage that affected a great many people and we've discussed that. But, it would seem to me, we should wonder whose ox is being gored here. Senator Lawson has indicated that 40 per cent of the people are working, that the people's needs are being served in this Province and, yet, in the face of that, we call this motion today. It was a stunning thing. His facts, it would seem to me, were a little more precise earlier in this whole situation than were the Labour Minister's when he got up earlier in this debate. What a paradox! The people in this Government feel that, by stopping the wheels of industry, that this group, this union, is really doing something great in this Province. Yet, they won't let them participate in the decision-making of this Province. They don't. You don't find a labour representative anywhere in this Province except in labour. Where do you find them — on boards and so on? They are not participating in decision-making. They are not being asked and this is a very good example of it right here. There has been a complete lack of empathy in this Government, a complete lack of understanding by this Government of trade unions and, incidentally, I would suspect wholehearted support of industry. Where do you expect the trade unions to stand in the face of this? By its actions, I think this Government doesn't want labour peace, Mr. Speaker. By their actions, in the face of all they have seen with this Mediation Commission Act, they feel that strikes and lockouts and labour disputes are obscuring Government mistakes in this whole Province. You are able to kind of wipe off your own mistakes by obscuring them by creating labour havoc in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. HJ. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we had the Member for Cowichan-Malahat say in this House that he was standing shoulder to shoulder with labour. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am standing shoulder to shoulder with every responsible citizen in the Province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, you can decry the labour legislation as much as you like. This was an issue in the last election and the working people of this Province spoke very clearly and very emphatically. They told you, in a political way, that they want the laws of British Columbia adhered to and, today, the issue is very clear. You can trot out all of the arguments of Abraham Lincoln and everyone else in the days when labour was oppressed. It's strange, but when you get the situation that labour is cracking that black whip, you say it's OK. It's wonderful. Don't touch it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't listen to all of the argument.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, the basis of this resolution, and the basis of the labour legislation of this Province, is to take care of the public interest, the party that is not in a negotiation. Here we are, in a situation where the Members opposite have stood up, day after day, and said what are you doing about unemployment, saying that we should have taken action before in some of the other disputes. They turned around and said, a couple of years ago when legislation was before us, that all this is going to take away the right to strike. Then they stood up, day after day, in this House and complained that we have too many days lost by strikes. These people opposite are standing, still defiant, and saying the Mediation Commission and the mediation structure will not work and cannot work. Why? Because we have some irresponsible citizens in this Province who say they will not let us work, who say that the public concern be damned, that we will not go before a commission that will consider the public concern. I care not, Mr. Speaker, whether

[ Page 574 ]

this be a senator or a gravedigger. When anyone in this country, as a citizen of this country, says, "No, I will not serve. I will defy legislation that has been democratically passed and tested at the polls," I care not whether he be senator or otherwise. He is not being responsible in this particular incident (interruption). I am saying it purposely. Yes, because I care not who it is. When any man stands up in this country and says, "I will defy the laws of the land," and particularly when, as I say, they have been tested at an election and were the issue in the election, then I say there is a lack of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, day by day, I receive letters and phone calls from people in my constituency who say that this nonsense, this hardship, this imposition on the public interest must stop. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, if there is a lack of discussion and consideration, it is not because we, as Government Members, have not been prepared to listen to labour's cause but because some of the labour leaders have been more interested in playing the political game than they have been in taking care of the workers and the public interests. As the Member for Kootenay said, we are our brother's keeper. Be it labour or capital, be it Government or anyone else, if we are going to be our brother's keeper, then the public interest must be of concern. The public interest must be considered. We stand ready at any time that any of the labour communities are prepared to sit down with any of us, as elected Members, and discuss the pros and cons, the ways in which we might improve the method and legislation. Unfortunately we have had only one approach from labour and that is, "We will defy."

To my mind, this resolution, on behalf of my constituents, is going to tell the people, be it labour or management, be it capital or union leader, that the public is fed up to the teeth and the sooner they realize that the public interest must be considered, and if they have better ways to propose let them propose them, but the day is passed when people can say, "I will not serve." So, I stand shoulder to shoulder with every responsible citizen in this Province. The irresponsible I have no concern for.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a testament of faith from the Honourable Member from Esquimalt to the effect that he stands shoulder to shoulder with the employers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. DOWDING: All the way through his diatribe against labour, against the Teamsters, against the trade union leaders, he has been giving aid and comfort to the employers in this particular dispute. Mr. Speaker, at this very time, when there have been a number of agreements reached today, between the disputing parties, here we have this Honourable Member from Esquimalt, saying, in effect, to the world, that the labour is wrong, that the trade union leaders are wrong, that they are defying the law. What laws are they defying? In what way have they broken any labour law? In what way have they not cooperated in collective bargaining? (Interruption.) Nonsense. There is no law requiring them to and you should know that. If anything is going to show the people of British Columbia that this Government is not evenhanded in its attitude between labour and management, the statements made on that side of the House today are going to do that. The motion, if you pass it, is going to do that. You are solidifying, at last, those working people who are in doubt as to your position on the question of labour and management. You made it clear today in a ringing call to the employers, telling them that you are on their side. That last Member who spoke, more than anyone else, made that clear.

I want to point out what you have done. You have tried to use this Legislature, without any facts, without presenting to it the evidence or any body of evidence…You have tried to use this Legislature to lend a patina of credibility to the Mediation Commission which has failed so miserably to bring anybody together. When you look at what labour did, in terms of this particular union, the Teamsters' Union told the Government and the public that they would give this legislation, Bill 33, a try, and they did. They sincerely tried to put their case before the Mediation Commission and to follow the rules. They tried to live with it. As the leader of the Teamsters said, at the time, he said, "We'll try to live with it." What more could you ask of anyone, even though they had their doubts about the wisdom of Bill 33, even though they were opposed to compulsory arbitration?

Two years ago, we told you that even the Attorney-General of the time, even the Minister of Labour of the time, and Senator Lawson, the leader of the Teamsters… (interruption). I know he wasn't then, but he was, at that time, speaking as a trade unionist. All of them, I pointed out to you, were opposed to compulsory settlements of disputes in this fashion, but, even though they were opposed to it, we have the Government imposing it in Bill 33. We had the Teamsters' head give it a try. What happened? They only had about two disputes that got to the Mediation Commission commissioners and neither of them were satisfactory to labour in any way. They weren't even satisfactory to the Attorney-General — he insisted that the whole thing be scrubbed and he asked them to reconsider their decision. What kind of a commission is that? An independent commission? Independent — independent for whom? What in the world…this Minister of Labour telling the House that he's going to impose compulsory settlement on these people in this dispute in the public interest. How? Send it to the Mediation Commission? What issue, what issue? What is the issue'? Struck goods — whether they can have in their contract with their employer a clause dealing with struck goods. How, Mr. Speaker, is the Mediation Commission going to resolve that issue? Are they going to say, "We'll cut the goods down the middle, half will be hot and half will be cold?" How in the world can the Mediation Commission decide that issue, which is an issue of principle? You can't talk about dollars and cents, my friends, on that issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is?

MR. DOWDING: The Honourable the Minister of Labour. He doesn't know what he's doing. In other words, as I gather from what the Minister of Labour has told us, today, first, his facts are not correct. He doesn't know the facts in this dispute. Secondly, he didn't offer any evidence upon which you could exercise any discretion in the matter, based on sound grounds, sound facts. You wouldn't even do that kind of stuff in Small Debts Court, my friend, what you are trying to pull in this House today — not one bit of evidence, nothing but hearsay and baloney. As a lawyer, you ought to know better. Talk about hearsay, Mr. Speaker. Do you know

[ Page 575 ]

what I heard him say, today? I heard him, a lawyer, say, today… (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. DOWDING: He said, "It is understood that there are so many employers involved." He said, "it is understood" that this is going to cause some problems with the public. Mr. Speaker, how can a man stand up here and tell this House that we solemnly should vote on a serious matter like this on that kind of hearsay nonsense, that kind of judgement of the matter by a man who presents no evidence upon which you are to base your judgement. Totally ridiculous. I am going to tell you another thing, Mr. Speaker, that all those Members — there are four of them, I think. I'm not sure whether there are four or five of them — four of them have committed themselves also in advance. They've committed themselves, without evidence, without a hearing against trade unions, against the labour movement. They've committed themselves, in spite of the assurances given by the trade union leaders in this dispute… (interruption).

Yes, and so do you. That's what the fight is all about. The only dispute we see in this House, from time to time, Mr. Speaker, is between which of those two groups represents the fat cats. That's the only disputes they have.

The Liberal group, Mr. Speaker, has made it clear, today, that they have come down on the side of the employers, that they are willing to tie the hands of labour by this motion and that they are not persuaded to a free society with free collective bargaining. That's where the Liberals stand, today (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order. I want to caution the Minister. I have called him to order twice.

MR. DOWDING: I would ask that that Member either be silent on that subject or I will be forced to take more than verbal measures in this matter (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. DOWDING: I know you did, on false evidence, on false evidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the House come to order. Let the Member proceed.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, the issue here has joined the Liberals and the Government, on one side, against the working people of this Province. It definitely has. We have heard assurances from the trade union leader, who is involved in this dispute, that they have been signing up employers day after day. It appears that you want this Legislature to stop that process. You want to stop them making agreements, by putting a shotgun at their heads and saying, "You must go back to work today. You must go back to work now." It seems to me that you are tumbling all over yourselves to try to find a labour dispute that you could seize upon as a political issue. Otherwise, why did you jump on this on the first day? On the first day, within hours! The notice of motion, Mr. Speaker, was filed on Friday… (interruptions).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will you allow the Member to make his speech.

MR. DOWDING: You made your speech, my friend, and we didn't interrupt you too much. I'm glad you made that speech because the trade unions will remember. The trade unions will remember because you came out on the side of the employers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. CAPOZZI: The Member made one statement that false evidence had been submitted to this House by this Member. I would ask him to withdraw that — the evidence is in hand and is on file.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, just a moment. I am wondering if this is an issue here, or if it were just expressed in the heat of the moment, because there was a lot of crossfire. I don't think anything was made in his address to that effect. I think I would prefer to leave it alone. The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting afternoon and I would like to compliment the Leader of the Opposition and also the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound on what, I think, were genuine positions of their particular parties and particular beliefs. I think on the whole, with the exception perhaps of the Member from Kootenay, who had to bring in the lash and the whip and this sort of thing as a relic of a bygone age, that we have had a wide-ranging debate, where the issues have been firmly put before the people of the Province of British Columbia and we know where we stand.

It seems that some people would say that we must never have compulsion under any circumstances. The Member from North Vancouver–Seymour — I wonder if he would take this same sort of attitude in terms of a policemen's strike, such as we saw in the city of Montreal recently, where lives were lost and tremendous damage was done. I wonder if he wouldn't be one of the first ones who would be on his feet asking the Government to get the people back to work. I wonder if the Army went on strike, as they did in Sweden, if we wouldn't have had even the Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on their feet saying what a terrible situation this was. So, I still think that really there is room to say that the question of compulsion isn't something that we should say, in a carte blanche way, that we will never use. It's been the history of the NDP, Mr. Speaker, that, whenever physicians have gone on strike, and I certainly am not happy about that thing, they have always bitterly opposed this. What I am simply trying to say is that you can't have it one way for one group of people and another way for another group of people. I think we have to have a certain amount of consistency.

In Quebec, last summer, where the physicians of that Province did feel compelled to go on strike, when they did so it was the labour unions, in concert with the Liberal Government, which, in fact, introduced some of the harshest labour legislation ever used against any group of people to try to get them back to work. I don't say that they should have gone on strike, in the first place, and probably they should not have done. What I am saying, and I'm not proud of it, no…what I'm saying is this. In terms of consistency, you either believe in not being able to strike or being able to strike, but you have to have it the same for all groups of people. I think that really having said that, in your hearts you

[ Page 576 ]

probably would agree basically that there are times, in terms of police strikes, in terms of things as ridiculous as the National safety, when you have the Army on strike, that there are times when 99 per cent would agree that this should not occur. Having established that, what we have to say is…to carry the argument a little bit further and say…. Actually the Member from Cowichan-Malahat is very anxious all the time to bring up the former Member from the constituency of Alberni as a great Member. I think he was and, in fact, there was a time when the operating engineers on the west coast were going to shut down the whole of the IWA and what did that Member say? He said that there is no way that this small group of people should be able to shut down the entire forest industry of Vancouver Island. And, Mr. Speaker, he was right. He was right, because what we are simply saying here, in one way or the other, is, is it really any different to take the money out of men's pockets, who have no alternative, than it is to steal from them? Yet, we put people in gaol for stealing. When the innocent workmen are out of work by the actions of another group, of a few, then is it not time for us to look at the rightness of this simple old thing of getting back to the golden rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." You know, I think, in this particular strike, that it has been said that there has been no urgency. Senator Lawson, whom I respect, has tried to indicate in his case that there was no urgency at that time. Maybe this has some validity but certainly it's obvious to all Members that something as devastating as a strike in the whole transportation industry, as far as it's concerned, soon will work its way throughout the whole economy. Miners in Utah will not be able to go to work, construction people in Port Alberni will soon be out of jobs and will be on welfare and will be on unemployment insurance at a time when British Columbia has gone through one of the most disastrous periods of a downturn in economy that we have ever had. The important thing, I think that we have missed is that, when you get acute appendicitis, you don't wait until it bursts before you excise it. You know very well that it's going to happen and you take remedial action. The reason that I say this, in this instance is that this remedial action, before it got right into the thing, is the one thing that nobody has yet mentioned and that is the psychology, Mr. Speaker, the psychology of people. Do you know this is what has caused depressions, this is what has caused unemployment — simply by people being depressed, by losing hope, by losing faith and confidence in their abilities to bring themselves a better life.

Having been through a summer as disastrous as we have, and just now, as we are approaching spring, as things are hopefully getting better, as we are looking forward to try to create jobs, we are faced here with a potential that would set us back to the way it was before Christmas. The people of the Province I am sure, psychologically, would feel that their Government has done them a tremendous disservice — if they were to let this proceed to what we ultimately know will be its end.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that in supporting this certainly we don't have the answer to all the problems to labour disputes. But, where else in the world, outside of Russia, are there not labour disputes? They have them in Australia, they have them in Sweden. Where else are people not facing this problem and not trying to solve it? I believe that each individual situation should be treated on its merits because they are at least all different. They may have many aspects in common but each one has its own peculiar situation. This is why I am so happy that in this situation the whole House should, in fact, have been in Session so that we could make our position clear. I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to support this motion.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising, stand adjourned until 6:05 p.m. We will adjourn the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. BENNETT: Will you move an adjournment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House (interruption). I can stand up.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Premier has the Floor.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, will you kindly see that the Leader of the Opposition takes his seat. Mr. Speaker, I move we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: …the way the motion was put. When he made the motion, he realized he had made an error and asked for that Member to make another motion. Then he was recognized again and made another motion.

I put to you, Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Order that the motion that the House should be debating is simply the one that is not debatable — the motion to adjourn to 6:05 p.m. That is what was moved by the House Leader, the Premier of this Province.

On a Point of Order, the Premier was recognized. He was recognized. It was a Point of Order, Mr. Speaker, it was not a procedure. He was recognized and… (interruption). Let's have the rules observed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General

MR. PETERSON: I want to speak to the Point of the Order that the Leader of the Opposition is making. That is, Mr. Speaker, that a motion that the House do sit at a certain time, at its rising, I suggest, would be in order, at any time, in any event. But the fact is that the motion to adjourn debate is now before the House. So either way….

MR. BARRETT: Just simply on the Point of Order. If the Premier made a mistake, he could say to the House, "I withdraw my first motion and I intend now to adjourn the debate on this motion." My Point of Order is, Mr. Speaker, that I do not wish to see the rules of this House abused, consistently abused by the Premier. If he has made an error, we will accept the error. We will accept the error. But he makes one motion and that's the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier has made the motion that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House. I am going to accept that motion in order to clarify a situation that is developing.

[ Page 577 ]

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Having set the time for the next sitting, I now move the adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please! It was called to the House's attention that we have put the motion that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House. We require now a motion to set a time for adjournment which has not been placed before the House as yet. We haven't put the time of adjournment before the House as yet.

MR. BENNETT: I move we stand adjourned until 6:05 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, just before I put the motion, I have had a very short message from the Vancouver General Hospital about the Honourable the First Member from Vancouver Burrard saying he is back in his room and he is fine (applause).

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

The House met at 6:05 p.m.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

The House proceeded to the Order "Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions."

On the motion of Mr. Barrett that the House proceed to Motion 7, a debate arose.

Motion negatived.

On the motion of Mr. Barrett that the House proceed to Motion 10, a debate arose.

Motion negatived.

On the motion of Mr. Barrett that the House proceed to Motion 11, a debate arose.

Motion negatived.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock. It is now passed six o'clock. I move that the House stand adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is not in order in that the House set its time for meeting at 6:05 p.m.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): The Leader of the Opposition is always out of order!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. BENNETT: I move that we proceed to Motion 14.

Motion agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak on this motion, one of the most important and far-reaching motions ever before this Legislature and perhaps any sitting of the Legislature since British Columbia became a Province.

It is vital to the economy of our citizenry. I believe in fair treatment to all, special privileges to none. I believe that you must not favour parts, but you must always keep in mind the whole. In all this period that I have been in public life, all the ten elections that I have run, Provincially, with ever-increasing majorities, Mr. Speaker, have always been on that issue. Not an issue of personality, like our friends opposite, but always on the high principle of what is good for the total is good for the individual. I don't believe that that which is good for General Motors is good for the people. I don't agree with what's good for H.R. MacMillan is necessarily good for the people. I don't agree that what's good for Senator Lawson is necessarily good for the people of this Province. I believe that each and every person is important. They are all vital, but in total they make a full picture, they make the full economy of this Province.

I want to say this, that Senator Lawson and myself are good personal friends. I hold him in high esteem as a person, as a Christian gentleman and as a labour leader and a citizen of this Province. I know in my heart, Mr. Speaker, that, when the decisions are made in this Legislature, he will obey the law of this country because he always has. I want to say very clearly that, in the last election, this issue was raised clearly, whether the public interest should come before special interest. The people in this Province said, "Yes." Against tremendous pressure they said, "Yes, the public interest must come first."

I led a successful election on that issue, Mr. Speaker. I do not seek to lead one, tonight, but I don't hesitate to lead one if necessary on this issue, my friends. I throw down the gauntlet of this Province — that if there is chaos in this Province, there will be a general election on this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The issue in the House this afternoon is not throwing gauntlets down on the Floor for any section of society or for the Province of B.C. Quite frankly, I personally have regretted the degree of inflammatory statements that have been presented to the House this afternoon and, with all deference to two honourable Members — I would refer to the Member from Esquimalt and also to the Member from Burnaby-Edmonds — I don't really and truly think this does anything to aid or abet a situation that is very, very unfortunate. I don't think that there is anyone in this House, I hope, maybe I'm naive, but I don't think there is anyone in this House who regrets very much that this motion had to come to the Floor.

I would mention, Mr. Speaker, that today is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. I think one of the very first things that the parties to the present dispute should do is to deny themselves the luxury to continue to be poles apart. We have seen each side of this dispute of this House today, sitting in our gallery, not together. As individuals we have

[ Page 578 ]

great respect for them but, for their capacity to bargain, I have no respect. I would have preferred not to have seen those people in this House today. I would have preferred to have known that they were within one room and negotiating themselves to try to bring about their own solutions. That's what I would have preferred.

I think that there are very few speakers today who have not expressed, directly or indirectly, the opinion that perhaps this motion is, to a degree, premature. I think, myself, and I sincerely hope that it won't, but I think that this motion, itself, may even be aiding and abetting a very unfortunate situation. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that, with the exercise of goodwill and understanding between the contestants in this dispute, they should be quite capable of reaching an equitable solution. I think they could well reach that equitable solution. I think that this House could well aid and abet them to reach that solution by adjourning this debate. In fact I'd go one step further, Mr. Speaker, and I would say afford the parties the opportunity to grasp the olive branch and for them to negotiate, to cease the lockout, to cease the strike. I'd like to ask the Honourable the Attorney-General if he would be prepared to move adjournment of this debate until Monday of this coming week. Well, I've not received an answer from the Attorney-General…. (interruption). Well, you could nod. I take it from your answer, Mr. Attorney-General, that you're not prepared to grant such an adjournment.

I feel very strongly that our function here is to protect, at all times, the third party in every industrial dispute and that is the general public. I feel very strongly also that, if there is an opportunity for a last chance, that opportunity should be given. Surely to goodness it's not too much to ask the Government to permit this motion to rest until Monday and let the contestants have that final opportunity.

There's no question of doubt that society is much more interrelated and interdependent than ever before and I very firmly believe that no longer people who own or who operate a function that is necessary to the public weal can be permitted to seriously impair the economy and the wellbeing of this community of British Columbia, solely, in the final results, in order to enhance their own ends. As I said a few moments ago, our responsibility is the general public. The public interest has to be the first interest and the principal interest, but I feel that the Government could, with a display of generosity of reasoning, grant an adjournment of this debate until Monday of next week. I think if that were done, then, you would have a solution by Monday of next week.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): We have left some confusion, I think, somewhere, for the simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that very few speakers in the debate have addressed themselves to what is essentially the question before us — that of public interest. We are asked in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, to decide to use the compulsory powers of the legislation of the past two years ago on the scantiest of evidence, on the flimsiest of speeches that I have ever heard from the Minister of Labour, when he opened this Debate.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, he brought in a motion obviously which was two thirds out of order, as we have now seen. He fails to mention in it all the locals that are involved in this strike. The only thing he's done with any speed and any alacrity was to table the motion last Friday, 30 minutes after the lockout took place — the most available Minister of Labour, as far as tabling motions is concerned, I have yet seen. I think it is fair to say that that action, in itself, of tabling that motion did the cause of free collective bargaining in this Government harm, in itself. At the time he tabled the motion, Mr. Speaker, the majority of operations which are involved in this dispute hadn't even taken a strike vote. What he did, by tabling that motion on Friday, was to tell the employers of this Province they could, with impunity, lockout their people for 48 hours. A punitive motion, Mr. Speaker, that's what it is. He didn't tell the House how many people were involved in the strike. He has not told the Members of this House how many companies are involved in the strike. He has not told this House essentially what public services are affected or impaired in any way. He has not told this House, Mr. Speaker, that the negotiating authority on behalf of the employers agreed to take the package back to their component parts. He didn't tell that to the House.

We say, on this side, that even on Friday and in the two days since then, there have been 37 or 39 signatures placed to legal contracts in the areas and in the component parts of this dispute. It may even be higher than that, because my figures, of course, were gleaned in the previous sitting of the House. Forty-one.

One of the Members of the Liberal Party said that he knows of units that have 3,500 people involved. It was my information that there are only 3,500 people involved in the whole dispute. But we don't know, if we listen to the Minister of Labour.

I don't see how the Minister of Labour could possibly have put that motion on the Order Paper on Friday before he even knew what the reaction was going to be from the component parts, from even the employers' negotiating committee. As I say they were able, therefore, to shut down, with impunity, knowing that it would last 48 hours anyway. What's more important is this, that we don't know, as we sit here today to vote on this important motion, exactly what are the essential services where the public interest is involved. We are told by two members of the union, namely Senator Lawson and the president of Local 31, that all essential services are being maintained. The Minister of Labour hasn't told us, for instance, if there is any single community in the Province that is without transportation services. Is there one single community without that service? I heard Senator Lawson on the radio and I read him in the newspapers saying how quickly they are signing up the various contracts. I have heard him tell the public that the construction industry is being serviced.

I think it's just simply ridiculous to expect the Legislature, armed with just those few facts or nonfacts that the Minister shared with us at roughly three o'clock, and some presumptions and some conjectures, and those two "whereas's" which we dealt with in summary fashion, to expect to vote on something which is going to affect free collective bargaining. I want to say just one, short, little phrase, or series of sentences, about collective bargaining which seems to have escaped everybody in this House. That is this — that the more rules and the more legislation you put into the collective bargaining procedures in this Province, the more reasons the recalcitrant participants will find to not bargain freely, to not bargain sincerely. If you know there is going to be step one, step two, step three and step four, I know what happens and you should know what happens. They say, "Let's get rid of step one, let's get rid of step two, let's get rid of step three and we'll get to step four right away." That's why the strike votes are being taken. That's

[ Page 579 ]

why people are applying to the Mediation Commission in such large numbers — to get rid of those pieces of legislation that go on before us. Frankly, it seems to me, that when you first break down, as we are going to do with this motion, the tradition and the history of collective bargaining in this Province, you are, in effect, saying to both sides in any dispute that they don't have to bargain responsibly because there is somebody who will bail you out in the end. That's exactly what's happening.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. If the bargainers, on either side of the table, know that they can say to their membership or to their shareholders that it is somebody else's fault, then you've opened up another ball game altogether and that's what we are doing by passing this motion. As long as they have nowhere else to go but face-to-face round the table, then you are going to get results. What we should be doing, Mr. Speaker, is passing a motion of instruction to both sides to get back to the bargaining table and not to leave it until they settle that one clause.

When I hear the talk about money, it's laughable. The money was decided a long time ago. The only thing that is in front of that committee now is that one clause. They should be told, in no uncertain terms, to get in a room and to not come out until there is total agreement and for one side to go back and sell it and sell it and sell it. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that's the true essence of free collective bargaining.

As soon as you say that you'll take the crunch away, as soon as you say you will take the essential decision away, then you're stopping free collective bargaining. I think what's happening is this…something that the Minister of Labour has not seen fit to discuss with us as yet, and I hope he may do it during his estimates…the simple changes in structure in labour and in management are going to make it even more impossible for your Mediation Commission to work and even more impossible for compulsory arbitration. There is no question about that in my mind at all. I say, as other speakers on this side of the House have said, there is no way that we could support this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour will close the debate.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate I want to acknowledge the differing points of view that have been expressed on this important motion. I don't think anyone would expect, in this Chamber, unanimity on this question as to when one should intervene in a labour dispute, thereby bringing to an end a strike or a lockout as the case may be. It has become apparent, I think, that the great difference in point of view between the official Opposition and the rest of the Chamber, at least, certainly on this side of the House, is that, in their viewpoint, a government should never intervene. That's been the tenor of the remarks, that the public interest should never come first, that the parties should always be left alone to resolve their own difficulties.

I want to say that I cannot share that point of view, I don't think the people of British Columbia share that point of view. Having said that, again, there is always room for differences of opinion. I acknowledged that, at the outset, as to when we should intervene in a dispute. As I indicated earlier that, while this is early in the dispute, Friday to Wednesday, it is predictable that a continuation of the work stoppage will have very serious adverse effects on our economy. The basic question that you have to answer in your own.conscience now is whether we should sit back, let that damage occur, or whether we should take some steps now to bring the matter to an end, as far as a work stoppage is concerned. The honourable Members across the way, the Member for Burnaby, who has just spoken, in particular talks about evidence as though this were a court of law, that we should bring evidence… (interruption). Well, that is a very sarcastic approach, Mr. Member. It is unbecoming to the learned Member for Burnaby because he should know the rules of Parliament. He should know the customs and traditions of Parliament, in terms of giving notice so that all the Members can acquaint themselves, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound pointed out so well, so that we could all acquaint ourselves with the situation and come here with that knowledge to address ourselves to the resolution and the motion that is before us.

I regret some of the remarks of the Honourable Member from Cowichan-Malahat, who blew his top in the hall and I am, for the first time, out of this Chamber, ashamed of his conduct. I regret some of the remarks in this Chamber that were made in heat and would have been better left unsaid.

Those who seek to drive a wedge between the Members of this Chamber, whatever party, and labour, that is not necessary, because we're dealing with both labour and management in this resolution. I regret any words that would reflect to the detriment of the particular union, the Teamsters' Union, or the leadership of that union, because, when I introduced the motion, I paid tribute to the able leadership that this union enjoyed and the fine example of responsibility that they have demonstrated over the years. I have no reason to change my point of view in that respect, none whatsoever. The Member from Kootenay and his emotional outburst — my goodness, suggesting that we were treating people worse than horses, that we had taken away all the rights of the workers, steps towards absolute dictatorship, workers under an iron heel — such emotional outbursts have no place in a debate of this nature, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that the workers of this Province enjoy the highest wages in Canada and we are proud of that fact. The fact is that the workers of this Province enjoy better working conditions and a shorter work week, on the average, than the rest of Canada and we are proud of that fact. To try to suggest that by taking this action, by trying to bring to a close a dispute before it has serious consequences, we are taking the kind of steps that the honourable Member referred to is just a lot of nonsense. Wild statements. The Leader of the Opposition referred to a telegram I had (interruption). Well, you said I had it and I have. I didn't refer to the telegram. I can tell you that I had lots of them. I have this very well-prepared telegram from Senator Lawson. I have all of these. That's the only telegram I have in support of not taking action. I have all of these and many more, just the reverse, asking that action be taken (interruption). No, not an organized campaign. At least, it has no appearance of one. A lot of individuals. I don't mind the Members looking at them. I'll refer to a few of them. I wasn't going to until the Leader of the Opposition referred to his. Here's one. You want statements. Here's one, "The current labour dispute with the Teamsters' Union is placing our customers in a very unsatisfactory position. We require your immediate action to assist us to provide service to these customers. Ford Motor Company of Canada." You read one from the leader of the union. I think, in fairness, you should hear some of the others (laughter).

[ Page 580 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PETERSON: Listen to this. The Province. "Labour Ills Cost U.K. $72 million Ford Plant." This is what the Opposition…this doesn't bother them. Here it is: "London: The Ford Motor Company…." (Interruption.) We listened to you. You should have said more. I know that, but you had your chance. Here it is: "The Ford Motor Company disclosed Tuesday it decided against Britain as a possible site for a $72 million engine plant because of the country's persistent labour policy." Is this what you want here, Mr. Speaker? Is this… (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PETERSON: Is this the action of the NDP…to want disruption, want this transportation industry tied up, want to jeopardize our position in the world markets, want to create a situation here, that is apparent today in Sweden? This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that, in any debates on labour, none of the Members opposite have talked in glowing terms about Sweden and the Swedish situation. I wonder why. I wonder why. There are many more, affecting mining, logging, Campbell River. Here's another one (interruption). What's that? Everything is on strike in. Sweden. That's beautiful.

The NDP have never thrived on anything but disruption and unrest and bad times. Go back to 1935, in the production of the Regina Manifesto in the 1930's. That's when they got their start, Mr. Speaker, and they have never graduated beyond that stage (interruption). Oh, that wasn't emotional, my friends, that was a statement of fact. Another one: "In view statement by Teamsters Union re inconvenience in the current labour shut-down please be advised that we currently have 33 carloads general merchandise in Vancouver which we are unable to have handled by our distributors, Johnson Terminals, and many firms will be forced to shut down if goods am not received. With more cars arriving daily situation is mushrooming and immediate action most imperative. We are receiving numerous complaints." (Interruption.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PETERSON: Here's another one: W.K. Macintosh….Well, listen. You can't… (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Will this House come to order?

MR. PETERSON: "We are receiving numerous complaints from our customers, particularly general hospitals, private hospitals, mining and logging groups, in connection with our inability to supply vital food requirements due to the present Teamsters strike and employees' lockout. Our merchandise is stored and handled by Johnson Terminals, who are involved in the lockout, which makes it impossible for us to service these accounts. Would appreciate your office assisting in any way to alleviate this situation before it reaches the desperation point. Salada Foods."

"Dear Teamsters: Sincerely hope you will be able to take action today as previously indicated in the press, for yesterday we were prevented from making our regular barge sailing to Powell River. Also prevented from unloading inbound barge same day. Also forced to cancel regular weekly sailing for coast route from here to Rivers Inlet, serving logging operations and settlement not served by any other, repeat, any other scheduled services. These people now forced to fly in their groceries. Unable to do anything with heavy items. Present tonnage affected about 400 per week, which will increase as weather improves. Situation is extremely serious as almost all the places we serve have no access by road. O.H. New, Coast Ferries." (Interruption.)

Well, I hadn't intended to read. I gave a general statement relying on the individual Members and their own knowledge of the situation. It was only when the Leader of the Opposition referred to a telegram that I thought I should, likewise, in winding up this debate. I could read all of these telegrams. All the rest of them that I didn't read are from ordinary citizens. You are welcome to see here.

I explained, Mr. Speaker, earlier, the results of strikes and lockouts in the transportation industry and why we should move if we are going to establish our reputation as an efficient and dependable supplier of goods and services in Canada. One of the honourable Members said that I had made the statement that the struck goods clause was not important at all. I made no such statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. PETERSON: I didn't say the principle was not important to the men. I distinguished between the struck goods clause, which they are advocating, and I have a copy of what the union wishes. I have a copy as well of the present provision of the agreement relating to the crossing of picket lines. I did say this that, while it may be important to the public and while it is a matter, obviously, of consequence, or there wouldn't be a work stoppage, nevertheless it is not of sufficient importance to justify the adverse effects that a continuation of this work stoppage would have on the Province of British Columbia — and that's it.

The honourable Member indicated that we should adjourn the debate, give the parties an opportunity to resolve the issues. I want to say again, as I said at the outset, that we do intend to give the parties an opportunity to resolve the issue in dispute on their own, through collective bargaining. All we are saying is this, that they must do so within the confines of an operating transportation system. That's it. We are going to give them every opportunity to negotiate, return to work, first of all, on the new rates of pay but, then, if they can't agree among themselves, they should try to agree on a procedure that would resolve it. If they can agree on some outside independent specialist, fine. We're not anxious to impose any set procedure on the parties, leaving it to the parties, themselves. All we are saying to them is that the lockout must end, the strike must end. Then resolve the dispute. This has happened in other situations and I am confident that it will happen in this as well. We will certainly cooperate with the parties in every respect to obtain this objective.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that: "This House recommends that in order to protect the public interest and welfare the work stoppage resulting from the dispute between certain employers in the transportation industry and the General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 31 shall immediately cease, and that the normal operations of those employers shall be resumed forthwith."

[ Page 581 ]

The House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 37

Messieurs

NAYS — 13

Messieurs

The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.